What's today's digital version of the Éclair NRP 16mm Film Camera?

[BenEricson]

13 hours ago, tupp said:

Certainly, there are other digital cameras with 16 and S16 crops, and most of them have been mentioned in this thread.  The Digital Bolex and the Ikonoskop A-cam dII are probably the closest digital camera to a 16mm film camera, because not only do they shoot s16, raw/uncompressed with a higher bit depth, but they both utilize a CCD sensor.

Yeah, the OG pocket cam is S16 and also has a similarity in the highlight sensitivity. Ergonomically though, beyond terrible, any of those cameras mentioned are like Fisher Price toys compared to the Eclair. Nobody ever even bothered to create a modern zoom lens that could compete with the old S16 ones. Maybe the Canon 18 - 80 on a C300?

[BenEricson]

Deleted*

[tupp]

15 hours ago, kye said:

He says "The latitude of a typical motion picture negative film is 3.0 log exposure, or a scene contrast of 1000 to 1.  This corresponds to approximately 10 camera stops".  The highlights extend into a very graceful highlight compression curve.

Most of us who shot film were working with a capture range of 7 1/2 to 8 stops, and that range was for normal stock with normal processing.

 

If one "pulls" the processing (underdevelops) and overexposes the film, a significantly wider range of tones can be captured.  Overexposing and under-developing also reduces grain and decreases color saturation.  This practice was more common in still photography than in filmmaking, because a lot of light was already needed to just  to properly expose normal film stocks.

 

Conversely, if one "pushes" the processing (overdevelops) while underexposing, a narrower range of tones is captured, and the image has more contrast.  Underexposing and overdeveloping also increases grain boosts color saturation.

 

Because of film's "highlight compression curve" that you mentioned, one can expose for the shadows and midtones, and use less of the film's 7 1/2 - 8 stop  capture range for rendering highlights.

 

In contrast, one usually exposes for the highlights and bright tones with digital, dedicating more stops just to keep the highlights from clipping and looking crappy.

 

 

15 hours ago, kye said:

However, if you're talking about mimicking film then it was a very short period in history where you might shoot on film but process digitally, so you should also take into account the print film positive that would have been used to turn the negative into something you could actually watch.

6 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Fair enough. I didn't realize you were talking about reversal film or film prints. Reversal was extremely popular at that time. The Dark Knight was shot negative but done with a traditional film print work flow and saying it has poor dynamic range and is comparable to ML is a tough sell.

I don't think @kye was referring to reversal film.

 

  

6 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Yeah, the OG pocket cam is S16 and also has a similarity in the highlight sensitivity.

The BMPCC was already mentioned in this thread.

 

 

6 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Ergonomically though, beyond terrible,

No.  Because of its tiny size, the BMPCC is more ergonomically versatile than an NPR.

 

For instance, the BMPCC can be rigged to have the same weight and balance as an NPR, plus it can also have a shoulder pad and a monitor -- two things that the NPR didn't/couldn't have.

 

In addition, the BMPCC can be rigged on a gimbal, or with two outboard side handles, or with the aforementioned "Cowboy Studio" shoulder mount.  It can also be rigged on a car dashboard.  The NPR cannot be rigged in any of these ways.

 

  

7 hours ago, BenEricson said:

any of those cameras mentioned are like Fisher Price toys compared to the Eclair.

To exactly which cameras do you refer?  I have shot with many of them, including the NPR, and none of the cameras mentioned in this thread are as you describe.