Karim D. Ghantous

IMHO you need to be more assertive, or appeal to something not so obvious. Your aim as an advertiser is not to be nice, it's to win the market. E.g. "Film is alive". Or "Kodak Film. Feel It." Or, you appeal to the greatness of history "For over 125 years, the world's greatest movies were shot on film. Here's to 125 more. Kodak film. Feel it." You get the idea. I'm sure someone has something better (I actually do have one slogan I'm not divulging, as I love it so much). Of course, one day we might see an ad with a headline that says simply, "20 Stops." Whether that's for a film product or a digital one is currently unknown. Kodak could give us a black and white emulsion with 20+ stops if they wanted, without doing too much R&D. In principle.

I agree with this in general. Something to think about: back in the 1980s, some sports photographers were shooting Fuji 400 negative film at EI -3, or 3200. The results were very useable. These days, maybe 3-perf 35mm could be 'usable' at those levels.

It could be Portra 160. It's a very clean image. I have an HD monitor, but no 4K, so I'm going off that.

AFAIK, ARRI did develop a successor to the 435, which could film at 240fps. They never released it though.

Sony could make a film-digital hybrid camera using SLT tech. Film in the back, sensor above the mirror.

The closest thing I have heard about is Red's Motion Mount. I'm sure there are similar products. For cinema cameras, I'd prefer an EVF to an OVF. That way, you could have a fixed pellicle mirror that transmits 1/10 of the light upwards towards the sensor.

Same! Of course you'd need a few million, so let's say $8M to allow for cost over-runs. Motors have gotten very silent over the years. I was very impressed when Leica released a dead-quiet focal plane shutter that was introduced in the M10-P.

And it wasn't obvious or literal. There was no excessive or literal grading. It was the medium, allowed to be itself.

I have no serious advice to give, alas. But, if you'll allow me, I'll think aloud. So, the modern Kodak stocks are really really good, but they don't give the same, super rich look as some of the older stocks can give. Two of my favourite films in terms of image quality are Blade Runner (5247) and Eyes Wide Shut (5298). I wonder what it would look like to print 5219 onto 5203? So instead of printing to 2383, print to a camera negative. You will maybe get too much contrast, so the 5203 to which you are printing can be 'overexposed' by a stop, then pulled. I have no idea how this will look. Or, print 5219 onto Ektachrome for an IN, then to 2383. Or any irregular combination. Maybe print to Gold 200?

I presume you watch film analysis videos, like on this channel? https://www.youtube.com/@collativelearning/videos

I still want to see it, though. It's amazing that it took this long to finally make.

Good to see some 16mm representation! I just love that format.

Good catch.

That gave me some pretty strong acrophobia! LOL

It looks good to me! The less post work you need, the better, I think.

Purely hypothetical. But, I am confident that I am at least 50% correct!

Vision3 is indeed a terrific b&w stock! But its latitude is 15 stops at best, whereas a multi-layer b&w stock could give you 20+ stops.

I would like to see Kodak release a b&w film with several layers, which would give a huge amount of latitude - more than any digital sensor today. Who knows if they will even bother thinking about it.

Sharpening is for dilettantes*. Change my mind. *Astrophotography has different needs, and is almost the opposite of standard photography.

That's good enough for TV, if I may be so bold. Too bad that film is getting too expensive, and too bad that photographers don't have cinema scanners available to them. Photo scanners are really not that great, save for maybe drum scanners or Flextights, but those aren't fast.

I found a couple of useful links about 5219. https://www.35mmc.com/27/09/2023/5-frames-of-kodak-vision3-500t-pushed-to-1600-at- home/https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/vision-3-500t-pushed-one-or-two-stops.202264/ This video has been posted here a lot, and it's worth examining:

I am not sure why any movie needs to cost this much. Because of course!

I'm not surprised. Ektachrome 100 is very expensive.

The way things are going? I don't see it happening. Even Hollywood has forgotten how to make movies, for the most part. Australia has some of the great modern storytellers, so perhaps adapting their work is a starting point. Even then, it's the 'how', not just the 'what'. In a world where everything is 'easy', like power windows, and GPS, and fast computers, etc, people tend to get soft, and their philosophical vision degrades. That's why the Star Wars prequels were merely okay. Lucas was very spoiled by that time.

FWIW, I think that digital imaging works fine for photography (but you still have occasional things you need to watch for). For movies though? It's not that I'm against it, or that I don't like it (even old Red cameras are quite film-like, IMHO). But it's not so easy to just change over to digital, as if you are just changing a t-shirt. I've seen some commercials with a decent LUT applied, which look better than some movies! (WTF is with these stupid "looks" anyway??). Back in 2017 I thought I'd give Sex and the City a try. Yes, it's actually a great show. But it looked terrific because it was shot on 16mm. Not just terrific, but authentic. So, I guess it depends on what that is worth to you. Is it worth the premium? You tell me.