Karim D. Ghantous

Yes, as long as the DP and/or director are the boss, and the colorist does what they tell him to do. Teal, orange and dirty green are not appealing. Cameras can record a billion colours, and the colorist gives you a choice of three. It's getting stupid.

Light field cameras, which will allow the correction of focusing errors. This might even allow stereo photography without the need for dual lenses. Lenses with integrated sensors, to eliminate any doubt about alignment and back focus. The sensor could even be a moving part of the focusing mechanism. Just thinking aloud.

You are not completely wrong. However, some reversal stocks are actually over-rated by 1/3 of a stop. E.g. Velvia 50 is really ISO 40. Or, can be treated as such. And 1/3 over is actually not a bad thing to do. Even with iPhone JPEGs you can do that, and the result is surprisingly good. At worst, overexposing E100 a bit will cost some highlight detail, but it will roll off nicely anyway.

I'm surprised you think that. I'm also surprised that anyone likes pushed E100! But hey you'll never get a 100% consensus on anything.

I had a look at a couple of those videos. E100 can handle a 2 stop push, but the image usually ends up looking heavy and muddy. Shadows are non-existent. Graininess doesn't seem to be affected too much. But still, it's a 100 ISO slide film, and it looks best at that speed.

The only thing I might add to Robert's comment is that your light should be as high up as possible. Vision3 can handle at least 5 stops of overexposure.

That is **(obscenity removed)** weird. It seems to happen to defocused parts of the frame only. It looks like diffraction except it isn't. I don't have any idea.

If you have the word 'dead' in your hashtag, you are skating on thin ice. Always go for the positive, never the negative. Mother Teresa would never go to an anti-war rally, but she would go to a pro-peace rally. I remember seeing a clip from an old Frankenstein movie. Dr. Frankenstein didn't say, "It's no longer dead!" He said, "It's alive - It's alive!".

The grain is the image, so you want that resolved as well as you can afford. If you can afford 8K scans for your 16mm footage, do it. I don't want gate weave in film footage, and I don't want it in digital footage either. And if your camera is always moving, like how Spielberg directs, it's not noticeable either way.

I prefer high resolution digital to low resolution digital. What I don't like, and what I never do, is sharpen images. That's an NPC move. I recommend against it. Of course, 16mm looks great, as does 65mm. Both are close to extremes, but I like them both for different reasons. But for digital, there is a threashold below which I will not go, either for stills or motion. The Leica M8, released in 2006, has a 10Mpx sensor. It's naturally sharp due to the lack of a low pass filter. So for me that is the absolute lowest I would go. I now shoot with Olympus cameras which have 16Mpx and 20Mpx sensors.

Who on Earth would get an H.265 scan? You're saving less than 10% on 16mm scanning for a crappy codec. Scanning is only done once, so get it right the first time. I am disappointed that they even offer H.265.

I don't want to presume too much, but I am betting that you underexposed it. Expired film needs more exposure.

Not all! "Another major advantage the Alpha 1 has over the EOS R5 is unlimited recording times, way beyond half an hour... here's my Alpha 1 happily recording a single 8K clip lasting over an hour and 20 minutes."

Sony's A1, which shoots 8K video (not RAW though), has IBIS.

I'll be watching this thread. The closest I have seen otherwise are the BSC and Cooke channels. I'd like to see more featurettes in the extras section of BluRay discs that focus on cinematography.

It's worth making the point that IBIS is absolutely useful for photography. Especially when it's used in conjunction with OIS. For video, well... actually not as much. How does the camera know that you're going to start panning before you start panning? Maybe some manual override buttons on the handgrip might be useful. Just as a reference, this is a perfect example of how useful it is for still images (and maybe for static video shots, too): (10:13)

15 seconds is simply a stills camera with a really fast motor drive. That's not a cinema camera IMHO. Even Super 8 at 24fps gives you over two minutes!

The camera goes back to the 1920s, but someone has built a modernised version with these specs: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfzK1EDK0y0/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

That is so true. It sounds superficial, but it's still true.

Nope. It looks like he's outside. So that could help narrow down which scenes to look out for.

Some digital cameras do have very nice noise patterns. Some definitely do not!

I wouldn't either. The Fujis do have film emulation, too, and apparently they do it well. I personally don't like the fake film look which is sadly prominent in photography, but there are some genuinely nice LUTs which are not exaggerated and which add a little bit of spice to the image.

From my observations I can concur with this. BM is definitely underrated in some ways, though. YMMV.

From what little I know, this is what you have to do: measure the distance to the live action subject. Say, it's 6'. And the vertical FOV, for arguments' sake, is exactly head-to-toe. So, how do you imitate that with a miniature? Well, you use the scale of the miniature. So, if the live action actor is 6' tall, and you are 6' away from him, and if the miniature is 6" tall, then you put the camera 6" away from it. Then match the FOV. That is all I know and even here I might be wrong, because I've never done it. But, you should be able to test this via experiment.

From what I understand, prints have less DR than negatives due to the increase in contrast. I think? But, was this 4K scan done from the negative? If so, let's keep in mind that EXR was years away. EXR I think was an innovative stock which greatly expanded DR. Black & white film had more DR than any colour stock for a long time, AFAIK.