Karim D. Ghantous

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.

That's correct, but my point was that if we can draw some equivalents, and use some half-decent logic, we can work our way back. E.g. if A is like B, and C is like D, and we know the differences between A and D, we can sort of figure out the relationship between B and C. Anyway, it's not going to be that simple, because we apparently have very little information about this. Ultra Max 400 and Vision3 500T have the same number of layers, more or less. From Making Kodak Film by Robert Shanebrook: Log curves might yield a clue, if we have them for any given stock: https://www.filmshooterscollective.com/analog-film-photography-blog/a-practical-guide-to-using-film-characteristic-curves-12-25

That is so cool. I wonder if digital cameras can get there one day? Perhaps sensor size will be the limiting factor. It wasn't that long ago that video cameras were limited to 30fps or less. Even very expensive ones. But some 8mm cameras from the 1930s could reach 64fps.

We could estimate that by finding out how many layers those films had. Vision3 has three layers of each colour. Modern b&w film has two layers (I can't see why they can't have at least three?). Cheap 135 film like Kodak Color Plus maybe has two layers. I might have that info in a book somewhere.

Even back before digital cameras and cheap post production, some DPs would use partial strength filters. They would then increase the strength in post. But, if for some reason they changed their minds, they could reverse the filtration if necessary. It was more for insurance than anything. It's much easier to use a filter IMHO. You can then view your dailies without having to pass them to a colorist. A bit of effort on set can save a lot of time in post.

How the hell can a colorist call themselves a cinematographer? Unless of course they do both, as is the case with many people.

You have a point here. My question is more hypothetical. Remember, too, that long exposures don't eliminate shot noise (as far as I understand the concept).

I might go so far as to say that even Seinfeld looks better than a lot of modern movies or shows. Yes, it's not a cinematic masterpiece, but you can't beat 35mm - at least, you couldn't back then. I've been seeing clips of the show in HD (I don't have the Blu-Ray version yet) and it's amazing how much I like it, given how simply it was lit and shot. Thank God it wasn't shot on video. Thank God. And Sex & The City also looks terrific, while we're at it.

Yes, but if you didn't have the option of using different light intensities, I wonder if multi-sampling could be a decent substitute.

Perhaps a substitute for HDR scanning is multi-sampling? Just a thought. It would take longer though.

That was very nicely done, Tyler. How come Dave didn't get a credit? LOL Anyway, the image was very nice. Raw, but not unrefined.