Giray Izcan

I agree with Bill, sorry... I'm a die hard film person, but shoot on digital a lot as a part of my job which is shooting commercials. I think if you want to shoot on film, shoot on film, and let others shoot on whatever they choose to shoot on instead of trying to convert anyone like a missionary or something. There are plenty of films shot on film that are crap as well i.e. The Room... You come off as someone who just started shooting on film, hence is overly excited about it. Nevertheless, good luck with your school and your projects.

Or just get a Bolex or an Eclair camera, and shoot 16. I f you shoot r16, you can even print it and watch it on a projector. You can get a decent 16mm projector for 2-300 dollars.

Logmar... An Aaton XTR package from Visual Products is 4500. I think it is ridiculous to spend anything more than a grand on a home video quality s8 or any 8 camera... For 5k, you can get a decent 35mm Arri package that you can do sync sound with.

I just got this link from the director to the short we shot together in June. It is called Cockroach, which is more of a surreal horror film. The director had a set built that was black painted floors and walls to give it a void feeling. I look forward to hearing from you fellas.

Congratulations Gregg.

It is more like maybe an SR2, which is sync sound, but not quiet enough in a small, dead quiet room. Much like an SR2, if you're in a super quiet room, and are 2-3ft or super close to the subject, noise will probably be an issue.

You can't go wrong with either of it. They are both fantastic, state of the art cameras. As for the video tap, they are both sd resolution since the purpose is for framing nothing else really. Unlike SRs, 416 is really easy to hand-hold. Personally, I don't mind the SRs either.

Happy new year everyone. I just got back from knott's berry farm with my 3 year old. Man did he enjoy the fireworks haha.

Thank you Bill.

1080p 4444 at Fotokem. The night ext stuff was existing lights mostly. They were 3+ stops underexposed actually. Sometimes the light levels did not even register in my meter.

Thanks Bill. I shot it on 7203 for exteriors and 7219 for the rest. I took some time off from commercials to shoot this film actually as a favor for a friend. I shot it on my NPR s16 camera with hard front PL mount and as for lenses I used my own Cooke 20-100 and Optar 9.5. I want to say I shot 85% of the film on Cooke and the rest on Optar.

Here is a few parts of the feature I shot in August. I apologize for my poor editing skills - especially with the audio part. I was merely "having fun" when I was putting this together. https://vimeo.com/150366015

I watched it at ArcLight in Hollywood. I don't remember having those problems that you just described. I thought the film was rather dull, but looked great. Although some master shots in the cabin were a tad soft, considering it was shot on 65mm film. I don't know i thought it'd resolve more details in those master shots since it's a larger format. Still though, little stuff like that did not ruin my experience about the film - or should I say its cinematography more than the story.

That's unfortunate because when I saw it the print was rather clean and scratch-free.

You have a point haha.

I just watched the film at Nuart Theatre in 35 print. It's a really powerful film with a great camera work. It's got a documentary feel to it, dark and gritty. Watching it in film print was a treat. It's a must see movie. Son of Saul was my third movie in a row that I watched in film print which is pretty nice.

I thought the discussion was about Hateful Eight...

It is 5:00am and I just got back home from watching the movie in 70mm at ArcLight. The cinematography was gorgeous - not to mention 70mm film projection experience; however, it did not do it for me. It was rather dull and pointless. Most of the film could have been cut out since they don't necessarily serve a purpose. I guess if you like Tarantino's good ol' tricks that he always employs in every single one of his movies, well, this movie might be for you. I don't know the movie made me think of the term "one trick pony" once again much like any other QT movies - overly stylized gore scenes for no reason, excessively dialogue driven plot are the two come to mind right this moment. If I didn't care for the cinematography and watching a movie in film print, I would have walked out of the movies for sure. The first half of the movie almost, I figured out some simple stuff about the characters such as their names and their purpose in life that could have been told in a whole a lot shorter time. If one had scratched Tarantino's name off of the credits, and wrote some random person's name, most people would have labeled this movie as garbage for sure. Since it is QT, it is an automatic genius masterpiece I guess. On the other hand, at this hour, I managed to stay awake the whole time, so I will give a personal award to myself haha.

Tyler, you should go to the Vista to see it on 35 print. It's worth the extra trip for sure.

Hmm ok. Anyways, I'm going to see Hateful Eight on 70mm print tonight at ArcLight at 1:30am. I'm pretty excited.

Tyler, do you think it went through noise reduction? or it's on the soft side because s16 isn't necessarily a sharp format blown up to begin with? Plus, he shot the movie on older 35mm format Cooke lenses that aren't necessarily as sharp as ultra 16 lenses for example.

I agree with Tyler on this one for sure.

Fair enough. Aside from the topic, I hope your celluloid dreaming is going well Tyler.

Tyler, is your mission in life to go against the grain every chance you get? I admire what you do, trying to keep film alive. But frankly, your know-it-all cavalier attitude is wearing thin I suppose. Anyhow happy holidays.

Tyler, you are indeed interesting. No film seems to be up to your standards. It makes me wonder what movie is up to your standards and why? In the last 2 years. Thank you.