Larry Miles

Thank you for your responses. Does shooting an aspect ratio card at the head of the reel solve, or help solve, this issue?

This may be a very noob, obvious question: I shot a roll of Super 16mm film (to be clear: Super 16mm camera, lenses, 16mm Kodak film). My understanding is that the native aspect ratio for Super 16mm is 1.66, and I was told that my film, scanned on a Scanity, was scanned at 1.66 The resulting individual frames from the scan include portions of the sprocket holes as well as the curvature at the corners. These are elements that need to be removed from the final image. The only ways I can see to do this are to either crop them out or to enlarge the image until they are no longer seen. It seems to me that to crop (blanking) them out would be to change the aspect ratio, even if only minimally, and to enlarge the image is to degrade the image by reducing its resolution, if only minimally. To need to enlarge the image means that the resolution at which I had it scanned isn't "true," meaning it's not truly 4K or 2K if I have to enlarge the image to remove these elements. Am I correct? Are these problems taken care of when an aspect ratio card is properly filmed at the head of the reel? Is there a standard protocol that is followed with scanned images that include pieces of the sprocket holes and curved corners (as in, enlarge it .023 percent, etc.)? Is it the fault of the lab? Is it the fault of my camera? In case it's relevant, I am using Davinci Resolve 12.5 (free version). Davinci shows the whole scanned frame (with the elements I wish to remove) as being 1.66. Thank you.

Thank you all for all the very valuable information. I guess I should have said "re-mounting" instead of "re-housing."

Thank you for your informative reply. I was thinking of an Angenieux 15-150 for an Aaton LTR 54 with an Aaton mount.

Is it possible to re-house a c-mount lens to an Aaton or Arri Bayonet mount and if so, who would I contact about doing so?

New twist: other than the obvious, what are the differences between the 1.9 version and the 2.8? (The obvious differences being the speed and the size difference between the two lenses.) Is one significantly sharper/more contrasty/etc than the other? How is the 1.9 fully open?

Thank you so much I really appreciate it.

I'm looking into purchasing an Angenieux zoom for a Super 16 camera (older era Angenieux, obviously). Can anyone provide differences between these two Angenieux zooms, or even something of their histories? Thank you.

I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on the optical quality of Kodak's CC filters, which I believe are gelatin. What kind of image degradation do you get? How might they compare to Tiffen of Formatt glass? Thank you.

Hello, Does anyone have or know of footage, preferably super16, that was shot with an Angenieux 16:44 zoom, that can either be found online or could be posted as a response? Thank you.

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knew, or could give an educated guess, as to which lenses were used for Louis Malle's (Sven Nykvist) Black Moon from 1975? Here is a link to a Google image search for the movie and here is one for imdb. Thank you.

Thank you both for your input on the subject.

Thank you for your reply. I was referring to camera rolls.

Hello, all, Two related questions: 1. Are there advantages or disadvantages to telecine/scanning off of a print vs. the negative? 2. If doing a telecine off of a print from a tungsten negative that had daylight shots captured without an 85 filter, is it better to have any attempts at correction done during the printing stage or in digital post? Thank you, Larry

Below is a link to a short film I DP'ed, edited, produced, wrote, and directed. I appreciate any comments, positive or negative (albeit civil). I thank you in advance for your time and consideration and I thank the cinematography.com community for all the technical information and advice over the years. https://vimeo.com/109929610

Hello, all. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding Aaton's comment that its Xtera's "co- planar pull-down mechanism" ensures "the crispest images and the quietest cameras ever."? In terms of sharpness and steadiness, how do the images compare with those of Arri's 416 or its SR3? The Xtera was used with Moonrise Kingdom and the Hurt Locker, the 416 with Black Swan. Thank you.

Thank you all for your replies.

Hello, all. I hope I've posted in the most appropriate forum. Is it possible to achieve the strobe effect one gets with a variable shutter set at 90 degrees or less by shooting at a higher frame rate but in the transfer, or, more likely, in post, skipping frames? For example, shooting at 48 frames per second and only using every other frame or 72 frames per second and only using every third frame (obviously this would be for a 24 fps edit). If so, are there any tricks or pitfalls to doing so? Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, all. In discussing a scene from Deliverance with a friend, where they stop for gas and try to arrange for their cars to be driven down to the end of the river (it soon then begins the Dueling Banjos), the sunlight appears to go in and out from behind a cloud. I am convinced that Zsigmond used artificial light to control this, my friend is convinced it is natural daylight and they were magic moments caught on film. I would appreciate your comments. I have attached a link to a photobucket page that has a series of screenshots from the same continuous take. Thank you. http://s750.photobucket.com/user/larrymiles99/library/

Thank you.

Hello, If one is using a colored filter over the lens, is it possible to use colored lights on actors within the frame in order to make their skin tones seem normal and not colored by the filter? For example, if you're using a yellow filter, will shining enough blue light on the actor's face make him/her appear with correct skin tones? Thanks.

Mr. Murphy, I realize that this thread is a few years old, but do you have any links to the Vivid 160 pushed a stop that you could post?

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas, they are quite provocative (intellectually speaking). I agree with you completely about the direction of modern stocks, the sharpness is really unpleasant and boring; in HD video it's reached horrific. And not to knock anyone specific, but that high key look of so many modern studio films (I believe popularized by "Love, Actually") is both boring and highly reminiscent of video, which is not what I want out of film. I think Gordon Willis was quoted as saying that he was, at the time, most impressed by "Love, Actually" and then everyone started doing it. I wish I had the time to do more testing, as I would have loved to have tried out your 100D/light fog filter idea. Are there any examples you can point me to? I also agree completely regarding the non-use of wide angle during that period. As a bonus, using zoom would give it a softer look. However, my personal preference for non-distorted wide angles may override. As for the light, I am using late afternoon sunlight into magic hour. Do you think that will be soft enough, or will I need a silk? (Thanks also for the tip regarding sound. Due to traffic it may not be possible, but maybe).

Hello. I will be attempting the trombone shot made most famous in relatively recent times by the cafe scene in "Goodfellas" where the camera dollies in while the lens zooms out (I apologize if I have it backwards). When you want to keep a specific subject in focus during a dolly you can mark points along the dolly whose distance to the subject is also marked on the focus ring. Is the relationship between keeping the subject the same size in the shot to the distance from the subject something that can also be figured out beforehand? For example, if the zoom angle is X at five feet, can you mathematically derive what the zoom angle should be at 10 feet in order to keep the subject the same size? I thank you for any help you can give me.