Leaderboard

Picked one up last week and finally got to to test it out. It does indeed extend record times and keeps the camera cooler. With the fan set to high in a 75 degree interior I was able to record to a 512 GB CF Express card 3 times with a overheat shutdown but for stopping the test. That's about 78 mins of 8k raw recording. The Temp icon came on about half way through the 2nd card recording and stays on but the camera doesn't shut down.

I use this. It's M42, adapted to EF and then just use any digital camera to scan it. https://images.app.goo.gl/6NrDgntAbgbHg8dE8 as for snaps, here's a couple. Getting the stereo effect is easiest with some hardware, but you can do it with just your eyes if you practice a little. Plenty of how tos on YouTube. As you can see. My camera has a light leak on the right frame. But it does ant take away from the stereo effect.

The treatments in the above (IIRC) were through applying noise reduction (NR). It was a combination of spatial NR which essentially blurs the footage, and temporal NR which blurs between frames. NR is quite smart, but ultimately it's a fancy blur, and definitely softens the footage visibly, so needs to be used with sharpening / unsharp mask, and has very significant limitations in real use. In terms of 8-bit vs 10-bit and if it's "worth it", the test is really if you have problems with 8-bit footage. If you're shooting 8-bit and not having banding issues, or issues with colour blotches on skin tones, etc, then moving to 10-bit probably won't have much impact. My advice is to focus on the final results you're getting, work out what the biggest issues / limitations are for you, and then put your money towards those issues. Counter to what these (and many other) forums suggest, most of the time the biggest return on investment for the average film-maker is on something other than their camera, most likely audio equipment, lenses, filters, audio equipment, lighting and grip, haze / fog, production design, and, to save the best for last, the best money you can ever spend is to invest in your own education and skills. The skilled operator can get reasonable results in almost any situation with any equipment, whereas amateurs make Alexa footage look like a home video....

I got quite deep into film stills a couple of years ago and have continued, albeit at a slower rate, since then. Of course, when I started photography, film was all there was! I cut my teeth working a darkroom and assisting/being second shooter for a freelance press/social/commercial photographer in the late 80s - best fun job I've ever had, TBH. In my more recent forays I've mainly used an Olympus OM-1 (once my dream camera) a Canon V, an Electro 35 and various other rangefinders. Favourite films would be Portra 160, Fuji Acros and Fujifilm Industrial 200. At one point I was processing both colour and B&W, using a polythene packing case with a sous-vide wand as a tempering tank. Nowadays I get the colour processed, but I'm rather fond of stand-processing my B&W, which is a much more relaxing method of film development than the rather demanding process of home C41 processing. I use a Nikon 35mm film scanner that was the most expensive item out of all the stuff I acquired for the 'project'. There's a selection of shots (some good, some bad, some just family snaps) on my photo website https://www.vrimage.co.uk/IShootFilm

Cool 3d photos. It worked fine to watch them with google cardboard by zooming a bit. I've found a Viewmaster Personal Stereo from my grandfather's collection. It uses a crop of 135 film and you take photos in both directions (first like normal and then when you rewind). However, I haven't found a single photo or film-strip from it, so I doubt my grandfather ever got it to work properly. I haven't dared loading a film in it since I've had some problems with the mechanism to change direction. I've also been experimenting a bit with different analog cameras lately, small format, medium format and large format, and I've come to like shooting 120 film the most. It is not such a pain as shooting large format yet gives me a larger format and different experience than what I get digitally. I've had the most success with the 6x6 Rolleiflex, but I've got a few 6x9 cameras as well which I should use more.

I've been enjoying my Canon Elan II. It feels almost exactly like my 5Diii and I can use the same lenses too. It definitely produces a look that I enjoy. Been experimenting with different film stocks too: https://distanceelevation.com/blog/2021/7/5/northcascadesgoatmountainheliotrope The next step will be to do some of my own scans.

I went the other way, and started shooting stereo photos a couple years ago. So a 36 roll gets 18 stereo sets. I quickly learned I need to ask the developer not to cut the negatives, because they camera rolls the film at an odd length between shots. Unfortunately, they cut a few frames in half... but luckily, I had the other angle, so now those ones are just nice, stand-alone pictures. I then process the negative at home, with a slide scanner, a touch of colour adjustments and then pairing and aligning the correct images. Quite a bit of work, but it's also simple and becomes something of a routine after 2 or 3. I use a trusty use a Stereo Realist, it's a rangefinder camera, and surprisingly quick to use once you get used to it. It's also reasonably small, so when I first got it, I took it with me for many shoots for some lovely stereo behind the scenes snaps. Happy to share a couple, but you might need some equipment to get the stereo effect. either a stereo viewer, (those VR headsets you can put your phone in work very well) or try the ol' cross your eyes and stare through the frame - which can get a little exhausting after a while. EDIT: It's a shame stereo-photography never really took off with digital. There's only a handful of models that do it well enough to be worth the time, and they're few and far between on the second hand market. Recently I've been looking at beam splitters, but even those are hard to come by. They are available for phones, but I don't think there's enough usable resolution (on mine at least) to have a good image once you've cut it in half.

Actually, the first film camera I bought, about a month ago, was a NOS N6006, too. But I haven't used it yet. Although I have a bunch of old Nikkor lenses, I don't have anything with AF. Shortly after, I picked up a Nikon P&S that was kinda fun, but the process was a bit too simple. Anyway, like most things I get interested in, I get pretty obsessed with it, so I do a ton of research. If you're looking for something with AF, there were some pretty spectacular cameras made in the 90s by Nikon, Contax and even Konica, but they can be a bit pricey. I really had no idea what I would like, so I wanted to try a few different cameras. In the end, I'll probably keep two or three, since they're so cheap. I'm more concerned with the cost of film/processing than I am with the cameras, though. I guess that's why I'm excited to use this Fuji Half Frame camera... 72 shots from a 36 roll... yes please.

I shot a couple rolls on my honeymoon and had them developed last month. I guess you could say I'm into the whole vintage film thing, as my honeymoon was ten years ago. I took photography in highschool but it didn't take. I did take all the courses because cute girls love photography. I think film is beautiful, but ultimately a pain in the ass. If you are looking for a lab in the US, I had a very good experience with The Darkroom when developing my honeymoon photos. They seem to have a stellar reputation and didn't disappoint me.

I've been doing it lately. I got a Nikon 6006. The viewfinder is very nice and clear though it can be hard to see when the light gets dim. Battery powered so using it doesn't feel very vintage esque. I actually got a bunch of outdated film recently. Just finished a roll of Kodak gold 1600, really interested to see how it looks. It expired in 1993 before I was born haha. I've been wanting to get something like your with a fixed lens though, maybe even something with auto focus.

The rolling shutter halved when CineD switched from 12k to 8k. My guess is they are using a lower bit depth readout for sub-12k, which allows them to get higher frame rates in those lower resolutions.