Raymond Zananiri

That's what I suspected. So it's an aesthetic choice in that case. I see the colors with 200T (shot in daylight) being a little more "muted" and less "in your face" as opposed to the 50D or 250D would render. Right?

Topaz Labs has a very good product for that: https://www.topazlabs.com/

How much does the 4K version cost? I heard the 2K one costs $25K. How does the FilmFabriek scans compare to the Cintel and and Arriscan, image quality wise?

That's very interesting. Because almost everyone now prefers to use CST to 3d LUTS in Resolve. I guess because of the convenience of the luminance and gamut mapping features. I am talking of course about the basic specific camera to Rec 709 transforms. Custom LUTS are a different story of course. Are you then asserting that applying a Log C to Rec 709 LUT by right clicking on the node in Resolve should give better results than using the CST FX function? Perhaps I need to do some tests.

Agreed. But that's how they work, at least in Resolve. That is one of the reasons a lot of people no longer use LUTs. The best approach in Resolve is to use the Color Space Transform effect and select gamut and luminance mapping. You can apply that in an early node and you are guaranteed nothing will be lost afterwards.

C7 makes a CP to MFT adapter.

If you apply a LUT to a node and the highlights clip, you could not recover them in the next serial node.

Push process effects highlights much more than shadows. It does not salvage crushed shadows. It only lifts the highlights and gives you more contrast. If you underexpose, the shadows will be noisier and have less details whether you push process or not.

I would say the last wedding shot (with the couple drinking the red drink) was very challenging. They are backlit by the sun with no fill used in front (as I could tell from the reflection of their sunglasses). It is quite remarkable that we are able to see that much detail in the shadows (their faces). That is one amazing thing about color negatives: scenes with characters moving from sun to shadow and still looking really good, without any iris change.

True. The comparison is unfair here because the Alexa footage was clearly botched in exposure and in grading. I wonder if you ever watched the Parachute experiment. What are your thoughts on that? https://vimeo.com/search?q=PARACHUTES von Wendy Pillonel

OK. Can we get more specific? I watched this test long time ago (Alexa Mini vs 5219). It is not really well done but starting at 2:30 we get to what interests me the most: Hard, cross light on the face. Please tell me how I could get the face of the girl to look like 2:53 and 3:25 with any digital camera? I am not being being rhetorical at all. I would really like to get the same results with an Alexa, Venice or Red or any other modern digital camera. I really don't know how. That sheen and dimensionality and sensuality on the face of the girl ends up being flat with digital. I don't want to ever shoot on film. It is incredibly expensive. I just want to get that specific quality with digital: a very gradual shift between one tonal value to the next and to the next. Is that something that could be done in post? Please help!!

I just don't know why the Film vs Digital conversation is irritating so many? 1. Because nothing conclusive could come out of it? (That's no reason from keep trying) 2. Because practically speaking film is no longer a feasible choice, so why keep harping on it, on and on? (True. But film needs to remain an aesthetic reference point. Not the only one. But a very useful one. To help us incorporate some of its qualities not only in digital technological development, but also in application by the digital user, especially in post) 3. Because any image made on film can be exactly duplicated with modern digital capture, provided the same exact conditions? (I know some believe that, but that is completely untrue: Of all the movies shot on film you watched from the 60s to the 80s and all the ones you watched the last ten years that are shot on digital, and I am talking about hundreds if not thousands of productions, do you really think that the cameras could be interchanged and the resulting images would be the same? Do you really think you could make a film look like Taxi Driver today with an Alexa? If you think so, then you and I have a completely different visual systems. Now I excluded productions shot with film in recent years. Those are sometimes highly digitized in post and could sometimes be indistinguishable from digital capture). I know I get immersed more in the story when the scene is shot on film. Even if it's just a shot of a girl quietly sitting on a bench. I immediately start to wonder what she's thinking about. What is her story. I am trying to understand why that is and honestly I can't put my finger on the right answers. But I'll keep trying. And please don't tell me that it's my imagination. IT IS NOT!!! I really think this conversation, if carried undogmatically, is useful.

It's not just color Karim. It's the subtle gradation between one tonal value to the next, in the highlights. To my eyes, I see a more "rounded" or dimensional image with the F35. For some reason, cmos sensors tend to bunch nearby tonal values together and the result is a flatter image. Check this clip: The F35 was produced to replace film and cost $250,000 when it was released. It failed commercially and only a few hundred units were produced. Cmos proved to be a much better choice from the cost point of view. What we need is perhaps an entirely new technology to replace both.

We might be there already. But that's not the issue, I think. I think the challenge for digital are the few stops in the highlights before clipping. You can see that clearly with a human face cross lit (especially with a hard light). To be more precise though the issue is not digital per se. It is cmos sensors in particular. Every new one just looks the same as the old ones with only more resolution. The old Sony F35 is still, to my eyes, the most beautiful digital image. Old CCD technology. I think if research were carried in that direction (whether more advanced CCD or an entirely new technology), the debate would have been over my now and digital would have surpassed film in image quality. I really suspect that companies placing all their bets on continuous cmos development will get us stuck for a while on the same quality of image. Resolution and dynamic range will continue to improve. But that will be it.

So the convention (for spherical 2.35) is to shoot 4-perf and crop rather than use 2-perf?

Perfect. That means the adapter is too thick. I will try to use very fine sand paper to thin out the contact end of the adapter.

I'm sure I have the first problem you listed Dom. My Angy 17.5-70 is not parfocal and I am sure it's the Standard Arri to Pl adapter I am using. It's probably not machined precisely. If I find myself, after getting good focus with the 70mm end, needing to increase the focusing distance in order to achieve focus on the 17.5mm end, does that mean that I need to get the lens closer or further away from the sensor? Or, is there no rule about this? because I could either move adapter away (increase distance from sensor) or file the adapter a hair (decrease distance to sensor) to try to get parfocal. The adapter is very cheap.

Does anyone know what is the name of the single pin (both ends) coiled cable that connects the eyepiece to the camera for the eyecup heater? Is that a common cable or one only made specifically for Moviecams. It looks a lot like this one but I'm not sure: https://www.lemo.com/en/products/coaxial-triaxial-50-75-o/3t-connector My camera came without the cable.

I don't think you could attach a mini euro quick release plate to the bottom of either of these smallrig pieces. Something like 1674 might work better. It has mounting holes in the bottom that are closer together.

Yes. For sure let a technician look at the camera at this point. You might have got lucky that no major damage has taken place so far. It could be as simple as a diode that needs to be replaced.

It's so spooky how each Moviecam is wired so differently. I guess all these cameras were only supposed to be sold to rental houses. People like us were not supposed to own them ?. Marian, I still can't believe that the cable that came with your camera had reversed polarity. That messed up everything for you. It must be a bunch of cameras, each with its own cable, that were sold by a rental house and they just didn't bother matching each cable to its camera but rather randomly include any cable with any camera for sale.

There is a small chance that you could be reading 27V with the meter but if the fuse is blown or the battery sustained any damage, that in such a case its protective circuit, the one that brings its voltage down to 12V, only gets triggered when substantial current is drawn from an appliance (camera).

Are you sure that the 28V fuse in the battery is not blown?

Got you. No, I was wrong. the eyecup that came with mine is not the factory one. It doesn't look like that at all. From your description, the one you have doesn't seem that desirable either. I'll keep looking. the mounting diameter is 46mm. I'll see if I could find an after market one.