Karim D. Ghantous

I have a lot of spare time on my hands, okay?

I was partly joking. Partly. 😉

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/kodak-is-having-a-comeback-moment-as-oscars-embrace-film Personally I am looking forward to the Super 8 camera.

Love these discussions! I wonder, would a 'dry' scan look significantly different than a 'wet' scan? David, I get your point about lighting - lots of diffused lighting is used today, but not so much in the '80s IIRC. Although I am thinking of TV shows. However, they did have 500T stocks back then... unless those stocks weren't actually 500 ASA!

From what I have seen of b&w films, at least the good ones, they are all very, very flexible. You can rate Delta or T-Max by EI -3 or -4 and still get really good results without pushing. In fact you'd probably not want to push.

Looks good so far. XX is grainy but it looks to be very sharp.

One standard that is used is S:N=2 for the deepest shadow. That sounds like a very practical metric.

Robert, that looks terrific. Imagine a sharper lens and stabilisation. Super 8 is the new 16mm? 🙂

FWIW, this is what Zacuto measured a few years ago. Only 5219 and 5213 were tested. Interpreting DR is not so simple, so I can't comment too much on the accuracy of the test. (You can also see confirmed what was common wisdom: Alexa had two stops over the old MX sensor, which was used in the R1, Scarlet-X and Epic.)

I'm not too knowledgable about this sort of thing, although I recall once that I did print Kodak Ektar to b&w paper. That worked... fine, I think. Quite a few feature films have been finished in b&w but shot in colour, for the same reasons that Stuart described. I'm sure there is an established method to get good b&w from colour negative stock. The Man Who Wasn't There was originated on colour stock - I recall well because I read about it after seeing it during its theatrical release. Photographers have to deal with this sometimes (and I know you are one yourself!) and I think looking up that kind of thing might help - maybe. Out of curiosity, I did a little bit of a search and found a couple of comments worth quoting here. From: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/printing-color-negatives-on-blackand-white-paper.46586/page-2#post-2113643 From: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/printing-color-negatives-on-blackand-white-paper.46586/page-2#post-2113901 So it seems that you have to pay attention to magenta filtration, for the sake of contrast, if making an optical darkroom print on b&w paper. I imagine that scanning will make this much easier. In fact, I'm sure that Resolve has negative profiles to make his a one-click action.

I really liked this. I saw one of your other videos recently, 'Super 16 Feelin’ - Thanksgiving 2017' and that was quite nice, too. One thing that is not surprising is how film can be pulled back from overexposure. It's a good thing, too, because film doesn't like shadows as much. 😉 But the graininess seems to have not improved, even though shadow detail certainly was. I expect film to be less grainy when overexposed - not just based on theory, but on observation. Perhaps this is no bad thing - rating it at 500 would therefore give you the full speed but with the same graininess. Heck, I've seen Super 16 pushed a stop and there's almost no difference there, either. So you could argue that 500T is a pretty good 1000T stock as well. BTW your music is also very nice.

I read somewhere, which of course I cannot find, that if you don't correct tungsten balanced film while shooting outdoors, you cannot recover greens properly. Is that correct? It's also worth pointing out that you should use correction filters on digital cameras, wherever possible. Especially if you're shooting highly compressed formats. The small effort will be worth it.

I just discovered this: Super 16, but it's another example of how 7219 can capture a lot of detail with a better lens: The ungraded version:

I think David meant moving the camera to the other side of the table so that your subject is either sidelit or backlit. I checked out the raw screengrabs and sure enough, everything is soft. So I think the lens is the culprit. And in fact the grain doesn't look too bad, it's just more prominent than one would expect. So maybe you massively underexposed? Maybe the stock has expired? I wasn't there so I'm just guessing. In a previous comment, I stated that Super 8 could look better. I should have provided some evidence! So, here are three videos to illustrate the point: Just know that a lot of people have no idea how to shoot Super 8 and their footage looks like it was developed in dishwater.

FWIW I like the story. It could have been fleshed out a little bit more. E.g. why was the man in the room? What was he doing before? Whom was he texting, and what did he write? Etc. Nonetheless I liked it. As for the footage, yes, it's too soft. 16mm isn't that soft. Even Super 8 can look better than this. So the softness and focusing errors could be the fault of the camera. The weird graininess could be the lab's fault, or it could be old stock. I would have to defer to more experienced people on that one.