Lucas Henkel

It'd be injustice not to post the GIF form of it.

Welp... least they'd make fine dummy rolls now lmao

As much as I love the look of wide-angle lenses, supers included, I also have to go with the general consensus that super-wides are an infrequent use. I love the fisheye look in POV shots like as seen in something like The Fifth Cord but I don't see the distortion being particularly great / fitting elsewhere (at least for me personally). The only super-wide I can think of that can be argued as something that can be used more regularly in a production is the Tegea 9.8mm since it has very low distortion, though it's not particularly amazing (it can be provide a dreamy look but it's mostly just soft as a whole) other than that and its reputation as being a Kubrick favorite.

The handful of Tarantino films I saw left me conflicted. From everything I've seen, there is eccentric talent behind the camera, but he has the tendency to go too over-the-top that it just becomes too jarring. It works fine in films like Pulp Fiction and borderline in Inglourious Basterds since they seem to have a stronger "comic book tone" for a lack of better terms, but it just feels weird with films like The Hateful Eight: A very serious movie with nice strong tones of paranoia followed with moments of inappropriate comedy (For example, the whole shop massacre flashback followed immediately by Samuel L. Jackson cradling his testicles).

I believe that practically everyone here will argue that it's better to overexpose film than to underexpose it. In your case, I'd argue so as well since if you get a flat scan of the negative, darkening it in a video editor shouldn't be difficult, and on top of this, you get the added benefit of shadow details which would've been likely exceptionally murky and grainy if underexposed.

So I was doing a little minor experimenting with your ungraded footage and I gotta say, it looks quite nice as well without tweaking the white balance from Tungsten to Daylight. It gives the footage a nice and cool look that fits the rainy day aesthetic.

I think both look quite lovely. The graded version looks nice and warm in a very autumny way whilst the ungraded one looks nice as well surprisingly enough with its cool blue tone from the tungsten balance (though obviously it lacks contrast since it's ungraded). The latter is also nice as a sort of demo as to what Vision 3 500t looks like if one shot it in the day without filters and whatnot.

I've actually ended up doing this with my Isco Ultra Star by complete accident when I was recording some short test footage with it for the first time. I had my DSLR cropped to 4:3 and didn't pay proper attention to how I aligned the lenses so at the end of the night when I loaded the footage into Resolve and de-squeezed it, I had a good laugh after realizing I essentially created the dreaded "vertical-recording iPhone" look.

I'd have similar pipe-dream wishes where I'd love to see if I could suddenly do a big-budget project in full blown 70mm (the whole she-bang with the photochemical color finish and theatrical print distribution), shot through some nice Panavision anamorphic zoom lenses. The idea of being able to set-up and choreograph large John Woo-esque sequences somewhere in the streets of Europe and have it all be seen / projected off of a proper 70mm anamorphic theatrical print in tandem with some beefy surround audio would be among one of the coolest things to me to dream about creating some day.

It's a fair bit of both. You have to also remember, Technicolor grading was fairly limited in the sense that in order to tweak the color balance, they're have to tweak the RGB ratio with the gels when the print was made. This is apparently why some Technicolor films had a specific color tinge in comparison to others. So really, though the format lends itself naturally to the hyper-saturated look, films like The Wizard of Oz made use of art design in the set design and whatnot to make full use of the look. The same can be said for a movie like Suspiria, for example, which pushed the saturation further with heavy usage of colored lighting. In short, I'd argue it's a 50-50 where both heavily come into play.

I suppose it comes down to the film stock itself, since some are simply grainier than other, as well as the cinematography itself which can dictate a certain feeling to the video itself, rather than color grading necessarily (though it does make a difference nonetheless if utilized properly).

So I was poking around on eBay and I noticed this listing for a Panavision Superama 16 which is admittedly a lens I've been having my eye on for awhile now. The problem is, it's in pretty bad shape as you can see in the images. The biggest issue I see is that is has a noticeable crack on the front of the lens and is exceptionally grimey on both sides of the lens. My main question is how actually bad is the damage? Is the damage showcased too extensive to bother with, or are there any hopes of it being surprisingly usable after some cleaning up? Furthermore, and this may seem like a dumb question, is it possible to repair a crack like that showcased? Thank you in advance!

I think it'd be best to reserve that sort of thing till he becomes old enough to properly appreciate film as a medium? I'd recommend it personally at like Middle School or High School level even rather than something a 7 year old would fiddle with?

Even though it's not ideal, if you end up having to do the digital option, you could use any sort of modern large sensor camera and then use lenses that are meant for smaller sensor sizes to create that vignetting look and then regrade it in post with FilmConvert to get the gritty B&W film look.

It looks absolutely gorgeous with a notably 70s character to it from the color timing. How difficult is photochemical color timing nowadays out of curiosity?