Karim D. Ghantous

Well, this is possibly an actual stupid question: can you not order a different stock, like 7207 or 7219? If you can't, then would you consider shooting 2-perf 35mm and cropping?

One reason I can think of is the appearance of virtue. Story matters more than hardware, so testing hardware must be, apparently, a sign that you are just a camera nerd, not a storyteller. You see some people on photography sites tell you to "just go out and shoot," oblivious to the fact that they needed to log on to write that. There is also the somewhat less obnoxious reason: rock 'n roll, man! Don't be square, dude!

So they made lenses, or modified them? It's odd that they are closing down, seeing as Netflix etc. are producing a lot of new original shows. And with new shows come the need for more hardware.

The only reference I found is this: https://www.ftiientranceexam.com/my-experience-of-working-with-ashok-mehta/ I have no idea what they're talking about really. I'm curious too!

I'm just a bystander, but it might be worth having as many practicals as you can get away with. A console mounted LCD, mobile phones constantly being used by passengers, finding excuses to use vanity lights, one of the passengers is a smoker, etc, etc. You could mount a tablet with a white screen on a window that's not visible in the shot, I suppose. Just to give a little bit of low key ambience, to fill in the shadows just a touch. This kind of challenge sounds like a lot of fun to me! Do please let us know what solutions you end up with.

Don't worry about it. Have you been inside a supermarket? Nobody keeps 6' apart except by accident. Get a mask exemption if you can. As for getting jabbed, that's a tough one. I have no intention of getting it. However, if you do need it, Novavax is out now. Lots of people were waiting for it, particularly medical workers, but some had no choice but to take the clot shot instead. Don't be too sure about that. And mRNA isn't a vaccine.

Churchill had a saying: keep buggering on. There's nothing that can substitute for willpower at certain times. A couple of times in my life I thought about giving up photography for good. Those sentiments passed, and I'm glad I kept a level head. Powerful stuff.

Daniel, thank you for your generous remarks, your suggestions and your experiences. You are not wrong about shooting the TV. It does test your sense of timing, if not composition. These days I shoot birds and tiny bugs to keep myself busy. It's quite fun, and I recommend it to anyone who wants something different to do in between jobs. You also have a point about people who want something from you. But, that is not a problem for me, personally. People who don't know how to give are going to find themselves having a harder time getting anything done. There is also the problem of people not sticking to their word. That's going to pinch them in the end. I did advertise on RedUser as well. There are some people I know who might have some leads - we will see! As for sharp images, I'm always open to critique of any kind, but all the files at full resolution are pretty sharp. Unless there are a few I can't think of that are in fact a touch soft. I never sharpen images as there is no utility in doing so (not to mention the fact that it exaggerates noise). A decent lens and accurate focus are all one needs, whether for film or for digital.

If you have a low, very low or zero budget production and you need a stills photographer then I'd like to volunteer (assuming it's legal to do so). I live in the Melbourne Metro but I don't mind moving around within reason. I will be self sufficient and will not be claiming any expenses. 2022 is a completely open year, just like the few that came before, and I'd like to do something productive with all my free time. The only condition is that the shoot doesn't go on forever. Otherwise, your production has permanent, non-exclusive rights to the photos, and I get to add to my portfolio. If need be, I don't mind occasionally doing other stuff on set. Up to now I've done a lot of theatre but no film/TV, and I'd love to try it. FWIW I don't use blimps, but my cameras have electronic shutters. My portfolios are here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kdghantous/albums/with/72157666324345424 https://www.instagram.com/kdghantous/ Thanks for your consideration!

Margaret, those look terrific. I am so disappointed that this quality of scanning is not usually available to photographers.

That could work for sure. It's about comparing like with like, so format isn't that important.

In the real world, regardless of specifications, photographic scanning is terrible. The labs don't give you anything like a DPX file, and they use scanners which do not seem to show the film's best qualities. Every time I see a scanned frame of 8mm or 16mm, I'm amazed. They are better than 135 files from scanners like Noritsus or Pakons. So I wonder, is anyone willing to try an experiment? Here's the basic deal: get a good camera. Put a really good lens on it. E.g. Nikon F5 with a Zeiss Otus 55mm. Shoot a variety of 35mm emulsions in a variety of lighting conditions. Scan them all on both a photo scanner and a cine scanner. Compare and contrast the results. Maybe this is all moot, because no photo lab that I know of is going to use a cine grade scanner. But, if someone wants to perform this experiment, I'll help fund it if we get at least one or two others to help. It shouldn't cost that much. Maybe it might inspire someone to start a photo lab that scans film properly for once.

That looks somewhat better overall. The shadow areas look better in particular. I'd love to see a comparison between a Noritsu and a Northlight or Spirit. I've seen a lot of Pakon scans of 5222 and they are too grainy. But sharp grain, yeah, different story. Maybe I'll try another lab with Portra or Ektachrome and see how I go. This experiment just happened to be a dud. Live and learn. Maybe part of my problem is that I've seen so much really nice S16 scans that I have miscalibrated expectations. BTW I want to state for the record that sharpening is an amateur move. Never done it, never will.

https://www.b2scan.net/ I'm amazed that movie film only lasts 6 months.

Recently, I shot a roll of 5207 repackaged into a 35mm cassette. There is a lab in Brunswick (a suburb in the Melbourne Metro) that sells and develops VISION3 film for photographers. (Remjet intact). It was worth a try, but so far I'm disappointed. I asked for 24Mpx TIFF scans and they just look too grainy to me. The film can't be this grainy so it has to be the Noritsu scanner, I'm sure. Or their development process? See the attached 400px 1:1 crop of a section of blue sky. If anyone can do the same from a frame of 5207 that you have shot, please post it below. I'd like to compare. I am certain that my camera, a Canon P rangefinder, works fine. I shot most of the frames at 1/500 sec, and all of them were at f/8, and there is no evidence that the camera has underexposed the film. I metered for ISO 200, FWIW. I used an iPhone app to do that and pointed it straight up at the sky, which is how I usually meter if I am not using a camera with live view. BTW I decided to not have the negatives returned as I'm just in a testing process right now. It's just more money and the cost of 35mm is approaching AU$2 per frame, in total. I'm not against the cost per se, but I expect better image quality than this. I've seen beautiful 16mm frames from pushed 7219 so something is not right. Also, TIFF is probably not as good as DPX.

Have a look at this, for example. Argenti Nanotomic-X: https://casualphotophile.com/2022/01/31/argenti-nanotomic-x-bw-film-review/ The problem is that it has a polyester base, which I believe is a no-no for motion picture cameras. But that aside, would you shoot it?

Looks great to me. I don't have a 4K monitor but in HD it looks damned good. And this is just 4-perf, too. It goes to show what a PROPER scanner can do.

Well, it seems that I can make sense of subtle clues after all. ? I'd like to know what was the main idea that inspired the script? That was... cropped S16?? Oh my. I thought it was 35 although now that I look closely at some shots it's obviously S16. FWIW, I like extremes. In theory I'd choose either 65mm or 16mm over 35mm. Tell your DP I really liked his work.

Daniel, that was very useful, thank you - although I have questions. I assume that drum scanners top out at 11k? That doesn't look good for sheet film. But if Super 16 is 2K, which is measurable, I'm not sure how 5" wide film can be merely 11K or less. Perhaps the lens is the weak point? If so, that would mean that a 4x5" sensor would be useless if its resolution was much more than 60Mpx. But the sensitivity would be off the charts, so... maybe not useless after all?

I just watched that. It was very nice, although as you can probably guess I do not speak Finnish. Although I probably picked up on a name here and there. So, not knowing the language, I tried to figure out the story. I couldn't, as it was very dialogue heavy and there weren't many non-verbal hints as to what was going on. However, I came up with some interpretations: 1. The protagonist (the young woman) wants to go overseas but her mother's illness prevents it. 2. She wants to get married, but her mother's illness shows her that it isn't all skittles and roses. 3. She doesn't want to get married, but her mother doesn't want her to take the lazy way out of life. As usual, film handles light sources supremely well. I found that there was obvious gate weave, perhaps more than a high end camera? I don't know. But the camera work mostly made that unnoticeable. The DP did a terrific job, too. Was this shot on 2-perf 5207? Zeiss Super Speeds? I imagine that production design took up a lot of time and effort. BTW is the woman who played the protagonist related to Zoë Wanamaker? She looks related, anyway. A little bit. That is a very, very good idea. Of course we all like the idea of coverage - especially if your name is Stanley Kubrick. But at the end of the day, you have to get the damned thing made. Film production is anything but a spontaneous business.

Daniel, thanks for taking the effort to upload those files. I do have one minor quibble though. You claim that film is low res. 8-perf 35mm, well exposed, has 6K worth of information. It's not the cleanest 6K you'll ever see, of course, but it is capable of that. Basically, film has 2K worth of information per 12mm, although in very special cases it can be a lot more. A frame of Super 16 is about 12mm wide, thus it technically is a 2K medium, so to speak. Those flatbeds are fairly poor at what they do.

Vanilla isn't boring. It's absolutely delicious. But, yeah, a lot of DPs today are thinking either, "Damn, I wanted to do this but I wasn't allowed," or "I'm going to do this next time." Even armchair DPs like me were thinking why this hasn't been done much. I have no interest in the objections or limitations - I know them already.

Wow. I didn't know that a TV show could be so bold. Usually they'd play it safe with 500T negative or digital. I just went and looked at the trailer for season 2. It's not a show for me but damn it's beautifully shot. E100D seems to be bit grainier than VISION3 but hey whatever. It might have been pushed?

15-perf 65mm resolves more than 6K. I know that because 8-perf 35mm is already about 6K (if 4-perf is 4K). That depends on the lens, though. And let me be clear that I would never use 15-perf 65mm for movies. At that point, film doesn't make much sense to me.

That's an easy one to get around: one of the guys just has to identify as a gender fluid female between the hours of 9am and 5pm. ?