edgebsl wrote:
I know everyone says it's not so much the camera but the film,exposure and lens that dictates the image ,but I have a feling the the Cinema Products cam is going to show big improvement over the k3 stuff.
Yeah but then you have also changed the film the and the lens as well as the camera! ;) Having said that I had a friend who had very, very bad experiences with a couple of K3 cameras, I think the build quality of them can be quite variable, and if you get a bad one, who knows what it will do to your film!
The C.P. cameras are generally very well respected anyway!
I think some of the grain problem was caused by the processing....it was worse on the fuji stock so maybe whatever they were screwing up- The fuji was more sensitive to.
The softness and noise I think was due to the Mark 3's noisy output and something not being calibrated right.Their color bars bled like crazy so something is up.
I used 2 k3s so I dont think I had any light leaks, only problems I think I had with them were registration problems.
I just got a second Ultra T, a wide angle 12.5mm so I have good lenses now and I think I found the lab for me! For a one light on a spirit it wasnt that much more money and the extra money was well worth it.
Next up , I have to experiment with the filmo! lol Filmo footage transferred on a Spirit? How ridiculous is that? Well, I'm going to give it a shot now that I've been focusing more with tape.
This is a rough cut of the commercial ,before color correcting and after effects for the text and graphics.There may be some more editing but this is pretty close to what we have.
We decided to do a 4:3 letterbox with a 16:9 window since this is going to local broadcasts. We were going to do full frame 4:3 but when he tried the matte,it framed real nice.We're pretty happy overall although we should have brought along someone to do makeup to cover up blemishes! Well, live and learn. looks like I'm getting a free tattoo out of the deal which will be worth a little more than what I spent so in a way I guess I got paid a little bit! Chalk one up for film.
Oh yeah, he loves it!
The xl2 stuff looked good too.But the film this time really rocked with the colors which was perfect for showing off tattoos.The skin detail setting on the xl2 helped hide some pimples, but that's about it.
Actually that one quick shot of the hammer was the xl2.The roll run out before we got that shot.It doesnt look bad, but it needs a bit more tweaking.
I'd say the xl2 is perfect for the no budgets but the film is definitely worth it when someone has a little cash or if I'm doing something for my own band.
This was done at post works in new york. I got a good rate but the guy made it sound like this price was a one time deal.But hey, it worked.I'm sold.A good transfer is worth a bit extra.
BigBeaner wrote:Maybe should posts about movies that made us love film. I remember I was really in the video due to it's price but after seeing THX-1138 on the big screen and class screening of Badlands and Metropolis, I fell totally in love and realized how bad video looked and sought out for a cheap alternative film, and that's how I came here.
And interestingly enoguh, THX was TWO PERF. Looks better than Lucas's latest, and it's using half the film he could have used if he had shot real anamorphic.
BigBeaner wrote:Maybe should posts about movies that made us love film. I remember I was really in the video due to it's price but after seeing THX-1138 on the big screen and class screening of Badlands and Metropolis, I fell totally in love and realized how bad video looked and sought out for a cheap alternative film, and that's how I came here.
And interestingly enoguh, THX was TWO PERF. Looks better than Lucas's latest, and it's using half the film he could have used if he had shot real anamorphic.
And those films shot on 2-perf (THX-1138, American Graffiti, the Leone "Spaghetti Westerns", etc.) were shot on Kodak color negative films that were generations behind today's VISION2 films. Over the last three decades, significant improvements have been made to reduce grain and increase the sharpness of color negative film.
Super-35 is widely used for shooting films today, and it has even more image area than 2-perf Techniscope. And the anamorphic format offers even more image area (0.825 x 0.690 inches).
John Pytlak
EI Customer Technical Services
Research Lab, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
John_Pytlak wrote:And those films shot on 2-perf (THX-1138, American Graffiti, the Leone "Spaghetti Westerns", etc.) were shot on Kodak color negative films that were generations behind today's VISION2 films. Over the last three decades, significant improvements have been made to reduce grain and increase the sharpness of color negative film.
true, but back in the days people shot 50 or 100 asa film, while today it's usually 200 or 500. that difference in grain is most likely bigger than evolution has been able to counter. the colors and contrast have become better though, i can't argue with that.
John_Pytlak wrote:And those films shot on 2-perf (THX-1138, American Graffiti, the Leone "Spaghetti Westerns", etc.) were shot on Kodak color negative films that were generations behind today's VISION2 films. Over the last three decades, significant improvements have been made to reduce grain and increase the sharpness of color negative film.
true, but back in the days people shot 50 or 100 asa film, while today it's usually 200 or 500. that difference in grain is most likely bigger than evolution has been able to counter. the colors and contrast have become better though, i can't argue with that.
/matt
IMHO, the image quality of a well exposed film shot using Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 will far exceed anything shot on 5251 or 5254 from the early 1970's. Those older films were rarely used for 16mm due to their graininess. Today 16mm VISION2 500T 7218 is widely used, even for HD and 35mm blow-up.
John Pytlak
EI Customer Technical Services
Research Lab, Building 69
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY 14650-1922 USA
John_Pytlak wrote:IMHO, the image quality of a well exposed film shot using Kodak VISION2 500T Color Negative Film 5218 will far exceed anything shot on 5251 or 5254 from the early 1970's.
but these old films weren't particularly grainy either. i'm not saying the new stocks aren't better, but i can't say that they've taken away the grain problems with using higher speed stocks. the best way of getting little grain is still to shoot a slower stock.
Today 16mm VISION2 500T 7218 is widely used, even for HD and 35mm blow-up.
i've used it myself for these purposes and i know for a fact that it turns out rather grainy on a print and requires some degrain in telecine to not look grainy in hd. and super 16 has almost as much negative area as 2-perf too, if you disregard the different aspect. remember that 2.35 material is usually projected wider at the same picture height.
