Giray Izcan

I agree... I just don't agree with shortchanging every department including the film itself by not getting better locations or better production design etc just to shoot on film. The end product you get after spending thousands of dollars is usually ok at best because of lacking in every department. Or you don't get enough coverage or enough takes so now you have to live with what you got. If there is budget in place, then of course... I prefer film; otherwise, it doesn't make sense to be slave to it.

And if you are talking about shooting a feature film, then you really need the budget. Unless the project calls for s16 look, you will want to shoot 35. 35mm costs A LOT of money as you can't rely on recans. Even with recans, it is expensive. I get that the current film stocks are very clean and sharp but it is still not 35. Let's say you have a 90 page script, 90k feet of 35 film will cost you 57k dollars - just to purchase stock not including processing etc. S16 formula will cost you about 27k dollars just to purchase film. These are rough numbers of course... 800 for 1000 ft 35 film or 300 for a roll of 400ft 16 film. The actual numbers might be a bit more. Now you add processing and scanning. Also, bear in mind, this is shooting 10:1 ratio which is bare minimum on a serious project. Don't so 1 take wonders from 1 or 2 angles so that you can save on film. If you choose to do so, you will cry during editing due to lack of coverage.

It is not worth it. Shooting film is expensive as it is so you should stick with getting your scans done professionally. I guarantee you that you will not get to shoot real projects more than a handful of times a year so you might as well get it scanned properly. If you are Mr deep pockets then maybe you can shoot as much as you'd like but for average earthly beings it is expensive. Besides, if you have to think about cutting corners when it comes to scanning, I'm sorry but you have no business shooting on film. You'll be happier with digital and spend the money elsewhere like production design and rentals. Film only makes sense if there is budget in place where you can get all the coverage you need without cutting corners otherwise you are slave to the format.

Thanks. It's an impressive looking film

I didn't know they printed Joker on film. Do you know if they scanned the ip for blu ray release? I knew about Dune but not the Joker. Dune's blu ray is from the ip for example.

Stephen, all the hardware and people to run these cameras are still substantially cheaper than film. Also, you really don't need all that much stuff to shoot with digital.

At those prices, noone will shoot film except for some studio pictures. Some s16 may be prevalent but 35 will be done except for big pictures. S16 is nice and doable but it is a look and not every project or filmmaker wants the s16 look unfortunately. We'll see what happens...

I would overexpose by 1 stop or 2/3 of a stop.

Overexpose...

I doubt those quick shots would be matching the main format - let's say s16 or r16. For those quick shots, I would use a Bolex or a Scoopic as they are pretty compact.

Alternative Rentals is pretty good little rental house too.

How much professional use a year? Let's cross fingers for a few seconds of s8 in some movie's flashback sequence or some opening credits... I still can't justify the expense. S8 is not a professional format at all. The pin registered Logmar s8 footage that I've seen looks like a messed up 16mm at best but yet cost the same money to shoot.

I get that some people use it for weddings and stuff, but realistically speaking, how many weddings actually requests the format? It sounds like a terrible investment.

The camera is promising except it is s8... the money spent on s8 as opposed to s16 doesn't make the format worthwhile. I love s8 and shooting it but not at a price point of a used Alexa or 16mm camera...

I think it means if you spend the money on a camera, don't get hung up on how much you just spent/regret but move on and focus on shooting with it. I would get a cheaper camera like a Blackmagic and practice lighting, setting up shots. I wouldnt worry too much whether it's an Alexa or Red or Sony really... you will not be getting jobs and getting paid yet anyhow so it is a personal camera. About Alexa being out of flavor right now due to new cameras on the market, we are back to the problem 1 with digital and that is consumerism to the max... so a camera that was used to shoot Skyfall and every other great looking films in the last 10 years is not good anymore huh? It's a shame the whole industry's main focus point is resolution first and the look next. As for getting familiar with menus and stuff, I wouldnt get hung up on it either. 1 prep day at a rental house and voila more or less... also, if you are going to be a dp, you will have an AC who will or should be familiar with the menus anyhow. You wory about creative choices like lighting not technical stuff like the menus on a camera.

It is a good call as you would have never made your money back. As nice the s8 is, I get the interest in the format but, realistically speaking, hardly anyone uses the format for anything professional - except maybe wedding videos etc. The cameras aren't quite enough for a proper sound shooting so I don't think there is much sense in spending resources and time on a format that is an amateur format.. The cameras are too unpredictable in terms of liability. S8 would be too distracting for a narrative film. Also, think about shooting dialogue sequences in a narrative projcet with a camera that you have to load every 2 and a half minutes - it'd be a nightmare and would be in the way of the performances. Imagine, people complain about noise with their digital cameras where it is squeaky clean... s8, people would be focusing on the format it was shot on rather than the story. We live in a world, where the consumerism is out of control. People questioning, whether the original Alexas are worth it in 2022 etc... the same camera that shot masterpieces is not good enough for people's camera tests and their little short films etc.. Films nowadays concern themselves with the resolution, gimmicks or homage first then the story... for example the movie, Jacob's Ladder, it has that textured softer look that wouldn't be accepted today. Imagine watching the same film with the current ultra sharp and clean however many K cameras, it would not feel the same way. The sharpness and resolution is very much an obsession now. Rather than talking about the feel and look of a film, the first discussion is ok so we're shooting 6k on whatever camera. Not everything has to be sharp and clean but hey 2022 huh... My point is that under the current climate, there is no way s8 cameras will be selling all that much. Shooting a roll here and there crowd will not spend anything more than 3-400 and that's even high. I get the flaws and all but it's not cute when you have to spend the same money as shooting s16. These are my personal opinions of course.

I have been noticing a lot of content shot on smaller formats that are supposedly beautiful due to their pronounced flaws etc... most of that content would have been laughed at during the film era or at least wouldn't have received such praise. Remember that s8 music video came out a couple of years ago that looked like a camera test but received such a praise. In my opinion, film looks much better lit rather than shooting in available light and relying on DI. In a sense, in my opinion, with film, you really need to know what you are doing to get the look in camera - or at least close to it. You have to be able to look at a lit room and be able to tell how dark or bright it will look on whatever stock you're shooting despite how it may look to your eyes.

Because they didn't almost go out of business.

If anyone has a functioning crystal sync motor(24fps) for the NPR, please reach out to me. Thank you.

Arriflex is more common and dominant in most parts of the world, was and still is actually. Outside of the US, UK and Australia, most productions used Arriflex and Moviecams - mostly Arri though. Most countries don't even have Panavision rental houses.

Apparently, Xeen has anamorphic lenses coming out too... We'll see how it goes.

143 degree focus throw sounds horrible.

You would have to light to a deep stop.

I better check it out then.. thank you guys.

Do you think you would like it if it was shot on digital? The reason I am asking is that most people seem to be complaining about how hollow the film is without much of a plot or a story. I haven't seen it yet so I am curious as to what you think of the film as a movie without taking any technical specs into account. Also, I may actually really like the film too. I am only going off of what I have heard and read. Thank you.