All Activity

At that point I couldn't think of any explanation apart from operator error. It seems that the no-notch system rules that out. But it wasn't until your comment that I checked to be certain. It was hot for sure (low thirties) but not ridiculously so. It's something of a puzzle currently...

the arri / zeiss Ultra 16s are going to be the sharpest hands down, followed by master primes. weirdly, the zeiss LWZ.2 is nearly as sharp as the Ultra 16s, and will clear the viewfinder on the SR3. Ultra 16s will fit an SR3, Master Primes wont (I think they technically will if you put the viewfinder in a vertical position that makes it unusable). Regular Ultra Primes work fine, but they're not as sharp as the Ultra 16s. That being said I have no issue using a 40mm UP in leu of the U16 35mm if I really want that smidge narrower field of view. Originally they only released the U16s from 6mm to 14mm, assuming that users would simply use the regular ultra primes to round out their lens set. Not long after they rounded out the U16 set with longer focal lengths.

I only used the 16mm set of Ultra Primes, I haven't used the 35mm set. The main reason is simply wider angle shots. It's nice to have a fast S16mm designed 8mm lens for instance.

Hmm. What made you think that the filter was definitely in? Because if it wasn't, that only leaves the stock being affected by the heat.

Thanks again Mark - I found the filter pin and can confirm that pushing it does indeed disengage the 85 filter. The manual switch on the side of the camera also works. I then checked by inserting another 100D cart (from the same batch as the one in the clips) and can also confirm that loading it removes the 85 filter - because there is no notch.

I think one of them was Stanley Kubrick!

I think some people noticed optical effects but in general there was less expectation for cinema to be seamless and technically flawless. But I'm sure there were critics back then just as today who didn't "buy" certain effects, did not find them convincing. Also keep in mind that print projection back then hid a certain amount of flaws. Some cinematographers were better at others at blending levels of diffusion -- I think Harry Stadling was excellent at that, whereas when Russell Metty put on a diffusion filter, it tended to really stick out. Some of it was the attitude at the time towards glamorization of close-ups; it was accepted as a convention, at least in the late 1920s, 1930s through mid-1950s. The widescreen and large format craze of the 1950s started to work against that. The desire to soften close-ups for the purpose of glamorizing the lead actress hasn't gone away, it's just that today you have more subtle digital tools to blur hairpiece/wig glue lines, reduce bags under eyes, erase blemishes, etc. And in the early days of DI's, it wasn't always subtle either -- I remember "The Island" (2005), where director Michael Bay seemed to have an issue with Scarlett Johansson's mole on her cheek and decided to blur it throughout the movie. On my show "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel", we did not shoot close-ups, but in general there was a level of diffusion, usually from a 1/4 Schneider Hollywood Blackmagic. But I had to modulate that -- if we were shooting in hazed sets, the smoke would soften the image so I usually dropped back to a 1/8 strength. And for extreme long shots, I'd go even lighter to a 1/8 Black Frost or no filter at all. The thing is that today we have a lot more diffusion filter options and we can see the effect on an HD monitor on set, so it is easier to be more subtle when changing strengths of filters. In the 1970s, I think William Fraker was the closest in the U.S. to doing what Geoffrey Unsworth was doing with filters, though Fraker mixed his approach film to film based on the subject matter.

The filter pin is below the gate- push it in by hand while looking into the lens and you should see the filter swing out. A tungsten-balanced cartridge has a notch in that position so the filter stays in. A 100D cartridge should be un-notched, so removing the filter. I've never seen a 100D cartridge, but all the photographs I can find show no notch. If you still have a cartridge you could check. It's possible that your camera has a broken linkage so the filter stays in; if you've always used negative film before, the cast can be graded out so you may not have noticed. But you now know that it can't be corrected on 100D.

Thanks Mark - to be clear does the current Ektachrome 100D cartridge disengage the 85 filter on every Super 8 camera which has a filter? If so it's a mystery why this did not happen. I didn't alter the cartridge in any way. But the film looks exactly as you'd expect from shooting daylight film with an 85 filter - complete shift to orange (and Marrakech already has a colour palette skewed in that direction). As to your second question: yes, shot at 18fps and scanned at 25fps. I didn't apply the usual 70% speed reduction before I quickly cut these sample clips together and exported them.

Have you worked out how it happened? As I said the cartridge should have disengaged the filter automatically. What about the apparent undercranking?

Thanks for your comments everyone: I can now confirm that the problem was definitely not the lab or processing. The 85 filter was engaged by mistake.

Yes I'm in Dublin, I made an error when filling out my profile

IMG_3092.HEICIMG_3088.HEIC Went ahead and tried it out, atleast all the way to the 16mm the UPs fit.

I had the lens looked at locally here. They managed to remove the front glass but said the focus ring is still completely seized, even with a lot of force. They mentioned that cutting off the multi-start thread might be possible, but re-machining it would be expensive and there’s no guarantee the internals aren’t damaged from the impact. That shop seemed more commercially focused, so I figured they might not have the time (or interest) to go deeper with it. I’m considering sending it to a more specialised repair centre for a second opinion — just to be sure it's beyond saving before writing it off.

Yes, I been looking at the Duclos re-housed Tokina 11-16 PL mount lens. I'll be very interested in seeing some footage. Please keep me informed.

Thanks for the replies. From my understanding it was the Master Primes that may not fit but the Ultra Primes should be ok. The SR3 has the same type of VF as the SR2.

I don't know whether you're looking for top cine or more humble lenses but I can tell you a Tokina 11-16 with PL mount will fit on an Arri SR without bumping into the viewfinder just above the lens mount. At least, the one I have fits. No footage to show yet but soon hopefully I will post some. Getting there. I'm told it's a sharp lens. The Canon 8-64 isn't a modern lens but it works well with an SR and it's pretty sharp.

Just so you know Kodak is now switching to plastic spools on the 100 ft loads.

and of course I have a video too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxn50cdSLLU&list=PLXvIUtmF3OxsCOCdTi64M6i0LcuOxIrdj&index=3

short circuit testing the IO module! if you are interested about some more detailed explanations and thermal imaging stuff then would be worth to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1HIezIFwLY&list=PLXvIUtmF3OxtXFJWzSw8QLiw7tE6wisO_&index=1

Thank you very much for a quick answer!

thats great. will make the a minima much more usable

Surreal SCREEN KISS : The Spiral Staircase (1946) A kiss as a voyage to a new world : crossing the line into stormy love.

I can think of a few lighting cameramen who are famous in my book for diffusing closeups (and only closeups) of women long after it became unfashionable- into the 70s, certainly. The cut from a longer shot jars nowadays. Geoffrey Unsworth comes to mind, but Americans did it too. This chimes in with a theme of David's as I recall- how did people at the time actually see and appreciate what we now see as poor travelling mattes, optical dissolves, and grainy selective enlargements?