Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. In the Kodak Motion Picture Catalog, call the number under "US Film Pickup Location". I have gotten short ends and re-cans from them in the past for cheap. They even gave me an email with a direct contact with a guy at Kodak who seems to handle this type of thing.
  3. Neither do the vendors believe Daniel Teoli is going to purchase one, that's why they stopped replying to his hundreds of questions. I wish people here would also stop replying to his clickbaity threads.
  4. Today
  5. How could you recreate these two shots from Lessons in chemistry, photographed by Jason Oldak. In the first one it seems that the reflection from outside the window is only present where the curtain is. I’m guessing this is because it blocks out the light incident from the room going out, which then allows for the reflection to be more present relative to the darker background. In the second one the reflection looks like a superposition, which may perhaps just be a balancing of inside and outside lighting. However I am curious about other thoughts, opinions, tips and experiences in recreating a frame like this. Thank you
  6. Frank is not some random guy with a garage full of Coronet films and a portable B&H projector. He was the chief color timer at the Library of Congress for a long time before retiring recently. (Please correct me if I got your title wrong, @Frank Wylie!). If there was anyone in this thread who people should pay attention to, it's him. Not you. Because it would be utterly irresponsible of me to project a shrunken print belonging to one of our clients. That's a terrible idea and we would never do that. If you're running your client's shrunken prints through a projector then you should really think twice. Projectors are unforgiving and shrunken film is often warped or cupped as well, so you run the risk of doing more than just sprocket damage - you could scratch it, or in extreme cases much worse. Also, we don't project film because it's unnecessary, due to the way our scanner captures sound. The problem exhibited in the film above is NOT in the scanner. I know this because I know how the optical sound reader in the scanner they used works. It is fundamentally different than the optical sound reader in the FilmFabriek scanner, which 100% can exhibit wow and flutter as it's an analog sound reproduction system. (correct me if I'm wrong - the HDS+ uses a light and a photosensor like in a projector, or a Steenbeck, or a Rank, or a Spirit, or a Shadow, or any of a number of other devices with analog optical sound readers, no?) No, actually, that's not what you're saying. It's certainly not what you posted. If you mean something different then say what you mean the first time, please. I just have to point out that this is a defense mechanism you have repeatedly used here on these forums and others when you're backed into a corner: denying you said something that is plainly available for anyone who cares to scroll through the thread to see, or slightly twisting what you say to make it seem like you never said it. That's fine but you did in fact say the problem is the scanner. Not that it might be the scanner as you imply in that quote, but that it is the scanner. Again, quoting the same line I already referenced in my last reply, you said... Ergo, you are saying I'm wrong when I (and others) say it's the film, not the scanner. That is a pretty definitive statement you're making, and if you didn't mean it that way you should think again before you say such things. Putting aside I've never said that about anyone, the reason you probably have that impression is because, again, someone needs to correct bad information when it's posted. If not, it lingers forever and becomes "common knowledge," even if it's wrong. So yeah, I'm doing this a lot. I don't like it. It's exhausting and frustrating. But the need for it is just going to get even greater as the generation of people who really lived and breathed analog film every day in labs and post facilities and archives, disappears. I've set aside time every morning to do this, while I have my coffee. I'd love it if others would join me because it makes me really tired and discouraged. This phenomenon isn't just about film, it happens with any area of interest where there's a closed feedback loop of people regurgitating bad information. It's just the way it is but the cycle has to be broken somehow. On a practical level, it costs us time and money and potentially lost business because these kinds of garbage clickbait threads eventually wind up high in google searches. I'm telling you this from experience. We get a lot of work from people who read stuff here, and a lot of people email for quotes, repeating bad information they read on this very forum. I spend a significant amount of my time responding to that and explaining to potential customers what's wrong with what they read and why. Too much time. Time I could be using to do more productive stuff. But it's a fact of life at this point and now just part of my day. I'm not so sure about that. Dan has been starting these provocative threads for several years now. I don't believe he has any plans to buy a "big boy" scanner (as he likes to call them), as many people have explained to him ways of making the ownership of one of these scanners possible (leasing, selling some services on the side to cover payments, etc). Honestly it feels it feels more like it's about getting post counts up, for whatever reason. Kind of like Tyler's 7400 posts here. Kind of amazing he has time to do any work with that kind of volume. Certainly helps the SEO of cinematography.com though! Anyway, coffee cup is empty. back to work.
  7. it is for supporting the sides of the film roll when spooling so that the sides stay on level and no chance the layers falling over causing a mess. You will install the core between the two separable flanges which support the sides of the film roll. After spooling you open the assembly to take the core out with the film on it so that you can use it in camera
  8. Thank you. And yes, I did do it with only my fingers! What are split reel flanges?
  9. Hi I have been trying to find a way to charge the EMB battery and cannot get an answer anywhere. I have the battery but would love how to charge it up! Seems crazy as its a purely electronic driven camera, but the knowledge around it, is so sparse. Thanks!
  10. John Webster and Quentin Tarantino (41.23–43:35). Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. A humorous moment of revelation takes place between Randy and Rick in Rick’s trailer on the backlot. Rick hopes to shoehorn Cliff into Randy’s production, and in the midst of an extended back-and-forth on the subject, finally : Randy. The dude killed his f****** wife. (42.39) This revelation of Cliff’s backstory coming deep into the conversation makes for a laugh-out-loud moment. * This same technique of “burying the lede” for comic effect appears in the first scene of Webster’s The White Devil. Nihilist urban psycho Lodovico speaks the first word of the play, to his two friends : “Banished?” His friends explain why this sentence has been imposed, why Lodovico is to be banished from the city of Rome. This is the order of the facts of their explanation : 1. He offended “men of princely rank”. (10) 2. He ruined (through dissipation) his own “noblest earldom”. (15) 3. He led astray his “followers” with his “unnatural and horrid physic”. (17) 4. He has the reputation of a dissolute host of indulgent drinking parties. (18–19) 5. He has been criticized by one aristocrat as “master only for caviar” (i.e., as a decadent, worthless playboy). (19–20) 6. He is jeered at by “noblemen . . . who laugh at your misery” and accuse him of idleness, profligacy and worthlessness. (21–24) 7. He is the target of “jest[s]” by aristocrats who accuse him of steering wrong and ruining many other “fair lordships” [noblemen]. (27–29) To all of this Lodovico responds in insouciant fashion : “Very good.” (i.e., “What of it?” / “So what?”) Finally, at (30–32), comes the Tarantinoesque payoff : Gasparo. Worse than these, You have acted certain murders here in Rome, Bloody and full of horror. The Shakespearean-era audience may very well have laughed at this important point that perhaps should have been cited at the first. * And Lodovico’s response? Lodovico. ’Las, they were flea-bites! (32) The proto–Patrick Bateman laughs it off.
  11. To clarify, the square hole on bulk film cores is same size than the square hole on 16mm daylight spools. To avoid scratches you need to control friction so that film layers don't slip and grind against each other on the takeup spool. Other than that it is just about avoiding static flashes and dust and getting the film spool straight on the core. If starting to spool conical you just correct it manually whenever needed
  12. With spooling by hand you mean without using rewinder at all?? The 16mm rewinders usually have square axle which fits the photography bulk film cores. You may not be able to lock it in place but the spooling would work the same. The takeup core needs to have split reel flanges or manually correcting it every couple of meters
  13. Agreed. LG may make a better scanner, but they still have numerous issues really. No they don't. The FF HDS+ was originally designed for Archives, and since at least 2015 the LaserGraphics ScanStation is targeted at Archives primarily. FF expanded their market towards the film-enthusiasts. LG changing the name of the junior model from "ScanStation Personal" to "Archivist" should clearly demonstrate who they are targeting as their largest market. They're both capstan-driven continuous motion bayer scanners with a full-spectrum LED light diffused and positioned to conceal visible base damage. They both use a similar imager. I'd note something here, which is that most people do not understand what the film scanners are for. They have no idea what market each scanner was designed for and they find difficult to do proper research before purchasing one. This was a large reason why MovieStuff/Roger Evans sold so many scanners - he was at the top of Google if you searched to buy a film scanner, and you wouldn't even find Filmfabriek, Blackmagic, or Lasergraphics. So you saying that the HDS+ is just a "prosumer-level scanner" is really not helpful. You are technically right, but its largest market when it hit the market wasn't wealthy individuals it was archives and small companies focused on small-format film. It's priced far too high for most prosumers, they've designed the Pictor for the prosumer. As far as how they work - they work pretty much the same way. Oh come on! There's a reason that Mr Teoli is asking these questions - it's because doing research on commercial scanners is like you walking into a Ford dealership and asking them what's about their Ford compared to a similar looking Subaru. I'll post more about what each commercial film scanner is actually designed for in the MovieStuff thread - because MovieStuff never would have sold half their scanners if their customers knew who the competition for what they wanted was. And also speaking of disinformation, we have to contend all the information that Roger has dumped onto his website here. Do you notice something? He doesn't ever mention his competitors. It's all about him and MovieStuff - he even has the audacity to claim that he had a role in creating the mom-and-pop home movie scanning market - what absolute nonsense. It was Elmo that created it and Clive Tobin made the more "modern" ones in the mid-2000's. MovieStuff scanners (as limited as they are) were always frame-by-frame - they never went directly to NTSC or PAL which is what the home movie market needed at that time. Composite video out to be recorded directly to VHS and then later to DVD. Why anyone would use a Retro 8 over a similarly priced Tobin TVT-8 for that purpose is a complete mystery to me (and I mean back in 2012 when the Retro-8 was released). Oh and by the way, Clive Tobin was completely upfront about what his transfer units were for unlike Roger Evans.
  14. After seeing Dune the other day, I'm inspired to try and replicate the infrared cinematography on film. Rollei sells 100ft bulk loads of infrared film, but from the shape of the box I suspect they are on a 135 core. I've run into this issue before. Arista 100ft rolls come on a film core, but Kentmere rolls come on a 135 core. I've hand-rolled film from one to the other before, but it's tedious and the film came out scratched in development. Does anyone have experience spooling 100ft of film from one core type to another? Should I try to make a 3D printed machine to do it? What's the best way to prevent scratches?
  15. Oh man, that makes me so happy! I almost didn't post my findings. Cheers!
  16. First off, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying, there is no evidence you're right. The only evidence I've seen is from something we experience; shrunken film. It's something most projectors DO NOT care about. So for me, I can go down stairs with the print post scan and throw it on a projector to figure out if the print is bad or not. I have yet to find a print, in my entire life, that was bad when projected on a good projector. Second, I am listening. I've scanned thousands of educational films, as I use to work for an archive. The only scientific way to test a soundtrack is to play it back on a tuned/tested Magnasync. That's the only method that works. Until you do that, there is no discussion that can be had. Frank's example is not scientific, it's just some antidotal information based on some old unserviced high school and university gear. Doubt any of it was properly taken care of. None of the tachometers on the flatbeds at Emerson worked, so the motors free-for-all'd and the soundtracks blew. That's just one example. The other assumption that older record players and magnetic tape machines were bad, is also pretty ridiculous. I have a 1958 16mm mag recorder, it's all tubes and the damn thing runs at a perfect 24fps. I also have worked on turntables from that era and they also run perfectly, locked to the 60 cycles of the AC power. These issues aren't either of those. You claim that this happens all the time, but why aren't you buying a fully restored projector and testing the prints huh? Why are you defending LG, giving us spec sheets on how it can never be wrong, without even verifying! I'm flabbergasted from someone who preaches perfection on a daily basis and puts up arguments everywhere on the internet daily about how everyone else is shit, you haven't even bothered to do a true scientific test. I have done those tests, which is why I back up my "opinion" on the matter.
  17. Yesterday
  18. A month!!!! Now you tell me!! What kind of wild goose chase have you sent me on Joe!?!?!? 🙂 Kidding aside - I was about to go the SK Grimes approach so this is a life saver.
  19. No problem. Took me awhile to find the filter information for myself. Be patient when you order from Rafcamera. Takes about a month to get.
  20. And for anyone else looking for the same for Kern Switars - Joe's response led me to this site: https://rafcamera.com/adapters/thread-adapters Where I was able to locate an adapter for the 10mm and 26mm Kern Switars too. Thank you Joe!
  21. @Joe Fike - amazing!!! ...and the VND is exactly where I was going with this. Now I can use this all day every day and again at night! Thank you so much. Raaf
  22. The filter size is 39.3mm. That filter ring fits the 15mm R41, 25mm M1 and the 75mm P3. I got a 39.3mm to 52mm step up ring and use an 8 stop VND filter.
  23. I'm sorry Tyler, if you can't be bothered to read what has already been explained here multiple times, I don't know what to say. Your FilmFabriek scanner is a prosumer-level scanner that works in a fundamentally different way than the Lasergraphics scanners do. You really can't compare them, and what I was saying about the speed at which we capture has nothing to do with your scanner. It was in reference to the ScanStation, which captures sound in a completely different way than your scanner does. Nah, it's just you. There are 4 people with many, many decades of experience in this thread telling you what the problem is but you don't seem to want to listen. And I'm not "defending" anyone. I'm correcting blatant bad information, which began with the clickbait-title of this thread, and is being spread by you. If you don't know how something works, please do yourself a favor and don't make wild guesses and assumptions about what's happening. I do this because I have to. Because people email me for quotes all the time and say "I saw this post on cinematography.com that said... (insert bad information here)." And I have to spend an hour or more of my time every morning explaining to customers what was incorrect about the post. I'd rather just nip it in the bud right here where it's happening. Please direct your attention to post #6 in this thread where you said: So no, I guess technically you didn't use the words "wow and flutter." But you described wow and flutter in the context of a discussion of wow and flutter, and you certainly implied that AEO-Light doesn't do this so that's why you use it. AEO-Light is working on a scanned frame and doesn't compensate for shrinkage, as far as I'm aware. Once more: The Lasergraphics optical reader is a SECOND CAMERA - a line array sensor that compiles the image as it passes. It is aware of the speed at which the drum that is in contact with the film is moving and the scanner knows the level of shrinkage of the film. The wow and flutter you're claiming is happening in the scanner simply isn't possible because of the way the scanner's optical reader works. But I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears.
  24. 16mm is impossible these days. I have 35mm if you want some, but only selling in bulk. 5213 5219 5207
  25. Never once were those words stated. Have you tried listening to the soundtrack with an optical reader? We have. Prints with zero issues on a 60hz Magnasync, are problematic on AEO. Film shrinks unevenly, especially at the head. The reason why digital tools struggle with some soundtracks, is simply due to micro shrinkage. You don't see it as much in the picture, but it's there in the soundtrack. Your defending of Lasergraphics is kinda crazy. You act as if it's impervious to any issues. Everyone and everything is wrong besides the scanner.
  26. That's what wow and flutter sounds like when the machine is only a few tenths of a FPS off. I know, our scanner does that as well. One could capture at a slower speed for sure, it may help, but I haven't tried that methodology yet since AEO-LITE works so perfectly. It does take more time, but we batch it overnight.
  27. As I said, to my ear the narration is unaffected, only the music has the wow. So it's a problem with the source that's built in to the sound mix.
  28. Yeah, I think I will start with some small electronics projects first. I do some 3D printing currently and you are right - it is pretty rewarding!
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...