K Borowski

All I know about the 21st Century is that there will be a grand revolution and everyone using Celluloid is going to survive3 a nuclear war and carry their hand-crenket cloockwoork cameras down the street looking for Celluloid. Sorry I'm not of more help; maybe Ultra Definition can help you out.

 

[sorry I couldn't resist]

 

Have you tried for more information on the internet? I have some audio tapes of the Apollo program and there's a lot of Cronkheit there and he does a superb job, so I'm surprised that one of his shows would be hard to come by. If you try to pay a visit to the PBS film vaults though, maybe you won't need a DVD or tape :lol:

 

Regards.

The only problem I have with film prints is that they are obviously projected by idiots like J Jukazami that don't lube the film, don't bother getting off their lazy asses and cleaning the projector, and project the film with such powerful light that it burns it (oh yeah, they don't know how to FOCUS the projector either). . . Digital is necessary if you are one of those dip-shits. By the way, any chance you'll be doing a theatre tour in Ohio anytime soon John? There are some pretty sorry theatres here in Cleveland that could benefit from a lecture or ten from you :D

 

Regards.

If video took over 8mm right away, then what did I go around shooting this past Saturday??? When you video guys can come up with a camera that sells for $20-50 and gets better resolution than HD with interchangeable sensors that are constantly (more or less) being upgraded, then we'll talk.

 

Regards.

Guess what: 9.5mm is still made. So is DR8mm. I should know, I shoot the stuff (not 9.5. . .yet). I know a lot of people like myself who love film and plan to continue to use it. We know it's harder than video. Guess what? We don't care. Yeah shooting filim isn't easy, But it sure as hell looks better. If my local theatres go digital, I'm not going to fork over $8 (and they'll probably raise prices if they get digi-projectors) to see a damn movie with 1/2 the quality of a film print. I'll wait until the tape comes out if that's what happens. Oh, another thing: while idiots like you are sending millions and millions of dollars over to Japan and Taiwan where all of your poop is made, I'm spending my money on American made film and the Eastman Kodak company.

 

Take care.

I completely agree with John. With some reflectors and maybe some fill lights, Kodachrome can work nicely even in the densest woods. Even without any major lighting assistance, you might still be able to get a look you like. If you want the Kodachrome "look", then maybe you want the deep dense shadows of a 25 speed adjusted outdoor film. Think back to old war footage (WWII, Vietnam) and you'll know what I am talking about. Trust me, the look of video news film and kodachrome are totally dissimilar. Video news film is designed for doing video news (documentary and crash test are now it's two biggest applications). Kodachrome is designed to make all the world look like a sunny day (sorry couldn't resist). Video News film has no where near the archival properties of Kodachrome though, and the faster speed comes with the consequence of much coarser grain. The muted color scale is great for a 1970s era TV set, but probably wouldn't be too hot in your short. Kodachrome is processed here in the States at D'Waynes in Kansas. They do a superb job. I have sent rolls to them via Wal-Mart and they follow all of my instructions to the letter (for instance, the last rolls I sent in were DR8 and I instructed them to return the spools, metal containers, and to leave the film as they would 16mm instead of splitting it into two strips of 8mm. No problem. Great service. Of course, there are plenty of great labs that will process VNF too. If you decide on going with VNF, PM me (do I even have a PM showing???) and I might be able to get you a "deal" (read as FREE) on your VNF processing.

 

Regards,

~Karl Borowski

Jesse Chambless sells the stuff ( http://www.chamblesscineequip.com ), but I believe it is only by the 100 ft. I have no idea why Kodak is so reluctant to sell the stuff in 400 or 1000 foot rolls other than they want it dead. If you can handle 100 foot rolls, which are comparable I guess to 25 feet of DR8 or 50 feet of S8, then go for it.

 

Regards.

Hey John. I've seen Kodachrome 40 offered in 16mm at a few places around the internet (sorry but I can't remember the names at the moment), but I only seem to be able to find 100 foot spools. Does Kodak not offer it in 400 foot packages? Also, it seems that Kodachrome has never been available in 35mm MP, going all the way back to World War II. Do you know the reasoning behind this? I'd personally love to do daylight shots with Kodachrome in 35mm.

 

Regards.

David Mullen Posted on May 20 2004, 07:00 AM

  I don't know where you got that idea. I owe my entire career to the decade I spent only shooting Super-8. I love it!

Then why isn't there a forum for it here? I really like the Shooting 8mm Forum, but it is very amateurish (which suits me well as I am an amateur, but is sometimes lacking as there aren't as many experienced filmmakers there as there are here.) I definitely think it would be worthwhile to have a forum where pros (i.e. people who have shot 8mm in music videos and 8mm segments in movies and television) could give advice on 8mm. I would prefer it be titled "8mm Only" as Double Regular 8 still has a limited repertoire. Yes, I'm probably one of only 5 people in the states that shoots it, but please don't discriminate :-)

 

Regards.

Frankly, from what I've seen, this forum is anti-8mm. It's not completely their fault, as S8 honestly isn't a truly professional format. Then again, it'd be nice if there was at least a section given to 8mm just as there are for 16mm and 35mm. To get the straight dope on DR8 and S8 and anything in between, go to: http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com. The forum there is excellent. Their gallery also has numerous examples of frames from 8mm filmstock. Go to: http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts/gallery/ and then click on Film Frames, or something like that which will have many many examples of the frames you seek. There is also a telecine site that has a link on the homepage I gave you above that has some wonderful full size transfers available as jpg's. Granted, they're compressed somewhat, but they're big enough that you can see the individual grains on the film. I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Karl Borowski

John, I have seen a film or two with DI used for titles and selected scenes. Apparantly Passion was one such film. I merely mean that using DI for a whole movie is overkill, especially in light of the fact that there is a SIGNIFICANT loss of information from the master neg's. I applaud Kodak's EXR, Vision, and Vision@ product lines and hope to see Vision3 one of these days :D I just don't think that DI is an alternative for proper lighting and reflector use. I don't think that titles should be DI either, since optical titling is a fine alternative, even if the titles themselves are burned from a computer. My point in making this post is that DI is starting to become over-used. I have heard all of this talk about how 16mm should all be done on DI now since there's no signifcant loss in quality or something. I disagree. When DI improves (maybe 8K???) then I will re-evaluate my position.

 

Regards,

Karl Borowski

Thank you John. That is very kind, only say that I am 35 and there are 100 of me :D When I mean the old non-E family stocks, I mean stocks such as EPT 160T, EPJ 320T, and EPL 400, which probably aren't hot sellers anyway and would benefit from a boost in sales due to an added motion picture, scientific applications market to drive up demand and sales. Also nice stocks would be EPY 64T and EPR 64D. It'd really be nice to have such slow-speed stocks for daylight applications as an alternative to Kodachrome. There's nothing wrong with Kodachrome of course, but for a different look and slightly grainier image, I think this'd be a nice alternative. Such stocks were around in the past and it'd be nice to have them back. I also think that without either the EPJ or EPT, Super 8 and Regular 8 shooters such as myself, who rely on reversal because we want to actually project our work, are in dire shape. Unfortunately, Super 8 prints from the negative stocks are simply not being offered (at least not here in the States or at reasonable prices elsewhere). I know we aren't the biggest market ever, but we are the future of film.

 

Regards,

Karl Borowski

John: Please tell me that Kodak is going to introduce more stocks than just 5/7285 (is that the right number?), a 100 speed daylight stock that isn't useful at all for what 7240 was. I have used 7240 for my ultra-low budget DR8 movie and it worked great in a mall at night with only available lighting. A 100 speed daylight, even without filters and correspondingly oranger color would still be underexposed in such conditions. Also, I need something to film my 11:00 news spots! :lol: Seriously though, I really think Kodak needs to consider a simple reperforation of Ektachrome 64 and 100 and 400, not the E series, but the neutral, older emulsion ones. This would be simple to do, right?

 

Regards,

Karl Borowski

So all of those movies have NO optical prints but rather some digitized representations transferred to the final prints??? I'm glad I haven't seen any of them in theatres. Those must be dissappointing compared to true optical prints. I guess this is a sign of things to come. I don't see what's the use of even shooting film if the middle steps are run through a computer anyway. There are a lot of people interested in those new 6 mp cameras they have out. No one gives a poop about quality anymore it seems :-( I guess it's only a matter of time before cine goes the way that still photography went. I'd better start stocking up silver and acetate rollers :-( John, don't get me wrong, I love your company and it's devotion to film, but sometimes EK makes some really poor decisions. I think this process of digital intermediates is doomed to failure because it detracts from all of the advantages that film has. If the final output is either digitally recorded film or digitally projected (makes my eyes sore) video-whatever, I think a lot of producers are gonna start going the way of Lucas. When I found out that most of television is shot on film a couple years ago, I was amazed and thrilled that people still cared. Now I don't know anymore. Most people thought Star Wars II looked great and had a great story line (I thought it looked like poop and was written like poop, but I guess I'm alone here). This trend towards having to do EVERYTHING on computers is honestly a source of great confusion and depression for me. I thought that I might have some sort of future as a filmmaker or photochemist; now that future isn't going to be possible because people are so lazy that they won't take time to light because they can just use DI instead of having guys with light banks or reflectors. No more prints, no more labs, no more optical printers, no more new stocks. Or why wait for dailies when digital is "good enough"? I don't know.

 

Regards.

Yes, you're correct George 8x3=24 :lol: His primary reason for building it was to cater to Double Super 8, which is as I'm sure you know 16mm with Super 8 perfs, filmed down both sides in say a modified H8 or something of that nature. Others had the same complaint about it being somewhat wasteful, but we are glad to have it anyway. The thing was a very precision piece of equipment to build from scratch though, and I guess he even has it wired so that it is computer controlled. I will be happy to give it a try with some Velvia or EXR or something.

 

Regards.

George: Actually, this machine has already been built. A guy by the name of Paul Cotto on the Shooting 8mm forum has recently completed construction on one of these machines, and as soon as he is through with some last-minute bugs, he says he will start offering very modestly priced reperfs of 35mm into double super 8, which can then be re-slit into two strips of super 8. Unfortunately, some of the economy is lost as he only gets 16mm out of every 35, but it should still be reasonable, and it also gives the S8 shooter the opportunity to work with other E6 fine-grained stocks like Fuji's Velvia or some of the EXR stocks that Kodak is too stubborn to release in S8 (maybe having something to do with the misnomer Pro8mm). I personally will be really happy when he gets a DR8 die made (which he says he may consider in the future).

 

Regards,

Karl Borowski

If they didn't use DI for those "comic book frame" shots where you see several different camera angles at the same time and the frames actually move around in the frame (does the way I said it make sense?), then how did they? I know they have some sophisticated optical printers still hanging around and I understand the basics of it, but adding multiple moving elements to the picture? Surely they had to do some sort of digital manipulation and compilation for that to work. Maybe it wasn't a true DI. In the AC article, did Holmes mention how that effect was accomplished?

 

Regards.

I wish I had gotten into film earlier. I can't tell the difference, having seen Passion for instance and not being able to tell that it was a DI. It appears that there were many bad prints of this film too. I noticed color shifts between the different 1000 foot rolls. ARE all films done DI for things such as titles nowadays? Does anyone do true optical special effects? I am seeing less and less concern for quality in movies. I didn't see the Incredible Hulk when it was in theatres for instance, but seeing the video, the whole thing must have been done with DI and I'm sure there was an attrocious loss of quality in the prints in the theatres. Of course, I don't think there is any analog way to do what that movie did. I don't know. Digital has its place, but it bothers me that there is less and less room for models and visual effects. I think movies such as Star Wars I and II and Matrix (II in particular, the last I saw before becoming sickened) are all dreadfully fake-looking. It's pretty sad when George Lucas put out better poop with baked potatoes, battleship kits, and a pickup truck than he's done with all of those banks of computers and computer programmers.

 

Regards.

Hi. I have been hearing more and more about DI these days, and it bothers me that no one seems to have an issue with the loss of quality and digital artifacts that this process adds. Are all movies being digitized and titled this way now? Are only segments put through computers, or is it the whole movie that will go through? Why can't people just stick with analog? Sorry for sounding so old fashioned.

 

Regards.