Ari Michael Leeds

So David: You're saying a digital model of a skyscraper is the same as actually building a skyscraper? You definitely think digital painting is the same as hair and makeup then by your "definition." I'd like to know, in the interest of full disclosure, if you have any involvement in digital animation, please. @Robin, yeah something like that. Crazy. I don't want to elevate it to the same level as racial bias in the nominating process, as it's a technical thing for those of us in the lighting and camera departments, but an absurd slight that hasn't been corrected, not even mentioned. To a lesser extent, Gravity. Green screens and wireframes and motion capture, oh my!

Technically possible to split 65mm (not sure if you could get 4, maybe three). In terms of financial possibility, no. You don't do that. You don't cut film to a certain width, change your mind and recut it. You'd pay as much for doing that as buying twice as much film cut to the right size to begin with. @Rob - I'm not sure on the way ORWO B&W works, or different B&W stocks in general: Do the ideal development times differ from emulsion to emulsion? I'd assume Kodak would have standardized Plus and Double to the same time, but is there variables from emulsion to emulsion? I remember the big upset when Kodak dicked around with their B&W speeds, but now it seems like there are a bunch of people who defend this now-discontinued stock like some sort of perfect emulsion. B&W film is relatively simple to make compared with color, and there are alternatives to Kodak here. But, maybe I'm not writing coherently. What I want to know is if you guys have to do different runs of different films with the time in the developer tank different depending on if it's Kodak or ORWO?

Kalle: Kodak is not the only company making film. You ought to be paid by one of the video companies, doing their fear-mongering for them. We'll still be here; don't worry :)

My understanding, with B&W, is that the lab will develop to a certain gamma (how contrasty the linear part of the film's characteristic curve is). Unlike ECN-2 films, which are all standardized, B&W is not so standardized. Considering this stock comes from the former Soviet Block, it's not designed with the Kodak standard developer, things of that nature in mind. A lab representative, believe Robert Houllahan (sp?) is one, would have experience with this. He'd know far more than I do. But understand, I have good experience with this in 35, and am playing devil's advocate in that there are some obvious variables that can lead to increased grain, like bad printing, underexposure, or even underdevelopment.

If it's even marginally better than Double-X for grain, then I think it's fair calling it a Plus-X replacement. Panatomic-X, Ilford Pan-F 50, no. Keep in mind, it's possible the labs didn't have a developing time for UN54 down when it first came out, and have since made changes to give it a proper level of shadow detail without increase in grain size.

Damn! I am off two days, and Richard Boddington beats me to it! Great minds think alike, sir. :-D

Well, there are evaluations based on measurable response, and then there are those that really aren't. The former I get, the latter I don't. The basis of an opinion should be observable fact. As with many things, a lot of this experience has to do with the lab and the chemistry with this stuff. I've developed it myself, clip tests in D-76 still developer (originally designed for motion pictures though, so perfect evaluative test) and it's significantly finer than any Double-X. Prints just fine, fine-grained. No problem. If you want to criticize someone criticize Kodak, or maybe more appropriate, criticize B&W shooters for *not shooting enough.* As to ECN-2, it was designed to be faster so labs could process more, quickly. Before that, it was a room-temperature (almost, think it was 70-some Fahrenheit) process, that was far slower. At the beginning, there was more grain, more consistency issues, but they solved it, maybe thirty years ago. Cinematographers would have killed for the 50D and 200T stock of today. If they aren't contrasty enough, and are too fine-grained, push them a stop. It isn't really fair to criticize a film for becoming too fine-grained and too sharp, when the cinematographers who SHOT 5254 complained about these things, prompting the improvements that you now dislike. Nostalgia is fine, but it has to be rooted in practicality. The people who shot 5254 were STUCK with only 5254. Imagine having to shoot everything on 100-speed film, like an interior, candle-lit scene.

I agree, that's why I mentioned that caveat that may have detracted from my viewing experience ;-) I agree Manu, although I find a trailer to be best for a trailer, a 35mm print :-D .

So you are saying, (I've only shot it in 35mm) that in 16mm, you see no substantial improvement in this stock over Double-X? I suppose that's possible. There should be smaller grain, though. And, if anything, the difference would be more, not less noticeable than in 35. Are you certain you had good exposure, good processing, and what was done with the negative, scan or print?

First try. Hope it's not too obscure or difficult.

Amazing how many people clamoring for Plus-X have never tried Orwo, apparently. A decent replacement, and an example of the market responding to unfulfilled demand and generating competition. It's good to have choices. Plus-X is gone. Deal with it and embrace what is available.

So you are saying that UN54 is not finer grained than Double-X? That does not coincide with either my experience, the experience of others, or the technical curves they advertise. And it's 65mm where grain is less than half as important, if you get my meaning.

Didn't see all the Cinematography noms., so I can't be 100% objective on this, but I feel like it's a continued insult from giving "Avatar" best cinematography. The cameras have gotten better, and this wasn't a movie that was shot in front of a green screen, but I still feel the look should detract from the chances of a digital movie winning, and I feel like the same morons who gave it to "Avatar" are calling the shots. I've seen some very impassioned argument that CG, pixel animation is "still cinematography." To advocates of that nonsense, do you think "Best hair and makeup" should go to a Pixar fiml, next? After all they're painting on the pixels just like they're putting on makeup, by that line of "logic." I don't want to trivialize race relations, and the disparity in nominations these past several years (though I don't agree with the solutions they've taken either entirely, having quotas) but overall, I feel it is shocking that people who don't know what Cinematography is get to pick Best Cinematography! Qualified individuals should be in charge of the selection, and they should try to remove themselves from considerations for subject and content, like a court of law. There's abject ignorance and then there's subject bias, although I'd probably succumb to that myself and vote AGAINST a film about Amy Winehouse winning over a film about Ukranian independence, unless that latter was really poorly done.

I agree. Too bad places like FilmTech care more about sound racks and the number of speakers in the theatre :-o Amazing how many totally ignorant people there are running these films, although I've met a few IMAX projectionists who really know their sh it.

35 is fine, 16 is where you run into trouble. Hell, I saw it on the Oscars last night with the 16 clips! Disappointing. Then again, my TV's only 1080i and I was watching on the cable.

You're making it sound like overkill and purism for 11K, though. Really it's just applying the same level of resolution as you would with a 4K scan on 35. To put it another way, if the scanner res. goes down too low, you're not really gaining anything over shooting it in 5-perf. 65 instead. Disappointing the scans are only output at 8K. I'd want 11 in, 11 out myself. I guess taht's comparable to 4K scan, 3.2 to 2.5 K out, something like that, with 4-perf. 35.

Tyler: Don't forget, Dark Knight Rises was all cut negative except shots that used CGI. Same thing with H8ful Eight. They didn't put the whole movies through the digital intermediate, so it's arguably higher, as a photochemically-timed contact print is arguably the highest possible resolution. Do you think SW Force Awakens might get a 4K for IMAX? Jesus, you'd think it would. Otherwise, what's the point of buying $40K or so worth of film, other than hype? Unfortunately, hype really has become IMAX's marketing strategy now, hasn't it? Also, 11K sounds like a ton, but, proportional to 65mm, 15 perforations, 11,000 lines is the equivalent of scanning the smaller area of 35mm 4-perf at 4K and getting the same level of detail off of the negative, or vistavision at 6K.

There are stills scanners that would work very well for this, mostly old, specialized, high volume ones. Nothing currently made that would foot the bill, at least if we're talking 35mm. There are/were some decent 8-/16 telecine systems. The cost at some of the labs have come way down. Best to use their services while they're still around to offer them. Support what is left, don't take their business and make the whole industry weaker for it.

I was shocked to find out they only finished Star Wars, large chunks were shot on 35mm film and at least one IMAX plate, at ONLY 2K! I'm a HUGE 70mm fan (no pun intended) but if they are going to just put a BluRay on IMAX film, I love to support film screens but I am staying home because that is a ripoff and a joke. It really deserves at least 4K, maybe 6!

There was also a huge issue with color shift and reciprocity failure. So you could tell one was coming because the color would shift right before. I believe Kodak won an Emmy when they fixed this and made color response more consistent with changing exposure in the printer, along with finer-grained film. I am not sure as to this specific scene, but another issue could be rear projection. Unlike B&W, there was only one color film, which meant there was no finer-grained film designed specifically to try to hide a projected background. So that could be what he is seeing here, not familiar with the shot in question.

Why would you need to custom order Plus-X when you can get Orwo that is the same thing? Or are they unwilling or unable to make 65mm? Also, at that size, are you REALLY worried about too much grain with Double X in 65? You need to be happy for what we DO have. Support what's available, thank God, Quentin Tarantino, JJ Abrams, Steven Spielburg, Martin Scorsese, Fate, Chance, Luck, and the Stars that we have what we have. And devote more time to actually funding and SHOOTING this movie, instead of endless debate on the internet about what you do NOT have. To put things in perspective: You have four times more color stock options than they had when they shot "Lawrence of Arabia." Be thankful and use the tools that are available instead of nitpicking, my film-shooting friend. All the best.

Sorry, you're right. Forgot that that was coupled with underexposure.

Also worth keeping in mind that a lot of labs are set up for scanning normal contrast negative, not reversal film or even pushed neg. I'm not sure what the typical cine scanner tops out at, but you're increasing the D-max when you push, making the blacks blacker, which may make it tougher for scanners to punch through. It may be worth looking at the film's characteristic curve chart, seeing where the D-max is with a push (if Kodak even has that information) and calling the lab and seeind what OD (same as D-max) their scanner can handle. If you're adding contrast that you're losing when you go back into the computer, it's kind of a pointless exercise.

LOL, this is so far back (the thread you've brought back to life AND the camera) it's probably a 2 *inch* lens, ( 50.8mm ). If you're asking what was generally in use then, I couldn't say for certain as to brand or what the newsreels and silents of that day were shot with. 2" or wider.

Here it is: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Support/Technical_Information/Transportation/index.htm