Don't Sell Your Film Cameras Yet.

[Peter Sensor]

I just saw the incredible New Kodak Vision 3 stock, Demo'ed on a 30' screen.
WOW! Finer grain, at least 3 stops more latitude!
500 speed. Pushed one stop (1000 ISO) was barely noticable.
Bravo Kodak! S16 now looks like 35.!

[Stephen Williams]

I just saw the incredible New Kodak Vision 3 stock, Demo'ed on a 30' screen.
WOW! Finer grain, at least 3 stops more latitude!
500 speed. Pushed one stop (1000 ISO) was barely noticable.
Bravo Kodak! S16 now looks like 35.!

Hi,

Do you know if by any chance this is related to the 'Kodak Ambush test'

Stephen

[Casey Green]

I just saw the incredible New Kodak Vision 3 stock, Demo'ed on a 30' screen.
WOW! Finer grain, at least 3 stops more latitude!
500 speed. Pushed one stop (1000 ISO) was barely noticable.
Bravo Kodak! S16 now looks like 35.!

I'm sure its great stock. Lemme know when it downloads direct to my Mac Book Pro. :wink:

(a fun comment not meant to fuel a Film vs. Digital flame war.)

[Ivan G]

Alright.... alright.... Kodak you win:innocent:

[Zack Birlew]

Well, Kodak has had to do something. I read in The Hollywood Reporter about how they're sticking to their guns on film instead of coming up with some sort of digital cinema solution. If this new stock can do better than the last, more power to them. However, whether the industry responds to their new stock when everyone is falling in love with digital workflows has yet to be determined. Heck, Randy Roberts, the supervising producer for Law & Order:SVU was speaking in my class yesterday about how he saw a demo of the RED and believes that everyone will want to transfer over within the next couple of years. He said he was sure Law & Order:SVU would most likely switch over once more RED cameras are out.

[Casey Green]

I can see the next series now.... "Law & Order: ASC"

:detective2: :biggrin:

[Gary McClurg]

Well, Kodak has had to do something. I read in The Hollywood Reporter about how they're sticking to their guns on film instead of coming up with some sort of digital cinema solution. If this new stock can do better than the last, more power to them. However, whether the industry responds to their new stock when everyone is falling in love with digital workflows has yet to be determined. Heck, Randy Roberts, the supervising producer for Law & Order:SVU was speaking in my class yesterday about how he saw a demo of the RED and believes that everyone will want to transfer over within the next couple of years. He said he was sure Law & Order:SVU would most likely switch over once more RED cameras are out.

I know a dp who worked for Kodak... I asked him once and he said yes they've made their own digital cinema camera... just not going to release it... in other words they're keeping up... just not selling them....

[SIRAJ KUMKHE]

:angry03: i think nobody will sell them befor testing their red
here is in my company we have
2 ARRI's 35-BL3 AND ONE Arriflex 35-3 ,3 PANAVISION
ThEY ARE ALL GREAT .and even when we will receive our Red's we are not planing to let them go at lease for 1 year plan.

[David Mullen ASC]

Kodak is already in the digital camera business, just not for movies. Remember this is the company that invented the Bayer filter being used in cameras like the RED ONE. Why go from being the Number One player in film technology to Number Five or Six in digital camera technology? They'll switchover when no one is buying film anymore, but until then, there's no reason, not when they sell four-times the amount of movie film compared to their nearest competitor (Fuji.) Kodak is never going to be a big digital camera-making company for movies. There are already too many players in that field already.

[Gary McClurg]

Kodak is already in the digital camera business, just not for movies. Remember this is the company that invented the Bayer filter being used in cameras like the RED ONE. Why go from being the Number One player in film technology to Number Five or Six in digital camera technology? They'll switchover when no one is buying film anymore, but until then, there's no reason, not when they sell four-times the amount of movie film compared to their nearest competitor (Fuji.) Kodak is never going to be a big digital camera-making company for movies. There are already too many players in that field already.

In a more detailed post... basically you kinda of wrapped up what my friend said... and what I didn't write.. thanks David...

[Peter Sensor]

Stephen,
I don't know about the "Ambush Test". ?
This was a Kodak screening in Chicago. We saw 35 projected - a print from camera original Neg. Also footage transfered by LazerPacific to HDCAM SR.
FletcherChicago was also there to tout their 3- perf commitment.
Also, Filmworkers Club and Astro labs, both of Chicago, were also talking 3-perf.

[Peter Sensor]

I'm sure its great stock. Lemme know when it downloads direct to my Mac Book Pro. :wink:

(a fun comment not meant to fuel a Film vs. Digital flame war.)

Casey, You can take it to any format you want. I know this was a fun comment
and not fuel for a debate. I don't think there should be Vs. anything.
These are all tools for the artist. To think that I might shoot everything on a Red camera or an Arri is crazy. The choices of formats these days is a kick -
I love it, It's what fits the project ? Just in the last 6 weeks doing commercials,
web site footage, projection,etc. I've shot - 35, S16, HDV w/P+S, 2/3"HD w/P+S, Super 8 film - reversal & Neg.- and the one that was projected - -
Super 8 - go figure. I welcome Red and all that it has to offer, the more tools the better.:bleh:

[Dominic Cochran]

Hey Peter, sent you a PM

[J. Eric Camp]

Peter is very right. It's a big market place. There is a lot of blank canvas out there. To insist that we use only one type of paint brush is myopic.

-eric-

[Brent J. Craig]

here is in my company we have 2 ARRI's 35-BL3 AND ONE Arriflex 35-3 ,3 PANAVISION

I thought no one owned Panavision cameras but Panavision. Have any Panaflexes ever been offered for sale?

[Finner]

Your right about that. If someone has panavision cameras and they are not rented then they are stolen.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Maybe he's referencing a long term lease.

I know a lot of film schools have Panavision in the equipment closet that they've had for years.

[Shawn Nelson]

In thinking about the future of Kodak, I've wondered why they don't make revolutionize the telecine process.

I've wanted to shoot film on numerous occasions, but the high cost always pushed me back. If they would instead make telecine very cheap (i.e. you buy a $2500 device that'll telecine all night long) then they'd start making film competitive on the lower end.

The reason for such a move would be that the "low end" of today (students, indies, up and comers ,aka the 'wannabees') are tomorrow's "high end" clients.

Now I already know they'll cut deals for students of film schools, but they need to fundamentally alter the process in order to really compete with digital. Heck, they are doing it with still cameras. You drop off your roll of 35mm still and you can get a CD back of HQ scans!

[Steve Sherrick]

I agree with David on this one. Kodak really is the leader in terms of film stock and it would take a digital cinema camera with a feature set better than anything currently available and at a price point in tune with the marketplace for them to jump to number 1 in digital cinema. Maybe they are holding back waiting for the proper time to do that but right now they are still at the top of their game in film. I hope they stay around for a while. I'm one of those people that still enjoys film. Like it has been mentioned, Red adds another palette.

Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.

[Shawn Nelson]

Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.

Ah, so others are having the same thoughts! It boggles me why they haven't done this. High res scanners are very cheap nowdays.

[Terry Delahunt]

Ah, so others are having the same thoughts! It boggles me why they haven't done this. High res scanners are very cheap nowdays.
Yes I wondering the same thing …perhaps a cheap scanner solution is not far off?

[Petr Dvorak]

In thinking about the future of Kodak, I've wondered why they don't make revolutionize the telecine process.

I've wanted to shoot film on numerous occasions, but the high cost always pushed me back. If they would instead make telecine very cheap (i.e. you buy a $2500 device that'll telecine all night long) then they'd start making film competitive on the lower end.

....


Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.


Yep EXACTLY!
Since I tried to scan old family 8mm footage on flatbed scanner I started thinking about it this way.

If somebody will develop cheap continuous film scanner (like with one row of ccd sensor and led light) I would like to use film stock for sure

some homemade telecine
http://www.truetex.com/telecine.htm
http://www.jkcamera.com/digital_printer.htm
http://digireel.blogspot.com/2007/10/background.html
etc

LEGO telecine :clown2:
http://home.comcast.net/~shay.mozes/8mm.html

http://home.comcast.net/~shay.mozes/DSC05345.jpghttp://home.comcast.net/~shay.mozes/DSC05349.jpghttp://home.comcast.net/~shay.mozes/DSC05351.jpg

[ChrisLyon]

You still have to pay to get it developed which isn't cheap.

[David Mullen ASC]

Kodak doesn't have much control over the costs of processing -- they don't own the labs, and the costs are really the tanks of chemicals that need constant replenishment and the people who maintain them, so that's not going to change.

They have control over the cost of film stock, but of course, silver is a major component of film which factors into the cost.

They aren't really in the movie camera business anymore, but they have been developers of scanning technology over the years, hence why developing a low-cost digital scanner for Super-8/16/S16 would be a good marketing move.

[ChrisLyon]

LEGO telecine :clown2:
http://home.comcast.net/~shay.mozes/8mm.html

Lol nice! Care to share some stills in the off topic area?

[Petr Dvorak]

Lol nice! Care to share some stills in the off topic area?

Sorry, this is not my setup, but I love it.
enjoy another one :construction:
http://www.marksimonson.com/article/105/LegotheTypeDesignersFriend

http://www.marksimonson.com/images/legotype.jpg

... and another (watch video!)
http://digireel.blogspot.com/2007/10/hardware.html
http://bp2.blogger.com/_TKVJ6OFqJzk/RzQs_6yZX-I/AAAAAAAAAEM/KqaWQGLVaUE/s1600-h/IMG_1143.JPG
http://bp3.blogger.com/_TKVJ6OFqJzk/RzwCipsrM6I/AAAAAAAAAEk/Xy9j8dbfQuI/s1600-h/Guide+Assembly.JPG

[Zk2007]

Well, Kodak has had to do something. I read in The Hollywood Reporter about how they're sticking to their guns on film instead of coming up with some sort of digital cinema solution. If this new stock can do better than the last, more power to them. However, whether the industry responds to their new stock when everyone is falling in love with digital workflows has yet to be determined.

Who's everyone? I would say 99% of Hollywood features are shot on film and this won't change for a while, at least till the big "masters" retire.
I see digital being more interesting for TV but for feature work, film has a proven quality, tracking record, workflow and reliability that digital just doesn't deliver yet. It will one day and RED is a huge step in the right direction but we are just not quite there yet.

[Zk2007]

I thought no one owned Panavision cameras but Panavision. Have any Panaflexes ever been offered for sale?


Your right about that. If someone has panavision cameras and they are not rented then they are stolen.

He could have been talking about the Panavision Elaine, the 16mm Panavision camera. Panavision sold them once they decided not to continue in the 16mm market.

[galexander]

huh? Kodak IS in the digital business for a while. Most of the GigE cameras using CCD chips are Kodak. Basler, Dalsa, Jai, they all sell units which have at the core Kodak sensors, KAI-2020,.. etc etc..

[Shawn Bannon]

Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.

The telecine process is the number reason I have decided to start shooting more digital. its easy to scrounge around for shortends of film, but the high cost of telecine is unavoidable, there is no easy inexpensive way to do it.

any possibility of adapting a red into a telecine machine?

[Videoteque73]

they should create a cheap desktop scanner

They should have done it 10 years ago.

The only thing is keeping film alive is projection. Once projection becomes digital (I hope soon!) you won't see film again. Bye bye forever!!! :red_bandana:

[Clint Johnson]

I agree with David on this one. Kodak really is the leader in terms of film stock and it would take a digital cinema camera with a feature set better than anything currently available and at a price point in tune with the marketplace for them to jump to number 1 in digital cinema. Maybe they are holding back waiting for the proper time to do that but right now they are still at the top of their game in film. I hope they stay around for a while. I'm one of those people that still enjoys film. Like it has been mentioned, Red adds another palette.

Steve

So in a few years, when Jim's interest has shifted to building inexpensive space ships, they can buy the Red Digital Cinema company.

[Priyesh P.]

I'm one of those people that still enjoys film. Like it has been mentioned, Red adds another palette.
Steve

oh. the old "palette" debate again. this is kinda discussion between film cracks, 99% of the viewers won't see and don't care about the subtle differences between 7218 and 7229 resp. 5218 and 5229. excuse me, but the only things I care are easier and faster work with nearly the same image quality, that's enough to start with, now let's get better Jim...

[Steve Sherrick]

oh. the old "palette" debate again. this is kinda discussion between film cracks, 99% of the viewers won't see and don't care about the subtle differences between 7218 and 7229 resp. 5218 and 5229. excuse me, but the only things I care are easier and faster work with nearly the same image quality, that's enough to start with, now let's get better Jim...

The thing is, it's not the same image, and that's not a bad thing. Red footage looks great, but it's got its own look. My only point on this issue has been why the urgency to get rid of film? Red will do fine with film still around as an option for the very reasons you mentioned, faster and great image quality. But it's not the same thing as film. It's fine to like Red more than film or vice versa. When you mention viewers don't notice the difference, this may be true but only when both formats are used properly, i.e. good lighting, art design, costuming, makeup, etc. When production values are high, people are less likely to care what the format it originated on.

Kalone, what exactly is it about having a wide palette that bothers you? I'm just curious, because in other art mediums, the artists have choices and it's what they do with those various tools that makes their art unique. Thoughts?

Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

Audiences may not care about "palettes" but they expect filmmakers to because they are supposed to care about such things so audiences can just sit back and enjoy the movie. What sort of serious artist sets his standards based only on what the average person can notice???

Artists care about "palettes".

I mean, look at Jim and the RED team -- so you want them to set their standards based on what the average audience member will notice? Why even build a 4K camera then? Most audiences can't tell the difference between HD and 4K. Most audiences aren't going to notice compression artifacts, noise problems, chromatic aberrations, aliasing artifacts unless they are really huge. Most audiences can't tell a crappy old zoom from a modern prime.

Has modern filmmaking become about minimal effort and care? Is it just about foisting off the lowest possible quality that you think the audience will accept?

We, as filmmakers, care about the fine details that go into our movies because we consider it a craft and an art, and caring about the little things is what artists and craftsmen do. And that includes caring about the "palette", the texture, of the photographic image.

And besides, one could argue that the extra wide exposure latitude of color negative could be a time-saver in some shooting situations where you can't control the contrast... I mean, if we're going to dump on film as being too time-consuming to use, it doesn't explain the fact that I know someone who shot a feature film, in 35mm anamorphic no less, in four days, 20 pages a day. A monster movie at night.

[Steve Sherrick]

Audiences may not care about "palettes" but they expect filmmakers to because they are supposed to care about such things so audiences can just sit back and enjoy the movie. What sort of serious artist sets his standards based only on what the average person can notice???

I would think that most artists in this medium are highly creative individuals who are constantly challenging themselves to come up wuth fresh, and exciting new ideas. If this was about status quo, we'd all be accountants (accountants don't take offense, you are highly important)


Artists care about "palettes".
Absolutely!


I mean, look at Jim and the RED team -- so you want them to set their standards based on what the average audience member will notice? Why even build a 4K camera then? Most audiences can't tell the difference between HD and 4K. Most audiences aren't going to notice compression artifacts, noise problems, chromatic aberrations, aliasing artifacts unless they are really huge. Most audiences can't tell a crappy old zoom from a modern prime.

I believe audiences have become more knowledgeable about the filmmaking process over the years, perhaps more than we give them credit for. I had a relative ask me the other day if the movie Collateral was filmed in HD. The fact that they even asked me that surprised me.


Has modern filmmaking become about minimal effort and care? Is it just about foisting off the lowest possible quality that you think the audience will accept?

The way budgets are being cut at an alarming rate, it does seem like their is an attitude of fast, cheap, and out of control. The less lighting, i.e. the less work to get the job done, the better for the bottom line. Of course, that is a generalized statement. There is still a lot of high quality work being done in all genres of medium production, but that approach does seem to be more prevelant.


We, as filmmakers, care about the fine details that go into our movies because we consider it a craft and an art, and caring about the little things is what artists and craftsmen do. And that includes caring about the "palette", the texture, of the photographic image.
Well said David!


And besides, one could argue that the extra wide exposure latitude of color negative could be a time-saver in some shooting situations where you can't control the contrast... I mean, if we're going to dump on film as being too time-consuming to use, it doesn't explain the fact that I know someone who shot a feature film, in 35mm anamorphic no less, in four days, 20 pages a day. A monster movie at night.
Good point.

Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

I just think the argument for using digital has got to get away from the "audience doesn't care about..." line of thinking. That road leads to bad places. The unspoken subtext is "hey, it's cheap and it doesn't look as good as film, but who cares? I don't, the audiences don't..." Promote the positive aspects, but don't take a negative and then justify it. And I know Kalone wasn't saying that he doesn't care about image quality, but the echoes of that old "audiences don't care" argument are in there.

When I make a movie, how ideas are communicated to audiences matter, but that doesn't mean that the audience is the defacto filmmaker, they don't chose what color dress the actress wears or whether I key from the left or the right side, or whether I use a 50mm or a 75mm lens for an over-the-shoulder. The audience leaves those details to the filmmaker, and "palette" is one of those details.

[mdo]

In thinking about the future of Kodak, I've wondered why they don't make revolutionize the telecine process.

I've wanted to shoot film on numerous occasions, but the high cost always pushed me back. If they would instead make telecine very cheap (i.e. you buy a $2500 device that'll telecine all night long) then they'd start making film competitive on the lower end.

The reason for such a move would be that the "low end" of today (students, indies, up and comers ,aka the 'wannabees') are tomorrow's "high end" clients.

Now I already know they'll cut deals for students of film schools, but they need to fundamentally alter the process in order to really compete with digital. Heck, they are doing it with still cameras. You drop off your roll of 35mm still and you can get a CD back of HQ scans!

This is probably the single most effective thing Kodak could do to extend the life of film as a cinematic medium.

Arguments against it might include:

1. Telecine on a big-budget film barely shows up on the budget, and therefore there's no need to reduce the cost of it.

2. You would be undermining the profitability of high-cost telecine houses.

3. So few of these low-cost telecine devices would be sold that the product would probably never become profitable.

However, the critical point that Kodak apparently misses in this whole thing, as Shawn points out, is that the persons who would most benefit are the film students and low-budget film makers -- the FUTURE of the film industry. If new filmmakers are forced by cost considerations into a digital workflow, and that workflow proves to be perfectly satisfactory, they won't be likely to consider using film when budget constraints are no longer an issue.

I recognize that there are film development costs, etc., in addition to telecine, but those costs can be reduced by getting clever and creative. The huge hit of telecine makes it much more difficult to manage the cost of using film -- and dramatically reducing the cost of telecine for the low-budget filmmaker would be a smart move.

Personally, I'm already focused on the digital path and at this point have no intention of considering film. But it is definitely a fact that the cost of telecine has played a significant role in my abandoning the idea of using film.

[Elizabeth]

Audiences may not care about "palettes" but they expect filmmakers to because they are supposed to care about such things so audiences can just sit back and enjoy the movie. What sort of serious artist sets his standards based only on what the average person can notice???

Artists care about "palettes".

I mean, look at Jim and the RED team -- so you want them to set their standards based on what the average audience member will notice? Why even build a 4K camera then? Most audiences can't tell the difference between HD and 4K. Most audiences aren't going to notice compression artifacts, noise problems, chromatic aberrations, aliasing artifacts unless they are really huge. Most audiences can't tell a crappy old zoom from a modern prime.

Has modern filmmaking become about minimal effort and care? Is it just about foisting off the lowest possible quality that you think the audience will accept?

We, as filmmakers, care about the fine details that go into our movies because we consider it a craft and an art, and caring about the little things is what artists and craftsmen do. And that includes caring about the "palette", the texture, of the photographic image.

And besides, one could argue that the extra wide exposure latitude of color negative could be a time-saver in some shooting situations where you can't control the contrast... I mean, if we're going to dump on film as being too time-consuming to use, it doesn't explain the fact that I know someone who shot a feature film, in 35mm anamorphic no less, in four days, 20 pages a day. A monster movie at night.

Agreed and well said!

Subtleties determine true distinction ... because is it not, in fact, the "fine details" that differentiates a master artist from all other aspirants?

It is the layers and layers of subliminal attention that draws out the powerful visceral emotional response we as filmmakers seek to evoke, and each emotion requires a distinctly different "palette".

An audience may not know exactly what it is that they are noticing, however EVERY time we sit down to view a production of any type, we DO notice and feel and response to so much more than we ever realize.

It is up to the filmmakers to make sure that the audience really CARES about what they are seeing.

e.

[David Mullen ASC]

I mean, talking about the difference in look between 5218 and low-con 5229 (which could be minimized to some degree in a D.I. session), look at how many types of diffusion filters are on the market -- ProMist, Black ProMist, GlimmerGlass, Soft-FX, Classic Soft, Black Diffusion-FX, Black Dot Texture Screen, Classic Black, Double Classic Black, etc. Or all the types of diffusion gels -- 216, 250, Opal, Light Grid, Full Grid, Muslin, etc.

All of these elements contribute to texture, to "palette", just as the decision to use haze on the set or not. And the use of these elements may be quite subtle (and sometimes should be more subtle than the average viewer can detect). If the differences between 5218 and 5229 were really extreme, some viewer may be asking "what was up with that picture?" when they walk out of the theater, so it's not necessarily a weakness that the difference between these choices is very subtle.

I admit when you're on a budget, you have to prioritize which textural effect is worth a budgetary expense, we don't make movies in a vacuum generally. And we all don't have the same image priorities; some DP may rhapsodize about Cooke lenses like they are the Second Coming while another won't lose any sleep if he has to use Zeiss lenses instead. But most artists have image issues that they are personally passionate about, beyond the average viewer's ability to care -- that's why they are the artist and not the viewer.

Now if movies were only a mass-produced commercial product devoid of any artistic value, then one could more accept an attitude that anything not obviously appreciated and noticed by the consumer that costs extra is a waste of money. And perhaps some people feel that way about the movies they make, although there are probably easier ways to make a buck.

I don't mean to beat-up on Kalone here because this is way beyond anything he was suggesting, of course, but I really hate the arguments that suggest that it is silly when artists care "too much" about something (like palette) if the average viewer doesn't. If we didn't care about such things, we wouldn't be doing something as hard as moviemaking. We'd just be a moviegoer.

Besides, forget film for a moment -- even in a world of digital camera only, moviemakers are going to be arguing over the palette, the image texture, that one digital camera seems to create over another. Not to mention differences in lenses. So even if film disappears, this argument isn't going to disappear.

(I see on another thread, a discussion over 12:1 vs. 10:1 wavelet compression for the RED -- another textural image issue that probably most viewers are not going to care about or notice on average? The point is that we are all natural pickers of nit, so to speak. It's our job to be picky.)

[Benjamin Rowland]

Does Kodak have a DVD demo of the new Vision3?

[kirnold]

hi
anybody try HD-Kinoscope,that means old LCD replace with screen
and hd-projector, i saw one image on net.

[Priyesh P.]

Didn't and don't have time to read all posts, but to put things right, I didn't say anything against subtle and precise artistically crafted pictures, but the kodak stocks we have today (the whole vision2 lineup) is made to intercut as seemlessly as possible, the only other "special" stock than 5229/7229 is the telecine 5299/7299. To make it short: Stockswise you can choose beetween rather homogenous blends of kodak vs Fuji. Thats it. Not much choice, isn't it? So nearly everything else happens by optical and digital filtering, manipulation and so on.

[Peter Sensor]

David, Very well said, as with everything you say. I'm glad I started this thread, it has led to some interesting ideas - thanks to all.
Are You Listening Kodak ? You should be.

[David Mullen ASC]

There used to be only one Kodak color negative motion picture stock on the market at a time, until the 1980's when high-speed versions started showing up, yet movies before 1980 show a wide range of looks.

Now we've got several color negative stocks to choose from, mostly for speed/grain variations. Yes, while "special look" color negative stocks in different speeds would be nice, it isn't particularly profitable for Kodak to make and warehouse too many stocks since they age over time. Kodak recognizes that most people are grading digitally these days, so what people want are wide latitude stocks that give them maximum flexibility in a digital color-correction suite, and they want fast stocks with minimal grain.

The Vision-3 stock is specifically designed to address customer requests in this direction -- better for scanning, less grain when underexposing, more highlight information.

I was only responding against this post by Kalone, and his implication that only "cracks" care about the "palette" of their chosen format (like film) and that since most viewers don't see the difference between 5218 and 5229, it somehow is therefore irrelevant for the cinematographer to care about such things:



oh. the old "palette" debate again. this is kinda discussion between film cracks, 99% of the viewers won't see and don't care about the subtle differences between 7218 and 7229 resp. 5218 and 5229. excuse me, but the only things I care are easier and faster work with nearly the same image quality, that's enough to start with, now let's get better Jim...

I'm not even sure what a "film crack" is, but it doesn't sound complimentary. The problem is the tone of the post which seems to be putting people down for caring about the palette of film stocks. Look, I can't tell the difference between most bottles of wine, but I don't knock people who can taste the difference...

[Max Zug]

oh. the old "palette" debate again. this is kinda discussion between film cracks, 99% of the viewers won't see and don't care about the subtle differences between 7218 and 7229 resp. 5218 and 5229. excuse me, but the only things I care are easier and faster work with nearly the same image quality, that's enough to start with, now let's get better Jim...

Kalone,
Respectfully, because you don't see it - or stated better -- feel it, doesn't mean there isn't a difference between these stocks and the messages they convey. A final image is the sum of it's parts. And making many subtle decsiions in support of your message is what direction and direction of photography is all about. Not to be mean spirited, but only easier and faster pegs you in a category I'm glad I'm not in. In the end there may always be a difference between film and format du jour - if only in the way we approach our craft.

I imaged the new 500T earlier this month in the UAE. It's impressive. I'm not selling my SR anytime soon.

max

[Peter Sensor]

Like my old Film instructor at Film school used to say:

"Good lighting isn't noticed, It's Seen".

[HamillianActor]

3. So few of these low-cost telecine devices would be sold that the product would probably never become profitable.

What in business is called a "loss leader" - a product you know you're going to lose money on but sell anyway so that your customers will buy other products that you can make a profit on.

Which is exactly what a cheap telecine would do, bolstering their sales of their main product - film. Whether it would be enough, who knows. And it still wouldn't sustain it at pre-digital levels. Any way you slice it, film is going from a staple to a luxury item.

And I agree with David. As a filmmaker, I'm out to impress fellow filmmakers and the opinions of people whom I respect as well as entertain my audience. Of course, it's a balancing act and it's important not to lose sight of the story by obsessing over aspect ratios and lighting setups, but ultimately, I'm out to impress the experts and the laymen alike.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I'm not even sure what a "film crack" is, but it doesn't sound complimentary.

It could be, actually. A "crack shot" in archery or hunting is an expert marksman who gets it right nearly every time. So even though I haven't heard the term before, etymologically I could see "film crack" referring to highly-skilled, highly-knowledgeable experts.

[HamillianActor]

A quick Google search brings up nothing relevant.


Also, hey Dorkman!

[J.D. Frey]

All I know is that I went to a local theatre last week and the first run of the print was scratched already. Not really the film's fault- but there is alot of complication at every level of the film process. I guess in the future I'll be complaining about some digital problem- any way we can replace the 15 y/o that runs the projection booth?

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Oh man, last night I went to see "The Golden Compass" and during one of the previews (for "Definitely, Maybe"), there was a big black hair in the projector or on the lens or something. It was just...there. The whole preview. I almost lost my shit. There was no way I'd be able to sit through a whole movie with a hair in the projector.

Luckily it went away after that preview (so I really don't know where it came from or where it went) but I seriously would have walked out.

Digital won't really save us from that, if the hair is on the lens, but it's certainly nice to have fewer moving parts involved that will need maintenance and cleaning.

[Stephen Williams]

Digital won't really save us from that, if the hair is on the lens, but it's certainly nice to have fewer moving parts involved that will need maintenance and cleaning.

Hi,

If the hair is on the lens, I doubt you would be able to identify it as a hair.

Stephen

[mezmo]

Mike Most and I have talked about this, that if Kodak really wants to extend the life and usage of film, they should create a cheap desktop scanner of some sort so people can get the film converted to digital easily and cheaply.
Hi David,
Vision 3 should help the Super 16 Datacine to HDSR 444 Log format workflow.
Less grain being the big difference here. Although 1920x1080, this is still a
good low cost established industry workflow, Spirit Datacine realtime @ 24fps and a technicial grade done out of hours without the need for a Colorist.
Master to SR tape, Uncompressed or Disk/Intermediate codec with Super 16 film safe in the vault. 2/3perf 35mm also an option here.
I see some scanners are now about US$400K, a $50K version would be great,
don't see it happening anytime soon. Hope I'm wrong.
Mezmo