Robin Phillips

main difference beside color temp is that 7219 has more contrast to it

Im not quite sure how you do this with no vfx. are you using one drone to photograph and another drone to hang? if so, I'd run the line to the flower as much longer below the drone. but tbh you'll likely still need to do some paint out work. High speed will definitely reduce your wobbliness or fluttering. that being said if it were me I'd figure out what lighting I need to match, take it outside with a blue screen and some monofiliment lines, and photograph that way then do a composite

generally you tend to be sharpest around 2 stops down from wide open, at least with modern lenses. T11 may be getting into slight defraction territory with that lens but its probably fine. But if you're concerned about getting the sharpest image (which Im guessing is why you're asking about t stops), I think you tend to get a bit more out of just over exposing 16 a bit over stopping down, save for being wide open. On super 16 I always over expose at least 1/3rd of a stop. Its not unheard of to over expose 2/3rds to a full stop. this exposes the smaller, slower crystals and gives you more detail in the neg. hopefully someone with experience with that version of the lens can say better.

my guess is that if there is, we'd hear either at NAB or IBC. this week is CES, and usually is just consumer stuff along with back end broadcast hardware like mass storage solutions and transcoders. IIRC BMD's scanner updates always showed up at NAB and not CES

well I've got some LED lighting tests tests coming up that are for my own purposes and not under NDA, so I may post them publicly. plan is to compare s16 4k scans with Ultra 16 lenses vs 35mm with ultra prime lenses with traditional tungsten vs creamsource vs aperture (and possibly skypannels), will be on 200T and 500T shot at box speed and 1/3 increments over exposed till all are at 1 stop over. Plan is to use Fotokem's scanity in 4k for all scans, and if I can swing it I want to send the same film to be scanned on a LG Scanstation in HDR mode to compare. 35mm will be 4 perf just cause thats what I got. If anyone has a preferred resolution chart let me know

Theres a notable difference scanning even 16mm at 4k vs 2k, and the rule of thumb back in the day was that s16mm was roughly 1080p. 35mm 3 perf at 4k will be significantly greater than 1080p, though I know some folks think 500T at box speed doesnt really improve at 4k. Unfortunately there isnt much in the way of public tests on this matter, and even if there was on youtube the compression would probably screw up the results of the test. 35mm negative in 3 perf is over 3 times the size of s16m negative. Its also complicated by the fact that if you over expose film, you'll expose smaller crystals in the negative and thus generate more detail that can be extracted in a scan. This is why to do a true comparison you'd want to be dealing with the theoretical maximum line pair resolution of a given film vs a given sensor. you also just have the fact that not all pixels are the same, and thus not all 4k is the same in terms of the detail we get out of it. I havent dealt with prints, but I know the typical process for making them from digital files is a 2k transfer back to film. I dont know if thats because 4k isnt really worth it on a film print cost wise, or if its because the print stock cant actually resolve 4k when projected. But

i just got an invite to order one, but its through B&H. are they managing the sales or did I get an extremely targeted svam email?

Also, and I realize this is sacrilege to some, but we live in a world where we have the tools to sharpen up and grain reduce S16mm and still have a very pleasing image. So if your goal is you want the look of film without digital emulation, and you cant shoot 35 and dont want to do a shoot digital + laserback and re-scan, you can take super 16 really freaking far. The post sup in me would still recommend shooting 35 for vfx shots if possible, but the reality is we've been able to do vfx on s16 for a long time just fine at this point. Also Tyler if you do a run of blurays of this train doc I'll definitely buy a copy. looks fantastic.

I just got two creamsource micro color kits for smaller personal stuff, and Im extremely impressed with them. They're very bright (I think the equivalent of 400watt tungsten fixtures each in tungsten mode, they seem brighter in daylight mode), super rugged, and are natively a hard light. the kits include a soft dome and inserts that alter the angle of the light along with barn doors. in tungsten mode they seem to run about 1h 20m on a 98wh battery, 1hr in daylight mode on the same battery. included hard cases too. though the units are heavy. granted, the kits were 1500/each, so if you want a kit of 3 or more lights aperture may be the way to go

Do we know for sure its an SD tap not an HD tap? manual says its a cmos sensor with HDMI output

it uses logmar's style video tap. it exposed film directly

it looks like at 18fps its not crystal sync, hence no audio recording at that speed. it would drift. Im guessing the motor cant run crystal outside of 24 and 25. it would be interesting if they'd open up an sdk for the camera though so tinkerers could play with it. I suspect that would void any warranty

did... did kodak launch a product site without a press release? Im not complaining if they're actually gonna push this thing out. but boy I dont get kodak and their press strategies

well thats the thing, they did the R&D and what they came up with basically looked like 5219 pushed a stop, which is 1000 ASA. we dont know if they could have found a new way to make faster yet smaller grains with more time and money, but I dont think it was worth it. You could argue that the only place a small grained 1000 ASA film would really be a major improvement is on s16, since on 35 you can kinda get away with pushing it without much issue. Even on s16 if you are smart about your grain reduction you can kinda get away with a one stop push rated at 800. But with the ease of these high quality portable LED lights these days, along with the absolutely absurd ISO ratings of some digital cameras now, its hard to see how it would have made any sense for kodak to try to compete. Now dont get me wrong, if kodak put out a 1000 asa film with '19's grain size I'd jump on shooting that. But honestly without a cost reduction at the same time I kinda doubt it would sway a lot of folks. And it doesnt strike me that price reductions are remotely on the horizon.

its not just that, its that they would likely have to discontinue vision 3 for the economics to work out, and changing from vision 3 to something new may be something customers would not be willing to risk. plus theres a lot of scattered reports that their attempt at a "vision 4" 1000 speed film basically just looked like 5219 pushed a stop, and thus what was the point

I had a cable that would send the right voltage range into the box. I think the way I was doing it was I was going 12v out of the SR3's converter to a block of P tap connections, then went P tap to barrel into the converter. If you have one of the new https://elokuvakonepaja.com/ battery plates (they have them for regulated 12v or 24v for v and AB mount batteries), you can just use one of the p tap plugs off the side of it to run a cable to the adapter. No affiliation with the Elok guys but I do have some of their power accessories and they've been great. Getting off the Arri SR battery system was a major improvement for using my film cameras

the product you listed just says BNC to HDMI, so it doesnt indicate that it has both the analogue to SDI converter AND the upscaler. Before I got my SR3 updated to an HD tap, I used one of these https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CONVMAAS2--blackmagic-design-mini-converter-analog-to-sdi-2 remember BNC is the actual connector for SDI, SDI is a digital signal going over a cable with BNC connectors (though if you just search for SDI cable you'll find them). you do need a certain quality cable to carry higher and higher quality images, but given that at most you'll be dealing with a basic 422 or less HD-SDI signal at the end of your chain that probably wont be an issue. to then go to HD-SDI you either need another adapter or a recorder that can take SD-SDI and cross convert to HD (the pix240i could do this I know).

What David said. All I can add is that "full frame" as a buzz word really look off when the 5D line gained the ability to shoot video, and suddenly "full frame" was a great selling phrase, as though you were missing out some how. Granted, it was an accurate enough way to differentiate it from the APS-C cameras (close to S35) like the 7D. But I dont think it entered the cinema lexicon till the 5D mk2 and its video mode arrived. If anyone's recollection is better by all means please correct me But Im not sure I'll ever get over the fact that 1 "full frame" has taken hold when "vista vision" is both the historic name and sounds so much cooler and 2 that its no big deal to shoot digital vista vision but if you wanna shoot vista vision on film not only is it a major pain, but I think cost wise it shakes out to similar to shooting 65mm stock wise. But boy would I love to throw some supreme primes on a vista gated film camera.

I think you need a forensic video expert, and someone who has a lot of experience with this sort of footage if you're trying to verify authenticity. if you want to see how it could get pulled apart, the first thing to do is to pull it into resolve and crank the gamma up to see if anything looks out of sorts. thats usually a fast way to reveal mattes, bad regrains etc. But without a 100% known good version of the same kind of footage so you have a baseline for comparison, this might be a fools errand. one of the classic ways to fake UFO footage is to degrade the image so as to integrate the elements, and if you dont know what the footage should look like, you will have a harder time spotting a fake. But if you're looking for a vfx artist to interview, potentially on camera, about supposed UFO encounters, it sounds like you might be asking someone to put their reputation on the line. that may be difficult to find.

that doesnt sound right since there was a frame glow add on option for the SR2. maybe the SR1 ones have that issue? either way, if you have Paul re-mark an SR2 glass his frame marks will work with the frame glow on an SR3

they're slicing up the THX theater and selling off the chairs. the current property owner has suggested turning it all into a warehouse, but at least in that scenario the building would keep standing. S building, sold in the Kerner Optical bankruptcy 12 years ago, still stands but its a soap factory now. auction link for anyone who wants to grab something https://mailchi.mp/d0b0791ec35b/closing-down-9413371?fbclid=IwAR2Pgu1NNvAGNAz0K3fOsM1zbtGj8C1d0QB3CpP_-jYBYjXgE2uG27INrt0

For those unaware, the old ILM complex (now in its 3rd iteration of ownership, first ILM, then Kerner Optical, then 32ten) is closing. quite possibly for the last time. Its a major loss to the bay area film community, as the C building stage is really the only proper sound stage in northern california. it also just sucks to see the model shop finally shut down. I came across this video from the auction inspection on monday, though I'd post it for anyone who has never been and wanted a peek inside.

hi. I sold the rest of these at least a year ago. the SR2 screens will work in the SR3 and vice versa. its the same holder, I think the pitch of the fibers just got a little tighter with the SR3/416 variant. I think someone had a slightly different one available on the facebook Arriflex Anonymous page a bit ago. Otherwise I believe Paul of Shruco Tool is still re-marking fiber screens if you find a 4:3 one you are willing to sacrafice. Andree of AMcamera.com can put you in contact with him.

IIRC I've put a tokina 11-16 on an sr3 before without a problem, havent done the 11-20. But it was iffy in terms of sharpness. thats one of the challenges with lower cost lenses. most are not that great at resolving for the s16 gate. though those laowa nanomorph anamorphics will clear the mirror and are, to my surprise, quite sharp. its harder to find now, but the zeiss LWZ.1 and LWZ.2 are almost as sharp as the U16s. its my go too zoom lens for s16 when Im shooting U16s since it'll match, same coatings and all.

Im not sure if any PL mount, B mount, or Arri S mount lenses will be a problem. LPL lenses I believe are a no go on 35mm film bodies, they might clear on an SR3. I've seen master primes (pl mount) on 416s with no issue, in fact its one of the ways to get the sharpest s16mm given the rarity of the U16s. I think where you need to be more careful are lenses built for digital systems exclusively, as even some high end ones dont care about film cameras and their mirror shutters and will protrude deeper into the mount. Hopefully someone here has the actual specs. What lenses are you looking to use?