Karim D. Ghantous

IMHO I don't think that base fog is the phenomenon we are seeing. Base fog happens to expired film, not underexposed film, AFAIK. My take, although I am not an expert in this: underexposure and push processing practically go hand-in-hand, which we all understand. We know that exposure determines shadow detail, while development determines the difference between highlights and shadows. Underexposure actually allows for more silver to be washed away, thus creating a near-transparent base; while at the same time, underexposure does not allow highlights to form strongly enough. So, if you take an underexposed negative, and aim for darker shadows, your highlights will be quite dim. And so, if we extend development time, the highlights would be developed more strongly, while the shadows don't do very much, because there is very little silver there to work with. Hence, push processing increases contrast. From what I understand, there are two points in exposure which result in low contrast: underexposure and overexposure. One results in lots of shadow detail, while the other results in no shadow detail. Film's response to highlights is not linear. That's just the way I'm thinking about it. Someone can tell me where I'm right or wrong.

Share them if you can, and tell us exactly what you did. 🙂

I loathe recessed lights. They are awful. A possible solution is to find a way to make translucent domes that can be easily slipped into the recess, so that the dome protrudes sufficiently to distribute light more evenly. This is just in my head, and I haven't had a chance to actually try it.

Ironic, or maybe just serendipitous, that such an 'old' design is better suited to digital cinema.

The saving grace is that many people like this aren't very smart. Sadly, they are the cause of a lot of wasted resources.

The advantage is value. You still need to know what you are doing. You still need to understand what you need and don't need. Nothing changes except that your kit is smaller and easier to put into small spaces. I have not shot too much video. But I could not shoot any video at all if I needed to use an old Alexa, which is reportedly heavier than the Japanese island of Hokkaido. It just would not be possible. And if you are serious about video/cinema, but don't want to spend too much money, then you're in luck: (8:09)

From what I've seen on the Web: as Robin said, get your shutter angle to 144 degrees if you're shooting NTSC with 24fps 16mm. It won't be perfect but it will be pretty good. The bar will be only one line thick. Of course, using the special sync unit is better. But if you can't do that, there are options. Note: I have not done this before, so I'm not speaking from experience. Here is a comment from 2008:

I don't know the answer, but it might be similar to the problem in digital sensors. The blue filter cuts out more light than the red or green ones. And then, to further handicap the blue channel, only 1/4 of the photosites are blue. If they were designed intelligently, sensors would have two blue pixels, one red, and one green, to even it out.

Kodak. The choice of a new generation. (AI image, obviously)

Reach out and shoot someone.

Welcome to exposure country. Anyhow... shoot a roll of film. Ask the man who shoots one. Experience the difference. Just shoot it. Got film? Good to the last frame. When you care enough to shoot the very best. Kodak film remembers. (LOL) Anyway... maybe there should be a Kodak soft drink!

IMHO you need to be more assertive, or appeal to something not so obvious. Your aim as an advertiser is not to be nice, it's to win the market. E.g. "Film is alive". Or "Kodak Film. Feel It." Or, you appeal to the greatness of history "For over 125 years, the world's greatest movies were shot on film. Here's to 125 more. Kodak film. Feel it." You get the idea. I'm sure someone has something better (I actually do have one slogan I'm not divulging, as I love it so much). Of course, one day we might see an ad with a headline that says simply, "20 Stops." Whether that's for a film product or a digital one is currently unknown. Kodak could give us a black and white emulsion with 20+ stops if they wanted, without doing too much R&D. In principle.

I agree with this in general. Something to think about: back in the 1980s, some sports photographers were shooting Fuji 400 negative film at EI -3, or 3200. The results were very useable. These days, maybe 3-perf 35mm could be 'usable' at those levels.

It could be Portra 160. It's a very clean image. I have an HD monitor, but no 4K, so I'm going off that.

AFAIK, ARRI did develop a successor to the 435, which could film at 240fps. They never released it though.