Giray Izcan

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.

The camera is promising except it is s8... the money spent on s8 as opposed to s16 doesn't make the format worthwhile. I love s8 and shooting it but not at a price point of a used Alexa or 16mm camera...

I think it means if you spend the money on a camera, don't get hung up on how much you just spent/regret but move on and focus on shooting with it. I would get a cheaper camera like a Blackmagic and practice lighting, setting up shots. I wouldnt worry too much whether it's an Alexa or Red or Sony really... you will not be getting jobs and getting paid yet anyhow so it is a personal camera. About Alexa being out of flavor right now due to new cameras on the market, we are back to the problem 1 with digital and that is consumerism to the max... so a camera that was used to shoot Skyfall and every other great looking films in the last 10 years is not good anymore huh? It's a shame the whole industry's main focus point is resolution first and the look next. As for getting familiar with menus and stuff, I wouldnt get hung up on it either. 1 prep day at a rental house and voila more or less... also, if you are going to be a dp, you will have an AC who will or should be familiar with the menus anyhow. You wory about creative choices like lighting not technical stuff like the menus on a camera.

It is a good call as you would have never made your money back. As nice the s8 is, I get the interest in the format but, realistically speaking, hardly anyone uses the format for anything professional - except maybe wedding videos etc. The cameras aren't quite enough for a proper sound shooting so I don't think there is much sense in spending resources and time on a format that is an amateur format.. The cameras are too unpredictable in terms of liability. S8 would be too distracting for a narrative film. Also, think about shooting dialogue sequences in a narrative projcet with a camera that you have to load every 2 and a half minutes - it'd be a nightmare and would be in the way of the performances. Imagine, people complain about noise with their digital cameras where it is squeaky clean... s8, people would be focusing on the format it was shot on rather than the story. We live in a world, where the consumerism is out of control. People questioning, whether the original Alexas are worth it in 2022 etc... the same camera that shot masterpieces is not good enough for people's camera tests and their little short films etc.. Films nowadays concern themselves with the resolution, gimmicks or homage first then the story... for example the movie, Jacob's Ladder, it has that textured softer look that wouldn't be accepted today. Imagine watching the same film with the current ultra sharp and clean however many K cameras, it would not feel the same way. The sharpness and resolution is very much an obsession now. Rather than talking about the feel and look of a film, the first discussion is ok so we're shooting 6k on whatever camera. Not everything has to be sharp and clean but hey 2022 huh... My point is that under the current climate, there is no way s8 cameras will be selling all that much. Shooting a roll here and there crowd will not spend anything more than 3-400 and that's even high. I get the flaws and all but it's not cute when you have to spend the same money as shooting s16. These are my personal opinions of course.

I have been noticing a lot of content shot on smaller formats that are supposedly beautiful due to their pronounced flaws etc... most of that content would have been laughed at during the film era or at least wouldn't have received such praise. Remember that s8 music video came out a couple of years ago that looked like a camera test but received such a praise. In my opinion, film looks much better lit rather than shooting in available light and relying on DI. In a sense, in my opinion, with film, you really need to know what you are doing to get the look in camera - or at least close to it. You have to be able to look at a lit room and be able to tell how dark or bright it will look on whatever stock you're shooting despite how it may look to your eyes.

Because they didn't almost go out of business.

If anyone has a functioning crystal sync motor(24fps) for the NPR, please reach out to me. Thank you.

Arriflex is more common and dominant in most parts of the world, was and still is actually. Outside of the US, UK and Australia, most productions used Arriflex and Moviecams - mostly Arri though. Most countries don't even have Panavision rental houses.

Apparently, Xeen has anamorphic lenses coming out too... We'll see how it goes.

143 degree focus throw sounds horrible.

You would have to light to a deep stop.

I better check it out then.. thank you guys.

Do you think you would like it if it was shot on digital? The reason I am asking is that most people seem to be complaining about how hollow the film is without much of a plot or a story. I haven't seen it yet so I am curious as to what you think of the film as a movie without taking any technical specs into account. Also, I may actually really like the film too. I am only going off of what I have heard and read. Thank you.

David, do you mean when you shoot and print on film or it could it be di finish as well? I mean in terms of skin tone color reproduction when it is shot and finished photochemically or di differences - if there is any. I would like to know if you think di finish could yield just as rich skin tones as photochemical finish. I personally feel like print gives the image a certain pop whereas di finished films look a bit flatter. It is my personal opinion of course. Thank you.

Yea... 1300 dollars for 1000ft of 35mm... you could be shooting 65mm color negative.. just saying...

As much as I hate to admit as a film lover, film is out in the indie world. There are a couple of examples here and there that would prove otherwise but those are usually the select few who happen to be related to someone famous or rich or whatever that they can get the funding.

Or just shoot it on s16. I don't think digital looks anything like 16mm at all.

The sound level is measured 3 ft away from the lens. 50db is like a 2c almost.

What I do is... I shoot on film and get it printed on film. Fotokem has their imitation of lowcon print which is basically the regular print stock going through ECN2 processing. When you watch it on projection, the blacks seem a bit lifted as it is lowcon but when scanned blacks etc snap back to "normal." I do not think DI from OCN yields a classic "movie" look. The mids etc get this weird grain that is not present on a print due to its gamma and contrast. You can get that lowcon print scanned at 4k or whatever and voila.

Try sharegrid.com sales section as well - especially LA postings. Good luck.

Hahaha... Happy holidays cinematography.com family..

Or just challenge yourself and shoot trix and light accordingly.

I would go with double x. Tri-x is rated at 160 under tungsten and 200 under daylight. Double x is rated at 200 under tungsten and 250 under daylight. Also, double x will scan better than tri-x for sure. With reversal, you have to be dead on exposure wise. With double x you don't want to overexpose actually but rather expose it at box speed.

It was hand held.

It should cover it but on the wide end it may vignette a bit as 12-120 barely covers r16. Check out the link I posted up named Suffragette as it was shot on that lens at 2.8. It was scanned at 4k. Good luck with your purchase and happy holidays to you and to your family. 15-150 version will cover for sure as it covers s16.