Giray Izcan

Another 7219 off of Vimeo from the same project.

These are just frame grabs from Vimeo not even the original scans.

7219 again from the same project. One light timed to color chart and nothing more.

7219 shot on Minolta xl84 in fully manual as I don't and will never use anything auto as part of a documentary.

Very annoying. S8 can be remarkable but these people love the imperfections of the format... I never have any focus issues or shakes etc bc i treat it as a camera rather than a toy. I go for the colors and the tonality of the format. S8 could look like a painting almost if shot properly.

I have to say. I'm sorry but there is nothing special about this music video's quality. It's very amateur like, which I know that's the intention, but this has to be one of the lower quality s8 clips out there. I've seen much more cinematic lloking s8 tests on vimeo even.S8 doesn't have to look muddy and shaky to a point it doesn't add anything but rather gets annoying. To me, it comes off as some hipster shooting with a s8 camera for that wow cool effect. If I have to be perfectly honest here.

I wish the focus was better. Thanks for sharing.

Essentially it is the camera that was good enough for Skyfall , blockbuster movies, most tv shows to name a few...

F3s are good cameras.

That's all i shoot myself. Shoot 35, get a low con print and digitize that as opposed to doing di. It is a preference really. I'm saying in terms of video. Watch those cinematic documentaries from Discovery Channel about sea legends, about the pyramids back when Discovery Channel was known for high quality cinematic documentaries and tell me they don't look filmic. I'm talking about the ones that were shot on digi Beta or sp not the 16mm ones.

Here is an example. Granted it is from years ago but imagine handling the material as you could with the available current technology... The picture look lovely to me in terms of colors and the general feel especially.

Yes. I'm bored I suppose haha. Or maybe i miss the old ways.

Just to be clear, I don't dismiss the importance of having a higher resolution image capture. In my opinion, for the average drama, comedy etc for the web or TV especially, i would worry more about the feel of the piece rather than how many pimples we can count on someone's face.

Again, i strictly look at pictures I paint in terms of general feel and the quality not necessarily how much detail i can see on someone's face. I may be a bit eccentric I suppose. I wouldn't compare tye beta camera to a real HD or 4k camcorders but not the low end cameras and their short comings. I bet you if you revisited that project and handled the post with modern transfer techniques etc, you would find the image much more pleasing and cinematic - whatever that means - than the Canon dslr footage. At least, you can move the camera haha which is an important aspect of cinematography as well. Even the well shot ones to me looks like a collection of stills frames and moving subjects in those static frames. Not to mention, I can go to the end of the world and come back with proven Beta cameras whereas most digital cameras are delicate pieces of computers that need babying- excluding the real cine cameras like Alexas or f35s etc. of course.

970 is pretty much hd with 1000 lines. Technicality aside, strictly as an artist, stuff I have seen shot on that latest digibeta camera - productions like cinematic documentaries from Discovery Channel etc look way more filmic than Canon images with ultra shallow depth of field and more or less static images due to motion problems. Not to mention the aliasing and working with stills lenses... No thanks. F3 I wouldn't be opposed to but Canons etc even with RAW capabilities never look real to me. This is of course my opinion. I'm the type of person who cares more about the feel of images etc rather than counting pixels etc. The new age cinematography is different though. People are a lot more concerned with being able to shoot under available lights so forget the art of cinematography where the exposure and lighting and shaping images should matter. In return, what do we have? Ample of stuff online with log looking images or extreme cu on wide angle lens with everything else out of focus... How boring... Sorry but with the current fad, everything more or less looks uninteresting and redundant. I would still prefer the latest Beta camera with lovely colors and pleasing skin tones than 5d mk10 with RAW haha. I don't mean to offend anyone but just speaking my mind. The new age cinematography is more about bragging about what camera one might have and its technical abilities... Watch a movie like Jacob's Ladder which is grainier and softer than most stuff you see on Vimeo that was shot on 25k cameras with a single candle light but it is indistinguishably cinema...

Betacam is 14bit color depth to my knowledge. Not to mention CCD chip is superior to CMOS in terms of motion etc as well. Also the ergonomics... I can put the camera on my shoulder and shoot handheld without having to worry about cages and all the other mickey mouse attachments to turn a stills camera into a camcorder. Superb productions have been shot on the system that looks more real and cinematic to my eyes than the plastic images you get from Canon DSLRs. Aliasing etc. it is more like a 720p anyhow. Just my 2 cents. You could still record onto external device via sdi too if you don't want to record on tape. The model number is 970 not 960. Apologize for the typo.

Just get a Sony 960 digital betacam which is the latest model with 1000 lines. I'd take that over. dslr for sure. The colors are still better on digital Betacam than dslr footage like 7d etc. My opinion.

Cp 16 should be a very quiet camera. The specs you mention means you need to get the camera serviced at Visual Products or super 16inc with Bernie. It probably needs some love - lubrication belt adjustments etc. It is a very quiet camera that should be quiter than Eclair cameras etc. In most cases, the camera should be barely audible as long as its taken care of.

I would go with Sony f-3 or a Canon C series even just the HD but not the 4k version. Or Blackmagic cine camera 2.5 or the pocket with a metabooster.

I would push and get a lowcon print and scan the print. There you go, you will get that 90's movie look. That is how I. work so I know for sure. I don't always push but I do quite often.

You could get a V Mount plate with a 4pin xlr cable or whatever the proprietary bolex socket is. Even if you just bought the plate with whatever plug, you could get that chopped off and solder on the Bolex plug amd voila. Then you could attach the plate on to the body somehow. Hope it helps.

Some b roll stuff from a project I am wotking on. I am planning on doing a visual treatment about gentrification and the brutality of it. Here is some stuff. https://vimeo.com/388867246

I would try to find one but the prices of those seem to be on par with pro level s16 cameras so I would go with s16 or 16 even. I love and shoot s8 for its texture and painterly quality but I wouldn't spend thousands for a max 8 camera for a marginal increase in resolution

Don't get me wrong I'm all for film. Maybe i woke up funny I don't know. haha.

More negativity, I apologize but I mean from being pretty much the one of the bigger supplier for the industry to shrinking the list to a number of productions a year that you could say out loud in one big breath just doesn't look promising to me. How many out of how many of the current or even in the last year productions is being or was shot on film? 10 movies a year? How many? Some inserts with some dp's s8 camera in a digital show doesn't count because that is just a goof in a way. Or Johnny with Bolex shooting the streets of whatever city doesn't count either. Hope it gets better really as I only shoot and finish on film.