Karim D. Ghantous

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.

That looks pretty darned good for old film. Very nice, indeed. Graininess is well controlled, too. Despite the off colour, greens look really, really nice. A bunch of very cool films were shot on that stock, Blade Runner being one of them: [Edit: Oh poop I completely misread that - 5248, not 5247!] https://shotonwhat.com/film-negative-stock/eastman-color-negative-ii-100t-52477247 I don't suppose you could put up a few 4K frames? :-)

I tried understanding MTF charts but I still don't completely get them. But I'm pretty sure that the x axis is resolution (line pairs). There is not too much difference in the x axis between K25 and E100D. The y axis implies that K25 is sharper, which is what we would expect, as it has thinner emulsion layers.

I had a second look at the MTF charts for E100D and K25, and I can see only slight differences. I'll take two stops of sensitivity in exchange for a bit of sharpness. Resolving power seems about the same.

I compared it to some other films, as I have a few data sheets handy. The new 100D scores better than Kodachrome 25. It's not quite as good as Elite 50 or, interestingly enough, Elite 100. And EXR 200T 5293 is slightly better as well (though I'm not sure if it's fair to compare negative stock with reversal stock).

I notice that the noise in between the sprocket holes is the same as the noise in the image. Perhaps the scan itself is the problem, as John implied. Edit: What's with the green light leaks on either side of the image?

The great thing about reversal film is that it is its own reference. There is no need to ask the DP or the director how the finished product should look, because it's right there for all to see. Of course we always have to take into account exposure errors or unintended colour casts. On Instagram I saw an example of E100 overexposed by 10 stops. It wasn't usable per se, but almost nothing was blown out. There was some colour shift as well. So what does this mean? It should mean that you can put your gray point anywhere you want, and the highlights are not going to require too much correcting in post. For example: a field of grass with bright clouds in the sky. We're talking at least 4 stops of difference there, but probably under 10. Evening skies are surprisingly brighter than the ground, too. When I'm out for walks, I sometimes take casual readings. Of course a phone sensor, especially an old one, barely has 7 stops of DR in total, but the readings are the thing.

If you can afford it, why not enclose the windows (like a light-tight tent or something) and have only the lights that you mentioned? I mean for the whole shoot. You can then balance the lights with the candles. Is that a reasonable suggestion?