Karim D. Ghantous

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.

I haven't seen BR 2049 but the trailer looks amazing. So I don't know why anyone would say that Deakins doesn't want to light anymore. I say, let people make their choices. I wouldn't choose the Alexa but so what? I'm not other people.

Perhaps the reason why 200T is sharper than 50D is related to SFX 200T? https://web.archive.org/web/20061105134210/http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/h1so214.jhtml

American Cinematographer magazine is very generously making its current issue a free download. You can read it in your browser or download a PDF file. https://ascmag.com/articles/april-2020-ac-issue If you're on social media, I'm sure that they would appreciate either a thank-you, a like or a share. ?

I have a lot of spare time on my hands, okay?

I was partly joking. Partly. ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-06/kodak-is-having-a-comeback-moment-as-oscars-embrace-film Personally I am looking forward to the Super 8 camera.

Love these discussions! I wonder, would a 'dry' scan look significantly different than a 'wet' scan? David, I get your point about lighting - lots of diffused lighting is used today, but not so much in the '80s IIRC. Although I am thinking of TV shows. However, they did have 500T stocks back then... unless those stocks weren't actually 500 ASA!

From what I have seen of b&w films, at least the good ones, they are all very, very flexible. You can rate Delta or T-Max by EI -3 or -4 and still get really good results without pushing. In fact you'd probably not want to push.

Looks good so far. XX is grainy but it looks to be very sharp.

One standard that is used is S:N=2 for the deepest shadow. That sounds like a very practical metric.

Robert, that looks terrific. Imagine a sharper lens and stabilisation. Super 8 is the new 16mm? ?

FWIW, this is what Zacuto measured a few years ago. Only 5219 and 5213 were tested. Interpreting DR is not so simple, so I can't comment too much on the accuracy of the test. (You can also see confirmed what was common wisdom: Alexa had two stops over the old MX sensor, which was used in the R1, Scarlet-X and Epic.)

I'm not too knowledgable about this sort of thing, although I recall once that I did print Kodak Ektar to b&w paper. That worked... fine, I think. Quite a few feature films have been finished in b&w but shot in colour, for the same reasons that Stuart described. I'm sure there is an established method to get good b&w from colour negative stock. The Man Who Wasn't There was originated on colour stock - I recall well because I read about it after seeing it during its theatrical release. Photographers have to deal with this sometimes (and I know you are one yourself!) and I think looking up that kind of thing might help - maybe. Out of curiosity, I did a little bit of a search and found a couple of comments worth quoting here. From: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/printing-color-negatives-on-blackand-white-paper.46586/page-2#post-2113643 From: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/printing-color-negatives-on-blackand-white-paper.46586/page-2#post-2113901 So it seems that you have to pay attention to magenta filtration, for the sake of contrast, if making an optical darkroom print on b&w paper. I imagine that scanning will make this much easier. In fact, I'm sure that Resolve has negative profiles to make his a one-click action.