Karim D. Ghantous

That looks terrific. The problem I think is that most people are shooting compressed video files. Also, people are exposing RAW files 'correctly'. Both of those factors would make you think that digital is deficient. Well, when you step back and look at the big picture, digital is not at all as deficient as one would think. There is also the question of modern sensors. They are the final piece of the puzzle. Before the Nikon D3, negative film was way, way better at higher ISO ratings. For medium format digital, the light source problem was solved years ago if the photographer wanted to exploit that. Smaller formats are now getting there. I hate to say it David, but I think film is finally retired.

There's digital, and then there's digital. Digital as in 4:2:2 MP4 is not the same thing as Red RAW or ProRes or ProRes RAW. The reason why so much digital footage taken at night looks terrible is not because it's digital - it's because it wasn't shot in RAW. But, RAW is step one. Step two is to underexpose by several stops. Have a look at this photo taken on a Leica M11. There are many examples like this. The photographer underexposed by five stops, then brought the exposure up later. You don't need to go as far as five stops. But look at how the colour in the light sources is completely preserved. You do have to bring down highlights, which the photograph hasn't done here. But, nonetheless, the light source problem is solved. It should have been obvious, because modern sensors are insanely good. Digital RAW gives nothing away to film. But you have to underexpose. However, I am working on a possible solution for those who can't or don't shoot RAW. It won't be perfect but I think it can work.

Shame about the perforations. And the Kodak stock is definitely the better product in every way. If film does have a future - and I hope that it does - then I hope that Orwo can be the new Fuji or Agfa.

I went and saw it here in Victoria back in 2005 or so. I'd go again, one day, even if I have to travel out of town. It's 100% worth just indulging in it all. I still have my notes that I took that day.

I thought the same thing. I think that the reason why this looks better than a lot of modern films is because there is no DI. Or, perhaps more likely, the telecine is not taken from the camera negative. This 'raw' look (not to be confused with harshness) is evident in a lot of 1990s TV shows. Just look at any Seinfeld episode. It's all telecine, no DI. They recorded the print, not the camera original, IIRC. Looking at this presentation is pleasurable to the eye. It's also a shock to the system, as I really do prefer this unadulterated look to a lot of modern productions, film or digital. IMHO, staying with film, or going back to it, has suffered mission creep. We have forgotten why exactly we still use or prefer film. I think this reminds us as to what the original mission is. Edit: Interesting how the presentation claims that 320T gains nothing from overexposure. I would have assumed that graininess would have been reduced? It's hard to tell with a SD video.

I blame Big Color.

That alone does not mean much. You can have low contrast and a healthy exposure.

It's not underexposed, it's deep and rich. /sarc There are fashions in photography and there's nothing we can do about it. Remember how The Matrix inspired all the NPCs to put green into everything? Today we are suffering from that. Indiana Jones is all sepia, and The Joker has a lot of shots with a dirty green tinge. It's the Lord Privy Seal of cinematography.

IMHO only - forget DSLRs and look at mirrorless systems. The cameras that I personally would look at: GH5, GH5 II, GH5s, GH6, X-H2, E-M1 III. Those are not cheap cameras, but they are very, very good. They might come in at under £2000, but maybe not. I don't like the A7SIII - the image quality just doesn't cut it IMHO. And it's over your budget anyway. Some people still use the BlackMagic Pocket Camera. It's 1080 HD, but it has a very good reputation. The BM Pocket (so-called!) 4K is also a terrific choice. YMMV!

I'd like to see completed auction prices, personally. Like this: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/35-X-ROLLS-KODAK-PORTRA-800-35MM-FILM-Ref-05-/115730865212

I dare say they are virtually necessary!

The Phase One Trichromatic sensors were designed to prioritise colour. And although they are less sensitive, they make up for it with a cleaner noise pattern in the shadows. Some people are still using the BlackMagic Pocket HD. And the Red ONE. Etc. If you budget doesn't stretch very far, make it work harder!

Of course I do not know exactly what you want here, but I though I would think aloud a little bit. Have you considered using Ektachrome for this project? You do have to be spot-on with metering and it's only 100ASA. But, you did say you wanted contrast!

This may be of interest (or maybe not): https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

This is the kind of thing you want to find, in case you can't find what you actually want. This particular comparison was not done on the same day, though, so it's quite useless for your purposes. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4213836

My understanding of this: Sandgren did not want to rate 5203 at ASA12, so he compromised and rated it at ASA25 and pushed it the extra stop. So he did the same for 5207, 5213 and 5219 to keep the process consistent. He could have just pushed two stops, but that might not have given him what he wanted. I haven't seen the film yet, BTW.

You might find that some people will lend you their slides. Or, an alternative is to find someone who took the same scene on both digital and Kodachrome, as a comparison. Not exactly as good as a proper chart but it's maybe better than nothing.

I'm not sure if this will help, but you might try Flickr. You never know what you're going to find on there.

I actually have no idea. I'm very curious about this stuff, I have to say. I might start a thread asking if anyone has knowledge or expertise in that field. I remember how the narrative for a year or two was that S35 was going to be overtaken by VV. Sure, Jan!

I am predicting that Red will make a 65mm sensor. This sensor will probably be 12K+, and provide more DR than even the V-Raptor. It might have to be a CCD, if they want a global shutter. But I'm hardly an expert in sensor design. This sensor will be placed in a camera body that's larger than Red is used to making. But that should be fine for those who think that serious cameras should be as large and heavy as a 535. Heck, it might even be a 645 sensor. "That's not full frame... THAT'S full frame." What the heck, right? The Alexa 65 has pretty much no unique selling point anymore, and arguably never did, not even for IMAX. YMMV.

Can you tell by the GUI on the LCD? See above at 4:58.

Well worth mentioning. We sometimes forget safety issues.

I've heard of DPs using shower curtains. FWIW. But I don't think you'll find anything cheaper than $1.25!

I wonder why b&w films now only have two layers? If you had a b&w stock with three layers (or even four, as there is plenty of room) you'd have a film stock with more DR than the best digital cameras.

That's nuts.