nathan coombs

What solution did you decide on for dealing with the NTSC vs Pal conundrum.

Well, straight transfer via FCP seems quiet straightforward.

The problem we have is with a troublesome piece of audio, that was suspect in the PAL release and unusable in the NTSC version!

One film may need the audio rerecorded.

Actually, but Iv'e just been informed by Steve Hyde (who is testing the conversion) that there are a few remaining problems to be ironed out.

Apologies for the further delay.

Dear All

I am very happy to say that the NTSC version of the Super-8 Cities project is now available.

The collection has been getting very good reviews from early purchasers and is now on the way to breaking even on the print. This will help fund the sequel project planned for 2007: Voices of Citizenship.

Please check out the website: http://www.workhorse.tv/super8cities.html

And watch out for the article in the forthcoming Small Format, a DVD review in Super-8 Today (a few issues time) and an interview for Shooting People, which is in the pipeline.

Many thanks

i like the flashscan. like all camera based telecines it struggles with the contrast of reversal, although less so with 64t it seems, but the sharpness is great, the registration even better and the optical color correction very usable. it outputs dv, component and 8-bit sdi. we used dv. as long as you do most of your color corrections in the scanner i don't think there's much of a difference but if you intend to cc later you probably need uncompressed.

 

/matt

I like the stylised look of the images; I guess that has a lot to do with the lighting and composition.

But I don't see what you see as so special about the stock. The grain is sharp, but the resolved image is not. And these colours could be graded out of a flat Vision2 stock without too much effort. I'm not convinced.

My disc arrived the other day, and although I've only watched half of the main 10 I think it's absolutely fantastic. The sheer range of styles and techniques is impressive, and I'd like to congratulate you on your organisation of the project.

 

One of the benefits of being able to watch all of these films together is that it's made me aware of what a flexible medium Super 8 is. I've been shooting it on and off for as long as I've been making films, but I've never been able to compare my work to other people's, and so haven't really experimented very much with it and stretched my creativity. This project has given me a valuable opportunity to do so, and I'm very grateful to have been given the chance. I would love to take part in the next project.

Yes, I received the disk last thursday. I thinks it's really briljant. I

watched all the movies three times now. Every time I see the movies I

see something new.

I've just received the DVD and I my review is very positive, I think is an excellent package.

All of then suceed in some way or another with the idea of your project. Congratulations for a well done production, count on me for the next one.

http://www.workhorse.v/super8cities.html

n't have NTSC versions available so that would preclude this from being a relatively painless option.

 

Are you going to be able to do high quality coversion from PAL to NTSC, or is that going to be a painful task you are not looking forward to?

 

By the way, I just clicked on your signature link and it is not working.

Prizes are something I will consider when things have calmed down a bit . Good idea.

The NTSC version requires the DVD to be completely reconstructed. Pretty long winded and painful.

Thanks, I'll check out the sig.

I don't know how many film festivals you plan on entering, but The Rutgers Super-8 Film Festival is one you might want to consider entering, although the deadline is basically send out today by fed-ex priority or tomorrow in person by noon.

 

Or, why not offer to donate a couple of copies that they can give out as prizes, perhaps to the honorable mention films. That film festival is really a great contest to be a sponsor for because they leave the names of the sponsors up year after year on the awards page.

 

Check it out.

 

http://www.njfilmfest.com/super8.html

 

There may not be time to be a sponsor for this year, or maybe your timing would be perfect since the prizes are not announced for another month.

Hi Alex, thanks for the recommendation. I think I am just too late for this one and the festival will probably require NTSC copies not available yet. One of the contributors (a fantastic filmmaker) Kiko Andraka also recommended me this festival.

To be honest, will full-time work and this project I am stretched to the limit right now. I will just be concentrating on UK festivals - I hope that either Steve Hyde or Kiko will promote the project in the USA.

Hey! I might do something like this about Newcastle upon Tyne.

I will be announcing the sequel project soon if you want to get involved with that.

I think there is a connection between advertising and sales returns on sites such as this one. I don't know the official number but this site has over 10,000 members. Probably not every one checks in every month but probably a sizeable portion do. Ads appear on the side of this site continously but unobtrusively. I don't know if anyone in the super-8 community that offers primarily Super-8 services or products has ever advertised on Cinematography.com.

 

I have found that over the long haul, products do sell. Of course if you were to advertise on this site you would need to make a certain amount of sales per month to justify it. But if you meet that goal the advertising can only help plant seeds in other people who may want to buy it down the road. Eventually someone writes about the DVD and interest picks up. If I had a super-8 DVD to sell I wouldn't hesitate to advertise it here unless the cost was prohibitive.

Advertising for the DVD doesn't really add up financially. Even with the 'free' marketing of forums interest seems to be pretty low so far. Although I expect it to pick up as a few reviews and festival screenings appear.

The new Small Format will have a 4 page article on the project which should help inform people what it is all about!

From a cinematography perspective, "Satantango" is a very important film because it challenges conventional practices. To state the obvious: cinematography is the art of recording space with light in time. That said, the contemporary discourse on cinematography, here on this forum and elsewhere, is primarily focused on the many uses of light and less focused on sculpting in time.

You are very lucky to have seen his films screened in 35mm. I have only seen his films on DVD, but nevertheless they have made a powerful impression upon me.

What you say about his cinematography echoes the thoughts I have been penning in my article on Tarr.

I've pasted a rough draft of the introduction below - excuse the typos and omissions.

**

The recent release of Bela Tarr?s seven and a half hour masterpiece SatanTango on DVD in November was a momentous event. But perhaps not for the reasons most commonly cited. In the interim between the film?s release and its occasional showing to adventurous festival goers worldwide, SatanTango has operated as a signifier of the most exotic, most profound, the darkest and the densest cinema can aspire to; the film which has occupied the place of the dreams of filmmakers who hope that a film can be more than just a film, that a film can have its own mythology, that a film can transcend its materialist roots and take on a life of its own. Tarr?s own lack of exposure and the relative obscurity of Hungarian cinema also contribute to sense that if ever there was a holy-grail for filmmaking: this is it. In other words, the film has an aura.

But what is this aura? The accepted approaches to Tarr?s work have reached a consensus that Tarr?s late films provide allegories of the deteriorating social malaise of life in the Soviet Union and the aftermath of its collapse, woven into a grander cosmological vision of humanity. Much is made of Tarr?s earlier interest in philosophy as a student, so that is tempting to see him as a philosopher working through the medium of cinema, much as Tarkovsky was a director-poet.

But Bela doesn?t do philosophy. Despite all the prodding he received at his (200?) appearance at the National Film Theatre, he unequivocally refuted that anything he does has anything to do with philosophy. He claims we ?don?t think about anything like that on set? and ?we just work out how to get the camera from A to B.?

Devotees of Tarr?s work will find all this a bit hard to swallow, especially considering the weight of allegorical and philosophical references in his latest opus the Werkmeister Harmonies. Thomas Hobb?s leviathan, in the form of a stuffed whale, makes an appearance and town patriarch Uncle (?) obsession with the 12 tone scale of Andreas Werkmeister and his resulting detachment from reality of his, could be seen as a thinly veiled reference to the aestheticism of late Adorno. Add to this the theological titles of his mid-career oeuvre: Damnation and SatanTango and the quoting from scripture, mystical monologues and messiah figures and it would not be hard to argue that Tarr?s work has some of the most overt philosophical themes in recent cinema. But no, he denies it all.

Ahh, but the contrarian retorts, that?s because Tarr?s work represents an anti-philosophy; a fin-de-siele portrait of woe set against all the social agendas and dialectical theories of progress of the 20th century. He evokes philosophy only in the sense of a straw man to knock down. The problem with this find-the-loophole argument is that even such a Nietchzean interpretation of his work is a philosophy in itself and Tarr is adamant that he does not concern himself with such issues.

So is he just being coy? The easiest way out would be to claim that Tarr is simply resisting the temptation to interpret his work in the modernist belief that his films are self contained; without the necessity of a post-modern web of discourse we are increasingly used to assimilating as part of an artwork. Or even that since he is just directing the scripts of Lazni ?, he is using a technicality to sneak away from subjecting himself to discussion of his work.

But could it be that all these ways of attempting to unpick Tarr?s obscurantism are missing the point? What if, for a moment, we take Bela at face value on his claims to have nothing to do with philosophy and take seriously his assertion that his filmmaking is solely about aesthetics?

Looking at Bela?s forms as the basis of his works, a profound meaning can be read, which flys in the face of critical thinking about cinema. His vision is one of a cinema as a self-contained sphere to itself, where a knowledge of the cinematographic techniques he pushes forward explains why Bela is the greatest filmmaker?s filmmaker and how he is uncompromising stance stands singularly apart from any other contemporary auteur. His films aura is created exactly by the fact that he is operating meaning through his medium, in a way which is completely opposite to all modern trends: such as the blurring distinction between fiction and documentary made possible through digital technology, the erosion of the reverence of the image through its cheapening, scepticism of the truth of the image and the convergence of a monoform film language.

Hi,

I need a wide angle lens for my shoot next week.

The Canon 3X wide angle or a 0.5x 72mm side angle lens - either will do.

If you have one of these or know how I can get hold of one asap please email me asap

ncoombs*a*fastmail.co.uk

Yes it is coming.... eventually! And there are some great short films as part of the project:

Pelle Koornstra's 'Paradise' is an excellent and fun documentary essay on wanting to move to the suburbs. Kiko Andraka's episode from New York is reminiscent of Reggio's Quatsi films...in very short form!

Check out the trailer at:

A teaser clip of Pelle's film at:

A teaser clip of Albert Vandel's Barcelona film at:

Did you have the film Transferred at a North American Lab? Is the transfer in PAL? If so it sounds to me like they did the telecine to NTSC and then ran it through a crappy standards converter.

This is something I recently considered. Perhaps they scan in NTSC and blow it up to PAL explaining softness and aliasing.

I'll give them a call and report back.

Um, the Aaton design used the Super8 sound cartridge. it does not work with normal S8 carts.

er, read my post - "modified design"

Changing the type of cartridge the camera accepts is a whole lot easier than designing a camera from the base up.

I do wonder though if the A-Minima is $15K how a new super-8 camera would be that much cheaper to construct, especially with the features people are recommending on this board.

The reason the A-Minima is more expensive than a HD camera is simply supply and demand. I can't see how a news super-8 camera would be any more in demand than a S16 camera.

This is why guaranteed, contractual pre-orders (if product is delivered you cough up the money for it) would be the ONLY way this thing would ever happen, at the price people here are looking for. This is the reality of business, sending petitions will get you nowhere.

Well, I haven't seen "Stalker" yet and perhaps many other ASC members haven't either. There is something of a volume effect here, the more a movie was seen, the more likely it would be recalled and put on a list.

This is quite a disgrace. You can walk into virtually any store stocking 'foreign language' DVDs in the UK and pick up a copy of Stalker. Im sure some of the opposition is ideological, rather than just ignorance.

Its like television in the UK, it is criminally difficult to watch anything (even in the early morning) that is either artistic or in a 'foreign language'.

I think the BBC and Channel-4 would give themselves a congratulatory pat on the back if they were to show such edgy and challenging foreign product such as 'The Motorcycle Diaries'!

Hi people,

Im into the NFTS workshop in July for 'Documentary Direction'. I also applied for "Fiction Direction' but have had no interview invitation yet.

I'll post how it went and my thoughts on the process on the 22nd.

Its funny - people talk about grain as a big issue, but I think this is only relevant is pro-circumstances where certain quality control regulations and standards play more of a role than aesthetics.

From what I've witnessed at festivals, generally the audience react well to S16 levels of grain, because it provides a certain authenticity, especially because the colours and latitude match 35mm. What I am trying to say is that audiences generally favour film over digital even if production execs and certain DPs get upset about the grain issue.

It also makes a big difference whether the film has had a 35mm print made. An optical print from S16 usually looks great need to HD projection.

Go to a few festivals and see for yourself!

Shoot it on a quiet crystal sync cam, and 7217. It will be great!

I would start negotiating and get a quote for an uncompressed, straight to hard drive telecine for all that material. Finishing this way will really allow you to massively correct for exposure errors, colour correction etc. speeding up your filming and finishing to a higher quality to escape that poop super-8 look that tv channels loathe (except for short, deliberately grainy inserts in their DV programming).

I liked the look of the super-16 at 1080p - I think it held up well. Its obviously softer and grainer than HD 1080i, but I prefer the look of the s16 and when projected I think the difference in latitude and colour depth will be more noticeable than relative sharpness.

The buttons on the Apple site say 480p 720p 1080p

 

Is the 1080 really 1080i ? I don't know, strangely enough I don't have time to dl a 200 Mb file on my laptop with dial up where I am now :D

 

There must be more shot on S16 films you can look at HD QT's of.. "March Of The Penguins" was S16... I don't know if it's on there....

 

-Sam

Bizarre when I checked the link at work there was no 1080p link. Now I have checked at home it is there. A PC/Mac difference? Cheers!

...and who exactly appointed you as the arbiter of quality and taste for the cinematic world?

This is the worst kind of artistic snobbery. The assumption that because something is popular that its automatically poop.

No its poop because it is children's fantasy dressed up as adult entertainment. I enjoyed the Indiana Jones series, they were not trying to be anything they weren't and were even funny. I lost interest in mainstream cinema around the time of the 'Mummy Returns' when I realized Hollywood could not even do silly action-adventures well any more.

Lets hold no illusions this film will sell like mad purely due to the marketing hype surrounding it. People will turn up and pay for their ticket for some sort of shared cultural experience, not in the expectation of good cinema. Meanwhile great directors such as Bela Tarr, Von Trier and Haneke have to scramble about to get funding for their next films which no-one is even interested in because the idea of quality cinema has been drowned out by the a banal popular culture shoving King Kong and Da Vinci Code's in our face.

I can unreservedly say without ever having read the book or seen the films that it is a piece of poop.

Same goes for Harry Potter, except I was actually forced to watch one of the films, and it was even worse than I dared dream.

Mindless entertainment or the intellectually dulled masses.

. I figured it'd be a considerable while before I "graduated" to shooting on this oh-so-intimidating (and "vastly expensive" medium). And it's actually been BECAUSE and not inspite of the budgetary constraints THAT I've veered toward film . . .

I think its only because so many people have so much at stake, career wise, with maintaining this image of film as 'difficult' to shoot that this perception is propagated.

In fact, The Vision2 stocks have a much wider latitude for over and under exposure than DV and don't require difficult grading to get a good image.

That latitude also actually allows LESS use of expensive lighting, contrary to common wisdom. The only intimidating aspects is the shooting ratio really.

Ok in one last ditch attempt to explain this as clearly as I can, without upsetting some of the fragile egos on here:

Are there any non-pros, i.e. normal folks not harping on about their £20K kit and union rates, who happen to have a s16 cam of any type, willing to help out a fellow filmmaker for 4 hours to shoot a test roll for £150? i.e. easy PAID WORK (£37.5/hour)

After all the ads I've seen looking for DPs with their own kit to shoot shorts for expenses only, I don't think this is an incredible request.

:blink:

Obviously you don't know what your talking about otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

It is blatantly clear from the fact that I want to shoot a test roll that I am looking to try out s16 for the first time.

However, I do know film stocks and their uses. 500T is great but what is the point of 500D? The only uses I can think of are:

1) Shooting in dark, stormy weather

2) For a great depth of field using a long lens

3) For a daylight balanced indoor shot

All of these uses seem pretty niche and so your recommendation for 500D as THE stock to use is either a joke or complete ignorance.

Forget Sokurov, Nuri Ceylan's new film 'Climates' is in competition at Cannes. He is the true successor to Tarkovsky.

The film was shot on the F900 and the trailer is breathtaking.

http://www.nbcfilm.com/iklimler/trailer.php?mid=8