Giray Izcan

http://vimeo.com/m/53480636 please let me know what you think about my first music video. Thank you and enjoy.

www.vimeo.com/53480636

vimeo.com/53480636

I shot this video a couple of weeks ago. Comments would be appreciated. Vimeo.com/53480636

I have been reading forum postings on different formats, which one is "better", film is dying or not dying, film is really "expensive" in comparison to digital, etc. Oh my personal favorite, achieving film look with digital cameras or vice versa. The reason I am writing this is not to start up any arguments, but to articulate my take on this trend. "Digital is just as good as film or better" In terms of what? What is "better"? Pin point sharpness that allows you to see every single dust particle? Would you really like to see every single detail of life, or would prefer to exclude some of those details of life from the form of art, film? I suppose, nowadays, good camera formats are measured by its extreme sharpness. In my opinion, a good format is the one that allows you to capture images in accordance with each project, not necessarily the sharpest. This statement goes to "I shoot 4k" people.. Another criterion is the cameras' "low light capabilities", i.e. achieving that "noiseless" picture while working on 6400 ASA. I have to ask why would you have to crank up your ASA that much? My camera does not have to capture breath taking images with only match light; I still believe in painting with light versus shooting on existing light conditions (excluding some circumstances) I mean that is why we have film lights.. In other words, cameras' performance on extreme ASAs doesn't impress me personally at all... My favorite, "achieving film look" with digital cameras. If I want the film look, I would shoot on film and vice versa. Particularly DSLR shooters with their "shallow depth-of-field" producing toys. I suppose, if you want true cinematic quality, you have to blur out the background.. I mean, it doesn't even have to even serve a purpose in the story.. Also, again for DSLR shooters, make sure do not move the camera, just rack focus, because you don't need the fundemental tools of motion picture time to time, i.e. panning and tilting. I mean, watch some of the short "films" on Vimeo or Youtube, they are all the same - cinematic look - no depth-of field, static frames, desaturated colors and the list goes on. Pretty original at this point.. One more thing, you don't need to add or remove ND filters, add or reduce light levels to maintain constant aperture.. Just crank up and down that ASA setting on your camera to maintain a constant aperture.. Make sure add some grain to your footage in the sake of that magical film look, because it doesn't look fake at all. How about shooting on film if you desire that grain? Same thing with film shooters, make sure remove all the grain to make it look "crispier." How about shooting digital if you don't want any grain? Achieveing the film look with digital tools and vice versa, in my opinion, is like re-inventing the wheel... Did anyone notice that shooting on negative is "costly.." Well, shooting film is costly, and requires an appropriate preparation. If you don't value your project to spend the necessary money on film stock, etc.; maybe, you should consider revising your script. Or better yet, establish what your goals are with your project. In productions, money usually goes to other expenses i.e. paying your crew, renting lights, etc; the film stock related expenses do not make up the majority of production expenses. I don't even need to begin writing about expenses associated with shooting digital (not DSLRs but Alexas and Red cameras)... In sum, I think every tool has a purpose, and to me at least, it doesn't make any sense to emulate an already existing format on different formats. Instead of worrying about the resolving capabilities of cameras, people should worry about improving their own skills - not blame their inadequacies on a particular format that they are on. And stick with motion picture fundementals, not no light shoots or changing of ASA settings on the fly.. These are all just personal thoughts, I mean I am not even a pro. I am just trying to be a camera operator/ dp, separating from the Marine Corps. Anyways, peace..

http://vimeo.com/m/50974223 Please check it out, and let me know what you guys think. I used Rokinon/Samyang 35mm lens for the entire footage. It was more of a lens test, so, also, please let me know what you think about the lens. Thank you.

I shot a can of film with my recently converted NPR (u16) using a canon ef mount adapter. Obviously, I did not use actual canon ef lenses (lack of aperture ring). I used my Rokinon 35mm f 1.4 and Zeiss Jena 50mm f1.8. I am really eager to find out the outcome of it. Has anyone used these lenses on 16, ultra 16 or super 16 before? Image should probably be pretty sharp. Thanks.

Thanks for your response. I actually just purchased a c mount to ef mount adapter, because I have a zeiss jena 50mm 1.8 and a Rokinon 35mm 1.4 that are fully manual. Rokinon has that Zeiss contrast and sharpness(almost), and considering 16 only uses the mid portion of the lens, it should yield pretty good results. Rokinon/Samyang also has 24mm 1.4, which I will get later on. Right now I have Switar 10 and 16mm Rokinon 35mm and a Zeiss Jena 50mm 1.8. I am only missing 24 to complete my prime set.

Hi, I just purchased couple of Canon fd lenses (old school manual ones), and a c mount to canon fd lens adapter; however, the guy told me that I would only have use the lenses at wide open. I guess there is now way of changing aperture with these lenses on 16 cameras. So I canceled the order, but I see many great looking, sharp shots on vimeo, etc using fd lenses. I am pretty sure they changed aperture settings during those shots. My question is, can I change aperture while using fd lenses on 16 cameras? If not, is there way to make it work? Btw I couln't find that manual diaphragm adapter anywhere. Thanks.

Also, with super 16 camera prices or cheaper, you can get a nice bl3 set from Visual Products.

I don't think the difference would be noticable when used same stock same lighting and same lens. I am waiting to get my NPR back from Bernie this week, so I will see ultra 16 first hand.

Visual Products carries c-pl mount adapters for 495. Has anyone tried using these with NPR?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3-5zfCzaa3c. Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Several other videos of mine http://m.youtube.com/results?q=surferlevent

Bill, Thanks for your advice. At first, I was going to use my soft box in a directional mannet to get that contrast, but then, decided to use my walmart "beauty dish" instead. I wanted to create harsh sunlight hitting her face effecr, but a half cto would have been prettty useful to create the warmth and yellowness of actual late afternoon sunlight.

Bill, I know I was surprised too. What do you think about my shots in general? Composition, exposure and lighting.. I had some technical issues like Manfrotto 501 is defintiely not sufficient for NPR, which is why shots are kinda jerky. And obviously financial difficulty, im in the Marine Corps (military wages aren't that high haha),getting out in 5 months. I don't use camera assistants, because I cannot afford it. I wanna become a dp, but i dont know if it is even possible. If you check out "surferlevent" on youtube, I have several other videos posted. Thanks for commenting.

Bill, Thanks for responding. The lens was wide open at the last shot. I guess, surprisingly, it turned out sharp.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqMfY6tx0M I shot this using eclair npr on a manfrotto 501 so pans and tilts are not smooth at all. Do you think that the lens is sharp for an angenieux 12-120 f/2.2? Thanks. Also, I did the color grading and the sound myself, so they are propbably not up to par. It was intended to be a camera scratch test, not really planned or anything. I used cheap walmart lights. Thanks.

Also, could you let me know what you guys think about the lens sharpness? Thank you.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqMfY6tx0M I used Manfrotto 501, so pans and tilts are pretty bad.

Thanks Greg, it seems like 3 percent image size difference between ultra and super 16 wouldn't have a dramatic impact on image quality. I think this is especially the case if the product is intended for hd viewing. Even for theater projection 3 percent shouldn't be a big deal. Honestly, if I were to shoot a theater release feture film, it would be on 35 anyways. I don't know if they have CA-PL mount adapters. I know there are C-PL mount adapters - if I am not mistaken - at Visual Products for around 800 dolars. This option is pretty cool, because this way, you can still use easily accessible c or CA mount lenses, only rent PL lenses when you need it.

Thanks Herbie. I watched couple of your films on youtube, where you were testing ultra 16 format. I will send the camera to Bernie for Ultra 16 conversion, laser brightening and full camera service as well. Do you gain significant resolution and image quality when you convert the camera to ultra 16 from regular 16? For telecine, I was considering cinelab, because cinelicious is ridiculously expensive. I would like to know ur opinion on ultra 16. I originally wanted to convert it to super 16, but the price is 2500 for Eclair NPR. And I do not want to be stuck with CA mount. That much money, I can get BL 2 or BL 3 camera pretty much. Thanks.

Both of those were shot on double-x. And yes there seems to be scratches visible on both of the negatives (emulsion side). If you notice, the "Joshua Tree" video has significantly less scratches. Do you think it is a loop problem? I did run a film through with the take up lid open, and didn't see the film rubbing against anything, i.e the top and bottom guiding rollers etc. Thanks.