Filmshooting

that sounds correct, but where does it mention coating?

sounds like you're having great fun so maybe it was worth it, but why on earth didn't you send it back?!?

thanks guys. one more question: is it safe to say that even fairly mediocre prime lens is sharper wide open than a zoom? this used to be the rule when i started in photography in the 80's but i must admit i never cared much about sharpness before so i haven't been following the development in this a...

if the lens is meant to be used on a 3-ccd camera it definitely means trouble on film. there are a million reasons a lens might be less compatible with a certain format, i never wanted to imply that there weren't issues, i just never heard that coating would be an issue when using video lenses on fi...

I'm not sure what you're asking, but what I'm saying is that with a 10 bit uncompressed file or tape you get the exact same source material as the post house would use, so there's nothing except eye and talent that limits your ability to get the same results at home. i don't know the details of the ...

it depends on the scanner btw. companies using the flashscan will more likely ride the controls on the scanner for several reasons. first because you can easily, and second because the limited dynamic range would otherwise clip data which isn't recoverable.

the transfer house will most likely not change the scanner settings during a session but do the corrections digitally, so assuming you get at least a 10 bit uncompressed file or tape the result will technically be identical. i think the main reason to have them color correct it is they're better at ...

that's only a problem when using film lenses on digital, not vice versa. it's not the coating but the angle at which the light hits the ccd, as i mentioned above.

that may very well be true, but what I'm wondering is why it requires stopping down when shooting film. i wasn't asking for techical info per se, just a link so i can trace the information.

yeah but in 35mm sharpness is a non issue, if anything i try hard to soften the image with filters and nets when i shoot it, and even in 16mm a lens that resolves 30 lines is enough. in super 8 i think the situation is a bit different though, and i need an image that looks sharp in theatrical projec...

do you have a link to the coating info btw? would be interesting to hear.

2/3" covers 16mm, some of them even s16, but 1/3" doesn't. some still might but don't expect corner sharpness since they're designed for a frame the size of super 8. i don't quite see why the coating should matter, but there are other differences i guess, such as that ccd's only register l...

it looks better and more interesting than the raw video, i think that's a more interesting comparison than talking about real film. i never used my phone as a camera before i installed "vignette", now i use it all the time. hipsters may be annoying but they generally know what's cool. ;-)

i don't know, i like the same function for stills a lot. but sometimes it seems like i'm one of the few on this board who shoots super 8 because it has soul and not because "it's better than video and just as viable as 16mm dammit". of course, dust and scratches is pretty stupid to put in,...

have your lab test a piece. not expensive. you will get a report on the level of fog and so on. i always do ut after somebody gives me a bunch of short ends and leftovers. which for some reasonb people always do, i guess they know i'm the only one stupid enough to use them.