Giray Izcan

Film use is at niche level at best despite its resurgence. The projects on film tend to be for vanity and artistic music videos and fashion films mostly on 16 followed by s8 sprinkled with a few features on s16 and some 35.

Of course, 7219 is a great stock, but 7213 would easily out perform 19 in terms of clarity and sharpness - if one aims to make it look like 35 on big screen. You will have to add more light on 13 as one would expect. Granted, s16 will never look as sharp as 35 but I am the type of dp who tries to shoot s16 as clean and sharp as possible to mimick 35 as much as possible. "Carol" looked great on 7219 - albeit somewhat soft - would have looked much sharper on 7213 for instance. Good luck with your shoot.

I would stick with 7213 for maximum sharpness and clarity. Every feature I see that is shot on 7219 looks soft and grainy. I don't think s16 needs the extra grain to feel organic as it is an inherently grainy format.

The stock doesn't look that awesome to be honest. Great test though.

Oh I missed that I'm sorry.

They don't have fresh stocks at Orwo?

34 pages and no response... except for this response...

Jon, let's ask those superhumans to do a blind test to pick out the cameras used for each of those images to see how many of them will actually accurately pick out the cameras just by looking.

The problem is that the cost of film easily negates those advantages to most except for studios and such. It costs 12-1400 dollars per page when you factor in film purchase and lab expenses. A 10 page short for instance costs 12-14k just in film stock related expenses... let's add location(s), crew, food, rentals... you see how crazy numbers get very quickly. I would not want to shoot a narrative project for anything less than 10:1 ratio and sometimes 20:1 for the dialogue coverage. You could shoot for less but then you will pay for that mistake in the editing room for sure. Now you got an unfinished project that you spent thousands for. S16 is cheaper but s16 is not an alternative to an Alexa... 35 is- especially 500t. It is far too grainy on s16 for movie screens. Surely movies like Carol looks great and pretty but it also looked soft in the wide shots too. 200t should be as high speed as one should get if the project is meant to be blown up to 35 or dcp.

I haven't seen it either but heard/read from most viewers that it is a mess of a movie that is self indulgent without any redeeming qualities. I also heard the cinematography and production design are the only things going for it. I have to check it out myself of course.

Don't get me wrong... I am all for film and only recently actually stopped photochemical finish as the infrastructure is not there to handle that workflow in terms of finding negative cutters etc. You can't deny though film use is peanuts comparison to the old days.

It's only a matter of time before Kodak pulls the plug unfortunately. Even with the current boom in film use, it is absolutely peanuts compared to the early 2000s and the 90s. Most of those film projects are vanity art projects for personal ego, music videos, shorts and some feature films - a lot of them shouldn't even be shooting on film due to lack of budget. Everything used to be shot on film so yea... it is peanuts in comparison.

Technology is good but I hate the idea of "HAVING TO" use a new technology despite where my preference may lie.

Spectra IV is a great lightmeter. It is one of the most reliable and accurate meters out there. I wouldn't do false color etc from the video tap as the specifications do not match the film stocks in terms of sensitivity and contrast etc.

Still...

I'm sorry but I can't imagine 16mm black and white reversal stock blowing up nicely to 15p IMAX... even 35mm doesn't do the justice let alone 16mm reversal stock.

So how come all the blockbusters are shot on digital except for a few here and there? Surely hundreds of millions of dollars for a budget, they wouldn't be shooting on an inferior format.

Of course it is peanuts in comparison to the 00s and the 90s. Nowadays shooting on film is more of a vanity affair and prestige thing as opposed to then - everything had to be shot on film...

Is it me or am I sort of seeing some kodak 29 Expression look there as well?

It looks good. It'd be great to see it under properly lit interior stuff.

To me, the grain resembles double x stock in 16mm... I wonder how this stock would look on 35 scanned on a good scanner. I have a feeling it might have a nice/different look, but on 16, forget it. If the prices made sense, I would like to shoot it on 35 and get it scanned professionally on a good scanner.

900 for 1000ft sounds like money well spent to me then haha

What David says..

Apparently the scene did not call for him to cock the pistol and pull the trigger at all, but yet, he did... crazy huh

So 18 months and 5000 dollars = a human life... excellent justice. I wonder if I, an average earthly being, had been in the same situation, I would have faced the same judgment... 18 months and 5000 dollars...