Giray Izcan

Look at Conrad Hall's films. He only lit what he wanted to show and left the rest in shadows. The Others had a good use of shadows.

Evan, You are correct that younger dps prefer digital for convenience. They almost cannot screw up while using digital, because of instant playback. To me, I use my light meter, and pretty know what to get in the end. It's funny, everytime they see a fottage shot on s16, they say "wow, that's retro" film is whatever you want it to be, retro or modern..

If they're lighting a street or a larger area, they will have to rent a generator to support bigger lights.

I would go for a maxibrute or t24 to light a street at night.

vimeo.com/56073726

Yea, I know what you mean.. like those matrix sequels..

Matthew, Why wouldn't you watch it?

Amen to that!

Matt, I agree with you. With film equipment, you have to know how to use a lightmeter. Many upcoming cinematographers got those monitors etc to tell them what to do... Well, it is a choice I guess. Also, with film cameras, you have to be able to get a decent lens to get decent pictures. Yeah, you need decent lenses with digital too, but at one point, not one lens will be able to achieve more than what a sensor is capable of. If you have master primes on af 100, you will be short changing those master primes. In sum, with digital, mostly the sensor then lens determines the image quality. And with film, lenses play the biggest role besides image steadiness etc..

Josh, I don't know those two cameras honestly, but that price range af 100 is pretty cool. As for film camera, yes you can buy a cp for that much money but with what lens? If you want the "modern" contrasty and sharp images, that angenieux 12-120 won't really cut it. Also, I suspect that you can get s16, working one anyway for that price. Obviously, you can make all those mods to make that cp more current. I shoot on NPR, and would take NPR or ACL ii over cp 16 any day. For that price range, you can even get an arri 2c, but it will be LOUD. I used to have a BL3, but those cost 4000+. I'll get one again one day. Anyways, I doubt that you have any desire to look into film, so you should go on vimeo.com and search those cameras to see some visual samples. Good luck with camera hunt.

Kahleem, Oh ok, yeah I agree with you then. Btw, this whole film versus digital debates remind me of childish my truck is bigger than your truck fights haha.By the way, I sawbyour videos in critique my work section. Those are pretty cool, reminds me of the movie the Wrestler.

Kahleem, I don't agree with what you mentioned as to digital being more accurate and precise. I think it is just a matter of being used to a particular system. For example, I know what results I will be getting when I shoot film under different light set ups, etc. Then again, nowadays, many digi cinematographers don't even know how to use light meters, and evaluate their lighting accordingly. For those film may be really mysterious, because of lack of monitors and gadgets tell them what to do.. Also, I don't agree with film shooters being vintage obsessed hipsters. Do you think Mr. Nolan and many other major filmmakers try to be vintage obsessed hipsters when they shoot movies like Dark Night series, Dark Shadows, Bourne movies, etc? Anyways, good luck.

I forgot to mention one more thingin my last post. I actually miss having digi betacams around for video. For some reason, I prefer a well shot dbeta over dslrs etc..

Kahleem, I prefer film over digital for sure, but don't see the point of bashing on digital. As for cost of digital versus film, I think they cost about the same, of course I'm talking about Red or Alexa type of cameras. With film, you have initial costs such as film, dailies, etc; however, post production for those high end cameras are rather time consuming and costly. So in the end, the cost is about the same. Also, film costs makes up about 1/1000th of budget in major movies; most of the money is spent on lights, crew, actors and actresses. The supposed cost savings of digital over film may not be life altering. As for the quality, personnally, digital cameras look like video to me in comparison to film. If I have to have black and white approach, digital is video, film is film; therefore, I don't see the point of emulating an already existing film technology. People who prefer digital should just make the most of video, instead of trying to make it look like film. Also, how about never ending changes in digital? How many Red and other sensors has the industry been through within a decade? Amazing image quality with these digital cameras may be kind of obsolete in 2 years..Then again, cinematography is a form art, and the artists are free to convey their creativity in digital or film. So, I don't think judging anyone on the basis of preferred tool of craft is necessary. I shoot on film, and have no desire to move to digital; you shoot on digital I guess, well, so be it.. I can learn certain things from you, and you can learn from me, etc. Anyways, good luck with your art.

I actually heard that the stock lens is pretty sharp. Good luck.

I forgot to mention one more thing. Expose for shadows, so those parts of the image are not underexposed, because negative handles highlights really good. However, if the exposure difference between the highlights and shadows ridiculously great, then meet in between those exposure values. For example, if the highligt reading is t16 and shadows are t4, I would set the aperture at 8 or between 5.61/2. Good luck.

I would say expose the film correctly, no over or underexposing. Tty to use m42 photo lenses for sharpness since you use the center of those lenses. Obviously, maintain a good focus.

Thanks. I used Eclair NPR ultra 16 with Rokinon 35mm lens. What I noticed is that editing and playing with contrast a bit on Sony yuv, more compressed, codec caused excessive grain. I re-edited it on uncompressed codec, and now there isn't nearly enough grain. Even.in blu-ray the video appears pretty grainless. Anyways thank you again.

Well, it shouldn't be too hard to get used to different camera systems. As I mentioned, if you don't have sufficient hardware to handle raw or less compressed cameras, you should get a camera with a decent internal recording system. Bmcc seems decent internally, prores; however, the camera itself with LCD screen seems rather unappealing. You would definitely need something.like zacuto vf. For me, looking through vf and using light meter beats any monitor out there. Also, you shouldn't get used to maintaining a particular t stop by cranking up and down you ASA setting, as most dslr users do. It is crucial to maintain by adding or removing ND, increasing or decreasing light source distance from the subject etc. I would probably take exposure reading on highlights more on digital cameras, since they suffer in highlight more than shadows. With film negative, I would take readings on shadows more due to negatives' highlight handling capabilities. It just depends.. Also, it seems like,you should treat dslrs like color reversal, meaning underexposing by a half to a full stop yields better color rendition. In sum, even if you shoot digital, treat it as if you are on film, sound prep and calculations before rolling the camera. You shouldn't have I can fix it in post mentality. Also, if you do too many takes due to some technical mistakes, it would make you look bad as a dp. And, you never know when you have to shoot on film...

I think it is a good idea to move from dslr to an actual camcorder. It seems like fs 100 is pretty decent if you cannot get the newer 700. Bmcc seems decent, being raw and 2.5k. The question is do you have the means to handle raw or any other less compressed camera systems? Post workflow tends to get pretty much same as shooting on film. Many people think.it is great to have raw or other less compressed pro cine cameras without realizing what comes during post. Since it uses a massive amount of data, you will most likely need a dedicated person to handle post production workflow. Also, bear in mind that digital cameras tend to be obsolete in no time. If I were you, I would look into 35 or super/ultra 16, because, then all you would have to.do is rent pl glasses and maintain your camera.

Will, Thanks for response. I am sorry that the link didn't work, but here it is once more: https://vimeo.com/53480636 Hopefully it works this time. And please let me know what you think about the lens (Rokinon), because I need someone else beside myself to view it to get an objective opinion. Thanks.

Will, Thanks for responding back so promptly. When I look at.the difference in width between 2 formats, there is only 0.6mm difference. What do you think about Rokinon lenses? I read on various reviews and comparisons that Rokinons get indistinguishably sharp as (almost) Zeiss. I should probably get pretty sharp images with photo lenses right? Here is the link for my music video. I edited on compressed codec therefore increased grain , I did corrections again and rendered the footage as uncompressed. There is a noticeable difference. in terms of graininess. http://vimeo.com/m/53480636 I shot this on Rokinon 35mm. Compressed post correction definitely added grain. The actual footage is not this grainy.

Hello, I have posted on cinematography.com a few times. I have an NPR ultra 16 camera. I shoot with Rokinon lenses. I have a short film project intended for short film festivals. My question is if the image quality difference between super and ultra 16 noticeable under same circumstances I.e. lenses , lights, etc.? If I shoot on photo lenses, can I achieve similar quality to pl s16 lenses since I use the center of the lens? I am trying to figure out if ultra 16 with stills primes scanned at 2k would be noticeably less quality than s16 with 2k scanning? Or should I get a PL zoom lens like Canon 8-64? I've shot a few different test films and seems like Rokinon yields pretty contrasty , sharp and modern look but would like to get professional's opinions. In sum, can I roughly get the same image quality as s16 with u16? Thank you.

Hello, I have posted on cinematography.com a few times. I have an NPR ultra 16 camera. I shoot with Rokinon lenses. I have a short film project intended for short film festivals. My question is if the image quality difference between super and ultra 16 noticeable under same circumstances I.e. lenses , lights, etc.? If I shoot on photo lenses, can I achieve similar quality to pl s16 lenses since I use the Venter of the lens? I am trying to figure out if ultra 16 with stills primes would be noticeably less quality than s16 with 2k scanning? Or should I get a PL zoom lens like Canon 8-64? I've shot a few different test films and seems like Rokinon yields pretty contrasty , sharp and modern look but would like to get professional's opinions. In sum, can I roughly get the same image quality as s16 with u16? Thank you.

Hello, I have posted on cinematography.com a few times. I have an NPR ultra 16 camera. I shoot with Rokinon lenses. I have a short film project intended for short film festivals. My question is if the image quality difference between super and ultra 16 noticeable under same circumstances I.e. lenses , lights, etc.? If I shoot on photo lenses, can I achieve similar quality to pl s16 lenses since I use the Venter of the lens? I am trying to figure out if ultra 16 with stills primes would be noticeably less quality than s16 with 2k scanning? Or should I get a PL zoom lens like Canon 8-64? I've shot a few different test films and seems like Rokinon yields pretty contrasty , sharp and modern look but would like to get professional's opinions. In sum, can I roughly get the same image quality as s16 with u16? Thank you.