Giray Izcan

Even a decent CEI tap isn't that much worse than diy hd taps... my opinion anyways.

I recorded the tap image during the last shoot. I am uploading to vimeo as a sample. It is a low light set up...

It has a cmos sensor I am pretty certain.

I dont see any bars. To be honest though, looking through gg won't yield an hd and a crisp image no matter what.... I agree with Satsuki on Arricam ivs and I'd much rather have the SD IVS tap over diy "hd" taps...

I tried different frame rates and shutter angles as well and don't recall any flickering issues.

24fps and 360 degree shutter.

I use a Blackmagic Micro Cine camera and it is flicker free on bl4s. Plus, the dynamic range is pretty close to film as well. Not to mention, you can set custom color temperatures, different asa's etc...

Shooting thin negative and printing up would give you muddier colors and ashier blacks and decreases the contrast whereas pushing film would increase color saturation and contrast. Both would increase grain but i would guess a thin negative would have more grain in the shadows than pushed film. When you push film, you compensate for underexposure by extra processing and preserving the negative's density.

I remember as a focus puller, dp's were asking me what his/her stop is... and this happened many times on some pretty big profile commercial shoots... you see where I'm going with this...

I would like to agree on film's future but it is hard to do so. There may be plenty of projects being shot on film, but in reality, how much of the stock is purchased from Kodak directly as opposed to Reel Good type places? Unless you buy directly from Kodak, you're only exposing film that is already in circulation as opposed to contributing to the company itself by buying new product. Also, realistically, how much film is being shot in feet as opposed to what it was? Shooting a few thousand here and there will be like lunch money for Kodak. Features or long term projects that shoot hundreds or millions of feet film matter because the rest is unfortunately just some pocket change for Kodak's big picture. I hope I will be proven wrong don't get me wrong.

That's disgusting.

I haven't shot reversal in a while but you pretty much have 7 - 8 stop range.

Jordan, for starters, it is a daylight balanced reversal stock with not much latitude so I suggest you use another type of film stock. It is 100 ASA as well so it will take a lot of light - sort of like shooting 7213 rated at 125 ASA. If you are set to shoot on this stock, I would rate it as is. It is a a lot higher contrast stock than negative stocks and pushing it would further increase your contrast. You want a stock like 19 with lower contrast to dig into shadows. If you are really set on shooting on this stock, for practicals etc, I would use cooler bulbs than 3200 Kelvin otherwise they will register too red. I would also mainly use daylight fixtures and some warmer fixtures - 4000- 4500K - if desired for some color contrast. If you use just straight tungsten units, they will appear too orange and will get redder as you unserexpose further. It is a reversal stock so what you shoot is sort of what you get without much leeway in post. It has a much narrower dynamic range than negative stocks, so watch your highlights and shadows. If you aren't set on shooting on this stock, stick with 7219 for whag youre trying to accomplish.

Some XTs have 4x3 sensor as opposed to 16x9 in the Classics.

I agree with Tyler. 235s are great cameras for what they are but still are MOS cameras. I would much rather have a 3 perf Arricam that is silent enough to shoot sync sound than a loud camera that is too limiting just to save some on film. I am not suggesting 235s aren't good cameras but, at least with a sync sound camera that is also lightweight, one could shoot narrative films without having to resort to ADR etc.

The clarity and the sharpness of the picture was a dead give away for me and added fake grain well looked fake. After watching the Lighthouse for example, it is clearly digital or at least for me. It is fine that it is. Instead of trying to mimic film, it is OK to embrace and explore digital as its own language and look in my opinion. Or just shoot film I guess.

We call that coffin. I would just get a plastic tote and line it with a folded furniture pad plus one more as base and have another one of two more furni pads to wrap the baby like a burrito so the camera gets packed in there without moving about and then close the lid. That's what we do to transport built cameras from one location to the next without having to breakdown the camera every time. Make sure de-lens the camera and tuck monitors etc in a bit.

I just finished watching the movie. I must say, despite the photography being good, I did not care much for the gimmicks. I enjoyed the movie itself though, political inner workings of old Hollywood is quite intriguing. I am glad I kept an open mind and watched the movie entirely.

Also, I do understand and acknowledge that the style of the movie is elaborate and not suggesting Mr. Fincher messed up or missed details by any means.

I couldn't sit through the movie to be honest. It relies too much on gimmicks and style than substance it seemed like - from the fades to sound to silly cue marks. I am sorry but it did not look like film to me at all but rather felt like digital with make it black and white filter that people use for their Instagram pictures - or "Insta" as cool kids call it - applied. The tonality seemed off to me but it is my opinion of course. It is fine that it looks digital as everyone has a different brush stroke of preference. I have tried to watch it twice - looking past the irritating gimmicks - but failed both times. I will attempt again in a few minutes, but at this point, it is out of I have to at least finish it rather than having expectations. It just didn't work for me as a movie, but hey, maybe the 3rd attempt, I may see something that i hadn't before so I still choose to keep an open mind. The cinematography was good in terms of lighting and composition though. Some of the camera moves felt mechanical with rather ultra precision. But, these are just my opinions of course.

Lovely work Miguel - inspirational as always. Congratulations.

Stephen, thank you for your kind words.

Stephen, this particular video's trims are 14, 15.9, 17.5. Hope it helps.

Stephen, the print lights differ from lab to lab to a certain extent. It is usually the best to establish a rapport with a lab using the same printer etc. What I do is that I shoot a gray chart under whatever lighting condition at whatever ASA rating and name the chart accordingly to make it easier for being able to keep track later on. When the same conditions and creative ASA rating applies, I ask for the particular print lights to be applied instead of having to shoot a color chart again. Although there may be slight variances due to different film batch etc., in that case, I may ask for a corrected answer print.

Haha Jay and Silent Bob... thank you. He is actually the screenwriter Mr. Eszterhas' son. We're working on another concept that we will be shooting soon. This time it will be flat 1:85 on 35. I have to say I gravitate towards the 90's or the early 2000s asthetics before the complete di take over. Of course, doing a di from camera negative is technically superior and gives you a lot more freedom in terms of creating different looks but I prefer a traditional "movie" look where the blacks, the mids and the highlights fall in the right place in accordance with my exposure without having to recreate it from scratch. The next video coming up, due to subject matter - or the vibe I should say, I will shoot for a thin negative to print up.