Karim D. Ghantous

Leica almost single-handedly defined modern photography 100 years ago. https://leicarumors.com/2025/03/01/the-leica-i-camera-is-100-years-old-today.aspx/

I remember this. Loved it. It looks great. Well, there you go. I think it's case closed.

I can't speak with authority here. But I remember someone saying that you should use a filter when shooting tungsten film in daylight, otherwise some of your colours will be wrong, even with a proper white balance in post. My opinion: make your life easy, and use a filter.

Seems to be more dynamic than a gimbal on a vehicle. I like it.

But seriously, asking for donations (i.e. already exposed film) could be part of the test. I'd like to compare well exposed 5298 to modern films, just as one example. I might end up doing free scanning for people who want their films digitised, but can't afford it. Once I can guarantee that I can fund this project, maybe we can put the word on the street, so to speak. I see. Isn't DPX some kind of standard though? There's no harm in offering both.

You can. But I'd be guilt of stolen valour! There are people on this forum, like Tyler, who do a far better job, and who have seen more feet of film than I ever will. The best performing lens that fits in the budget. Maybe Summicron C's? Or Master Primes? There's no room for Super Speeds or anamorphics or Primos. That would distract from the exercise. If/when I can guarantee funding, I'll contact you. This test will probably be conducted in America. I'm just not sure whether it's going to be east coast or west coast. I very much look forward to seeing that. You're right though - digital is way too good as far as resolving power is concerned. There's room for film to win the DR contest, but nobody's doing anything. Great idea. Have you noticed how digital takes a huge resolution hit when a scene is lit by primary light sources? That's a good idea too. Using charts costs the same as not using them. I'll include them even with the b&w films. I'll also include white point and black point chips.

There’s an idea which I have been thinking about for a couple of years: imagine a free resource where people can access DPX files of all the available film products, so that they can compare them against each other, exposed in different ways. This test will include three gauges: 8, 16, and 35. It will include all motion stocks and photographic emulsions. Films will be scanned on different scanners, including a few photo scanners. Films will be underexposed, overexposed, pushed, pulled, and scanned. This test will include colour, b&w, negative, reversal, and 2383. All 35mm stocks and emulsions will be shot as 4-perf S35, although the emulsions may have to be pulled through the camera one frame at a time, due to perforation differences. The final product will be a fairly sizeable collection of files (mostly DPX), ungraded and uncorrected. This resource could help DPs and directors save time and money. It might even catalyse enthusiasm for film. There is a very good chance that I’ll be able to fund it later this year. I presume that the total cost of this project will start at $20,000. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s higher. The one thing I cannot do is make a promise at this point. This exercise will require camera rental, lens rental, talent (with different skin types), at least one DP and one assistant, the film, the processing, the scanning, the locations, some lights, some travelling, and hopefully some PR in conjunction with Kodak. So, I need three things: expressions of interest, opinions of viability/utility, and a cost estimate. All opinions welcome. P.S. I'm aware of @Florian Noever's upcoming results of his resolution test.

I urge you to watch the short video I posted above.

(7:54)

He co-created the greatest TV series ever (Twin Peaks), and created the best movie of the 21st century so far (Mulholland Drive). He is either equal to Kubrick, or at the least, second to him. Pure brilliance.

I think it will be priced at exactly the same price as the other stocks.

Batman is one of my favourite films. I also have seen all the Harry Potter films and they're all well lit, although some scenes in the final film were ruined in the colouring stage (orange & teal).

You're breaking my balls here, Jeff.

I can't say I'm that enthusiastic about this project, but hey, I might be pleasantly surprised. Jeff, it seems that you are a fan of the classics. You quoted a not uninteresting passage from the Odyssey. Tell me, why are the words πολύμητις and θόλος not translated?

The writer, Robert Klane, died last year. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0458228/ Does anyone know who owns the rights to Weekend at Bernie's? I contacted Amazon MGM but I got no response. I think Gladden Entertainment was absorbed into MGM some time ago.

FWIW, Ladybird was shot underexposed - the complete opposite!

I suppose it can be, eventually. The question is about reliability and consistency. I think there are far better ways than algorithms to determine depth. Light field cameras could do this more easily and with rock solid consistency. Just IMHO. It's also worth asking if we will need actors anymore. We shall see.

I think that they also need new lenses. Also, seeing as they scan in 8K, isn't it better to shoot vertical 8-perf 65mm for IMAX these days?

IMHO, there is almost no difference. It obviously can depend on the sensor - some sensors are not invariant, some are. Alexas use dual gain which is another thing. Albion said it best:" do some tests". FWIW, I used to have a Leica M8 for a short while. From what I saw, it was better to underexpose than to change the ISO setting.

There is such a thing as correct exposure based off 18% gray - that's the definition. 😉 It doesn't mean you must be correct, though. I cannot give you the proper explanation. But 18% makes sense, because if you double it twice, you get 36 and 72. And if you halve it twice, you get 9 and 4.5. If gray were 50%, you could only double it once. To make things more interesting, the WhiBal card is not 18% gray - more like 12% or something like that: https://whibal.com/

I shot some Super-8 Ektachrome about ten years ago, and metered off what I considered to be a mid tone. I didn't use a grey card or an incident meter. Here are a couple of frames:

Photo cameras have fewer demands on them than cinema cameras. So you can go back 15-20 years and find cameras that you could use professionally today. Not so for cinema cameras - although the Red Epic is the exception IMHO. Anyway, have a look at how good this camera is: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3214761610/leica-s2-against-megapixel-arms-race https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2009/11/leica-s2-review-test-shooting-in-germany/ There are almost no S2's being used today, due to a problem with corroded cover glass. I imagine that the successor, the S Typ 007, is at least as good. The S3 is even better again. I have handled an S2 and although I don't want to buy an SLR camera ever again, I am still tempted. The S system will go mirrorless next year, which could be interesting. But, Leica has to compete with Fujifilm, which pretty much owns digital medium format today.

I think that California needs to diversify its industry. It has two: Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Great industries, and huge ones, but it's a shame that oil isn't part of that. Silicon Valley could move to anywhere, including Canada. Hollywood technically could, but it won't be practical.

FWIW I use ProCam. It has some pretty cool features and lets you choose manual WB, ISO, shutter and focus.