De Luxe has decided to abandon 16mm. All the business-manager system wish to cancel film and to use just only digital (probably to not hold a memory)...One fine world is waiting for that kind of people that recognize one status completely different of what is shooted on film support than what is transcoded in numeric data.
too all the people yelling at all the Digital fans 3 years ago..lets start a debate on 16mm film vs 4k digital. also, DELUXE is no longer involved with 16mm at all. Yeah, 16mm is so fucking great.. face it, within the next 20 years, digital will be KING and film will be a rarity. "DIGITAL FOR LIFE!"
@mikekrum90 Yes you make a good point but will your digital images still be viewable in 20 years from now? and will your state of the art camera still be working in 20 years from now. I think I know the answer to both questions. Face it. Digital technology has a limited shelf life. My 16mm camera was made in 1971 and is still going strong.
@airscrew1 That's exactly what I was going to say. The new RED cameras are great and all, but like you said. Will they still be working in 20 years? How often does someone have a hard drive crash (one that I might add isn't being moved around like a camera would be)? I understand that there are pros and cons to each medium, but for longevity, film has proven itself to at least LAST for a decade or two without problems (depending on what type of film you're using)
Suck it Red! Suck it, cheesy DSLR's (with your comical rolling shutter artifacts and dreadful "digital" look and feel). Sure, there are many legitimate reasons for professionals to shoot digital for some projects. After all, tools are tools. But the current new horde of kiddies bending over backwards to get the footage from their cheap DSLR's to "look like film"... would certainly benefit from shooting film on even a single project. Greatly. Only film, looks like film.
Well when you put it like that, you sound like a pretentious douche. Some people can't afford to shoot film. Every one is excited about video-capable DSLR's because they're affordable AND you can use all the lenses you may already own. It's all about the capability of shallow depth of field to get a more cinematic look. So I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, get acquainted with reality, and don't worry what the "kiddies" are doing.
I had an ST and a BL. They were just about affordable cameras. There's no beating film in my opinion. All this HD is ok but can never replicate the look of film.
I'm with ValerianSoup! and a bit of a film purist. I have a sweet SR 2.9 and love the look I get with the Zeiss 12-120 zoom let alone the Optar Primes. Hands down film is a winner.
Yes, is getting better all the time, with advances in stock. In fact, I heard somewhere that vision2 50d resolves way more than 2k, and that is has equivalent resolution to approximately 200/175t 35mm film. It's an exciting time for movie film.Young filmmakers are really picking it up.
how comes u can get deep focus with a film camera/lens but when sticking a 35mm adapter on a video camera its impossible and you can only get shallow ? :(
I think you might have that the wrong way around, you get a more shallow DOF on film, shallow as in small - equals a smaller area of focus... I used to to make that mistake all the time ;) check out Citizen Kane for use of deep focus even on film
Beautiful...I feel privileged to be around those who defend the medium of film as I do....film is, and will always be the medium of the moving image. Bravo!!!
REAL films are shot with film, super16mm scans in at 2500x1600, Film has 5 times the dynamic range than digital. maybe when hollywood starts shooting with XL2's (interlaced 1920x1080 static 30/24) instead of Arriflex cameras like a lot of retards like yourself I'll start listening.. gg though faggot.
Do you think were fucking retarded? Do you expect any of us to believe that ARRI would say the XL2 is better than the Arriflex 416??? ROFL. you should quit while your behind faggot. the XL is a shitty point and shoot camera with NO variable frame rates, no prime lense selection, no fuck all.
I shoot on DV but boy I sometimes miss working with film. And the guys here are right -- film still is way better than video in terms of resolution. But I can only afford to shoot in DV.
Still nothing like film to capture images. It's the texture, colors and handling of contrast, even after digital telecine and editing. Same goes for stills photography.
Yeah, video can't even come close to film, especially sub-$40,000 cameras. I'm glad there's at least 1 manufacturer out there not afraid to say so. Kodak is afraid to advertise film because they believe the public thinks it's archaic. Kodak's still admits there's no comparrison though.
We aren't talking 65mm here. We are talking Super 16. Because it uses somewhere more than %18 of the film plane, it can be blown up to 35mm, for theater release, and still maintain good quality. It really depends on the aspect ratio too which is usually 1.78:1.
This isn't me talking, this is actually ARRI film directors talking from interviews about Super 15. Now whose the real idiot?
Do you think were fucking retarded? Do you expect me to believe that ARRI would say the XL2 is better than the Arriflex 416??? ROFL. you should quit while your behind. the XL is a shitty point and shoot camera with variable frame rates, no prime lense selection, no fuck all.
keep talking nub, maybe when hollywood starts shooting with XL2's instead of Arriflex cameras like a herde of retards likeyourself i'll start listening.. gg though faggot.
Do you think were fucking retarded? Do you expect any of us to believe that ARRI would say the XL2 is better than the Arriflex 416??? ROFL. you should quit while your behind faggot. the XL is a shitty point and shoot camera with NO variable frame rates, no prime lens selection, no fuck all.
haha you are fucking retarded. Super 16 worse than a fucking XL2? are yu kidding? that thing isnt even HD. I have a sony fx1 and only wish that i could own a super 16 camera. maybe super 16s cost anywhere from 15 to 50k and your shitty xl2 costs around 2k for a reason. oh and how the xl2 has 24p - the "filmlike" look... a film camera pretty much IS the filmlike look
the Xl2 is not interlaced its progressive and comparing the 2 cameras on a DVD player with the Xl2 using PL lenses they look pretty damn close....at 24fps
a $6000 dollar interlaced tape camera does not come ANYWHERE close to an $80,000.00 dollar motion picture film camera. especially when this film camera supports 1 to 75 frames per second in increments of 0.001
It's like comparing a $200 dollar digital camera to a $9000 dollar pro SLR setup.
That 416 is pretty small compared to the 16SR3. It's quiet too, because of the rubber insulators inside. You can hardly tell it's on. I can just hear some digital fanatic, "Oh, I can do the same with my Canon GL2 by changing the gamma levels". Yeah right. Film is film, you'll never get the same effects, None the less, the quality of aspheric lens too.
5 Red Camera owners clicked the wrong button...
slonamu 2 months ago
Why prof Digital Movie Cameras use Rolling Shutters ??? .. To create a Filmlook... Use Film and you have the true Filmlook
TheSchwarzie 3 months ago
We sold our Digital Equipment and bought a Arri SR 3 Super 16
Only Film is Film !!!!!!!
TheSchwarzie 3 months ago
whats the song that starts at 3:09 ?
mikekrum90 5 months ago
De Luxe has decided to abandon 16mm. All the business-manager system wish to cancel film and to use just only digital (probably to not hold a memory)...One fine world is waiting for that kind of people that recognize one status completely different of what is shooted on film support than what is transcoded in numeric data.
novaexpss 10 months ago
I would love to see MORE of That!!!
analyzingfunny 10 months ago
one word 'PIPELINE'
srosefx 11 months ago
too all the people yelling at all the Digital fans 3 years ago..lets start a debate on 16mm film vs 4k digital. also, DELUXE is no longer involved with 16mm at all. Yeah, 16mm is so fucking great.. face it, within the next 20 years, digital will be KING and film will be a rarity. "DIGITAL FOR LIFE!"
mikekrum90 1 year ago
@mikekrum90 Yes you make a good point but will your digital images still be viewable in 20 years from now? and will your state of the art camera still be working in 20 years from now. I think I know the answer to both questions. Face it. Digital technology has a limited shelf life. My 16mm camera was made in 1971 and is still going strong.
airscrew1 11 months ago
@airscrew1 That's exactly what I was going to say. The new RED cameras are great and all, but like you said. Will they still be working in 20 years? How often does someone have a hard drive crash (one that I might add isn't being moved around like a camera would be)? I understand that there are pros and cons to each medium, but for longevity, film has proven itself to at least LAST for a decade or two without problems (depending on what type of film you're using)
sgtpepper1138 5 months ago
@mikekrum90 Oh, and 35mm is even HIGHER resolution than 4k digital.
sgtpepper1138 5 months ago
3:06
just love it!
MrMicroentertainment 1 year ago 3
Suck it Red! Suck it, cheesy DSLR's (with your comical rolling shutter artifacts and dreadful "digital" look and feel). Sure, there are many legitimate reasons for professionals to shoot digital for some projects. After all, tools are tools. But the current new horde of kiddies bending over backwards to get the footage from their cheap DSLR's to "look like film"... would certainly benefit from shooting film on even a single project. Greatly. Only film, looks like film.
eggbertsmith 1 year ago 3
@eggbertsmith
Well when you put it like that, you sound like a pretentious douche. Some people can't afford to shoot film. Every one is excited about video-capable DSLR's because they're affordable AND you can use all the lenses you may already own. It's all about the capability of shallow depth of field to get a more cinematic look. So I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, get acquainted with reality, and don't worry what the "kiddies" are doing.
amsterdamob 1 year ago
@amsterdamob yes film is expensive!! i just spent $95 for regular 8mm including proccessing :( 2 color rolls, one B&W.
In the end the money is worth it though.
MarioLoco03 1 year ago
ahem.. 35mm
:D
sprayframe 1 year ago
Film is so much digital.
TheDirectorofFoo 1 year ago
God we've been spoiled for choice in the past 6 years, the new Aaton Xtéra, A-minima, Penelope, Arri 416... and vision 3 filmstocks...
fredNielssen 1 year ago
Awesome vid for an film fan! Long live filmstock.
johnkarliss1 1 year ago
I had an ST and a BL. They were just about affordable cameras. There's no beating film in my opinion. All this HD is ok but can never replicate the look of film.
airscrew1 2 years ago
I'm with ValerianSoup! and a bit of a film purist. I have a sweet SR 2.9 and love the look I get with the Zeiss 12-120 zoom let alone the Optar Primes. Hands down film is a winner.
lonedrumer 2 years ago
i am doin' low budget films, and I always wanted a super 16mm. I like the film look like.
jera3 2 years ago
Yes, is getting better all the time, with advances in stock. In fact, I heard somewhere that vision2 50d resolves way more than 2k, and that is has equivalent resolution to approximately 200/175t 35mm film. It's an exciting time for movie film.Young filmmakers are really picking it up.
AmazingShoestring 4 years ago
how comes u can get deep focus with a film camera/lens but when sticking a 35mm adapter on a video camera its impossible and you can only get shallow ? :(
Maz1989 4 years ago
I think you might have that the wrong way around, you get a more shallow DOF on film, shallow as in small - equals a smaller area of focus... I used to to make that mistake all the time ;) check out Citizen Kane for use of deep focus even on film
sismithin 4 years ago
if you close the aparture on the 35 lens (lets say 22) you should get deep focus
rozroz 4 years ago
I don't believe that's possible on a dof adapter. The way they work means the aperture needs to be wide open to cast an image on the gg.
AmazingShoestring 3 years ago
ummm well if you want deep focus on film you have to stop the lens down, like shoot at deeper f-stops f11 or f16
lens adaptors eat up alot of light,so its usually hard to stop your lens down when shooting video
Im confused???? dont most people who shoot video with a 35mm adaptor want that shallow focus look??
if you want deep focus just shoot video with its standard lens?
circleofconfusion9 3 years ago
Beautiful...I feel privileged to be around those who defend the medium of film as I do....film is, and will always be the medium of the moving image. Bravo!!!
SeptemberGroup 4 years ago 14
REAL films are shot with film, super16mm scans in at 2500x1600, Film has 5 times the dynamic range than digital. maybe when hollywood starts shooting with XL2's (interlaced 1920x1080 static 30/24) instead of Arriflex cameras like a lot of retards like yourself I'll start listening.. gg though faggot.
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago 2
Vglover
Do you think were fucking retarded? Do you expect any of us to believe that ARRI would say the XL2 is better than the Arriflex 416??? ROFL. you should quit while your behind faggot. the XL is a shitty point and shoot camera with NO variable frame rates, no prime lense selection, no fuck all.
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago
I shoot on DV but boy I sometimes miss working with film. And the guys here are right -- film still is way better than video in terms of resolution. But I can only afford to shoot in DV.
chrisman737 4 years ago
Still nothing like film to capture images. It's the texture, colors and handling of contrast, even after digital telecine and editing. Same goes for stills photography.
aihoschema 4 years ago
Yeah, I was being conservative.
wado1942 4 years ago
Yeah, video can't even come close to film, especially sub-$40,000 cameras. I'm glad there's at least 1 manufacturer out there not afraid to say so. Kodak is afraid to advertise film because they believe the public thinks it's archaic. Kodak's still admits there's no comparrison though.
XL-2 resolution, 500 lines. Super-16 resolution, 1,800 lines.
XL-2 lattitude, 8 stops. 16mm lattitude, 11-12 stops.
DV lifespan, 4-years. Film, 50.
wado1942 4 years ago
Oh, and in low light, you won't get the shadown detail with the XL2. Again digital fan boys at it's best. Film is film, some people can't accept it.
vglover 4 years ago
Super 16 is NOTHING compared to the Xl2. What are you smoking mikekrumlauf? Blow the picture up, you'll see what I mean.
vglover 4 years ago
lol... this guy obviously knows nothing.
Blow up the picture? Try 65mm Imax film and try talking to us about blowing up the picture....
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago
We aren't talking 65mm here. We are talking Super 16. Because it uses somewhere more than %18 of the film plane, it can be blown up to 35mm, for theater release, and still maintain good quality. It really depends on the aspect ratio too which is usually 1.78:1.
This isn't me talking, this is actually ARRI film directors talking from interviews about Super 15. Now whose the real idiot?
vglover 4 years ago
Do you think were fucking retarded? Do you expect me to believe that ARRI would say the XL2 is better than the Arriflex 416??? ROFL. you should quit while your behind. the XL is a shitty point and shoot camera with variable frame rates, no prime lense selection, no fuck all.
keep talking nub, maybe when hollywood starts shooting with XL2's instead of Arriflex cameras like a herde of retards likeyourself i'll start listening.. gg though faggot.
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago
What is your problem? You wouldn't get far with an attitude like that. I would never shoot with an XL2. I like using ARRIFLEX SR3 Advance.
I would never switch to digital. I think you need re-read my sentences and stop with the swearing....
vglover 4 years ago 3
I just read it again, let me quote it.
"Super 16 is NOTHING compared to the Xl2"
The 416 takes a disgusting shit all over the XL2 period. The Super16mm medium takes a horrible shit over Digital period.
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago
Hmm, yes I see what I've wrote. I probably have it backwards when thinking. I am not a digital fan boy. Please be nicer next time.
416 ... Super 16 SR Advanced... Good cameras in my opinion. No-one has said anything about the Ultra Prime lenses.....
vglover 4 years ago 2
Do you think were fucking retarded? Do you expect any of us to believe that ARRI would say the XL2 is better than the Arriflex 416??? ROFL. you should quit while your behind faggot. the XL is a shitty point and shoot camera with NO variable frame rates, no prime lens selection, no fuck all.
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago
Shut up, you fucking moron!
mesdras 4 years ago
haha you are fucking retarded. Super 16 worse than a fucking XL2? are yu kidding? that thing isnt even HD. I have a sony fx1 and only wish that i could own a super 16 camera. maybe super 16s cost anywhere from 15 to 50k and your shitty xl2 costs around 2k for a reason. oh and how the xl2 has 24p - the "filmlike" look... a film camera pretty much IS the filmlike look
pfranks44 4 years ago
beautiful camera.
kanagi06 4 years ago
the Xl2 is not interlaced its progressive and comparing the 2 cameras on a DVD player with the Xl2 using PL lenses they look pretty damn close....at 24fps
mikekrumlauf 4 years ago
Sure, whatever. NOTHING comes close to 16mm. except 35 and 65 and the like. HD cant compare, neither can DV.
ADudeOnABike 4 years ago 2
yea man, i think a canon xl2 and pl lens come pretty close to this camera but thats just me.
mikekrumlauf 4 years ago
a $6000 dollar interlaced tape camera does not come ANYWHERE close to an $80,000.00 dollar motion picture film camera. especially when this film camera supports 1 to 75 frames per second in increments of 0.001
It's like comparing a $200 dollar digital camera to a $9000 dollar pro SLR setup.
Bluestarcinema 4 years ago 2
That 416 is pretty small compared to the 16SR3. It's quiet too, because of the rubber insulators inside. You can hardly tell it's on. I can just hear some digital fanatic, "Oh, I can do the same with my Canon GL2 by changing the gamma levels". Yeah right. Film is film, you'll never get the same effects, None the less, the quality of aspheric lens too.
vglover 4 years ago
Does anyone know the song that starts at 3:10min? its very beautiful
mikekrumlauf 4 years ago