Michael Ryan

Thank you, David. I found a video on YouTube that has David talks about his set ups for Maisel.

Thank you, Patrick.

OK, first off, I haven''t been on this forum for a long time. Tonight I was watching the last episode of season 4 The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. I was watching the credits at the end and I saw the cinematography was by M. David Mullen. The light bulb went off in my head, that's the real cinematographer that answered questions on that forum I used to look at every day. So I see that you still post here so I just wanted to say that your cinematography for Maisel is MIND BLOWINGLY EXCELLENT. Wow. You are elite. Are you using a black pro mist filter? Your cinematography for the snow storm sequence at the end was fantastic. The budget looks like a big time movie budget. You guys are getting every dollar up on the screen. Also the scene where the actor Luke Kirby (playing Lenny Bruce) has that long speech to Maisel at the hall. His performance was next level. When you are filming a scene like that can you tell in the moment that this is something very special? There's only a very short list of cinematographers that I consider every shot to be a feast for the eyes. Conrad Hall, Robert Richardson and now you M.David Mullen. Absolutely brilliant work.

Thank you, David. It makes more sense to me now. The camera that I'm testing is a very rare Elmo C300 Double Super 8. It takes a 100ft roll of of DS8 film in the magazine (which looks like mickey mouse ears) and the film stops right before the first hundred feet goes through the film gate. So, instead of having to re-thread the film for the second hundred feet you just flip the film magazine over and shoot the second hundred feet. This is really sweet! The C300 has no film weave or jitter because it has a proper 16mm film gate in there. I'm going to test a roll of the 100D, but I have been told with this film if you expose this film at the proper ASA/F stop it comes out a little too grainy. If you overexpose it by one stop you get way less grain. Does this sound right? BTW this camera was completely overhauled by Bernie at Super 16. Mike

Hello All, I can't get my mind around this, and maybe this isn't the way I should be thinking of it, but here is my question: I'm going to use Kodak's Ektachrome 100D reversal film in a movie camera that has an automatic shutter. The deal is you have to set the film speed on a wheel that is on the camera. This ring doesn't have 100 ASA. It can be set at 125 or 80. If I use 100 ASA film but set the ASA for 125 does that work out to a full F stop? Or if I set it to 80 is that one F stop the other way? I wanted to get an image that didn't have as much grain, so I have been told to overexpose by one F stop with this film. Thanks for your help. Mike

Hello John, Wow! That's a powerful small film! Especially for a first effort. Keep filming. My only comments would be that I thought the editing was not tight enough. Some of the shots were too similar so they lost some of their impact. As a first effort, I was really impressed. Film should always have some kind of impact on the viewer, and your film certainly does that. Mike

Hello Andres, I really enjoyed your short film. Nice use of sound and really cool black and white cinematography. I really liked the way the UN54 looked. Mike

Hello Nate, Yes. For those interested in the program it would be good to go our website www.thefilmwhisperer.com and check out the complete rules (click on the independent filmmaker section). To enter the program you have to pitch your film to us and there is only one monthly winner. The program is aimed at micro budget filmmakers to help them reduce the costs of the transfer or on a short film to cut out the cost completely. Mike www.thefilmwhisperer.com

Hello Matthew, Our equipment transfers at 20fps, we can then deinterlace and convert to 24fps in post. I think this gives very good results (although some would debate this point). Matthew something else to keep in mind is that while there are many Super 8 cameras that have a 24fps speed on them, most if not all of them don't actually shoot at that frame rate unless the camera has been modified by a professional (crystal sync'ed). It is possible to sync up the sound in post, but the sound will begin to drift after about 10-20 seconds (then you will have cut from the speaker and then sync up the sound again). But it can be done. In the next few weeks we will have an example of this "wild sound" sync'ed up with some footage that was shot at 24fps. Mike www.thefilmwhisperer.com

Hello Matthew, The main goal of the eFree8 program is to help independent Super 8 filmmakers. We have to balance that with also making money (mainly from customers who are transferring their family "home movies"). We had to pick a starting point, so 100 feet was something that we could could work with. However, we really do believe in the eFree8 program and for the right film (that we felt passionate about) we would transfer more than 100 feet. Matthew, you have got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Give us your pitch. All things are possible. Good luck. Mike www.thefilmwhisperer.com

Hello All, I know this is a shameless plug, but the program (eFree8) is aimed at independent, Super 8 filmmakers and is free to those that have their project picked. You can find out more about the program by going to www.thefilmwhisperer.com and clicking on the independent filmmakers section. In a nutshell, just pitch your Super 8 film to us in a 100 words or less and every month we will pick one filmmaker to have 100 feet of Super 8 or regular 8 reversal film transferred for free. You can read the complete details on the website. It's a nice way to show support for independent Super 8 filmmakers on a micro budget. For projects we accept, we will even transfer camera test footage. Mike www.thefilmwhisperer.com

Hello All, Here is my situation: I have a Honeywell-Elmo Tri-Filmatic C300 Double Super 8 camera (it has just been totally over hauled and checked out by Super 16 Inc). At 24fps the Elmo has a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second. It has a TTL metering system and shows the F stops in the viewfinder (F stops can also be set manually if need be). The problem is I will be shooting with some Kodak Ektachrome 100D and the ASA setting on the Elmo doesn't have a 100 ASA setting. It has 125 or 80. I got out my Sekonic L28C light meter and replaced the lumisphere with the lumigrid to get a reflected light reading (to match the way the Elmo takes the reading). I can set the Sekonic to the proper 100 ASA. It has a guide for 24fps (the manual says that the Sekonic defualts to 1/50 of a second for 24fps). I took an outside reading with the Elmo (set at 24fps but at 125 ASA, the film is really 100 ASA). Then I took a reading, of the same subject, with the Sekonic and the readings are so close that I don't really think it makes a difference. It looks like less than half an F stop difference if that. My question is: do you think I would be safe to set the Elmo at 125 ASA (the film is really 100 ASA) and go with that F stop? Close enough? Thanks for your help, Mike

Hello All, I shot a test roll of footage on a Kodak K100 camera that I had bought. This footage is from last summer (2007). I had a shot list where I recorded which lens I used and the film, but of course, I can't seem to find it now. The film was Kodak Tri-X or Plus-X (it looks like Plus-X to me). All the lenses were the original Kodak ones that came with the camera. It was all shot at 24 fps. I was using my old Canon SLR as a light meter so it looks like I overexposed some of the footage by one or two stops? I shot all the footage hand-held which I can see now was a mistake. The film registration is actually very good, most of the movement is me not holding the camera very steady. Shot in and around Oshawa, Stayner and Creemore, Ontario. For those of you beer drinkers out there the little town and building at the end is where they brew Creemore Spring Ale. I also shot about 30 seconds of footage where some dialog was recorded (not included in this clip) and the dialog stayed in sync for about 18 seconds before it began to drift. You can watch the clip here: http://blip.tv/file/993490/ Mike

Hello Tim and others, Just when you thought Ultra 16 was gone or never was or was just a myth..... I'm just busting at the seams to say this, but I was told not to mention it yet....well, I can only keep a secret for so long you know. I will say this much....Ultra 16 is real and there will be a press release in the next few weeks that will give you the details on where you can have your camera professionally converted and professionally transferred. I have talked to some of the people involved and it's for real. Mike

Hello All, If my above links do not work you will have to cut and paste this: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pr...45/cis145.shtml Mike

Thanks Robert, It's nice to hear from a pro that you guys use Isopropanol as a film cleaner. What do you use to lubricate the film? I don't think the link I had above worked, so here is another try: Visit My Website Mike

Hello All, From what I have read on the internet it looks like Isopropanol has two or three different names, but it's all the same product. Here is a really interesting page from a Kodak site that talks about Isopropanol as a film cleaner. Here is the site: "]Visit My Website The bottle of Isopropanol I bought (in Canada) was 4.00 dollars and was a 20 oz bottle. I bought a 4 oz bottle of Edwal's film cleaner and it was 13.00 dollars. There was a sight on the internet that gave some directions on how to add a film lubricant to the Isopropanol, but I can't seem to find it. Mike

Hello All, I've been reading about film cleaners and I wonder if anyone has had any experience with Isopropanol as a film cleaner? I have used some 99% pure Isopropanol on a few feet of Super 8 reversal as a test and it seemed to work well. Any thoughts? (my main goal with this stuff is that it is much, much cheaper than the name brand film cleaners). Mike

Hello All, The day I made this post (December 8th) was the 27th Anniversary of his death in New York City (shot and killed by Mark David Chapman). Along with his birthday, this is another day that many people reflect on his music and life. Mike

I wish you Peace, Love and Light. Mike

Hello All, I'm shooting some test footage on an old Kodak K100 16mm camera and I need some help with filters. I shot some Kodak Plus-X with this camera and got some excellent results which I will post a link to the footage when I get it back from the transfer house [i got it transferred to miniDV by Forever on DVD for .15 cents per foot, no set up fee or any other fees which makes it an excellent deal. I sent the tape so the only other charge was for postage. However, they only do reversal no negative]. I want to test some 500T and I have a bit of a problem. The Kodak spec sheet says to use an 85 filter. But I can't find an 85 filter in the kind of filters the K100 takes (series 6 filters from the '50s). Any ideas how I can get an 85 filter on the front of the lens. I want to shoot a little footage in the daylight to see what it looks like. The test footage I want to shoot at night will be in a city settings with street lights and store sign lights only. Any thoughts or suggestions. What F stop? It's just a test (no sound) so should I shoot at 16fps or 24fps? Mike

I have a few follow up questions. For David: What does MTF mean? For Alessandro: I think you understood my question. That was really my point. I didn't quite explain it very well in my first post, so let me give it another try. I understand that the 35mm negative is larger than the Super-8 and the 16mm. What I'm trying to say is that under low light conditions (Northern light from a window with no artificial light), the 35mm negative and the 50mm Canon still lens produced very excellent results. I'm not talking so much about the grain or the colors, but that the light that the lens captured produced an image that captured detail and was not dark (and in fact the color and sharpness were very good but that's not my main point). Now, why is it that when I have used my Super-8 camera with a similar film, same shutter speed 1/60th and same F stop 2.8 the image was so dark that you could barely see anything. Really it was not viewable. Is it because the 35mm lens is much larger and can capture more light? Or is it a combination of a bigger lens and a bigger negative? Or I'm I missing something? I remember seeing a picture of the low light lens (F.95) that Kubrick used in BARRY LYNDON and it looked very large, so I'm thinking that the diameter of the lens is important? I have seen those adapters on eBay for Bolex 16mm cameras where you can mount Canon and Nikon still lens on the Bolex. Would this set up capture what my still Canon could capture. I guess my point is I was very impressed with the image my 35mm Canon still camera could capture under very low light conditions. Why can't my Super-8 do the same thing? Would I have to use my 16mm (I have a Canon Scoopic and a Kodak K100) to get the same results as my still camera? What 16mm film could I use to get the same results? Mike

Hello All, About a month ago I started using Kodak 35mm 400UC professional film in my still camera. My still camera is a 35mm Canon TX which is an old metal body camera that is built like a tank and has served me well for many years. I mainly use a 50mm Canon lens with this camera. When I got my film back from the lab I was AMAZED! I had shot several portrait type photos of people standing next to window (inside). I got a real "northern light" effect. I shot at 2.8 1/60th of a second. The shots came out very, very sharp. The colors were very good. This was a low light situation as there was no direct sunlight (it was around 4 in the afternoon). There was no artificial light used for these photos. Here is my question or observation: I have shot with Super 8 and some 16mm in a similar situation and there was just not enough light to give a very good image. The cine lenese are much smaller. The still camera lens is much larger. Is it that the larger still camera lens is capturing more light (even at the same f stop and shutter speed)? The cine lenses have less glass so there is less light getting to the film? Mike

Hello All, I'm trying to get my mind around this, and I just want to know if this is correct. If you film a person walking across your front lawn at 24 fps and you project that image at 24 fps the movement will look real (the person will be seen to walk as they do in real life). Now, is this correct: If I shoot the same person walking across the front lawn at 64 frames per second and project it at 64 fps will they also appear to be walking normally? I have been told that as long as the shooting fps and the projecting fps are the same the movement will look natural. However, what I want to know is there must be a low end fps where this rule is not true. For example if I shot at 8 fps and project at 8 fps the movement is going to look like a hand cranked silent film? How low can you go before the movement will not look natural? 16fps? 12fps? Thanks, Mike

Hello Matthew, Do you have a ballpark price? I think that is also a key factor. When and where would you sell this? Keep up the good work. A Super-8 matte box is something that is hard to find at a good price point. good luck, Mike