Giray Izcan

Lastly, of course I am sorry if you're offended as it wasn't my intention to start anything. This is a public forum... I cannot control how people may react to my posts. I certainly do not appreciate you tracking me down on my personal website, calling me back to back amd sending me messages on my web site such as this, "I expect a public apology or you have a new friend for life. Your choice, human filth, you and your entire wretched lineage." Followed by this, " Hi Gayray Message: Nothing more to say, filth?" Over one post... i wish you the best. I am sorry if I offended you nevertheless...

I wish you the best of luck Jeff.. Stop sending me threatening emails and calling my phone back to back for an internet post. I was simply wondering if your efforts are worthwhile or Noone reads them and all this effort is for nothing. I wish you the best.

I strongly doubt that anyone has even read any of the 877 postings...

The stock doesn't look that awesome to be honest. Great test though.

Oh I missed that I'm sorry.

They don't have fresh stocks at Orwo?

34 pages and no response... except for this response...

Jon, let's ask those superhumans to do a blind test to pick out the cameras used for each of those images to see how many of them will actually accurately pick out the cameras just by looking.

The problem is that the cost of film easily negates those advantages to most except for studios and such. It costs 12-1400 dollars per page when you factor in film purchase and lab expenses. A 10 page short for instance costs 12-14k just in film stock related expenses... let's add location(s), crew, food, rentals... you see how crazy numbers get very quickly. I would not want to shoot a narrative project for anything less than 10:1 ratio and sometimes 20:1 for the dialogue coverage. You could shoot for less but then you will pay for that mistake in the editing room for sure. Now you got an unfinished project that you spent thousands for. S16 is cheaper but s16 is not an alternative to an Alexa... 35 is- especially 500t. It is far too grainy on s16 for movie screens. Surely movies like Carol looks great and pretty but it also looked soft in the wide shots too. 200t should be as high speed as one should get if the project is meant to be blown up to 35 or dcp.

I haven't seen it either but heard/read from most viewers that it is a mess of a movie that is self indulgent without any redeeming qualities. I also heard the cinematography and production design are the only things going for it. I have to check it out myself of course.

Don't get me wrong... I am all for film and only recently actually stopped photochemical finish as the infrastructure is not there to handle that workflow in terms of finding negative cutters etc. You can't deny though film use is peanuts comparison to the old days.

It's only a matter of time before Kodak pulls the plug unfortunately. Even with the current boom in film use, it is absolutely peanuts compared to the early 2000s and the 90s. Most of those film projects are vanity art projects for personal ego, music videos, shorts and some feature films - a lot of them shouldn't even be shooting on film due to lack of budget. Everything used to be shot on film so yea... it is peanuts in comparison.

Technology is good but I hate the idea of "HAVING TO" use a new technology despite where my preference may lie.

Spectra IV is a great lightmeter. It is one of the most reliable and accurate meters out there. I wouldn't do false color etc from the video tap as the specifications do not match the film stocks in terms of sensitivity and contrast etc.