Any video cameras that emulate film yet? I haven't researched since like 2017 but back then there wasn't shit except for some expensive digital bolex
EOS M with magiclantern shooting cineDNG plus vintage 16mm lenses.
>>4380429I don't think anything digital really looks like film but other than the digital bolex you mentioned, the BMPCC can be graded in a very classic looking way. Maybe because it shoots RAW. Maybe >>4380429 the Canon's that can be hacked also do. But it might also be the colorists who use the BMPCC know what they are doing because I've seen footage from that camera that looks really digital as well.
>>43804721dc was the closet digital ever got to having a film like look for video
Why do you people make me do this shit?
>>4380500Because it costs a hundred bucks to get 3 minutes of 8mm footage?
>>4380524I know, but you should just accept that if it's too expensive to shoot film, your videos won't look like film and move on with your life instead of cooking up elaborate copes online about how "[x] sensor is so filmic/organic/vintage" If you don't shoot film, it won't look like film. It really is that simple. Find a digital camera you like and stop worrying about it or fork out the dough. Either way you should shut up, I'm tired of this retarded shit.
>>4380525I don't know if OP is one of those "filmic/organic/vintage" types or someone who just wants something that gets reasonably close but if you are so tired of these posts, just hide the thread.
>>4380533>but if you are so tired of these posts, just hide the thread.Not the thread in particular, just this sentiment in general. People deciding that the film look is the gold standard (it is), but then being unwilling to put in the effort required to shoot film.
>>4380525If we put man on the moon we can make digital look like film
digital is just a data capture. Any of these mirrorless cameras that shoot high quality 10-bit or RAW can be made to look like film, assuming the lens used suits the look.
>>4380534I'll grant you that for photographers since you can get a film body and develop and scan a ton of rolls for the price of one of these overhyped "filmic" digitals. Getting into movie filming is crazy expensive that I get it. Although now that I think more about it, I agree with you. There are way too many tutorials for getting filmic video by people who want instant gratification and hipster cred or whatever and don't want to learn the art.
>>4380541Never seen it done before. Maybe theoretically possible but no one has come close
>>4380543what lol? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13560574/technical/?ref_=tt_spec_smmany such cases.... any pro hollywood colorist could give you an excellent film look because they treat this stuff as a technical practice and as a science and not as some kind of magical alchemy like you weirdos.
>>4380543https://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/maybe take a look at this to help understand that every single thing film does to an image is observable and easily replicable in software. you think we can model complex physics but we cant recreate pixels that are the right color in the right order?
>>4380544You just don't have the eye for film.. Adding some grain to digital film isn't enough. Enough to fool Tumblr A24 fan sure but there is an artificial look to digital that I've never seen removed. I watched a video of a guy doing an analysis of film and what is going on automatically is too difficult to capture let alone emulate.
>>4380546I hate this guy. Yeah it looks the same when you have a guy sitting in a dark room with no motion but it doesn't look like that when you actually make a real movie. Hence the movies he was hired to direct to emulate film don't look anything like film. Doesn't help that the type of film you use and the process are just as important.
>>4380544looks horrible>add real grainy grain>change wb to green tint
>>4380547>>4380549you sound like an audiophile trying to tell me that you can tell the difference between a class A and class D amplifier. You just want magic to be real.
>>4380546there you go OP, Arri Alexa and hire this colorist.
>>4380553You're like my retarded uncle who leaves frame interpolation on his TV and can't see the difference even when I turn it on and off.
>>4380554His movies that he actually worked on look nothing like film. It's easy to do trickery when you shoot a guy standing still in a dark room. Not so easy when you actually have to make a film.
>>4380558it was a joke. As in you can 100% get the film look by shooting film and it might even be cheaper compared to that anon's suggestion of going with a $10,000 Arri and doing all that crap in that video that probably took years to learn and, from what you are saying, isn't even successful.But to OP, the Magic Lantern and BMPCC are cheap enough to be worth a punt.
>>4380561I didn't suggest getting an Arri. I suggested that, as the guy in the video says, any decent modern camera that can get a clean enough capture can provide source material to apply a film look to. Are you guys like allergic to understanding technology on this site?
>>4380564Are you allergic to understanding his advice is garbage because his movies look like garbage?
>>4380564If you watch that video, to get the film look, he used a film camera, scanned it on an ARRI machine, developed a 3D LUT, developed a halation algorithm, still messed with lift gamma and gain. And his advice to people to people who don't want to do all that? "you can push vendors or software people whether your post house partners to investigate this stuff further"OR you can just shoot film. When I think of all the slop out there about achieving filmic or cinematic looks and how trash nearly all of it is, yeah I'm thinking just shoot film.
>>4380568>yeah I'm thinking just shoot film.It does come down to keep it that simple. That Yedlin guy is talented and had to write some code or something to get a very close image, but at the end of the day, you gotta choose between what's feasible, and in today's world, it's unfortunately not film unless you're working on a project that wants and has the budget for it. Do the best with what's given to you.
>>4380429
>>4380429Ikonoskop A-Cam DII is similar to digial bolex - it had film-like (i.e. simple) controls, and global shutter cDNG raw.To a lesser extent, the Blackmagic Production Camera 4K (and its differently housed siblings the Ursa/Ursa Mini 4K) have some aspects going for them - while they are global shutter cameras with cDNG raw, they also have problems such as inadequate IR blocking filter and almost entirely touchscreen interface on a screen that is basically invisible outdoors. Saying that, I have yet to miss focus with my P4K because the green dot focus peaking is just about visible even when the rest of the image is not.
>>4382057Even more expensive than the Bolex.. why these things always get abandoned. We need an established company to make something similar
>>4380429There is some dude from Germany claiming he developed some hardware addons that let you achieve Technicolor style colors on most digital cameras.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL1CFb0b0bIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bNrFBo81mEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHAMvfZUxI0
>>4382071Seems a bit snake-oily to me. He isn't giving any details that I can find.
>>4382077Probably because patent pending
>>4382077All I know he is making that claim for quite a few years now and he had a horror movie made using his method of filming.
>>4382071>>4382137>>4382087>>4382077Man this is the best emulation I've seen by far. Someone has to figure this out
the og bmpcc was pretty good
I really don't fathom why zoomies are so obsessed with le analog, le film and le lofi lately
>>4382456>latelyIt's been almost a decade now
what do we think about Pacifiction?
>>4382472Sorry i only watch good movies
>>4382162i still use mine as a webcam and occassional sneaky cam
What do we think about Pedro Costa's cinematography style? It's all digital.
>>4382476Like what?
>>4382456Because film objectivity has nicer colors. >zoomers Nah, even boomers say that film is better.
Thoughts on CCD cinematography cameras?
>>4382516Objectively worse colors
>>4382523Post some digitally shot films which you think are superior to film
>>4382526The vast majority of movies out today.
>>4382533Name them
>>4382472I'm interested in watching it just from that webm. It looks beautiful. A little heavy on the diffusion filters, but beautiful
>>4382536>name all of the movies!lol
>>4382565kys
Use old lenses, it's that simple really
>>4380429unironically FPBP in this caseas sumbody thats been looking into it for some years it's eitherbmpcc ogor canon cameras running magic lantern crop moodbest option probably 5d mark iii to account for raw capture crop, ud get about 1.5x "super35" field of viewsmaller sensor canons you would have to crop in more and gives u mft field of view, if you are okay with that get a t5i cus of the flip screen or a sl1 for how small it is and you can probs rig it into a small setup for cheap
>>4386778by far the camera that most looks like film when shooting digital files has been these two options
Thompson viper but nothing prior and nothing since and working with one is like putting your balls in a vice
