Karim D. Ghantous

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?

As a potential documentary film director, I slightly disagree. I do want 35mm stocks to get cleaner, because I truly believe in huge screens. I would like, one day, to be able to shoot an IMAX documentary on 4-perf S35. If you want a slightly grittier image, dupe your neg a couple of times. Will it happen? Probably not. But that's the aim. If not that, then 8-perf 65mm is the way to go. 15-perf can retire. I also love the Red cameras, and I think they substantially are a film replacement, not taking into account nuances etc. But, this is all just hot air at this point. You are right, I truly believe, about having higher speeds, while keeping granularity the same.

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