Ari Michael Leeds

It's in film stocks and processing, not student, so that's not immediately clear, though I guess I may have missed something earlier. Never had the luxury of film school, though I get asked where I went to one all the time. A lot of what I learned was from generous, outgoing, knowlegeable people like Dave Mullen. And you're still making this a contest; it's not. I was agreeing with you.

Are you in the Camera Guild phone book? Current edition? Last print edition, 2013? Let's talk.

Imagine a movie where they shot everythign in the shade, not for stylistic, or script-serving reasons (and, I could've SWORN you were harping, really really really hard on serving the story on me recently, Satsuki), but because they couldn't get ND filters! B) And man, lighten up. You take it personal even when it isn't. If you've got a camera and you can't budget for an ND, it's a whole different set of playig rules. The joke's on him, not on you, whatever your definitions of photography or cinematography are. Hell, steal some opaque plastic from a construction sight if you're that desperate. B) CVS sunglasses anyone? 4.99?

Robin: You can make a point without being a dick about it. Glad you place the value of the technology over the operator. All I can say is that's a certain type of thinking that doesn't coincide with reality. It's the tools not the operators. And you shouldn't be so quick to count "a few individuals" who will die and then the medium will die out. : )

Is this a paid project? Will you be paying up front? Not just screen credit? B)

So everything that has ever been shot or produced for T.V. is beneath you? I'd be giddy as hell if I got to D.P. a project shot on 35mm distributed solely in 4K. 35mm prints would be better, sure.

And, eerie timing, right after I mentioned this, I saw this article in my IMDBPro feed: http://www.variety.com/2016/film/news/jason-bourne-universal-4k-ultra-hd-releases-120756140/ 4K UHD of Star Trek, or a 4th generation, scratched up, 2K master, oh, say a DI like "The Aviator?

Tyler: You want to play film purist along with Simon, you're welcome to it. So, keeping in mind I much prefer 35mm to 2K, and sometimes 4K, what is better: A digital movie projected on film, or a film-shot TV show shown in 4K? I know which one I'd prefer, all other factors aside. . .

Funny, I was about to mention Star Wars, before I saw Joshua's comment. Speaking of "no film prints," I just saw a film print of same, shot on film. Incredible for a country with digital projection B)

Plenty of extra apostrophes to go around, though, Landon :-P That's actually not correct. There are a few dozen first run film screens still left. Why do you have to KICK a man when he's down? There's really no need to exaggerate the situation. See also a little thing called "H8ful Eight" or "Star Wars" or "Interstellar," not that what Simon said isn't nonsense. That'd count out all of filmed television. I'm a big film supporter, but calling film's response "infinite" is BS, too. Just because film isn't easily definied in pixels or bits doesn't mean there's a point where the line-pairs per millimeter and tone/color differentiation don't both approach zero. Film has very real and finite resolution and color response limits. That doesn't change though that a grain is either exposed or not exposed. There's no analog response there. It's either "on" or "off" so it strikes me as a blind, uninformed emotional argument when someone is defending this "analog" medium that doesn't respond like something that's really behaving in an analog way (audio tape, VHS, to name goods and bads). You just like it because you're used to it if that's your "defense" of film and you don't even know how it works, basic photographic theory of silver halide response.

Wasn't Plus-X still being made in '09? LOL, was the movie reaching out to them the cause of its discontinuation? LOL, ordering more than the thousand feet they had left? B) I'll say that I saw some behind-the scenes and they were shooting 500, pretty sure my memory is good there. So why'd they jump from shooting it on 500 tungsten from a slow B&W stock? There were PLENTY of color films, a lot more than today, back then that are closer to plus-x speed and granularity.

You're missing my point: It's "on" or "off," When did it become "digital" or "analog" (everything else?) By your definition "glitch" and silver-halide photography and filmmaking are one in the same. Sensitized photography is really special. So lumping it all together in "analog" is kinda arbitrary and cheapening.

Well, hopefully "cinema history" isn't internet, millennial code for "since 'real' cinema started, when George Lucas pioneered modern digital moviemaking in 1999." B) EDIT: Upon examination, yeah, seems skewed to "greatest shots that stream," if you know what I mean. . . Token silent, and classics, and granted a lot of the early silent have been lost, but film started in 1894. By extension, these shots should be almost evenly spaced throughout that timeframe, not heavily skewed towards modern releases.

Even if you are a film purist, how can you forget "The Artist?" :-D (Although it's another color-desaturated sellout) Think it was either 5218 or 5219, Kodak 500T. God, if I were making something like that, I'd dig up an old hand-crank camera and B&W stock. Why not? :-D

Nicholas, since film grains are either "on" or "off" I'm not sure if it's really appropriate calling film "analog" unless that term now means anything that *isn't digital.* That kinda sounds like some tech-head Tweeting millienial hipster talk to me :-P Remember digital is the technology that comes from video tape. It'd be interesting to see what analog video would look like today, had it not been killed on the vine in favor of digital. I think the Japanese did have HD analog tape briefly, in some sort of professional format.