Wendy Sanders McDonlad

Unfortunately, yes. I took some STILL photos just 2 days ago, and even in still pictures this happens. Sadly those DSLRs, however expensive they are, sucks balls at low light. Below is the photo I took at ISO 6400, same camera as yours 5D MK II. The lights are from the city's installations itself. So I doubt it had any jells whatsoever. Now, I think it is useless unless at night.

This is some insightful information. I wonder if there was any case they specifically made short-end reels just so they can tweak them scene by scene instead of the whole reel. But that would be splitting hairs on information got lost a long time ago. Thanks again David. Just like everything else, I find the whole coloring/filming process always started with a structure with more control and freedom, and gradually moved to more and more restrictive formats to color stocks, to digital... much like the political atmosphere, and the internet... something tells me it's not a coincidence.

well, crap... they don't make Max Factors either. XD

I wonder if anyone has attempted with this experiment.

yes, I'm trying to dig out where this technique is documented and saved... but no luck, all the info I can find stops at "a complex dye-imbibation process" without knowing what exactly is it!! I don't mean to split hairs, but I think it helps me to understand color better. right now I simply don't understand why film has the film look, digital has the digital look, and no matter how hard I try, color grading just does not match it.

And besides, the 3-Strip process, is really a 2-strip... since the blue and red are stacked on top of each other.. only the green strip is exposed on it's own.

I'm still wondering about the process of what Techicolor does after the film is exposed. But you reply makes me questions a bit future that is not really revenant to this post in particular: What do you mean by colors are tied together? A digital camera sensor is all monochrome, it's the Bayer layers on top that filters the color of Blue, Red, and Green. Similarly, a color film stock operates the same way, with three emulsion layers of Yellow Cyan and magenta. So essentially, they are all 3-colored process stacking on top of each other. Are you saying, if I film the same scene with 3 monochrome digital cameras, with each prime-colored filter, and recombine the same scene on top of each other it will solve the problem?

Yes, I meant the noises in darker areas. There was no compression blocks, yes.

this is not exactly the case, some( including me) does think the new digital movies look like crap, but (other people, not me) still throw themselves after it, solely because of the over towering market job they did. I mean many award nominated movies today are politically motivated, with flimsy stories and subpar dialogues, yet makes millions. Think about how our perception got played with. I also think the design of cars compared to old classic cars is simmilar, yet for the same economical reasons, older(sometimes better, not always) designs are discarded solely for economic reasons. Another analogy, the iPhone 5, or Mac OS X (snow leopard, or Windows XP for example. Can you imagine the efficiency and ergonomics of combing these efficient systems with the lightning processors we have today.... I mean it will out-run a space rocket. But no, they won't let you.....

I find the internet explanation of Technicolor 3 strip process inconclusive, and not very informative. Yes, scenes are filmed through a prism onto three strips of film at the same time. And then what? I'm assuming that is more than just stack all three and make a print, and Voila, you got this beautiful skin tone and print out of the box. So what does Technicolor - the company do after this. How do they mix/ grade the color to render the looks we know of. And more importantly, why can't we duplicate the same look with later newer film stocks, let alone those far off digital emulations that just does not look the same, no matter how hard they try... Does Technicolor have some kind of secret formula of mixing the chemicals to render those colors, like KFC's herbs for fried chicken?

The problem is I shot RAW on my BMPCC 4k, and RAW stills images on my Canon 5D MK II... .and this problem still exists. what are the formats that will eliminate this problem? I mean when we export the footage from whatever editing softwares, compressions are commonplace, so does that mean there is no way to avoid it?

While doing some low light test on my new camera, I noticed a phenomenon that when the area falls off certain degree of underexposure, it renders into this pixelated blocks, and clutters. I just happens to include heavy shadows, in my composition with high light ratios. So when i saw it, I really freaked out by how awful it looks, especially when the camera moves, the pixelated clutters/ blocks moving along with it. Then I went to check a few movie files, and it seems that all of them have the same problem, whether it is shot on film or digital. Only difference this phenomenon of the clutter is less patterned in film, as opposed to digital things looks like moving in rectangular blocks. https://ibb.co/g679NMx https://ibb.co/ypbbWbS https://ibb.co/N26mz0N https://ibb.co/QK55QTX https://ibb.co/HLS06Mg Shot on film: less pattern blocks https://ibb.co/4s5xdrx Why and How!?!? Is there a way to avoid it? I have seen these films many many times, and I guess the quality of the story had camouflaged this problem. But now I can not unsee it and is becoming an obsession to avoid it. Why can't black just be freaking black!!! PS: one sequence in The Leopard, with heavy dark velvet suits appears to be free of this problem. I wonder why? Zero such problem (why?) https://ibb.co/b37dnwR

thanks for the response David. But I did some research, even with the exchange rate factor, Ontario has 13% tax in total. Being a small production, I'm not eligible for any tax incentives. My main costs are 1) gear rental 2) crew 3) food 4) set design/ costumes 5) actors. And I found that 1) , 3) 4) costs more due to the sales tax, considering Oregon and Delaware and (a rock throw away) in New Hampshire has no sales tax at all. Location, crew and actors' rate costs about the same for this particular one-apartment shoot.

Thanks everyone, I think I finally got the idea.

this is a great point.

I'm talking about an independent production or short film, where I can not get the tax incentives from labor costs. It seems like food and camera rental costs quite a bit more than it is in the USA, with the 13% totally sales tax, to feed the crew and rent equipment. Borrowlenses has much better rate than the handful of rental houses in Toronto...Am I right in this?

very helpful... thank you

I guess I should have gotten a spot meter... anyone looking for a sekonic L358? hahah

Well, for a sophisticated sequence as we are referring to, I'll need a walk through with the cameras anyway....so i don't see the problem here.... It seems to me people arguing there's advantage in using an incident meter only when: You can get a stand in, you can't take the camera there... LMAO

Why couldn't I walk with the actor and take continuous spot readings?

I'm even more confused with this black couch thing... let's say a black person's face then..

Follow up: what if I walk close to my subject and point my incident meter TOWARDS the subject with the lumen sphere down? Will that simulate the function of a spot meter, sort of only taking the reading of the light reflected from the subject? (that is to say, there's no smoke or dust between the subject and the actor)

So let's say I want to save money. Can I salvage an old still camera like Nikon FM2N and put a telephoto lens on it to use as a spot meter? I'm just curious, do you use either of these meters while shooting a relatively low profile, with digital camera, nowadays?

1) Do you know what's the general focal lengths of the a spot meter? I agree, it seems like to me nowadays this is what a light meter is designed for, given all the zebra/ histograms and other build in functions of the digital cameras. Am I correct?

Ok, just to confirm. Is the difference between using the two meters a matter of if "I walk across the room" and "I walk across the room with a standin"? "you'd also have no way to measure how hot any backlight is in that situation (without moving to the opposite side of the room/space." I don't quite understand this part, if I'm shooting in from the other side, (where the camera is) why can't I just use the spot meter to look from there the camera is? Again, is this a matter of whether I can meter with a standin or not?