Karim D. Ghantous

Please do!

Those aren't the same thing. The Varicon is placed in front of the lens. It has its uses, and I understand those quite well. But it's not the same thing at all.

Some years ago I came across an old technique called 'concurrent photon amplification'. It was, I think, only used in photographic cameras, such as a Leica M4. There was one such camera on eBay a few years ago. Recently I got to thinking about it again. I was reminded of it because of recent news that Kodak ditched their plans to make a 1000T stock. This 1000T stock was apparently no better than 500T pushed. So, I thought: wait a minute, maybe CPA can do a better job here. This thesis is worth a glance. Sadly, I do not understand the equations, although this isn't expected of photographers. So, subjectively, according to the conclusion, 5219 (500T) stock could have the sensitivity value of up to ASA 32,000. (Whereas a 400 speed photo film, such as HP5+, could be rated at up to 25,600). This sounds too good to be true. However, I will point out two things: firstly, I have not tested CPA; and secondly, the fact that digital cameras can function at ISO 32,000 is also "too good to be true." Also worth exploring are potentially different effects on both colour and b&w stocks. At worst, and in theory, 5219 gains one stop without pushing, and without any penalty. And 5203 (50D) can now be rated at ASA 100, which is no bad thing.

I thought that Prometheus looked really good. That was shot with Red EPIC stereo rigs. So, it's having a sense of taste and allowing light to speak for itself. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

The two Spielberg films you mention are great. But his best films are fiction. I have no interest in Civil War movies - just watch a documentary, you know? Arguably, Shakespeare's greatest plays are Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet. More or less fiction. That film wasn't great. It's a good setting for a fictional story, though. He was a genius. There is no way around that. And the trailer just showed the typical affectations that instantly put me off. Underexposure, awful colour, and who knows what else.

I have no interest in seeing it for two reasons. One, I find that dramatising history is redundant. I already know some of the history of the French Revolution, anyway. Two, the trailer put me off.

If you like the surreal feeling of the imagery, sure, it's the obvious choice. And if you are a printer of Christmas cards, you're already there.

IMHO, this camera is intended to catalyse the Super 8 market segment. As a side-effect, perhaps used cameras will move more quickly and at higher prices.

Tyler, that sounds cool (the bit about the James Bond films). I asked Kodak to make a multi-layer b&w film, which could have a DR of over 20 stops, but who knows if they listened?

I thought that Doug Slocombe shot Raiders.

There is a small difference in DR between 5219 and 5213 (both are tungsten balanced). This test was done in 2011. You could argue that 5213 is overrated by a stop. You could argue that both stocks are overrated, and by more than just a stop. But that depends on what you want. I have never used them. I'm just putting it out there.

I actually think your night footage will be easier. After all, if it isn't lit, then you don't have to film it! You could begin the video with a crossfade from day to night. And night lighting is arguably easier, because you don't have to try to hide your lights, especially if you are shooting a documentary. Maybe some charming lanterns or candles would be nice? Lots of choices there. Hopefully someone more experienced will give their opinion on that. As for the video above: I think you did a pretty good job. The lighting was arguably 'flat' but it didn't distract at all. Nothing looked muddy or anaemic. Lack of obvious detail in the singer's hair (e.g. at 0:43) is just a side-effect of not having lights exactly where you want them. Given that you don't really need perfect footage for your intended purposes, I think you don't have much to worry about. I thought that the angle from the opposite side of the Church, for the wide shot, was slightly awkward. I'd have preferred it centred, just like Kubrick would have done. (Heheheh). Also, I noticed that you had no close-up of the violin player. Hopefully my opinions are of some use.

If lighting isn't too critical, consider putting diffusers over existing lights in the venue. That's the easiest option. You could also try soft lighting from the front, hard lighting from the back (don't put too much power through the back lights - just use as much as you need for it to look right). Lights should be as far away as possible. Try and keep the lights the same so your WB is easier. Also, add a couple of hundred degrees of warmth above the WB reading. Spot meter off caucasian skin, and add a stop, and your exposure is pretty much done. Make sure that lighting is as even as possible, so that the people in the corners are getting the same light as the people in the middle. I'm not a lighting expert, but I can make do with almost anything. Keep it fun and you'll do okay. Don't think of it like an English Literature exam. ?

I personally am not convinced of the authenticity of these images. Maybe they're authentic, maybe they aren't. I am guessing that they aren't, but that is going by feel.

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.