Clark Nikolai

I agree totally. There is so much good gear out there that is considered to be old models but still work very well. I have two sets of Sennheiser EW100 G3 transmitters and receivers. I got them over ten years ago on Craigslist for about CAN$800. They were considered old then but I've not had any problems with them. I've had to scrape corrosion of the terminals once (I always take the batteries out now) and put heat shrink over the antennas (where the original plastic had cracked) but otherwise they are still going strong and work very well. I've had thoughts of getting some newer ones, such as the Sennheiser AVX EKP receivers as they'd be smaller and phantom powered but really, I don't need to. This also fits in with my philosophy I'm doing this year, is to get creative with what I already own. (It's going great so far by the way.)

From a Canadian perspective as well. The US Democratic Party would be considered centre-right in Canada. Having said that even Canadian politics is more right than it used to be, much like the world. This was predicted by historians. When resources run out, people start fighting over their differences (which previously would have been ignored) then political opportunists see this and use it to gain power.

I'm playing around with it now. Impressive! The Magnetic Masking is pretty amazing. The timeline vertical resize shortcut is something I know I'll use a lot. The "Transcribe to Captions" function only works on an Apple Silicon machine (mine is Intel) so I can't test that out. It seems like their approach is to add just a few features with every update but those features are very well designed and thought out. And I still have only bought it once over ten years ago and getting new updates for free. (Of course they'll make money off me in the future when I buy a new Mac. )

I think the main reason to scan film at a super high resolution is to see the individual grain particles. It once was a thing to try to avoid but now it's a cool thing to have (and there's all this interest in fake film grain plug ins). When shooting digital for narrative cinema, 2K is plenty (if the camera is good in other ways.) Shooting at a higher resolution in order to punch in of course is useful.

Also, the experience of making something is better when it's something tangible. I used to work at a post production house so all day I would be looking at a screen, it was a nice break to go load the dishwasher in the coffee room sometimes just because the dishes were real and I could touch them. I think that's a bit why there's interest in shooting film now (stills and motion) is that it's tangible. Even if it'll just get digitized and viewed the same way as digitally sourced images, the making of it is a different more satisfying process to some. The Wallace and Gromit films are real claymation even though it could be entirely done in CG. It's just a better result and probably more fun making it.

I lived through that age when only film was considered good and video was considered something for the lesser ones to play with until they can get good enough to shoot on film. It's funny that video won in the end. For me, I watch YouTube videos of enthusiasts, (mostly young people), excited to shoot on film. It's funny to me because I never want to touch it again. It's so picky. You have to do so many steps or you won't get an image. You won't really know until it comes back from the lab which problem you'll have either. The process distracts from the creativity in some ways. (It might be all these things are a "challenge" and that's the appeal.) Having said that, I understand why the look it has is now some sort of standard to compare other types of looks to. I saw an interview with the director of Roma. He said something like that it was a modern 4K black and white digital grain-free look, not a film look. If you listen to some YouTubers talk about what is cinematic, it would not fit their definition but watching it you see that of course it's cinematic.

I agree with both of you but one thing I've noticed to add to it is that with young filmmakers/videomakers/creators/viewers I get the sense that well-made media is viewed with suspicion whereas something sloppy or of low quality is viewed as having authenticity to it.

Thank you. I do have an old 1080p Ninja and have looked at these kinds of things. From what I can tell they first one upscales and deinterlaces to 720 or 1080. What I want to do is have it output in the native format of the camera, so NTSC interlaced 720x480. Then I could record that with the Ninja and do my own upscaling and deinterlacing later in post. (Giving me more options and control over that.) The second one (Portta) says that it doesn't scale. That might mean that it'll output the NTSC interlaced signal out of the HDMI port. It doesn't seem to do composite or S-video input though.

I don't know what the current going price would be nowadays. It was higher than the original price for a few years but now recently I think things have changed. There has been one on eBay (with lenses and monitor) with a starting bid of 4300 Euro that has been relisted twice and has had no bidders. Earlier this year I saw one on eBay for US$1000. 😳 !!! There are many more camera options now and to get a film look, there are good emulation options too. Older used BMs, Reds and Alexas are pretty affordable too. It's a great camera and I love mine and all but if I didn't have it I would likely also be pretty happy with one of some other cameras that are out there.

One product they could make that would stand out in the marketplace would be something like a Ninja monitor-recorder that records internally to ProRes but has analog inputs for standard definition NTSC and PAL. A big thing with artists now is to shoot with old video equipment but most analog recorders save only to MP4. The Ninjas only have HDMI and SDI inputs. I've looked but can't find anything like it out there. Has anyone heard of something like this?

Looks really good. It's like design-wise they kept to just two channels and concentrated on all the other aspects of a recorder. For me I'll wait until they have a 4 or 6 channel version. I've been eyeing the Zoom F6 which seems good. I don't have a project for that many channels just yet (but sometimes have needed three) but I know at some point I will.

I look at this and get the impression that the only reason to use iPhones instead of "real" cameras is as a marketing gimmick. iPhones are capable of good quality and all that but ergonomically, they're awkward to use. If this film was shooting with an Arri Alexa for example, I wouldn't even know about it, but I do know about it. Doing something different is a way to stand out. It'll be interesting to see the results. I hope I don't sound negative or anything. I think it's great that there are high quality devices in most people's pockets now. The hippy era dream of video technology democratizing media production has now happened. Most are using it for unimportant things but some are using it to communicate their lives to others and be part of the world of media. In the past many types people weren't allowed in to the world of media. That's over.

I know someone (a filmmaker) here in Vancouver looking for one. It all depends on the price though of course. What are you hoping to get for it?

Well, look at this. Kinefinity is coming out with a small HDMI EVF.

I'm finding that, unlike earlier in my life, I have so many cameras I have access to now that which one to choose becomes a matter of image characteristics and physical logistics. I choose a camera much like a painter would choose watercolour or oil paint. It depends on what look you want as well as what situations you'll be in as to which one, all the while knowing that they'll each add a certain something that could communicate something. For example, in my next film I'm shooting most of it with a Digital Bolex, this is because it's planned as a nod to the French New Wave films and that will give it a kind of 16mm look. It's set in the present day and one character will have a video diary, for this I'm thinking of a Panasonic HDC-SD9 to give it an early cell phone/ digital camera look (without going to standard definition). I'm even thinking of another camera which might even be a (gasp!) vertically shot iPhone which will represent a different mood/situation. It becomes just another tool to use, partly for mood and partly as a reference to the technology of different times.