Karim D. Ghantous

Because high resolution images can provide law enforcement useful data when it comes to solving cases. Recall the recent story about Gabby Petito. A couple, on their road trip, captured Gabby's van, parked by the side of the road, on their dash cam. That helped LE find Gabby's body more quickly than they otherwise would have. If the dash cam footage were of higher quality, it could have yielded perhaps more clues.

There is nothing wrong with that at all - in fact I think about cameras, lenses, lighting and stuff all the time. But I respectfully suggest that you read carefully what David wrote in response. Your understanding of optics and so on is not accurate. I'm not having a go, I'm just saying, keep learning, keep questioning.

I'm no lighting expert. And I haven't seen either film you mention. But I did a search for frames from Little Miss Sunshine (which isn't yet on film-grab.com). Seems to me the following are true: - Natural light when out of doors - Well lit interiors that still provide some kind of contrast - Everything, save for a car interior shot, was properly exposed or even slightly overexposed, but still disciplined - Nothing dark or moody as per The Batman - No affectations like pointless color grading - everything looks natural, mostly clean but not always - No apparent use of haze - Deep focus over shallow focus as much as possible, except for close-ups - The film seems to be never over-lit, and in some places you could argue it was under-lit

I just had a thought. The closest we have to this is cross-processed C-41. In fact, I'd like to try an experiment: shoot C41 with a colour chart, cross process in E6, then correct the colour. Could be interesting?

Right now, there are two choices: negative film with high DR and low contrast; and positive film with low DR and high contrast. Why is there not a third option: a positive film with low contrast, and DR just as high as with negative film? You might wonder what the point would be with such a stock. Well, I am not totally sure myself. But imagine having a positive stock, which does not need to have an orange mask, that would be much easier to scan. Transparency film is its own reference - at least in theory. The other bonus is that positive film is more human readable than negative film is.

I do, yes. I also remember how they wanted to bring back Kodachrome. Well, I appreciate the fact that they had those intentions. But hey, miracles can and do happen!

I joined RedUser because of the cameras, and I stayed because of the people.

I think a psychologist could explain it better. But, it's easier to quit than to create. It's easier to slide down a hill than to climb it. It's easier to make yourself into a victim than to fix your life. Etc.

Actually, for some it is just an exercise. Kind of like running a marathon. It's a pretty big challenge. Some are delusional, of course, but you can't help that. I've recently heard of two stories about film makers who are, or have been, in huge debt. Ironically, the one who had to sell his house was in less debt than the one who went to film school. The former pointed out that his exercise in futility was his "film school". I wish this on nobody, of course. Learn from the mistakes of others.

That makes me think a little bit. If Fuji doesn't want to make film anymore, then I'm not sure why Sony would want to. Fuji is doing terrific business with Instax, though. I hear that they were just about to give up on it when sales spiked, and the rest is history. It's quite amazing what has happened to 35mm SLR and RF cameras, too. The price for a Leica M6 is not far off that of a new Fuji GFX 50R. Think about that!

If only there was a Kodak ColorPlus 200 of movie stocks. It's less than half the price of Portra. A pack of ten rolls of ColorPlus costs AU$80. A pack of five rolls of Portra 160 costs $100. $8 vs $20.

AFAIK, RedScale film has a slightly lower ASA rating. In addition to that, the Remjet is even more dense than regular film (I think?), and if you shot through the Remjet, you'd be noticeably underexposed. So obviously you threaded the film the correct way.

Marta, have you seen this yet?

Agreed. IMAX is the future of cinema. It will be digital but it will be true IMAX, not just a slightly larger screen. I do like the concept of aspect ratios, and for most applications it's still relevant. But, nothing beats IMAX for immersion.

FWIW, I have seen frames from 7219 pushed one stop and they looked fantastic. They are no longer available online so I can't show you, I'm afraid. But 7219 handles pushing very well. The whole of Eyes Wide Shut was shot with a two stop push, and that was on 5298.

I might offer this caution: most photographic scanners are terrible and exaggerate graininess. So if you see 5222 scanned with an Epson flatbed or a Pakon F135+, you're going to get grain that really isn't visible with a proper scanner like a Flextight or a Northlight or whatever. I'm not against graininess, I'm just unimpressed with scanners which exaggerate it.

Robino, that's awesome. I love it. I don't think I could have afforded anything anamorphic back then. But I surely could have converted my camera to a wider aspect ratio with masks for the VF and the film plane. Tyler, you may be familiar with Nick Carver: (18:50) Bruce, it's about composition, not about anything else. I notice you really like 2.35. I hope I don't catch that bug because I don't think many clients or subjects would appreciate it! LOL

A long time ago I made the decision to take photographs only in the landscape aspect ratio. This was partly because I thought I might be a DP one day, and the best way to get your eye trained for that is to force yourself to compose in landscape. Even if the subject begged to be shot in portrait, I always found a way to shoot it in landscape. (The only exceptions I would allow myself were photos taken with the intention of submitting to stock libraries, which never happened anyway. But even in these cases, I made myself shoot both aspects where applicable). I'm glad I made that decision, regardless of the fact that I probably won't be a DP after all. I much prefer a consistent approach to photography, rather than the haphazard approach that we are encourage to take. You can hold an exhibition and every single image can be a different aspect ratio, so that IMHO encourages laziness disguised as 'variety'. But, I don't think I went far enough. In hindsight, I should have probably shot everything in 2.35:1 for a while. Why? Because if you can compose a difficult subject in 2.35, you can compose it in 1.85. Of course the challenge would have been to find a way to shoot in 2.35 on 35mm SLRs. But, hey, where there's a will there's a way. Your relatives will probably not like the fact that literally all your family photos and videos are in 2.35:1. But you're either into it, or you're not.

Well said Phil. If you don't want to use real guns, or don't ever want to, maybe make your next project 100% CGI.

I would assume it was. Maybe that's a clue? Maybe you need a print made from the internegative (third generation copy). Scanning the camera negative is technically better, but that is a separate issue.

Scientific proof that some digital cameras have a long way to go. ? Okay, so now I know what you mean. Could this be the principle behind Phase One's TriChromatic sensor? I know a little about it - Phase One, with Sony, made a Bayer array with even colour density, without compromising high ISO performance too much. Alexa may have more saturated filters but it still can't handle light sources, despite what people say about its highlight performance, which is supposed to be more than film (LOL). It's not alone, so I'm not picking on it. Just saying.

I am no engineer. But I suspect that this is not the case. Thicker Bayer filters would not change highlight response. It would be like putting an ND over the lens. Sensors are just bad at certain things and for now there's nothing we can do about it. But it is a serious problem, and it's very distracting. ARRI cameras **(obscenity removed)** it up, Red cameras **(obscenity removed)** it up, Leica cameras **(obscenity removed)** it up. I have an idea of how to fix it but I am waiting until I have some spare cash to test that idea. On the sensor level, you could hypothetically have one in every four photo sites covered with a 2 stop ND instead of a G value. It might not work on a CMOS sensor but it might work on a CCD sensor. Except, oh wait, they don't make CCD sensors anymore.

I did this back in 2016. The book was lit by a candle.

Most people are happy to share their knowledge. Some people are perhaps too enthusiastic, but still... Some feign modesty. Some are just neurotic, as this man obviously was. He's a hoarder who has a touch of misanthropy.

Those are lovely photos. I can't give you any advice, really, because I'm a photographer like you and I have done very little operation or lighting. However, I can recommend one thing: start listening to the Indie Film Hustle podcast. And watch The Secret, if you have not already done so. Good luck, my friend!