Karim D. Ghantous

In this economy? I would have assumed that people would be stepping away from film more. Thankfully that's not the case.

That's exactly right. It's a question begging exercise that many people never challenged. I'd say that everyone can safely ignore it. Sometimes, we over-rationalise things, and we just want something to say for the sake of saying something.

We live in a world where camera lenses have filter threads, where TV frame rates were until recently (I think?) determined by the frequency of AC generators, where photographic cameras still have flappy mirrors, where some manufacturers are trying to push curved screens, where some companies are still paying for word processing software, and where IMAX is half of what it's actually supposed to be. Progress? You tell me.

I'm beginning to think that this project should be shot with either 35mm or digital. It's a rare case where digital is arguably the better choice, but this is one of those cases.

FWIW, if you're choosing 16mm, which I would personally choose by default, then don't crop it to 2.35:1. You're wasting too much of the frame area. IMHO 16mm isn't that grainy at all, unless you're pushing it. And it's surprisingly sharp. Just go through Kodak's social media accounts. Or go look through a whole bunch of footage on Vimeo which has Vision3 stocks in 16 and 35, shot at different EIs. If you're going to shoot digital you may as well go for a 4K camera such as an Epic or Komodo or what have you. I doubt that an Epic 5K is going to cost more than an Alexa Mini. Just IMHO, something to think about. The shooting medium of digital 4K contrasts well with the subject matter of Super 8 footage. To me that would make a lot of sense, so the case for shooting digitally is there.

I'm the opposite: I do not want an optical viewfinder on a film camera. I would expect an EVF. There are far more problems with OVFs than with EVFs. For example, the flicker. That's just one.

Tyler, I think your reasoning is on point, even if it's just a hypothetical right now. Indeed, you don't need to design a new camera from scratch. There are plenty of expired patents to choose from. With modern machining, you could even make them in America or Japan and you'd still have an affordable product. AFAIK, anyway, I have no idea how manufacturing works. I want to make my own line of lenses (if the concept I'm thinking of works the way it should), so one day I will definitely have some exposure to manufacturing. But, lenses are way easier than cameras. An idea I had some years ago was to design a really really compact 2-perf 35mm movie camera. I have zero knowledge of how to design machines, but I'm fairly confident that my basic idea is workable.

I have heard that the company that Bradford Young co-founded, 7isatribe, is considering making a VistaVision camera. In the meantime, Kodak still hasn't released its Super 8 camera.

AFAIK, negative film doesn't need pushing if it's being scanned and not printed - in theory, at least. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This quick summary might be helpful: https://walkens.com.au/product/mfs-vision-2383-35mm-cine-print-film/ Key points: - Made for development in ECP-2D but can be cross processed in C-41 - Heavy blue bast shot unfiltered, use orange filter for more natural color - clear base film, no remjet to remove Now you have me interested in shooting stills with it!

That looked really good, I thought. I mean, I don't like handheld footage, but that aside, it's a pleasure to see everyday scenes shot on such lovely stock.

I just had an idea! Make the open section of the mirror shutter an ND. Of course you'd have to go through the trouble of swapping them out, but still, it does solve a problem.

I have never shot 35mm. I wonder, though, if it's worth having a set of pre-loaded magazines, ready to go? Is that normal practise? I also wonder if it's better to shoot 50D outdoors. I suppose you'd have different looks between outdoors and indoors, but IMHO that actually is a good idea. I know some DPs use one stock for the whole production, and I respect that, too. If you put NDs in front of the lens, the viewfinder will be very dark. If you can, maybe put the NDs in front of the gate instead. If the camera can support that.

I do know that you used to be able to buy Kodachrome calibration targets. Basically a colour chart shot on Kodachrome film used to calibrate scanners. Silverfast used to sell them but they obviously can't make new ones: https://www.silverfast.com/show/kodachrome-targets/en.html I am also certain that someone, somewhere, shot their own colour charts for their own reasons. The trick is to use the same chart on your digital camera to make a LUT. That should be straightforward enough. Even 90% accuracy would be a win. Worth noting is that those old Kodachrome slides derive their look partly from the lenses of the time - which no doubt will be helpful, at least in theory. In practice, maybe not so much.

Many years ago I recall a discussion about this kind of topic. Someone who shot with Mamiya lenses refuted another's claims that medium format lenses aren't as sharp as 35mm lenses. He said that some Mamiya lenses are actually sharper than many 35mm units. I can't find that discussion now. But keep in mind that you have to compare contemporaries. You can't compare a Leica SL lens to an old Hasselblad V system lens and conclude that medium format isn't as sharp as miniature formats. However, I found the below threads somewhat interesting. Conclusion: it practically doesn't matter, as the differences are often small. BTW, the MTF graphs you posted are certainly believable, but the problem is mostly one of perception: the 80mm lens goes to an image height of 40mm whereas the 50mm goes to 20mm. I dare say that a photographer has more uses for a larger image circle than a DP does. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1238665/ https://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d800-with-medium-format-lenses-and-setup/

Short answer: yes. I don't know the details. I'm not so sure about that, actually... However, what is undoubtable is that you have an image circle way larger than you need, which is nothing but a benefit, especially if you are using shift movements.

I recall an Italian director who said that he had no idea how a camera worked, and that it looked like surgery to him. I just forget the details. Was it Antonioni? Bertolucci? I can't recall I'm afraid.

I am not in the business, so I don't know for sure, but based on my understanding of psychology, I don't think the reason is as nefarious as you point out. I think it's more simple than that: everyone is busy and they have little time for pleasantries. Life isn't fair, but it doesn't mean that people don't like you.

Isn't it better and cheaper to just use a Glimmerglass or something? I mean, if productions are genuinely budget conscious, why are they spending so much in post? I wonder if a lot of producers actually know what they are doing. Clown world...

Works for me! Although the compression took away the randomness of the grain. Robert, does your film recorder use lasers or something else?

Your legacy could be to create a cocktail called the Matipo. "Served exclusively at the ASC clubhouse at first, the Matipo, created by Hollywood professional Simon Wyss, rapidly became mainstream, and is now served in the hottest bars and clubs all across the country. Part of its early success was the mistaken belief that it was named after the Brazilian municipality of the same name."

Sean Baker shot The Florida Project on 35mm, but shot some night scenes with an Alexa. He did film-outs of all the digital footage and he really liked the result.

I have stated several times that I am not. I will create a signature to remove any ambiguity. But I do know what a DP's job entails. I don't tell DPs how to shoot, or what to shoot, although I may offer opinions, especially if solicited. But I do know what the job means, just like any director, writer, actor, or producer would know.

These days, though, it's a different story, is it not? Thanks to cameras like the Gemini, or the A7S III, you can pretty much shoot in any lighting situation. I'm probably missing something, though.

You're a DP. You are supposed to care about the technical stuff. You don't have to prefer film to digital, though - that is your choice as a skilled technician. I like both, FWIW. But the debate never ends, because that debate is part of your job. If a producer asks you why you aren't shooting film (or why you are), do you tell him that "the debate is over" like Al Gore might say, or do you give him reasons?