Jordan Newell White

Dear Cinematography.com, NHK, a broadcaster in Japan, is working with 8K Television production. Problem is, almost all the video content ever produced is in a lower resolution, the maximum usually being 4K. Try watch Arri Alexa video on an 8K TV. It probably would not work. The situation is worse for DVD quality video. I hear sometimes that film is the only certified medium for long term preservation, especially on digital projects. If some people can't do that, then how do you preserve digital video not only for long term but also for higher resolutions, especially since 4K is starting to become popular among TV makers? Regards, Jordan Newell White

If you shoot with digital cameras such as the Arri Alexa or the Red Epic (including the 6K Dragon), then how do you obtain that film look that you would get with 8, 16, and 35mm film, from Kodak? People out there sort of complain that digital "looks too clean and is not painting with light and shadow" or "is not art". Most movies and TV shows that don't choose film as their capture option choose Alexa, while Red gets shoved aside (ouch). If you look at the footage, it wouldn't really look like film or something, and in post production they give it that film look by doing color grading and adding film grain. What if that method still doesn't give you a film look? How can I have the film look if I shoot with an Arri Alexa and attempt to save thousands or millions of dollars on post production by creating the film look on set? I've seen Arri Alexa footage projected at my local NCG theater, as a movie, in 2K, and from what I can tell, by all means, the footage looks nothing like what you would get out of a phone or pocket camera, is that true? Well, I often want to shoot for a nostalgic look if I attempt to make a Christmas film in New England. Gremlins was given a nostalgic Christmas look because of the Christmas setting, why can't a Christmas film that is shoot with an Arri Alexa be given a nostalgic Christmas film look, or even a film look in general if the resolution is in pixels and not printed dots like on film or something? And people will still argue that film "is painting with light, Digital is not".

Is the purpose for Alexa XTs instead of Kodak 35mm for them to say (mockfully) "Hey, we want to make sure film stays dead", or is it because the Alexas enable the filmmakers to do several things that they wouldn't be able to do with the Arricam and Arriflex cameras from Fast and Furious 6? How exactly can they get that film look if people like to say that "Digital footage looks too clean and isn't painting with light and shadow". The reason why The Amazing Spider Man sequel is shooting in 35mm instead of the Red Epics like the first one is because, as one of my friends stated, the first one looked too clean. Just how will Mr. Stephen F. Windon obtain that film look from something that isn't film?

I have never really seen or felt an Arricam, Arriflex, or Panaflex in person, judging by the fact that I'm autistic, and my mind thinks in pictures, I am pretty dog gone sure that those cameras are not made out of plastic. The body of the Panaflex Millenium XL2 weighs 11.8 pounds, definitely not the sound of plastic. I'm pretty sure that the Arricam or Arriflex are just about the same. Naturally, on a single day, I believe you should just shoot 2 to 3 scenes a day, prep for rehearsal, then roll cameras, and it may take about 1-7 takes to get the scene right, depending on the experience of the actors. I actually feel this sort of thing when I shoot with my Panasonic DMC-ZS20 for a long duration. After I stop recording, the camera feels hot. May be the same with any camera, film or digital. If you overdo it, the camera will get hot and be worn out. I sometimes like to compare it with running a 5K or a marathon. You start out good but over the course of the run your body wears out and you get sweaty. A trick I have learned while running is to pace yourself. In the same way, you should pace the camera, make sure you keep it at a steady go round.

Simon Wyss, you mean the cameras are not going to work in 3 years or something, or does consistent maitenance keep them going for like one century?

Dear Cinematography.com, What exactly is the longevity of 35mm cameras such as the Panavision Panaflex Millenium XL2, the Arricam, the Arriflex, the MovieCam Compact, and the Aaton Penelope? Film cameras run off of motors, while digital cameras run off of circuits or chips. Do you think 100 years would be the longevity of one of the film cameras that I have mentioned? I mean by how long the camera lasts until it breaks down or something? Regards, Jordan Newell White

Tiffen DFX Filters have filters that let you emulate 1990s Eastman Film Stocks. Is there any way to emulate the Eastman Film Stocks of the 1980s? Like they're grainier than 1990s Eastman film stocks and have a different color to them? How exactly can I have that with Adobe Premiere Pro and After Effects. What I'm trying to do is make a movie with the available resources that I have, completely zero budget, shot with a Panasonic DMC-ZS20 camera at 60 fps or 30 fps, and using nearby places as a backdrop, plus some of my friends as actors. I would also like to make it like a 1980s family film, yet to do that, I not only need to make the plot like a 1980s family film, but also make the footage look like a 1980s family film. The best way for me to do this would be to emulate the Eastman 1980s film stocks, which most of the 1980s family films were shot with. Are there any LUT pictures that I can use to self-teach myself to color grade and create the preset needed for this in Colorista from Magic Bullet Looks from Red Giant?

Shows like The Muppet Show, Fraggle Rock, classic episodes of Sesame Street, Sanford and Son, Family Matters, and other shows have long been 480p type content. Now Samsung, LG, and Sony all have TVs they're labeling as Ultra HD, or 4K TV, and it may make the current 1080p go straight into the dust. Where does that leave 480p content? Dead, not coming back, lost to a new generation? Shouldn't we do something to preserve classic TV for today's Ultra HD screens. I mean, shooting in 4K won't be enough. I have two suggested methods to help preserve TV not on DVD, or on DVD but haven't come to Blu-Ray. The first is to take the highest quality copies of shows like The Muppet Show or Fraggle Rock, transfer them to the best quality ratio, put it through a special software like Davinci Resolve or something of the sort, and then using special filters and tricks, enhance them to look HD or Ultra HD, since Ultra HD may destroy HD. The second method would be to record the transfered footage of The Muppet Show or Fraggle Rock onto film with something like an Arrilaser, Celco, or Cinevator, and then put the film into a scanning machine scanning all the frames, and then put the DPX files in a program like Adobe Premiere Pro or Avid DS and play them back at the proper frame rate, which is 29.97 fps, or 30 fps, and then output it to the scanned resolution, such as 1080p or 4K as a master. Which method do you suggest to preserve television history like this, and tell me if there is any reason to do this since the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas has Ultra HD (4K) TVs out ready to release, even if they do cost a little less than $10,000 or $20,000?

Oh, by the way, just where can I find the email for the Fuji sales representatives to discuss if there is Fujifilm left in their warehouses or whatever?

No, I mean Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy. He shot those movies at 48 fps, and I have a feeling more high frame rate content is coming, yet I still want to shoot 24 fps and Kodak film in the future, I think. You think I have a chance, especially in this economy?

Actually, I'm just a kid in college majoring in computer science that just happens to have an interest in the technical aspects of motion picture and television production, and while in the future, I plan to make digital and high frame rate content, I don't want to kill off 24 fps or actual film, because 35mm film helped influence today's digital cinema technology.

Well, most filmmakers, when they decide to shoot film, they end up using Kodak film, so should I be that worried that Fuji is ceased?

By April 2013, Fujifilm decides to stop manufacturing motion picture film, yet will there still be a lot of Fujifilm film left even afterwards? Like, even after April 2013 I can still contact a Fujifilm sales representative in order to get Fujifilm film shipped to me?

I know that Wilcam Vistavision cameras exist, but where exactly on this planet? If they were used back in late 80s and the 90s, they had to go somewhere, but where? The trash? I hope not. Those things are too valuable to throw away. Are you sure there are any visual effects facilities out there that use the Wilcam Vistavision cameras, because these can go up to like 300 fps?