Karim D. Ghantous

I really loved reading about the beginnings of Lucasfilm, Star Wars, and all that. What an exciting time to be alive. And what a positive impact there was on the culture. I recall, back in the early '80s, listening to the Star Wars radio play. Certain types of people today are really trying their best to take the fun and excitement out of everything. That will change, but we just have to go through it!

If AF tracking isn't a priority, and I assume that it isn't, I'd go with Panasonic. Just IMHO. OTOH, the Sony video cameras have a very good reputation. So does the OG BMPCC.

Cool. 16mm crash camera?

I have seen both 7219 and 5219 pushed and they looked great. Even 5298 (discontinued 20 years ago) looks great when pushed by two stops. Perhaps there was exposure compensation used in post?

Others can speak with more authority on this. But, in sum: - You do not want to underexpose a negative. You will, theoretically, protect your highlights, but at a huge cost to lost detail in the deeper shadows. Negatives like a bit overexposure if you don't need all the highlight headroom. - Exposure determines the shadows, development determines the highlights. So, underexposing and push processing increases contrast. And, overexposing and pull processing decreases contrast. - Negatives have plenty of highlight headroom, in general, so some overexposure is arguably ideal. This is from 2011:

I never heard that from any serious person. However, what was true of the Alexa, and not true of Red's DSMC1, was that you could get a nice image without doing anything to it, thanks to its internal circuitry and ProRes file format. You didn't need to Debayer or anything like that. This is so important to commercial DPs, for example. One commercial DP made the point that "gear **(obscenity removed)** matters", and he was right. I recall one DP, forgot his name, who initially rejected the Alexa. But, when he put the right lenses on it, he was very confident in the image. This was from a video on the BSC channel. Lenses are important, too. ? Bonus anecdote: one commercial DP, many years ago, used the Red One. And he found that putting a cheap pieces of plastic over the lens made the image much nicer (to his eyes). YMMV.

I mean this with respect, but everything you wrote is incorrect. Don't worry though, because a lot of people actually believe that longer focal lengths offer a more flattering perspective than shorter ones. That is in fact not true. Focal length does not compress or stretch perspective. Only distance does that. It's a hard fact about optics and geometry. Bigger sensors bring bigger problems: higher price tags, bigger lenses, longer sensor read-out times, insufficient DOF, possibly more power consumption, and bigger cameras. So, if those are the side effects, the main effects have to outweigh them. And the main effects should be resolution, DR, and sensitivity. There are certain kinds of lenses called front-telecentric lenses. This means that they take all incoming light in parallel, rather than an angle. So all apparent distance between objects disappears. They are used for industrial applications. They have limitations, though, so there is no free lunch. I have never used one or seen one, but I am told that they exist.

Were both lenses used with a Speedbooster?

Dear God, why? I respect the skill, but the camera is pointless. It has been done before, however: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44038394

That sounds terrific. I wonder if 8-perf 65mm is better suited to IMAX these days? It's just a thought. Film stocks are better now, and 8-perf might make for a more compact camera. Anyway, it seems that IMAX needs modern optics. The current selection of lenses isn't quite up to modern standards. What are your thoughts about that?

I think that perhaps you don't need as much exposure at night as you think you do. At least, if we limit ourselves to urban environments. Firstly, it's not like you're taking a reflected reading off the road surface. Secondly, all those small light sources will provide local illumination. Not to mention lights in buildings. I am sure that Jan De Bont was interviewed on Indie Film Hustle and he talked about Die Hard. In one scene, he slightly under cranked the camera and maybe increased the shutter angle (not sure about that one). I cannot find that interview now. In any case, that kind of technique isn't necessary.

Yes.

To me this looks like a mistimed advance mechanism, where the film would be advanced to the next frame before the shutter closed. Just a guess. I'm not really knowledgable about movie cameras.

It's worth mentioning that if you use only one stock, you might have less film left over afterwards. So it might be a little cheaper and less complicated. And more efficient.

All I can say about this is that I am not buying Adobe stock. AI generated imagery is like free stock photos - high quality, and comprehensive enough. I have been working on ways to authenticate camera files, particularly for the media and their customers. That to me is far more important. AI, or any art form, by definition, cannot replace a camera for documentary work. If you want to document the world you need a camera (or some kind of scanner). The key is to make it easy to authenticate those images or outputs. Shooting RAW files helps, but it's not the be-all and end-all, and it's not always the practical solution.

This might be of interest? It's been posted before on this forum, so many are aware of it.

I don't think that Greig Fraser was being too literal. Perhaps he chose the wrong word? Either way, if getting the look he wanted entailed digital origination, and printing to film, then so be it. Edit: The reason I don't shoot film anymore: "too expensive"!

Perhaps I can't answer your question directly But here's how I look at it: ever since the Red Dragon sensor, digital cameras have more DR than film does. Modern cameras like the Alexa 35 and the V-Raptor, separated by perhaps a half a stop, are better again. That includes the Venice II, which is perhaps only a stop behind the other two. There are publicly available tests out there, but I don't know exactly where to find them. Even the old Alexa came pretty close to 5219. This test by Zacuto is at least ten years old, IIRC: Notice how both the Kodak stocks are arguably over-rated, even though their DR here is more than any of the digital cameras. But that's a whole other subject matter. In any case, with modern tools like scopes and goalposts and false colour, I'm not sure it's as big a deal as it once was. Just IMHO. It's also worth mentioning that people are still using the HD BMPCC.

I think it's a great idea, partly due to the technical challenge. You could consider going 16mm, perhaps? Just a thought. Anyway, the advice given to you so far is spot-on so I can't add much. I do want to warn you of potential issues that you will face. Firstly, if you are doing a continuous take, how are you going to do a tripod shot? Secondly, I recommend a gimbal. Nobody likes to watch shaky hand-held footage. The curse of the Internet Super 8 shooter is a shaky camera in addition to very quick pans due to the panic induced by the film running through the gate. The shooter knows that he has a limited time, and so rushes every shot, and doesn't know what do focus on for more than two seconds. IMHO the most important thing about this project is how well you plan it. So, good luck, and I look forward to seeing the result. ?

I like thinking about these things, too. I am always learning and I really love the process. But, ever since the Red Dragon sensor was released, digital beat out film in DR and colour information. V-Raptor, Venice II, and the Alexa 35 are even better. The problem is that most DPs (no offence!) don't always expose digital in the best way. They are more concerned with pixel hygiene than a film-like image. Same with photographers, BTW. They are obsessed with noise to the point that their images look terrible due to the excessive NR they apply. You can't cheat on detail, folks. There is also the concept of fill area, which few people talk about. Fill area is the amount of surface area that the photosite takes in its allotted space. If your sensor is 4K, but has a very small fill area, then forget about capturing 4K worth of detail. Film does look better, but not by a lot compared to modern digital cameras. And productions which are shot on film are much more interesting to read about. Film is a much more interesting medium. But it costs too much, and photographers are never going to get good scans, no matter how much they talk up their labs. At least cine labs give you proper file formats, like DPX. If nothing changes, particularly in terms of cost, film will absolutely go extinct. Don't like it? I don't like it either. But that is what is called reality.

I just call it VistaVision for cinema, and 36mm (or the Leica format) for photography.

That's quite impressive. I like your work ethic.

Perhaps, Jon, the less informed people should go and tell ARRI and Red that their S35 cameras are just not good enough for the big screen. And wait until they see how small the OG BMPCC sensor is - they'd have a fit!

Okay. But, Vision3 stocks have like 15 layers.

One thing that I keep wondering about is a b&w stock with 3 or 4 or even more layers instead of just 2. If you have enough layers, in principle, you could possibly achieve 18-20 stops. What do you think?