Karim D. Ghantous

I have seen scans of 7219 pushed by a stop. It looks great. I can't show them because they were taken offline, unfortunately. However, have a look at this video of 2-perf 5219 pushed by two stops. Note that the owner has also made an HQ version (2.4GB) available for download:

There are actual DPs here who can give you better and more detailed answers, but have a look at this chart: The middle gray point isn't always exactly between the two extremes. And you can't lose by overexposing by a stop or two - or more, if you know what you're doing. I would not bother overexposing if you're pushing. You're effectively cancelling one with the other, and causing a mess in your head. 😉

We live in a very strange world! Just as digital started to get really, really good, film started to take off. I'm not complaining, I think it's great. But it is noteworthy that while digital was expensive and clumsy (some cameras still are, not naming names), people flocked to them, with promises of liberation from the shackles of 400' spools and the ~1000 ASA sensitivity limit. Weird. I concur on both points. You will find people adopting all this new tech, and then complaining that values have dropped (I'm not having a go at the OP, BTW). What did they think would happen, honestly? As a photographer, I wish there was a film scanner that was fast, affordable, and had good image quality. No such scanner exists. Will Kodak make one? Leica? Anyone?

Often. 😉 If it's appropriate and unintrusive, I'll keep it on.

Good question. The light in that scene was fairly uniform, so I wonder if that would affect anything. At the end of the day, I should do these kinds of tests for myself. I think the Russians have a saying: a thorn of experience is worth more than a whole wood of knowledge. Edit: Pfister used 5218, not 5219, which I don't think was out yet. Zacuto measured 5213 as having a 10.4 stop upper limit. 5219 was 9.5. Alexa (RAW) had an upper limit of 6.8, and the RED ONE had 5.0. I assume these are values over 18% gray. None of this matters, of course, if you are shooting your movie on an iPhone. 😛 I did see two frames of new Ektachrome 100, 10 stops apart. The base image may not have been exposed 'correctly', but it looked normal. The second image, 10 stops over, retained a surprising amount of detail, although I don't know if the colours would be recoverable. The base for Monstro is 1600, so if you're just doing a clipping test, you must use that. The Dragon does have more total DR than the Alev-III, but it depends on what ISO you're using. From what I understand, Monstro is the gold standard now. I prefer the smaller formats personally, but it's great to have a choice. Heck, I still love Super 8.

The interview with Wally Pfister is here: https://ascmag.com/podcasts/batman-the-dark-knight-wally-pfister-asc You want to go to the 16:26 mark. The most he went was 6 stops over. Of course you'll want to listen to the whole thing! It's always interesting listening to DPs talk, although I usually avoid interviews where the DP is talking about digital (and I really like digital BTW!). If film is the medium that a project is shot on, it provides a much more interesting centre of gravity for the conversation, even if most of the conversation is about lights, day-to-day things, production philosophy and locations. Digital? I don't care in general, although some digital cameras interest me personally: most RED models; and these days I'm curious about the Micro 4/3 hybrid cameras. I'm pretty sure that Dragon had a limit of 6 stops, and I'm fairly sure that Monstro has at least that. I'd like to know how far you've pushed those sensors, or if you have heard anything from other DPs about their clipping point above middle gray.

Thanks for sharing, Jason. I won't say I'm a fan of softer lenses on 16mm, but there was nothing wrong with the look you got. It's still natural - unlike the nonsense colours and looks that many people introduce via software. Some footage is simply unwatchable due to the obsession with over-grading images. I suppose you may have heard that for a scene in The Dark Knight, the DP overexposed 5219 by 5 stops. That's what you call a super dense negative. 😉

Oddly enough, I think you'd be right if you're talking about film. I hear from some photographers that Portra 400 is an amazing b&w film. But for digital, the Bayer filter gets in the way, and I'd personally shoot with a monochrome sensor. I'm considering buying monochrome converted versions of the cameras I use, as I shoot only b&w for some applications.

I did, but I forgot to like it which I will do right now. Shame that the compression kind of spoiled the image a little bit. Never mind, the effect was there. I like the use of mid-century sound effects. Nice touch. Were the title cards created digitally, or printed and then filmed? I've actually seen that done back in the '90s.

Thanks for posting these, Stephen. This goes to show how good cinema scanners are. A photographic scanner would not yield a result this good. I've seen more grain from 35mm negatives scanned on Pakons, Reflectas etc.

Thank you for posting these. These images are sumptuous! You definitely got that Kubrick vibe happening there. If you can be bothered, can you post a full sized frame? Every time I see a new digital camera, I think, okay, show's over for film. It happened on two occasions: the Dragon 6K and the A7s. Then I see film scans and I think, film just keep pulling me back. 😉 What's interesting is that there is not much difference between the two stocks. 7219 probably has more 'colour noise' but what are you going to do? If film keeps getting more expensive though, it's going to disappear, regardless of whether or not we love it. Something has to happen. Maybe a cheaper emulsion? What's the cinema equivalent of Kodak Color Plus 200? I have often said that Downton Abbey should have been shot on 16mm. The interiors were beautifully lit, but the exteriors kind of suffered a little. They could have at least done a film-out. Bah.

I don't know anyone who thinks that film has infinite or indefinite resolution. Certainly not on these forums. And I don't know anyone who believes that 16mm resolves 4K. The cost argument is valid, of course.

Wow, man. I really have a hard time understanding this way of thinking. Firstly, it's way better to downsample to 4K than to upsample to 4K. It has been pointed out many times that where film is concerned, the grain is the image, and the more you sample the grain (or dye clouds), the more authentic the image gets, at least up to a point. Ideally you should not notice whether the image is projected or generated on a TV. 5K (the effective area of a Super 8 frame after an 8K scan) lets you reframe a little bit before you downsample to either 4K or HD. Either that or you might need to do some colour correction or repairs. Do all that at a higher resolution, then downsample.

I couldn't find them, but I really like that Cine Assist! Looks awesome.

ISO 1.5! The footage looks really good. And there is not that much grain, which is a pleasant surprise. I think that 16mm has a very bright future in film and TV. Edit: What scanner did you use? I have noticed that cinema scanners are excellent. Photographic scanners are usually nowhere near as good.