Jump to content

Is the A-Minima now Dead? (Is 16mm Dead too?)


IBL

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Is the Aaton 16mm A-Minima now a dead duck because the AG-DVX100a out-performs the camera with a better looking cine quality image at a fraction of the A-Minima's price?

 

It seems to me that the AG-DVX100a when blown up to 35mm looks better than 16mm.

 

Basically I think 16mm is mostly dead now except for die-hard users and 16mm projectors.

 

Any Takers who think otherwise?

 

Anyone agree with me?

 

I want to hear your views please.

 

 

IBL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

IBL

 

Boy, I could not disagree with you more. If you look at the archives, you will see a post I did late last year about this topic. We took footage from a DVX100, a Canon XL1s, and a Sony PD-150 and put it up against footage shot with a Bolex EBM in 16mm. The quality difference was astounding. And the Bolex footage was regular 16mm, not Super 16 like the A-minima. The 16mm footage was so much sharper, had so much more latitude, and had so much more depth of field. And again, this was shot with a Bolex that we picked up off of ebay for $1300.

 

If you are looking for the DVX100 look, go with it. But for my money, 16mm and Super 16 is a far better image.

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IBL

 

Boy, I could not disagree with you more. If you look at the archives, you will see a post I did late last year about this topic. We took footage from a DVX100, a Canon XL1s, and a Sony PD-150 and put it up against footage shot with a Bolex EBM in 16mm. The quality difference was astounding. And the Bolex footage was regular 16mm, not Super 16 like the A-minima. The 16mm footage was so much sharper, had so much more latitude, and had so much more depth of field. And again, this was shot with a Bolex that we picked up off of ebay for $1300.

 

If you are looking for the DVX100 look, go with it. But for my money, 16mm and Super 16 is a far better image.

 

-Tim

I could probably understand latitude, yes.

 

However this test here says that 16mm has more grain than the DVX Blowup but is maybe sharper.

 

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm

 

The A-Minima is probably a good camera but for the cost it just seems that DVX is maybe a fraction under what the A-Minima can do and ecomonically... well I think you get my point. Doesn't that kill the A-Minima?

 

Bottom line - Why shoot on an A-Minima if you can get very close to the same look on the DVX for a fraction of the price and production costs?

 

By the way, IMO - even the Canon XLS looked better on the big screen for the movie "28 Days Later" than say "Pi" which was shot on 16mm or "Blair Witch Project".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

IBL,

 

You are missing a big point in the review you are quoting. If you want to have a final product that is film for projection, the difference is substantial. The way Jon Fauer (whom I respect enormously) set up the test is that he took the film and telecined it down to 2k. So already you are losing image quality from the original 16mm film. Then they "blew up" the DVX footage to 2K and printed film outs from both. If you compared the film out from the DVX to a print from the 16mm neg. then you have a realistic comparison. The print from the 16mm neg will be higher quality than the print from a 16mm neg. telecined to 2k, then film outted(is that a word).

 

It is obviously cost effective to shoot with the DVX100 as opposed to shooting 16mm. But I do not believe you will get the same quality in depth of field, sharpness and latitude. Others may disagree. It will be interesting to see how the film "November" does, as it was shot with the DVX100.

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IBL,

 

You are missing a big point in the review you are quoting.  If you want to have a final product that is film for projection, the difference is substantial.  The way Jon Fauer (whom I respect enormously) set up the test is that he took the film and telecined it down to 2k.  So already you are losing image quality from the original 16mm film.  Then they "blew up" the DVX footage to 2K and printed film outs from both.  If you compared the film out from the DVX to a print from the 16mm neg. then you have a realistic comparison.  The print from the 16mm neg will be higher quality than the print from a 16mm neg. telecined to 2k, then film outted(is that a word).

 

It is obviously cost effective to shoot with the DVX100 as opposed to shooting 16mm.  But I do not believe you will get the same quality in depth of field, sharpness and latitude.  Others may disagree.  It will be interesting to see how the film "November" does, as it was shot with the DVX100.

 

-Tim

Did he scan the 16mm film or did he telecine it? There is a big difference if he telecined it but if he scanned that it okay. And this article says that the SPIRIT scans film to digital files so it looks like this is not just an optical telecine.

 

http://www.cinematography.net/2k_transfer_on_a_spirit.htm

 

 

Did you see the movies "Pi" and "The Blair Witch Project" and how they looked on the big screen when compared to "28 Days Later" which was shot on on the Canon XLS?

 

IMO - "28 Days Later" looked a hell of a lot better that either of the other two 16mm projects and that was shot on the Canon XLS and the DVX looks superior to the Canon XLS in terms of quality so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BLAIR WITCH was only partially shot in b&w 16mm. All the color stuff was a consumer DV camera.

 

I'll grant you 28 DAYS LATER looks pretty cool, but it's not nearly as sharp as some of the better Super 16 stuff. Check out THE STATION AGENT or A MIGHTY WIND for some examples of the capabilities of Super 16.

 

I think the DVX100 is a fantastic camera, and it delivers exceptional bang for the buck. But it doesn't have the exposure latitude, resolution, or color-depth film can provide.

 

-Chance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Spirit is a high end telecine, and the outputs were 2k scans. Which is not a bad quality telecine, but there is definitely quality loss from 16mm negative.

 

As far as "Blair Witch" goes, I do not know all the techical details, but I do not believe it was shot on 16mm, definitely not Super 16. And "Blair Witch" was deliberately made to look like low quality video, (which I think much of it was) which gave the story "real world" legitimacy. I did not see "Pi" so I cannot comment on it.

 

From what I heard, and I do not know this for fact, "28 Days Later" though shot on an XL1, was shot on a PAL XL1, and PAL is 25fps and higher resolution than NTSC. So the footage would not have looked as good shot on an NTSC XL1. Soderbergh shot parts of "Full Frontal" on an XL1, but it too was a PAL version of the camera.

 

If you like that look, then by all means shoot with that camera. If that look helps tell your story, then that is the camera to use. It is personal choice. But I do not think you will get far convincing anyone that footage shot by the same cinematographer, from a DVX100 looks "better" or even "as good" as footage shot in Super 16 with the A-Minma. But again, "better" for you may be more of a video look, if that helps tell your story.

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are picking some of the worst examples of Super-16 and 16mm footage to make your comparisons. Fact is that every day there is a vast quantity of professional (and non-professional) work being done in 16/Super-16, so the death of the format has been highly exaggerated by you.

 

When many people think of Super-16 for television series, they think of edgy, handheld, gritty material such as "The Shield," "Homicide," and "Oz." But they do not think of more traditional shows with attractive lighting and pretty actresses who need to be photographed in becoming ways such as "Gilmore Girls," and "The O.C." Fact is these are ALL shot in Super-16 and I defy anyone to look at either of the latter shows and be able to tell me that they can tell it is S-16 not 35mm, or attempt to argue that they could possibly shoot these shows on a little DVX100 and get anywhere close to the same results.

 

The DVX100 is a prosumer little toy. It's very nice for what it is, but it does not really compare with a professional Super-16 camera. Even the a-minima, which is an incredibly popular product for Aaton by the way. I'd rate the HD cameras as somewhere near the quality of Super-16, with certain advantages and disadvantages to each. And in the SD world, the relatively new Panasonic SDX900 is up there as well.

 

The DVX100 has been around for a couple of years--so long that there's actually a new model already, the DVX100A. The A-minima has been around for a couple years more. They each have their place and are both selling quite well. But to simply say that Super-16 and the A-minima is dead because of the DVX100 is both behind the times and ludicrous. No one ever needs to go to a movie theater again because we can watch the movies at home on TV. But they are different quality and experiences, and we certainly have not shutter all the cinemas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take 21 grams, that was 35mm and as grainy as anything you can imagine. now take for example City of God, wich was today nominated for an academy award on cinematography, it was most shot on 16mm and blew up...and it also has parts shot on the Minima.

 

Video, even HD is very far from any negative. Specially because of the deph of field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Let's us up the Ante here a bit here.

 

If you got the budget to go S-16 you are probably not short of a budget to do some work 35mm, right? The difference is not a whole part unless your shooting ratio is very high.

 

So let's take the AJ-SDX900. That is Pro-consumer HD Cinecam with a list price of U.S. $25,000.00 (The is the cost of 2 X A-minima.)

 

In terms of image quality which camera gives the best looking 35mm print for projection after all the processing, transfers etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Basically it comes down to: if you can afford to shoot either Super-16 or 24P using the DVX100 Mini-DV, you'd use whichever gave you the look you wanted. But the truth is that you're generally going to get better results with 16mm -- the lenses are better (and all-manual), the latitude is greater, the color space is better, the resolution is higher (the DVX100 is only 720 x 480 pixels, while Super-16 can achieve better resolution than that.)

 

It would be closer if you were comparing the pro version of the DVX100 -- the DVCPRO-50 SDX900. Or Hi-Def.

 

If you can only afford to shoot with the DVX100, then go ahead -- but don't delude yourself that you are achieving Super-16 quality. Well, maybe really soft 16mm quality...

 

I will say that bumped up to HD and digitally projected, the DVX100 looks pretty good. But I've seen tests of the DVX100 transferred to 35mm using both laser recorders and CRT recorders and it's rather soft with too much depth-of-field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David I watched "28 Days Later" in the cinema and I was blown back by the fact that it was shot on a non-cine camcorder. I thought to myself -- If this is the quality of that Canon camera then 16mm is a dead duck. Then I saw the Panansonic range of cameras designed for cine and I had to say to myself that anyone who wanted to do a project on 16mm would either have to have the budget and the gear and some really good reasons for doing it on 16mm ... or simply up the budget a bit and go for 35mm or switch to the cine-camcorders.

 

How many here think 16mm productions are going to be less popular now that DV Cinecams are around?

 

 

BTW - On IMDB you get tech specs for movies.

 

Look ---

 

16mm - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:16%20mm

 

DVX - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AG-DVX100

 

SDX - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AJ-SDX900

 

I wonder how many new productions between now and next year lets say will be in each format.

 

Interesting no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take 21 grams, that was 35mm and as grainy as anything you can imagine. now take for example City of God, wich was today nominated for an academy award on cinematography, it was most shot on 16mm and blew up...and it also has parts shot on the Minima.

 

Video, even HD is very far from any negative. Specially because of the deph of field.

You right City of God was shot on 16mm in parts but a lot of it was 35mm too. You can tell where the director used each format. I saw it on the big screen too and thought the 16mm was good but looked 16mm. I think the 16mm was mostly used to film the backflash sequences when they where kids but it is scattered throughout.

 

Having said that though "28 Days Later" looked just as good if not better at times than that 16mm stuff and on DVD "28 Days Later" almost looks like 35mm at times. Have any of you seen it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's take the AJ-SDX900. That is Pro-consumer HD Cinecam with a list price of U.S. $25,000.00 (The is the cost of 2 X A-minima.)

 

In terms of image quality which camera gives the best looking 35mm print for projection after all the processing, transfers etc.

That's a whole pile of incorrect information. "Pro-consumer HD Cinecam" It is not Pro-consumer--it is a professional industrial video camera shooting in the DVCPro50 format. HD--no it is only standard definition video. Cinecam--no, it is a video camera.

 

And $25,000 buys you the camera body with no viewfinder, no lens, no batteries, etc. A proper very basic camera package is more like $40,000 - $50,000 once you accessorize it out. Of course the a-minima doesn't come with accessories either.

 

But then again, why are you talking about the cost of tyhe camera when these can be rented at many places for an affordable cost? Only people who use cheap little camcorders that cost only a few thousand dollars bother to purchase equipment rather than rent. Why buy something for one project when in a relatively short time it could be replaced by something cheaper and better?

 

Also, you are not copmparing the more important costs. Who cares what it costs to own these cameras--they rent for fairly similar amounts. But while it is true that it costs much more to shoot Super-16, the costs for blow-up to 35mm (which is the format your asking about finishing in) is so expensive that in the end it is about the same cost if not cheaper to shoot in 16 than on any video format. A good transfer of video to 35mm runs at least $500/minute, so that's $50,000 for a 100 minute feature film. And by the way, there were so many problems with the footage from those little XL-1 camera that they had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in post production to get a useable image.

 

Good rule of thumb--if you want to finish to video, it's cheaper to shoot in video, but if you want to finish to a film print, it's cheaper to shoot on film. Stay within your format and you'll get the best result for the money.

 

You cite a lot of partial information but you need to do considerably more research. If you want some good financial and technical comparisons, look in the archives of this forum for discussions of this and other such topics from previous years. We've talked this to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen 28 DAYS LATER in the theater and on DVD. And it's a cool looking movie. But I never doubted it originated on video. There's a good article on the shooting of that movie at:

 

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html

 

In the article, the DP says he'd rather have shot at least some scenes of the movie on 35mm, but couldn't due to location and budget issues. The movie is very well lit and shot and looks about as good as I'd guess a Canon XL1 PAL to 35mm blowup can look. If they'd shot Super 16, though, it'd look even better. Well, "better" is subjective. It wouldn't look like video anymore.

 

I have seen a couple of 24p HD to film transfers that looked a lot like they were shot on 35mm (ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO, MASTER OF THE GAME). And I liked the look of Soderbergh's FULL FRONTAL DV stuff. He messed with it in post so much it ended up looking like Super 8mm, to me at least.

 

As for the price different in S16 and 35, I think it's pretty big, but can't find any numbers to back me up at the moment.

 

-Chance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you got the budget to go S-16 you are probably not short of a budget to do some work 35mm, right?

Wrong. I've photographed S-16 features with a shooting budget of less than $30,000. You can't do that on 35mm. This does not include blow-up costs of course, but this is a movie shot on film and looks like it was shot on film, not video. One of these movies so happens to have been picked up by a distributor and will be released in the spring or early summer. It will probably have another $100,000 spent to post it with a good sound mix and a digital intermediate for 35mm and various video format mastering, but all of that would have happened no matter what the format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that though "28 Days Later" looked just as good if not better at times than that 16mm stuff and on DVD "28 Days Later" almost looks like 35mm at times. Have any of you seen it?

I personally thought that the movie looked pretty bad and I know that the DP was constantly struggling with those cameras. The shots don't match well all over the place and color depth and motion artifacts are constant problems. I think that 16mm looks much, much better both projected and on DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitch - So what is the final cost of an A-Minima fully kitted out like the above package if we are going to split hairs here? I am sure the way u are talkin' the $12,000 figure for the A-Minima would probably sky-rocket too. No?

 

And whatever the words u mean I am talking about this one here - Cinema Series Cameras here -> http://www.panasonic.com/PBDS/subcat/Produ...s_ccorders.html

 

Maybe the cost of DV or 16mm to 35mm is the same, or more in your example, but certainly 16mm film stock costs, development of negatives costs, possitive print costs, and telecine costs are well above the cost of shooting on DV IMO. What about shooting ratios of say 12:1? I am sure 16mm is going to cost a way more in the long run. You say less? I am not so sure about that. It seems to me that it would eventually cost more, A LOT MORE, to shoot on 16mm than DV for what you get.

 

Probably Yes S16 can look better than DV however after seeing "28 Days Later" (shot on a lesser camcorder than the DVX) the only people who are going to split hairs on this one are the cameraman/producers not the audience. IMO with "28 Days Later" the Audience/Joe Soap would not know the difference between DV/16mm but they yes they would see it more as an "amateur looking" film. IMO 99% of them would not see the difference between DV/16mm on that one.

 

 

chance - no doubt they would prefer the look of 35mm and who would not prefer 70mm for look? Nice article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. I've photographed S-16 features with a shooting budget of less than $30,000. You can't do that on 35mm. This does not include blow-up costs of course

 

Of course it is cheaper without the blowup but I am talkin' blow up here to 35mm too and ... well I don't get this... according to your logic you should shoot on video if you are going to end up on video, right. So why did you shoot S-16 then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitch - So what is the final cost of an A-Minima fully kitted out like the above package if we are going to split hairs here? I am sure the way u are talkin' the $12,000 figure for the A-Minima would probably sky-rocket too. No?

There are so many ways to package out a camera, and frankly the A-minia makes for a very hard choice because it is a specialty camera that cannot use many of the available camera accessories. But I'd put a similarly packaged camera at around $25,000. I said the costs would go up for the camera, I just felt it was important to note that for $25,000 for the SDX900 you do not get a complete camera that you could go out and shoot with as you would with a little all-in-one camera such as the DVX100.

 

By the way, if I were buying a S-16 camera package to go out and shoot a feature film with, the A-minima would certainly not be my first choice. A great little camera for specialty use, but I'd much rather spend the same money and get a complete used LTR-54 or XTR package, perhaps including a S-16 lens and some accessories for the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the cost of DV or 16mm to 35mm is the same, or more in your example, but certainly 16mm film stock costs, development of negatives costs, possitive print costs, and telecine costs are well above the cost of shooting on DV IMO. What about shooting ratios of say 12:1? I am sure 16mm is going to cost a way more in the long run. You say less? I am not so sure about that. It seems to me that it would eventually cost more, A LOT MORE, to shoot on 16mm than DV for what you get.

As I said earlier, if you go to the archives you can see where I've personally done all the math and posted sample budget breakdowns to compare costs. The fact is that while it costs considerably more to shoot with S-16 during production, the cost for blowing it up to 35mm is relatively small compared with the cost of a good transfer of video to 35mm. So the cumulative costs of a Super-16 feature film blown up to 35mm can be less or at least just about the same as a video format feature transferred to 35mm. Certainly if you choose to shoot excessive amounts of film during production that can change, but with good basic planning this is the reality. If you don't belive me you can do the research yourself and work out all the numbers. But I do this for a living and have worked out the realities many times. I shoot in DV, HD, S-16, 35, DigiBeta and just about anything else you can throw at me. I know what they cost and I know what they need to finish out to a useable product. I also own more than $100,000 woth of profesional DV and S-16 camera packages, so I especially know what it takes to work in those formats all the way through to finished products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is cheaper without the blowup but I am talkin' blow up here to 35mm too and ... well I don't get this... according to your logic you should shoot on video if you are going to end up on video, right. So why did you shoot S-16 then?

That's not what I said. Here, I went back and copied it.

 

"Good rule of thumb--if you want to finish to video, it's cheaper to shoot in video, but if you want to finish to a film print, it's cheaper to shoot on film. Stay within your format and you'll get the best result for the money."

 

I was talking about costs. Finish on film--best quality/cost ratio is originate on film. Finish on video--best quality/cost ratio is video. You can use a very nice video camera to get a better video image, but it will certainly be less expensive than film. Will it look better? That's a different comparison all together. This is where cameras such as the SDX900 and to a lesser extent the DVX100 really start to shine. Finishing only to video, the SDX900 can look a good deal like film, as do the high end HD cameras when downconverted. Most sitcoms are now shot in HD and the public has no idea. "Joan of Arcadia" is shot in HD and I doubt 99% of the audience has a clue. But a show like "Gilmore Girls" is still shot in Super-16 and I think looks all the better because of it.

 

But for the feature film I was referring to, we shot in S-16 for only $30,000 and now the movie is getting a theatrical release. Once blown-up to 35mm and projected in theaters, it will look better than any DV movie shot for a similar amount of money. Given the nature of the film, with lots of outdoor shooting under variable lighting conditions, I believe that the S-16 image is far better than we could have ever gotten with HD as well. The best tool for the cost for that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
David I watched "28 Days Later" in the cinema and I was blown back by the fact that it was shot on a non-cine camcorder. I thought to myself -- If this is the quality of that Canon camera then 16mm is a dead duck. Then I saw the Panansonic range of cameras designed for cine and I had to say to myself that anyone who wanted to do a project on 16mm would either have to have the budget and the gear and some really good reasons for doing it on 16mm ... or simply up the budget a bit and go for 35mm or switch to the cine-camcorders.

 

How many here think 16mm productions are going to be less popular now that DV Cinecams are around?

 

 

BTW - On IMDB you get tech specs for movies.

 

Look ---

 

16mm - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:16%20mm

 

DVX - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AG-DVX100

 

SDX - http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Pa...nic%20AJ-SDX900

 

I wonder how many new productions between now and next year lets say will be in each format.

 

Interesting no?

Who looks at "28 Days Later" and says it looks good??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have worked on 16mm and 35mm and most video formats including old tube cameras and U-Matic tape. I even worked on a Konvas 2M for low-budget 35mm work. I have used early Aaton 16mm packages, Noisey Bolex too, but not the new Aaton models or the new Aaton 35mm camera. I have used nearly every video format bar HD and the cine camcorders. I also work projection 35mm platter systems in cinemas and am fluent with non-linear editing systems.

 

I have been wanting to do a feature on some work I wrote. I considered the cost of rental and shooting on film but to actually see how this would work out in the field I decided to buy a Canon Super 8mm camera and some Super 8mm film to see how realistic my figures where. Basically I must have shot about 60 minutes worth of Super 8mm to get about 10 minutes of what I wanted. So the ratio there was 1:6 and could even be a lot more. When I broke that down into the cost of a 16mm production I just went WTF??? No way. I then broke that down into the cost of a 35mm production using a Konvas and the difference was not exactly great and the 35mm Konvas 2M looked like the option for me but the cost of the production was too much for me to still feed the kids :D

 

Then I watched "28 Days Later" after being a devout film-based shooter. I came away thinking - Why bother with 16mm or even 35mm (because they both worked out almost the same as per above) for a first feature? The more research I did on this the more I am seeing people saying 16mm - No way. Go for the DVX and save yourself a lot of time and money for a project that could end up looking better than 16mm. I have seen some of the web based digital DVX video files and I am stunned. So I came here to see how many people would really consider making that switch from 16mm to DVX and as far as I can see a lot of people would do it just because it is so much easier and cost effective but there are pro camera people also saying - look give me a 16mm camera and I can make it look better than the DVX. I am sure there is some truth to that. But realistically, if you are on a low budget and you have a choice between 16mm and the DVX which one would you choose?

 

I am not entirely convinced that 16mm is the right choice here and I am sure that many people here would say DVX in a split second. Am I wrong or is this the camera for the low-budget film maker looking for good options. I keep thinking "28 Days Later" and if I could achieve something anywhere near the look of that movie I would say that 16mm (or Konvas 35mm) would have been the wrong choice. I have also noticed people who shot movies of their own on 16mm and 35mm saying that if they had the choice they would have done it on the DVX. What do you think about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

You got to make the decision you are comfortable with. When faced with that same decision, we opted for 16mm. Why, because from the tests we did, the 16mm looked much better for what we wanted to do. Our films are quieter and more reflective than what most of the mainstream fare is today. Films like 28 Days Later and November are much more edgy, etc. than the type of work we do. So we opted for 16mm.

 

Look at your story and figure out what look you want. Maybe the greater depth of field, less latitude and slightly softer image will convery what you are trying to convey better than 16mm would. It really comes down to the artist's choice of what he or she wants the image to look like. The best way to tell the story.

 

As an asside, if you are looking at long term investment, IMO a 16mm film camera will hold it's value longer than the latest and greatest DV camera, which will be yesterdays news in a matter of months.

 

Good luck with your decision and your film.

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...