Marc Roessler

Had checked that before installing lamp, all looked good. Good tip though, will check them once in a while.

Thanks guys. Tried another bulb (luckily I ordered two of them), this one worked. When switching on still tends to blow the 16A fuse one the other time due to the inrush current, otherwise works like a charm. Seems it was a bad bulb.

Hi, is it a requirement to use some fort of soft-start or dimmer for a 2k Blonde (230 Volts version)? I never had any problems with any 2k wattage lights so far, but this blonde I just bought seems to give me trouble. Just installed a brand new Osram FEX bulb in it (without toughing the glass envelope of couse) and the bulb blew within 2 minutes: it seems upon startup, one of the ends of the filament burnt loose (with a small blue flash). The loose end of the filament managed to fall right on the metal connector inside the bulb, so it continued to burn until I switched it off after 2 minutes - this is when I saw the problem. The lamp was in upright position and there was no vibration (light stand was used). Are the FEX 2k bulbs for the Blonde more finicky? Or did I just happen to get a lemon as a bulb? Do they need a dimmer/soft start? The filament does look a bit more sturdy (though less well supported mechanically) than the 2kW's commonly used in fresnels, so does this maybe cause it to have a higher inrush current when switched on? Greetings, Marc

Thanks David! I guess it all boils down to testing the flourescents at hand with the film stock to be used.

Hi, on its webpage, Tiffen states: "Use FL-D with daylight film and FL-B with tungsten film". Unfortunately, nothing is stated about the type of flourescent (cool white, warm white, daylight). (And nothing about how bad the green spike is) In principle, you could encounter the following scenarios: 1 warm white (< 3300K) -> tungsten film 2 cool white (3300 - 5300k) -> tungsten film 3 daylight (> 5500k) -> tungsten film 4 warm white (< 3300K) -> daylight film 5 cool white (3300 - 5300k) -> daylight film 6 daylight (> 5500k) -> daylight film So where would you use which filter? Greetings, Marc

Chris, do you know any details about the post processing used? The BMW spot didn't look like typical 7239.. was this done digitally? Reminded me a bit of a bleach bypass look.

Hi everyone, I was wondering why the VNF stocks (7239, 7240, 7250, 7251, ..) have so poor color, sharpness and grain (even back then when fresh stock was still available). Are these effects inherent when designing a low-contrast reversal stock, or is it just because those are old emulsion designs? Has anyone ever tried pushing Ektachrome 100D (7285) 2 stops to EI 400? Would this look any better than the true 400T 7250 VNF? Greetings, Marc

And, yes, there's actually a table football in that club B)

Just to let you all know how it turned out... I shot that project last August on some leftover 7219 and 8647 (both fridge stored for 1 year). I had the 7219 pushed 1.5 stops. The 8647 was processed normally. The neg was scanned on an ARRISCAN. In the end I "printed down" the 7219 digitally to around what would have been its usual exposure index, because the grain and elevated base fog of the pushed stock was too much for me (probably because it wasn't really fresh stock!). Shot documentary style on-location with an Arri 16S, lenses always wide open (which is why it's all quite soft). Unfortunately the h264 video compression blocks the grain up a bit.. but I think you get an idea of what the original looks like :) P.S: I suggest to watch it directly on vimeo, the postage sized video window shown here doesn't really show much...

As far as I know, Cineco is the only (commercial) film lab in Amsterdam. Had some 16mm test material processed there some years ago. I was very pleased with their work, very nice people too. Cineco B.V. Willem Fenengastraat 39 1096 BM Amsterdam http://www.cineco.nl/ Grettings, Marc

See topic...

Isaac, thanks for your thoughts on this! I didn't use an SR as a shoulder camera yet, so I have to admit I don't really know how it rates compared to the XTR. So the SR might be much worse than the XTR in this regard. Maybe I'll be able to break my habit of snugging it against my neck (hmm, cat on the shoulder, purrr..) :D Greetings, Marc

Hey everyone, I'd like your thoughts on the XTR Prod. It's got a reputation as the "cat on the shoulder", but I always find myself struggling with it. When I put it on my right shoulder and put it snug right against my neck so there's additional stability, I have to turn my head to the left and upward to be able to watch through the viewfinder. Otherwise the viewfinder will end up somewhere where my nose is. The viewfinder having a very small angle from which it is viewable doesn't really help either. Operating the camera like that feels and looks awkward. When I set the camera farher away from my neck, there's much less stability for the camera, somehow this doesn't feel right. I'm also wondering about the handgrip. I feel when mounting it to the front rods, it is too far up so you have to extend your arm upwards in weird way (could be fixed by additional grip stuff of course). Also I find it quite hard to operate the small switch in the hand grip, because it ends up somewhere under the middle of my thumb and not at the tip of it where I'd be able to apply controlled pressure. Has this particular XTR been set up/configured in a strange way or am I just incompatible with its proportions? Greetings, Marc

What's your approach for shooting with neg film under flourescent lighting? Do you use FLBs / FLDs or rather color correct in post? What are the pros and cons of both approaches? Greetings, Marc

I just was wondering about using UN54 as reversal... I've been told the base is not that transparent, so it's not that suitable as a reversal stock when inteded for projection. Or did I get this wrong? Asking because I have bought a roll of UN54 and I'm yet undecisive whether to better use it as neg or reversal. Greetings, Marc

Hey Giorgio, welcome to the board! I'd suggest to give the negative to a professional lab (rather than home processing) for three reasons: - you will end up with quite some scratches and dirt on the negative; even if you handle it ultra carefully: as long as you don't have an absolutely clean (no dust!) room to hang the film to dry you will have dirt embedding itself into the still soft emulsion, impossible to remove later on. This is not sooo bad with reversal film, but very bad with negative (because any speck of dust will show as white!) - the lomo spiral tank (the one I know of...) only holds 50 feet of 35mm film (or 100 feet of 16mm, split in two). This is about 15 meters of 35mm film, lasting for about 30 seconds at 24 fps. This means that the chance that your cut is in the middle of an important scene is quite high. - home processing is not THAT much cheaper and having the film processed, especially when you consider the fact that you'll be spending quite some time buying the chemicals, doing the threading and processing of the film, cleanup and then disposing the chemistry. Other than that, shooting BW on 35mm or even 16mm looks great! Definately a cool idea. Just a pity 7231/5231 Plus-X isn't around any more, it was such a great stock. Greetings, Marc

Hey everyone... Some time ago I got the book "A Maysles Scrapbook" (a must for a any doc film buff btw) and according to that book (reprinting the Article "Gimme Shelter: Production Notes" from Filmmakers Newsletter December 1971), for their documentary "Gimme Shelter" the Mayseles brothers used the following stocks: 7255 (Ektachrome Commercial, 25T) 7242 (Ektachrome EF, 125T) 7241 (Ektachrome VNF, 160D) They used Angenieux 9.5-95 T2.2 lenses. In the article, the Maysles state - 7241 and 7242 have better quality than color negative (sharper and less grain) - they suggest to push 7241 two stops to an EI of 620 (unclear if they did it with "Gimme Shelter"; concerning the T-stop of the Angie and the lighting conditions I'd think so..) This left me somewhat puzzled... Knowning how 7240 VNF looks (muted color, soft, quite grainy) I'm wondering how they came to that conclusion. Was 7241/7242 better than 7240? Or was color negative that bad back then? Did VNF push easier than the current higher-contrast reversal (or neg) stocks? Would pushing the current Ektachrome 100D 7285 two stops (i.e. 400D) look better concerning grain and sharpness than 7219 a neg exposed and processed normally? Better or worse than 7241/7242? Would be great if someone could shed some light on this... Greetings, Marc P.S.: "Gimme Shelter" seems to be availble on youtube

Official page seems to be accessible now: www.kodak.com/go/50d Guess I'm going to order a 100' roll for testing. Too bad they didn't publish this stock in summer. True EI 1000, that would be fine. But somehow I got a feeling a physical limit is reached there - unless there is a major new technology break through. And I guess with regard to high EI digital has somewhat surpassed film. Then again, in most cases you need to light the scenery anyway for it to look good, so it's not too much additional effort to light to a higher stop/lower EI (and get the film look for free). Greetings, Marc (in no way affiliated with Kodak, btw)

It has been announced at Camerimage and in FDT (http://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/45FDTimes-LoRez150.pdf), but strangely not yet on the Kodak webpage. To quote FDT: "With grain almost gone, the superb color and fine detail of new Kodak Vision3 50D/5203 shows that film is still very much alive." Looking forward to try that one in S16..

In general it's agreed upon it's not a good idea to freeze stock that already has been opened (i.e. recans). Have any of you ever used freezed re-cans? Any negative effects? What would be the worst effects to expect? Little droplets forming on the neg during warming up because of elevated humidity levels in the can, making the neg sticky? Anything else? Has anyone actually ever encountered such problems or is this rather a "this could happen if several factors come together"? Would you be able to detect such problems when rewinding the neg to 100' reels in the dark? I'm asking because I own two 16mm 200' re-cans which (unfortunately) have been freezed and I don't feel like dumping them just because of that. By the way, wouldn't packing the film with Kodak's molecular sieves (those extract humidity and acid) help some? Pack the film with the sieves, wait a few days, freeze... Greetings, Marc

Assuming he'd want to cut above the fog level by overexposure, he would need to overexpose by about 2 stops - is this correct? (This would be according to the 5129 sensiometric curve.. my reasoning is to make those parts usually exposed in the knee slide to densities > 1.17... right? Of course you'd be loosing two stops of highlight handling at the shoulder...)

Charles, this is for longterm storage so I'm a bit wary of plastics that may fume off whatever chemical components they might contain. The kodak cans seem to be very inert. Also they tape air tight more easily after inserting kodak's molecular sieves than plastic cans. Storing two reels in one can: I'd prefer not to do that for both clarity (loose a bit of one head/tail and there goes the info which reel was which one...) and mechanical reasons (the two rolls will rub on each other during each handling, which can cause quite a bit of a degradation of the material...). Thanks for your replys! I guess I'll ask my lab. Just thought I'd check beforehand if such 16mm/800' cans exist at all.. Greetings, Marc

Are there any original (preferrably golden) 1000 feet cans for 16mm film from Kodak (or Fuji)? Those would be great for storing larger reels of 16mm neg (wound on P3 core), as storing it in 1000 feet 35mm cans (Kodak) is a bit a waste of space. I know that you can buy tin cans in this size somewhere, but I'd very much prefer the golden powder coated kodak cans - those are more appropriate for long term storage (inert coating: no metal dust, no rust, no tin corrosion). Thanks, Marc

Hey everyone, searching for some mag parts (inside covers of the drive mechanism including roller arm, roller etc (whole assembly)) For further info take a look at http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=54069 Thanks, Marc

Hi everyone, I'm searching for the following parts for an Arri SR3 magazine: for both sides (feed/takeup): inside cover of the drive mechanism including roller arm, roller etc (whole assembly) For clarification: the cover I am referring to has the reel spindles mounted to it and has the white threading arrow printed on it. If someone has an otherwise defunct (i.e. incomplete, damaged, ...) mag with these parts somewhat intact, feel free to contact me. SR1 and SR2 mags also should work I suppose. Greetings, Marc