Karim D. Ghantous

Okaaaaayyyyy.... soooooo.... Well I suppose I agree with all of what Phil said. I think I will like the film, despite the fact that I am not impressed by the trailer. The novel is a must-read, regardless of whether you like sci-fi or not. It's properly epic and should be a high school text. It wouldn't be a great story were it not for the details, and novels are superior for conveying details. Also, by reading the book, you will see where George Lucas got some of his inspiration. It's beautifully lit, and I say that despite not liking the style. The fashion these days, in commercials or in features, is to underexpose to the point where it still looks 'not underexposed'. It's not easy to do, BTW. But I can't say I love it. I mean, I believe in freedom for the DP, but I want to be able to see what I'm looking at. (Quick confession: for one job a few years ago I delivered slightly underexposed photographs to the client, which was my fault, but he really really liked them. I didn't like my mistake, and I still don't.) A few things bothered me besides the photography. Firstly, I don't think that any movie or trailer should open with whispered or low volume dialogue. Secondly, I think we can dispense with the visuals of armies a-la Triumph of the Will. That film is brilliantly shot but we've seen enough of that particular image. Thirdly, the music is not quite appropriate. I didn't like the music in Lynch's version, either. But to be fair we have not heard the rest of the soundtrack. Fourthly, changing 'Jihad' to 'Crusade' is kind of disingenuous. In the novel, it is explained that long ago there was the Butlerian Jihad, which was waged against computers, and so from then on computers were never used again. I see no reason why the word 'Jihad' is such a problem in the context of the story. I would agree that Lynch's version had brilliant moments. The sandworms were amazing, for one. The Guild Navigators were perfectly designed, too. The opening monologue was memorable, too. The opening music sounds like it was composed in the 1960s and brought out of storage just for this film. Still, it's often an awkward movie and has some moments of cringe. Finally, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, digital cameras did not do this project any favours. But at least it was shot in 4K, unlike BR2049, which was shot on the older Alexa, as wonderfully lit as that film was. I personally believe that 15-perf 65mm is stupid, but so too is shooting sub-4K digital for big budget projects. Finally, a reminder to read the novel. You're welcome. ?

In medium format, though. The channel owner tests other emulsions, not necessarily relevant to a DP, but definitely interesting. Keep in mind that scanners also matter. (14:47)

Amen. If Johnny Overgrade worked for me, he'd be fired.

I don't really have any suggestions. But someone I know recorded Teen Wolf, probably in the '90s, and apparently the TV cut was slightly different to the home video cut.

This is a question for anyone, really, but especially those who act or direct for both stage plays and movies. The screen formatting standard for scripts is very well known. I find it easy to read and I think that if I was an actor, particularly on stage, I'd have a much easier time reading a script in the screen format. The key feature of the screen format is that the character names are centered, above the dialogue. Some formatting standards for stage plays have the character names on the left, next to indented dialogue. It looks elegant but I don't like reading it, as my eye has to go from left to right, left to right. But when I'm reading a screenplay, in the 'Hollywood' standard format, my eye follows a more linear path down the page. I'm just asking out of curiosity. I'm not a director or an actor, but I do aim to write for both stage and screen.

It's like pornography: you know it when you see it. But more to the point, I think it's better to talk of light's qualities, plural, rather than its quality. Not that I disagree with any of the above. Sometimes your camera can't properly capture what you see, but that's a different discussion.

I was wondering, what about a zoom compact like a recent model Sony RX100? This would be as a replacement for a director's viewfinder, as well as useful for location scouting and planning focal lengths. You could even use it as a light meter. The 8x zoom includes pretty much every focal length you're going to use.

Okay, the chart makes a lot of sense, as you are neutralising primaries and secondaries very specifically (I assume that a WB card can't do all that?). And of course charts let you set black and white points. But I'm not sure if a piece of paper is wise as paper stocks usually have some kind of cast to them, although I've only tested this with light going through them, not light bouncing off them.

This sounds interesting. What's the brand? Just curious: do you consider a white balance card as useful as a grey card? Would you say they're different enough to warrant having both? Not sure how much of that I can fit in a man bag. ?

You know, I tell photographers who have no history on photo forums to go straight to cinematography forums. Why? Because forums like this one are full of people who are helpful and not unduly critical. I'm not the only photographer who has noticed this. In addition to that, you get to learn cinematography techniques and maybe different ways of thinking about light. There's everything to gain. It's rare that you get bitter DPs on cinematography forums. Yeah, it can happen, but mostly, DPs are professional and yet also relaxed. They'll give your ideas and questions, no matter how naive they might be, a fair hearing. My point here is that I hope that people lay off the snarkiness. It's not necessary. Be passionate, by all means, but I don't think that personal attacks are useful.

Further observations: 1. Cameras are disposable. It's the image that counts. It's great that some cameras have gone up in price, though. I mean, try finding a discounted A-Minima. Good luck! 2. Sometimes the format, or shooting style, is appropriate to advertise. E.g. The Wizard of Oz (Technicolor), Citizen Kane (deep focus), Schindler's List (b&w as a minority format), Too Late (four long takes on 35mm), Russian Ark (one take), Tangerine (iPhone + anamorphic), Timecode (parallel single takes), The Dark Knight (IMAX). N'est-ce pas? 3. You only shoot a project once. Maybe the hassle of film is worth it in the long run. That's up to the producers. 4. You don't get to say lenses matter but at the same time say that media doesn't. Get the **(obscenity removed)** outta here, as they say on the East Coast. What you can argue, very fairly, is that cameras and lenses should be as cheap as possible, but no cheaper. So, Cine Alta primes with a Red EPIC are a very smart choice compared to Summilux C's and 35mm. Pro-film guys aren't going to say that you are wrong. 5. The word 'show' is half as long as the word 'business'.

That's pretty cheap! I'm going to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that the two media capture light differently. I'm amazed, though. You know why? Because, as I've written elsewhere, it's so bizarre that film is taking off again just when digital is getting really good. I'm talking about cameras as diverse as the Red Dragon, the Panasonic GH5s, the Nikon D3 (it's old, I know), the Sony A7S, and one day, the Apple iPhone... On paper, all of these cameras are superior to film in most areas, and yet here we are. Wow. Really? Your'e right about valve amps, anyway. Even if it's just about how they look. I used to have an old b&w TV when I was a teenager. It was probably from the 1960s, and I should have kept it. It was powered by valves, although they were in the back, so you couldn't usually see them. It won't be long until DSLRs are dead. That's the kind of progress that people deny until it happens. Because there's no way that DSLMs could ever be as fast or accurate as DSLRs, right? Even post processing with be deprecated, and those who love sitting in front of their computer all day will lament the 'traditional way' of applying a look to an image. But that's progress within digital, and not necessarily applicable to film. Time will tell, the market is always right, and there isn't much we can do about that.

Film-outs still cost a lot, AFAIK. I wonder how much of that is the film and how much is the printing. And I'm very jealous of your treasure hunting escapades! Moonlight? No, you certainly can't do that with film. That's for sure.

Ah, okay, I think I get it. But the cameras still had pull-down claws, right? So there would have been some tiny bit of misalignment in the camera - correct? Anyway, now I can see how double-printed IPs can work. I assume it's a similar set-up. I've seen a few films that were shot on the Alexa, from Dallas Buyers' Club to Twin Peaks Season 3 (which was supposed to be shot on 35mm). They all fail the light source test. I believe the DR numbers - in fact I pay a lot of attention to numbers. I know, for example, that the Red One had 12 stops where the Alexa has two more. Dragon has one more again, while Monstro, I think, has one more than Dragon. But, results trump numbers (either that, or film is measured incorrectly by everyone). Here is a quote from RedUser member Brian Boyer in a recent thread about the new BM 12K Ursa Mini Pro: Not necessarily, especially outside, with the huge contrast between light sources and unlit bitumen. I present an example of 5219, rated at 1250, pushed to 2000. Stop was between 1.4 and 2. It's not stabilised and it's also shot in an urban environment, so there is a lot of light thrown around from all kinds of lights. This shows not just how good 2-perf can look, but how good cinema scanners are. Photo scanners are awful in comparison.

Just a reminder to anyone who may not know: Super 8 cameras assume that you're using tungsten film, which is why the T setting removes the filter. The D setting adds one to correct the tungsten film for outdoor use. It's this way, and not the opposite, because it's better to slow down tungsten film when taking it outdoors than to slow down daylight film when taking it inside.

1. Well, digital art has to have its own display medium. And that would be based on blockchain technology. Have a look at https://superrare.co/. 2. Live media is important because it focuses our collective consciousness. We feel it, even if we don't even know how to spell 'consciousness'. ? That's a debate probably not suited to this site, though... It doesn't matter - he shows us how he got his LUT etc. Experienced DITs and DPs and colorists should know what to do with his instructions. Apparently, the key to attracting attention with digital cameras is a matte box. If you have one, people assume it's a serious production. If you don't have one, people just think, 'video camera'. I still don't know how the three-strip Technicolor process managed to keep all three strips aligned so well. If he were alive today he'd shoot either Monstro 8K or the new BM Ursa 12K. Just my guess, don't read too much into it. ? BTW a good part of Yedlin's philosophy is correct. It's just data, all other things being equal. But he does not seem to acknowledge that digital, even the Monstro or the Alexa 65, cannot handle light sources. I have never seen a digital camera get light sources right. And this is odd because Monstro technically has the same DR as film. So film is the superior medium to shoot at night, because that's where digital fails. Maybe the answer is to underexpose the poop out of digital in these situations. And when digital gets that part right, we might see a complete shift to 100% digital. Of course you can get two images to look the same, as long as no data is missing between them. Duh! This should be obvious. That's what LUTs do. But, there are other factors.

I can't recall when it was. Perhaps it was 5 years ago, perhaps more. I don't remember, really. But I had just bought a roll of Ektachrome 7285 and I had recently acquired a Braun Super 8 camera. The camera really is beautiful and it's no wonder that Jonathan Ive used Braun products as inspiration. Anyway, I caught up with a friend one Sunday at local park and I took my camera with me. For a reason that will never be clear, I never got around to processing that roll of Super 8 Ektachrome. I just stuck it in a drawer and left it there, thinking that one day I would eventually get it processed. In late May, I realized that I should just get it done. I have the spare cash, so why not? So I did a bit of hunting around and found Nanolab, an Australian lab that's located in Daylesford. I live in the Melbourne metro area, and Daylesford is NW of there. It's about a 2 hour drive away, and apparently it's a lovely part of the state. Anyway, I posted my film in late May and got it five weeks later. The method of ordering is methodical. Firstly, you fill out a form online, then you get an email with an invoice number, after which you pay. You then post off your film with the invoice number visible somewhere. If you want the scan sent to you on physical media, you have to supply a USB stick. You have a choice to not have the scan done, but keep in mind that they don't scan film already processed - they only scan film after they process themselves. I think it's a good idea from their perspective, as it keeps their operation simple. You choose between HD and 4K (UHD). I chose 4K and I supplied a USB stick. The processing and scanning together cost AU$96. I'm pretty sure that postage to Nanolab was $8.95. That's not counting the cost of the film, which I bought over 5 years ago. Some would think that 4K is wasted on such a small gauge, but that's simplistic thinking. You always want to oversample your film image, as much as is possible. Remember: the grain is the image. The better resolved the grain, the better the fidelity of the image. And 4K enlarges better - a 4K projection of Super 8 film on a large screen will be pretty close to projecting the film directly. I'm not going to say that Nanolab has the best scanner in the world, but I'm happy enough with the result. I am grateful that they scan as much of the film width as possible, including the sprocket holes. This is not because I want to exhibit the film with the sprocket holes visible, but it lets me know that I have 100% of the frame available to me and I can crop how I like. Given that the latent image just sat there for at least 5 years, the footage looks okay to me. In this case, I forgot to clean the edges of the gate, so there is dust visible. Many years ago, when we were still shooting Kodachrome, I took some care to clean the gate with some Blu-Tac (or at least that's what I remember - I know I did so with the projector at least). I also shot handheld, but the footage wasn't too shaky. Maybe next time I will test the apertures and figure out which is the sharpest. I didn't take exposure notes, but I know I tried to get the correct exposure as much as I could. I shot at 24fps and I will do so exclusively in the future. Of course, shooting time lapse is a different thing. In addition, if you're shooting an interior and there are no moving objects, you can shoot at a slower frame rate to increase exposure in low light. Just remember to pan very slowly - perhaps a motorised head would be helpful there. What I want to do now is to get a bit more acquainted with Resolve so I can use the stabilisation feature. There are a few shots that could benefit from that, although I do take care to hold the camera steady. Some people post very shaky footage online and I can't watch it. It's atrociously bad, and I don't want that for my footage. So I won't be posting the file yet. However, I have extracted some frames which I'm posting online in full size. The scan file is ProRes 4:2:2 (see attachment). The frames were saved as high quality JPEG 2000 files and the file size was supposed to be under 4MB. But Postimage changed them to PNG and now they're twice as large. I only noticed that after I uploaded them. Well what can you do... https://postimg.cc/w1nz19XZ https://postimg.cc/V0sQxvwr https://postimg.cc/0McHJfgj https://postimg.cc/YjCPBJgW I hope that you found this interesting!

It sounds like she's very close to the microphone. And a few little tweaks as well, maybe.

You learn something every day! Thanks for asking the question, Duncan, because it never would occur to me to ask it. And of course thanks to David for the detailed response. Film stocks make cinema that much more interesting. More than lenses, even.

AFAIK the Venice has a fast read-out as opposed to a global shutter. Similar to the A9.

The only think I know for sure is that S35 isn't going anywhere. Red makes both VV and S35 cameras. So does Sony etc. Same now with Arri. The GH5s is a very popular camera, and that has a sub-S35 sensor. Lots of people will make the Komodo 6K their A camera, etc. As others have already said, the only thing you'll gain is better low light performance - which on modern S35 cameras is pretty good anyway. But you're going to lose DOF with VV. So you win some, you lose some. I think both formats can do deep focus pretty well, and the deeper stop required for VV is balanced by the diffraction limit on S35. Though for tight shots, the smaller the sensor the better, IIRC.

Giray, those stills look great. Dom, thanks for sharing the Spike Lee film. I had not seen it before. It's mostly good, although he too makes the common mistake of a 1960s uncle asking the kids to stand still in front a movie camera. Seems that digital capture can't even compete with Super 8 when it comes to certain subject matter. Maybe next time I go overseas I won't take photos, I'll take footage instead. Super 8, of course...

I find a lot of Super 8 a bit flat - not the image, the style. I think that because the camera is easily held by hand, people just stand and pan. They don't think to put it on a dolly or a gimbal. I don't think that shaky-cam is a good look. And I have seen better exposed footage. But maybe that's what Perry wanted, in which case, it's her call. I absolutely love S8 and S16. I will be shooting more of it down the line. The cameras are cheap but the film and scanning are expensive!

I'm sure that some people watched it precisely because it was shot on Super 8. I'm sure that some people watched it because they like her music. And I'm sure that some people watched it because of the brief moments of nudity. ? https://www.super8.tv/en/video/most-successful-super-8-music-video-ever/

FWIW, Ron Garcia shot the Twin Peaks pilot with Fuji stock. He preferred the reds that it gave. (He also used coral filters). I guess these days it's just a dial away in Resolve? He didn't say which stock it was, and there were two to choose from from that time. I have asked some people but I never got an answer. Here's the interview with The ASC: https://ascmag.com/podcasts/twin-peaks-pilot-1990-ron-garcia-asc I do like the fact that a lot of DPs preferred to do as much as possible before and during shooting. Even for today, and even for digital, I would prefer this approach.