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.

Passive aggressive, and trolling me after WEEKS that this thread is inactive. Have you looked me up on Wikipedia or IMDB yet? I really love the people that try to use YOUR WORK against you! To save you the trouble, I don't work under "Ari Michael Leeds," I use a nom de plume. Keep up the good work with the blind appeal to authority, name-dropping, and personal attacks. You're another one it must be a THRILL to work with after hour 18, if you're going to come here and TROLL me after a month ON THE INTERNET. What are you like when fit really hits the shan in real life?

Plus, flashing an intermediate is cheating, kinda like shooting a B&W movie on color film, or, shock, digital! Sacrilege!!! :-D You're right, it probably is very little effect with pre- or -post-flash differences if it's slight, say only 0.30. I remember this when I was doing double exposures, or more, multiple exposures in still photography, and the earlier exposures, would pick up the detail and the later ones would be less pronounced or not come out. Granted, these were both in-focus subjects written over one another, but in theory at least, maybe only evident with more flash exposure, the pre is "using up" the silver sites first, whereas the post the image info is already on there.

LOL, another enlightened cinema artist. Underexposing neg. two stops looks like poop. You try to print it up and there's no contrast, no blacks. It looks bad. If you want to be a "pioneer" and shoot your whole movie this way, he y man, go for it. Great idea. But go ahead and try to pigeon hole me as someone "beholden to the rules," "unenlightened." Then you make a personal attack on me. I have two working eyes, correctable to 20/20. Yes I have tested stocks. Haven't seen my material? Too bad. None of your damned business, don't care to share, and the pair of eyes I've mentioned above, not my contributions to the art of cinematography qualify me as a judge. Another attack, second guessing, questioning my qualifications. Thanks. Maybe I should log into my preferences, click a box, and make myself a DP then? I've DP'ed shoots, yeah. Does that make me qualified to list it as my primary occupation here? Maybe I should put an ASC, or claim an Oscar after may name. Sheesh. And again, none of your business who I have worked with. Make all the ad hominem attacks on me that you would like, it doesn't lessen what I have said for anyone whose sense of logic and reasoning is firing on all cylinders. I like how you're questioning if I'm a "loader," too. Technically I am an A.C. as there's no loader position in the Eastern region. Unlike others here who are eager to gloat, brag, name drop, and make frequent use of appeals to authority and various other logical fallacies, I would rather give a REALISTIC description, rather than an inflated, self-important one, of my qualifications. I've been shooting, processing, and projecting film for 13 years though, and I happen to know when something is objectively ugly-looking garbage that is aesthetically displeasing. I've shot plenty of it myself, but never on purpose.

This is frequently, and erroneously described as "percentage flash." However, the numbers used are not decimals, but densitometery numbers like ND filters. Every 0.30 is one half the light transmission. However, with negative film, that has a lower gamma than normal, between 0.15 and 0.20 density is one stop, so something to keep in mind. This is the "percent" more properly 0.XX that is being talked about, how many points of fog are added to the film either rbefore or after its exposure. Pre-flash is more pronounced than post, because you're exposing, after which they can't be triggered again, grains before the actual subject is exposed onto the emulsion. The pre-flash that David mentions above with 35mm, there are three or four peroforations in a frame, so what camera assistants will do is mark an "X" on to the film leader when threading to make sure both the flash exposure and the actual photography use the same frame. Otherwise, there'd be a line where the flash exposure doesn't cover the frame the actual photography does, a big NO NO> It's a similar procedure to doing a reg[istration] test where cameras are tested against excessive gate weave.

One of the banes of existence for a photographer, projectionist, cinematographer, optician!

As an American, I take an example of that statement about irony, Mark and John!

I don't know if this was advertent or not, but Satsuki, that is one of the most hilarious suggestions I've seen! "Try to shoot in the shade." LOL! Yeah, this is the whole reason they make such slow film for cinematography: Need the low speed for daylight exteriors. Amazing digital STILL has not addressed this, as filters compromise image quality and sharpness. Built in ND is OK, but what if you need another one on top of that?

Roughly 11.2K would be double res., so maybe that's a little bit more than a show print contact. But, most people look at Ks and are misled, kinda like with film speeds, 1000 is only one stop more than 500 just as much as 50 is a stop more than 25. This is one area where I wish cinema would follow the lead of still photography and stick with megapixels.

Oh, OK, sorry, I see what you are saying and which of my comments now. What sort of resolution do you think that an IMAX print has, a contact from the OCN? Keep in mind, 8K with digital still goes through a lens, so comparing IMAX on the screen to the digital chip before it goes through the lens is apples and oranges. I'm operating off the assumption that an IMAX contact is 10% less than the negative, greater than 10K. Maybe slightly less than double. I'd have to go in and look at the square root of two myself. Not that good at math :-D

Sorry, I'm showing my ignorance here, so there's only an improvement here that is applicable in the realm of 3D, with a small increase in color gamut? I'm interested by advances in lighting technology (sadly which seem to have come to late for film), but ultimately, isn't this all limited by what the chip of film or crystal can differentiate?