Giray Izcan

Make sure you have appropriate hard mattes for your mattebox for different focal lengths to cut down the excess light from hitting the gate area to prevent ghosting, flares etc.

It looks like the shutter timing is off.

I agree... I just don't agree with shortchanging every department including the film itself by not getting better locations or better production design etc just to shoot on film. The end product you get after spending thousands of dollars is usually ok at best because of lacking in every department. Or you don't get enough coverage or enough takes so now you have to live with what you got. If there is budget in place, then of course... I prefer film; otherwise, it doesn't make sense to be slave to it.

And if you are talking about shooting a feature film, then you really need the budget. Unless the project calls for s16 look, you will want to shoot 35. 35mm costs A LOT of money as you can't rely on recans. Even with recans, it is expensive. I get that the current film stocks are very clean and sharp but it is still not 35. Let's say you have a 90 page script, 90k feet of 35 film will cost you 57k dollars - just to purchase stock not including processing etc. S16 formula will cost you about 27k dollars just to purchase film. These are rough numbers of course... 800 for 1000 ft 35 film or 300 for a roll of 400ft 16 film. The actual numbers might be a bit more. Now you add processing and scanning. Also, bear in mind, this is shooting 10:1 ratio which is bare minimum on a serious project. Don't so 1 take wonders from 1 or 2 angles so that you can save on film. If you choose to do so, you will cry during editing due to lack of coverage.

It is not worth it. Shooting film is expensive as it is so you should stick with getting your scans done professionally. I guarantee you that you will not get to shoot real projects more than a handful of times a year so you might as well get it scanned properly. If you are Mr deep pockets then maybe you can shoot as much as you'd like but for average earthly beings it is expensive. Besides, if you have to think about cutting corners when it comes to scanning, I'm sorry but you have no business shooting on film. You'll be happier with digital and spend the money elsewhere like production design and rentals. Film only makes sense if there is budget in place where you can get all the coverage you need without cutting corners otherwise you are slave to the format.

Thanks. It's an impressive looking film

I didn't know they printed Joker on film. Do you know if they scanned the ip for blu ray release? I knew about Dune but not the Joker. Dune's blu ray is from the ip for example.

Stephen, all the hardware and people to run these cameras are still substantially cheaper than film. Also, you really don't need all that much stuff to shoot with digital.

At those prices, noone will shoot film except for some studio pictures. Some s16 may be prevalent but 35 will be done except for big pictures. S16 is nice and doable but it is a look and not every project or filmmaker wants the s16 look unfortunately. We'll see what happens...

I would overexpose by 1 stop or 2/3 of a stop.

Overexpose...

I doubt those quick shots would be matching the main format - let's say s16 or r16. For those quick shots, I would use a Bolex or a Scoopic as they are pretty compact.

Alternative Rentals is pretty good little rental house too.

How much professional use a year? Let's cross fingers for a few seconds of s8 in some movie's flashback sequence or some opening credits... I still can't justify the expense. S8 is not a professional format at all. The pin registered Logmar s8 footage that I've seen looks like a messed up 16mm at best but yet cost the same money to shoot.

I get that some people use it for weddings and stuff, but realistically speaking, how many weddings actually requests the format? It sounds like a terrible investment.