Jump to content

Karim D. Ghantous

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    567

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Karim D. Ghantous

  1. Karim D. Ghantous
    Baltasar, that looks very cool. IMHO, if you try to do these things in post, you will spend too much time agonising about fine tuning. When you do it with filters, you have no choice but to accept what you shot.
  2. Karim D. Ghantous
    I am not a film professional, so I don't know anything. But is this of any help? https://beverlyboy.com/tv-commercial-production/how-much-does-it-cost-to-produce-a-commercial/ If you can do something for a price that's cheaper than you think it should be, then go with it. It might be tempting to inflate it, but just be careful of competition.
  3. Karim D. Ghantous
    True, but I think there is something else: a lot of productions scan the negative. Which is great because it's the cleanest, purest version of the image. But, that's not the same thing as making a print, then scanning that. Prints don't really degrade the image as much as people think. But a print does add an extra dash of 'film-ness.' Bingo. I do wish that they would stop doing that. Let the film breathe and let it speak. People over-grade an image simply because they can. It's pathetic.
  4. Karim D. Ghantous
    To repurpose the Castrol slogan, scanners ain't scanners.
  5. Karim D. Ghantous
    I agree. 4-perf 35mm is about 4K worth of detail unless your lenses are super sharp and you're using slow film stock. But it isn't about detail. It's about making a digital version of the negative that's as close as possible to the original.
  6. Karim D. Ghantous
    Not bad for four stops given that it's Ektachrome.
  7. Karim D. Ghantous
    They should have just made it black & white.
  8. Karim D. Ghantous
    Lots of projects are over-graded and they look terrible. See the new Indiana Jones film. I don't know what the term is, but there is certainly a cinematographic equivalent of the Lord Privy Seal.
  9. Karim D. Ghantous
    Uli that looks super interesting. I should give it a try, I think. Thank you.
  10. Karim D. Ghantous
    Those scans are less grainy than a lot of 8-perf scans from photo labs. Imagine how good 35mm, delegated as a miniature format in photography, could be with proper scanning.
  11. Karim D. Ghantous
    I agree. But we cannot put the cat back into the bag. Photography is slightly more boring now precisely because everything is so easy and so cheap. People say that cameras don't take photos, but that's bullshit, because they do a lot of the work for us now. That's just the way it is.
  12. Karim D. Ghantous
    No. Too expensive, too cumbersome. My go-to would be the Red 8K cameras for modern IMAX. And I mean full screen IMAX. Edit: You're right about needing more screens, too.
  13. Karim D. Ghantous
    IMHO, IMAX is the future. You don't need CGI, you don't need stars. You do need good cameras, but they are not exorbitant. You need good writing and good locations, too. And you can't get an IMAX-like experience in a typical home. I envision that IMAX features will be cheap to make, relatively speaking, and thus they will more easily turn a profit, even without a huge audience.
  14. Karim D. Ghantous
    I tried this a few years ago. Ideally, the phone should be used like a tracking shot, not a pan. I just tried it for a proof of concept. I did not examine the scene too carefully. It would work great if you just wanted to photograph a mural.
  15. 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.
  16. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  17. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  18. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  19. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  20. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  21. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  22. Karim D. Ghantous
    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!".
  23. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  24. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
  25. Karim D. Ghantous
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...