Karim D. Ghantous

This question is for anyone, particularly colorists. What's your favourite or preferred method of the four options below? Assume that the sensor or the negative has in all cases encapsulated the full DR of the scene, so the histogram will show 100% of the image well within its boundaries. 1. Expose for the shadows and bring down the highlights 2. Expose for the highlights and bring up the shadows 3. Expose for the mid point between highlights and shadows, and adjust both 4. Expose between highlights and shadows with bias towards one or the other, and adjust both Would

Yes, particularly the Canons. If you want the best possible image quality, buy a Fuji GFX 100s, or a Sony A7SIII, shoot RAW, and underexpose as much as you can get away with. I am working on a general solution to this kind of problem, but I won't have the ability to do anything for several months. I will of course post my attempts on this site. Even if it isn't practical it might lead to something that is.

FWIW you got your branding right! I have a dream... to make a set of manual focus lenses for mirrorless cameras (with unique attributes that you won't get anywhere else). Can I get there? With a good team, yes. I will be providing the seed capital, but that can only go so far. The project will be crowdfunded. I have the branding and the idea. Now all I have to do is wait for my investments to pay off...

Thanks, Frank. Amazing how some films just disappeared forever. I know we can't and shouldn't keep literally everything, but... you don't always know what you should and shouldn't preserve until much later. And Hollywood wasn't concerned with that philosophy back then, I don't think.

I'm not sure in which forum this question belongs, but this one will do I think. Have a look at this photo posted by The ASC on Twitter: Look at the device placed behind the viewfinder. It looks like it could be an optical viewing screen. What do you think it could be?

I really wasn't prepared for the ending! Very well made, very well written. Quite haunting, too - I guess that's kind of the point of the story, right? 🙂 So this was 2-perf S35? Anyway, it looked damned, damned good.

Well, I'm not so sure. I would not object to shooting in VV or 65mm!

That looks FANTASTIC. Light sources were captured very well, and the overall image quality is terrific. It goes to show that you don't need to push it in the lab. I have said this before, but Downton Abbey, as nice as it looks, would have looked a little better if it were shot on 16mm. I truly think that it's too early to move to digital. Even 2021 is too early (Edit: i.e. for narrative, not for commercials or documentary). I really do love this medium, although at the same time I'm thinking about an idea which might fix the last problem with digital: light sources. It doesn't matter

How do I join? LOL Lucky bum! BTW what scanners do you have?

To the best of my knowledge, 500T film needs an 85b filter to warm up a daylight source. That's at a cost of 2/3 of a stop. So in that case, the ASA comes down to 320, which is 1/3 of a stop faster than 250. Given that Kodak makes a 250D stock, is there room in modern productions for a 500T stock? I suppose that a lot of LED panels have a variable temperature, and that's another thing to think about. But, if it's just easier to standardise to daylight, maybe productions will eventually just do that. The counterpoint would be that Kodak could tweak 5219 and make it daylight balanced,

I haven't seen a direct comparison with colour film, but I have with b&w film, and there was no difference. I would not be surprised if colour film behaved very differently. Alberto, I look forward to seeing the video. I found this, which may be of interest. I think it looks great:

I discovered this while searching for examples of Super 8 footage. This makes me wish that I had documented my surroundings more in the 1990s. I was born in the '70s and I remember nothing about them. The early '80s had a bit of the '70s vibe which I remember very, very well. There is a warmth to the '70s which many people overlook on account of the flared pants and big collars. The houses, just the normal ones, are wonderful. A friend of mine lives in a two storey townhouse were literally nothing has been renovated. Short of Art Deco, there is nothing like it. 1970s grap

That's nowhere near as objectionable as ratty highlights. I'd like it fixed, anyway. I think it can be done easily with b&w film, but then you'd be making it more expensive. I see. But I was led to understand that you can emulate halation with Baselight's native scripting language. No. I think you might have done something to the wedding shots. If not, something went wrong somewhere. The anamorphic shots were ruined slightly by the lens aberrations. In any case, none of those photos were challenged in the way that I described in the original post. Phew! There is a

I'm pretty sure you can emulate halation. At least in Baselight you can. Over 20 years of progress and we still can't manage to capture light sources properly, even in daylight. Even Sony hasn't done it yet. That's the point of the thread. The wedding shots were not to my taste. The second two were okay, but the lens ruined them for me. The final ones were very nice indeed.

That's surprising.