Відео

I have a STRONG opinion about this stock. This guy makes an error about grain size and f-stops are logarithmic not linear… But this stock actually produces true blacks unlike modern digital processes which produce detail when shooting under startlight. As someone who shot deep shadows, i hate the move into super sensitive divital because i want my image to fall into true black and rhe dynamic range the space betwen the heel and shoulder of my exposure it so fuckjng wide now it infuriates me. You kids today and your high dynamic ranges! You never had to ask Kodak for a faster stock and it shows!!! Also you shoot Kodak for war pictures and westerns and you shoot fujifilm for cyberpunk neon…

I have a STRONG opinion about this stock. This guy makes an error about grain size and f-stops are logarithmic not linear… But this stock actually produces true blacks unlike modern digital processes which produce detail when shooting under startlight. As someone who shot deep shadows, i hate the move into super sensitive divital because i want my image to fall into true black and rhe dynamic range the space betwen the heel and shoulder of my exposure it so fuckjng wide now it infuriates me. You kids today and your high dynamic ranges! You never had to ask Kodak for a faster stock and it shows!!! Also you shoot Kodak for war pictures and westerns and you shoot fujifilm for cyberpunk neon…

Look, the only thing I will say is the lack of grain in 100 ASA film is just better to shoot under low light. If you shoot faster film under bright lights you get less grain but shoot faster film in low light it has more pronounced grain. That was my experience shooting 800 speed film under candle light…

Yes! Within the first two minutes you summed up pretty much everything that made many of those old films look so unrefined to me - especially the sky looking off, as if viewing a faded photograph, the contrast being too high (crushed blacks) and a lack of nuance distinction. Always felt like much of the old Star Wars films just didn't look professional, especially compared to older movies like Once Upon a Time in the West. The greens look alright though.

Excellent analysis. Films today do have an over reliance on digital grading - Altering the colour completely in post instead of shooting it correctly. The natural look of the 5247 is iconic and really does look more cinematic than today. Also, the use of key lighting, even in daytime scenes is lacking today. Even if it was more difficult for the camera dept. it just looks way more cinematic than shooting everything with available natural light.

Some of the information was great - the comparisons of color response and the dynamic range. Some information was dumbed down too much, though - Tungsten-balanced film does not 'take more light' when shooting through an 85 filter. The film takes the same amount of light. The lens aperture has to be opened 2/3ds of a stop (not 1 stop) to compensate for the filter passing 2/3rds of a stop less light. Another UA-cam video written by AI...

What magic were people working in the films that looked so much cleaner than others? Look at Conan the Barbarian, it looks like a Spaghetti Western, but compare it to Ridley Scott's clean and crisp Blade Runner. Star Wars compared to Empire Strikes Back, the latter looks like it was made a decade later and not just 3 years later.

I feel mean saying this, but I had to watch with subtitles on mute, as the constant high pitched intonation mid sentence was just too distracting for me to stay focused on what was actually being said. Otherwise, an interesting video. Thanks.

You know.... I loved those movies, but color grading ruined me.. I hate the look of those washed out skies now 🤣

Really surprised by the pincushion on those nanomorphs!

Also, they didn't color grade. Movies in the 80s actually look like my childhood, it's how everything looked to the eye.

The notion that a higher EI film "absorbs" more light is not correct. The EI has nothing to do with how much light is "absorbed". In fact, a higher EI film needs *less* light for a proper exposure. So given the same scene, a 200 EI film would actually receive one-half the light that a 100 EI film would receive.

There's something about technical limitations that can enhance the artform. Since expertise is required to operate the equipment, you get an expertly crafted product in the end. Modern technology allows for shortcuts. 90% or more of the movie is created after the filming. Lighting is done super flat since everything is done in front of a green screen. There's a timeless quality about movies from this era that I don't think is retained by current blockbusters

Call me an oldie, but I much prefer the film 80's and before, same when it comes to music, I prefer analog and vinyl. Somehow it brings out the charm?

Thanks. Very Informative

Hey hey Rochester native here its Eastman Kodak let me say it again Eastman Kodak! The business was built by George Eastman as the Eastman Kodak Co.

So, in other words, because of the limitations of the film stock, they had to actually develop the story, so that people would be interested in watching.

I don't know why but I miss this look on films, even though I like some of the look from the 90s and early 2000 films, I wish more films tried to replicate the classic look.

Since density during development is controlled by time and/or temperature, you can imagine the issues with contrast with early ECN2 - Kodak wanted to reduce time but probably had to compensate by increasing temperature. And the first version of 5247 didn’t push-process well, picking up green in the blacks. Kodak’s advice was “so don’t push it!” which did not go over well among Hollywood cinematographers.

Thank you! I always said that I liked the special look of 80s movies. I could not quite describe what it is about them that was different. But you did it for me. It was the film all along!

When U.K. cinematographer Chris Challis came out to Hollywood to shoot “The Deep”, he was surprised to find that 5254 was still in option. Since it had a softer contrast than 5247, he decided to use 5254 for day exteriors in sunshine and use 5247 for the underwater photography. A lot of cinematographers preferred the old 5254 over 5247 - except for those that liked using heavy diffusion, which worked better with the sharper and higher-contrast 5247 (John Alcott shot most of “Barry Lyndon” with a LowCon #3 but said he would have had to use a LowCon #5 to get the same look if he had switched to the new stock.)

The dynamic range once printed was reduced - but the range of 5247 negative was not 8 or 9 stops, it was not much lower than modern stocks… Vision-3 gained almost a stop of extreme overexposure latitude through the use of very slow micro-grains in between the normal grains for a total of 14-stops, maybe a bit more. But 5247 wasn’t that bad, maybe more like 12 to 13 stops. What made it look harsher was the dupe and release print stocks of the day. Also black level in a photochemical print is really a product of the printer lights used, so the more well-exposed or denser the negative is, the higher the printer lights used for the print and the deeper the blacks get, which in turn makes the color look richer and the contrast higher (until you get into extreme overexposure… then the image starts to look flatter again because most of the midtones are now on the flatter shoulder of the characteristic curve.)

The first version of 5247 along with a new ECN2 processing in 1974 was disliked by Hollywood cinematographers who felt it was too contrasty compared to 5254 and didn’t push-process as well (a common technique at the time). So Kodak sold both 5247 and 5254 in Hollywood, though this meant some labs had to be converted for the new process and others kept the old process set-up. In Europe and the U.K., there was no choice but to switch to 5247 though you could still find labs to process 5254 (Kubrick was shooting “Barry Lyndon” long enough on 5254 that the lab still had to keep an ECN 1 processor going.) In mid-1976, Kodak released an improved 5247 and obsoleted 5254. “Star Wars” started filming in the spring of 1976 and mostly used the early 5247 but “Close Encounters” probably mostly used the newer 5247, plus their 65mm VFX photography had to use 5254 because Kodak wasn’t selling 5247 yet in 65mm. Kodak kept tweaking 5247 over the years before it was obsoleted around 1994. John Toll shot the day exterior work of “Legends of the Fall” on 5247 but had to switch to EXR 5248 for “Braveheart” the next year.

Good video but I had to stop it half way through. The unnecessary music was too high and covering up the narrator voice. I don’t know why people need music for their talking videos

I'm not even from the 70s, 80s or 90s, but I love how modern some of these films still look to this day, Star Wars Original Trilogy, Apocalypse Now, The Shining, Indiana Jones, or Blade Runner which looks 20 years ahead of it's time, I love when movies from the 70s, 80s and 90s look like they were shot yesterday, that's when I say the image quality aged well, of course restoring the negatives (even for 4K transfers) might have something to do with that.

stop that shit of lgbt and be a man

You are looking at the positive. Not the negative. When comparing contrast, hues, color, dynamic range, you have to consider the positive it was printed on.

Great video, check out mine on vision 2 500T shot for stills.

Jadi pertanyaannya Mereka setelah ini pada kuliah sambil ngonten atau mereka bakal fulltime di JELEE? 😅 Karena yang nganggep JELEE ini profesi kan cuma Kano sendiri.

Best comment section i've encountered in a while🎉

All of these distinctions are rendered moot by colour grading and post-processing tools. Pretty much anything can be made to look like anything else these days. It's all become interchangeable.

What’s the pay??

Film is better

the way the "slate" works, at least as explained, seems to be weird. In Argentina, the slate is a number, but it's not numbered in sequence of shooting, rather in sequence of how it's planned that it's going to be shown in the final cut.

I freak’n love this video, its the type of video I didn’t know I needed but completley geeked out on. I too, grew up as a kid in the 70’s and a teen in the 80’s and loved the look of my favorite films from that era “The Empire Strikes Back”, “Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind”, “Jaws”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, etc. Some of the technical specs for this film stock that kinda blew me away were that its dynamic range was at around 10 stops and my Canon C200; when shooting in raw with C-Log 2, is rated at 15 stops but I’ve seen real world tests showing it is more like around 11-12 stops of dynamic range but the point being is that I own a digital cinema camera that is comparable in dynamic range to 35mm negative cameras from the era when I was a kid… mind blown... though of coarse, roll off not as good still as an Arri Alexa and I am also a fan. But the other thing that blew me away was that 5247 film stock’s highest exposure rating was at a mere 100 EI or 100 ISO digital equivilant, and my C200’s base ISO is 800 (though I shoot at ISO 640 because it produces way less digital noise but still retains 80% of the dyamic range in the highlights) which means I also don’t need to shoot with giant, super hot, and ultra expensive studio lights. This really makes me appreciate my C200 and it inspires me to keep pushing its potential. What a world we live in with so many wonderful and affordable cinematic tools at our disposal! Bravo for your awesome work, love your channel!

Classic movies have thick pictures quality

I think it’d be fun to watch a movie shot with Fuji Velvia! 😍

35mm 100 Tungsten 5247 2 film stock. The lower ASA produces finer grain.

achtel 9x7 camera batman 2

achtel 9x7 camera

I’d like a video on focal lengths used for specific shots- like what people shoot a mid shot on or a close up for instance

Filmmakers of the 80s: <Jump through hurdles to produce the best looking movie with the limitations of the available filmstock.> Filmmakers of the 20s: <Record the movie on digital cameras with almost no limitations. Snap the same a blue/green grading all over it.>

Movies look more diverse now? What do you mean? EVERYTHING IS TEAL AND ORANGE. Filmmakers forgot that the color wheel is only a reference and NOT A RULE.

way way way better movies back then. non of this woke demonic crap.

Nice to see a fellow SA citizen on UA-cam, good advice mate🤙

It feels like so many people have just decided to prefer the film look over the digital look because it makes you seem more of a cinephile, and they then look retroactively for reasons for that preference. Even this video’s top comment is the thanking the video for helping them understand why they always preferred the “gritty” look of 70s cinema. Except… that’s not what this video is about at all. The grittiness comes from film grain, not from lower dynamic range or deeper greens. That’s what grit is: grain. This video doesn’t mention grain once. In fact this video comes off more positively about digital and modern film, because the higher dynamic range and more neutral color capture allows for more looks to be created in post (including the 70s Kodak look if that’s what you want). But no, a film vs digital video is a great opportunity to display your “I prefer film” cred and have other people upvote your comment.

‼️Film only exists today in cinema for the hipster “Yaaaass girl” factor. It doesn’t matter whether you shoot it on film or purely digitally, some cat mom with a smoker voice and a fuzzy tongue is just going to auto-apply her LUT’s and crank the secondary colors so far apart that it starts to look like Ben-Day prints. Then they’ll simulate 1970s title effects digitally anyway. Everything about liberal hipsters is a fraud and a sham. All the personal satisfaction with none of the pesky effort. Karl Marx is proud of his little den of demons. 🫃🏻

What's everyone favorite LUT to achieve this look?

They look better.

Very great breakdown! thank you!