Jump to content

Stephen Alexander Griebel

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stephen Alexander Griebel

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • My Gear
    Arri HSR-II

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just wrapped on a short with this workhorse. Asking $3400 + shipping. Photos: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1J0ddoEpSZV3z24-K53eflvjJwfe7wOgv?usp=sharing -Arri B mount -Aaton mount included -Hood w/ 1 4x4 filter tray
  2. How? I'm sure a better physicist than I could prove it on paper. I'll chalk it up to the universe's will.
  3. The actual glass broke clean in two right down the center of the ratio marks-- I lucked into an Arri HSR II and have since tossed the glass unfortunately. The XTR/plus lacks the wonderful cartridge system of your Prod, Tyler 😉. The bare glass is cemented directly to an adjustable 16/S16 sliding arm.
  4. I was adjusting the arm to square the alignment in the viewfinder when the glass became uncemented, bounced out of the lens port, and split into two halves on my floor. Would even be open to standard 16mm at this point. Thanks!
  5. Yeh, I never understood how Hitchcock, who abhorred outdoor (realistic) shooting and promoted a sort of neo-German expressionism, stylization and artifice throughout his career, could make such a statement. But of course, prominent directors have a history of saying catchy things which are often contradictory to a prior maxim... I believe Maestro Fellini takes the cake on that one. I would say that some biopics and documentaries are real life with all the boring bits taken out, but not most of them, and certainly not most narrative feature films. I'm sorry but dialogue, blocking, performance, etc are most often meticulously crafted, not winged on the spot i.e., not even situational reality, be it bright or boring. At best movies are some sort of life with a bunch of interesting things added.
  6. Allow me to blow the dust off this post-- PHHHHHHHHW. Alright, having sent the test roll out three weeks ago, it just arrived today. I was pleasantly surprised by the results. Due to the low light of the projection and the limited space of the theater room, I had to shoot wide open (1.4 on my Bauer 715 xl) and at 30-40mm focal length (about half of the Angenieux's 6-90mm range). Thus, the image isn't as crisp as possible (even for super 8) but I rather like what came out. Also, again for exposure reasons, I could not afford the stops for a daylight filter in camera, so I (easily) corrected it in post to match the source, though not for the file which is linked. Shot at 24fps Vision2 200T, pushed 2 stops. I cropped the projected footage by zooming in a bit tighter to make a better image-- it was a compromise that I'm glad I made. RED.mpg SUPER8.mpg As you can see, this is not the patronizing scratch, grain and flicker that Robert Rodriguez fed his eager fans in Planet Terror with a flip of the switch in Avid. My reasons are for the feel of film, not exactly grain, scratches or weave, but for the softening which the medium provides and how it used to interpret light. I know its all the same film nowadayz, but I believe the smaller gauge stocks (super8, 16) capture light the way 35mm used to, though one must deal with the inevitable grain. The original projection is a slew of clips available on the many Red footage forums. The only footage I really liked was shot by nordeffects (the juggler stuff) but I guess I'm just a sucker for natural light, low contrast and a nice wide-angle lens. If the links provided are too much of a bother, try these (my computer will be on to seed most of the day): http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4522544/S...544.TPB.torrent http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4522539/R...539.TPB.torrent
  7. deep breath...and release... Well, I do thank you for your initial discretion, Rory, but "traditional" is highly subjective and I'd say that what I'm trying to do is get back to "tradition" which was neither ultra-clear nor realistic, though due to technical limitations of the times. I disagree. I have only seen theories which expose your own ideologies of clarity as a precondition to our medium. Kubrick didn't like modern stocks because they were too close to reality, and not just because Eyes Wide Shut was based on Traumnovelle, so he pushed it to its extremes. Renoir discussed with Rivette this very problem of how film stocks were getting faster and clearer IN THE 60s, and the problems that come with clarity. Oils will burn in theaters for smells (Japanese are currently doing this last I heard) and you will be immersed in a world indistinguishable from you own, and you may chose to experience the rustling of wind through evergreen leaves in a dark theater and not in the woods beyond it. Granted, Rivette and Renoir immediately agreed that you should not fight this evolution, and that you must not. However, I think had they known how close Kodak and Cinealta have come to reality, they may have changed their minds. I love clarity for national geographic and things which are dangerous or impossible to see with your own eyes. However, movies are not real. They are an escape. If you want reality go stand on the street corner-- I believe that was said by old Hitch himself. And I have not once written that film is useless, just absurd and tedious. This has been voiced by many top filmmakers over the years, including Coppola. For now it is essential. This much is obvious. Finally, I would not do the boardmembers here, nor myself, the disgrace of posting these overhyped results on youtube. Clips will be hi-res, I assure you.
  8. The way I see it (and Dave Mullen has mentioned this in response to another thread on projection) HD and the digital medium in general feels more lifelike than film, which is a bit ironic, as film has "character" in every single one of its flickers, scratches, weaves, and golf-ball sized pieces of grain, not to mention the fact that it is made from wood cellulose and cotton, as opposed to digital, which is pure raw data. Somehow, even in panning, etc it portrays life "truer"-- perhaps partially due to its economy and efficiency, thus its prevalence in reality TV, news (certainly true, at least with video), etc. Anywho, digital's ability to capture life could serve as a rolling snapshot, and recorded on film that would otherwise be recording the same thing, only in reality. The thing is, I don't know, and the only person on this forum who apparently does, Saul Rodgar, said the result was something neither film nor digital. Wow, neither: to me that sounds worth experimenting upon. To be honest, I thought there would be a little more support or at least curiosity, but oh well, enough squawking from me. I ordered a roll of Ektachrome 64t and some vision 200 with my "student" discount at Kodak, so I hope to have everything developed and posted in a couple weeks. I would prefer 16mm but I don't have the arri of my dreams quite yet, so this will have to do (only no crystal-synch...) Will let you guys know as soon as I do.
  9. Thanks Saul and Marcel for the only constructive responses in this thread. • Film: waste of time & money… Uh, check. -- Cost of film, time spent loading (paying assistant to do it if you're too busy), lab fees, waiting for dailys, not being able to see your results immediately for review... Uh, yeh, check I guess. And inefficient to boot, lack of low-light sensitivity and bulky equipment. It's tough to shoot and go, get long takes without expensive, bulky magazines. I don't know what you're arguing. • HD: waste of time and money… Um, OK, check. -- I don't like the look. Others are with me. Of all my criticism of film, I prefer the look and that's a clincher for me. Even a good story can be uninteresting if the format is also-- movies are primarily visual and aesthetic, otherwise go read a book. Check again. • Mini-DV: Good origination format! *cough* Check. --I don't know what you're saying here at all really. I merely mentioned how Lynch's use of the digital medium, in this case mini-DV, was more INTERESTING than any other digital film I've seen. Once you get into $100K+ HD cameras-- Vipers and Cinealtas, you might as well be looking at 35mm (but then again, they don't for reasons above-- see the first "Check"). I don't even want to dignify that with a *cough* check. It's beginning to sound (and feel) like a physical in here. • Downgrading 4k to Super8: worth trying… Hrrm, check? -- It won't be anywhere near 4K as I can only find 2K and will be burning to a standard DVD. Super 8 is interesting to look at, I'm sorry you don't agree. Is it worth trying? I believe so-- thank bog in his Heaven that not everyone in this world shares Rory's puritanical views on experimentation. I asked the community here for empirical expertise, not opinions of close-minded people. Your results sound interesting Saul, I'll let you know what happens with mine. Anyway, off to see High Noon in 35mm.
  10. Yeh, I've seen a lot of cheap DIY telecine jobs where people project super 8 or 16mm and record the screen digitally and it looks like film, so it makes since that it would be the same the other way around. However, I would say that the current technique of xferring HD to film is done in a way to maintain the precision of the original (as well as the aforementioned lack of digital projection nationwide) not for artistic reasons. I am less concerned with such "sophisticated" ways of further blending film and digital (until they are one indistinguishable hyper-reality) than I am with observing how contrasty reversals and 16mm might see the same digital scene through various focal lengths and speeds. I'd say it's a waste of time and money to shoot a great script in such an uninteresting format as HD. If you're gonna go digital, you need look no further than Inland Empire, which was, of course, much more "filmic" when I saw it projected on 35mm than on projected DVD. However, its aesthetic appeal is due to both Lynch's unique genius and the fact that he chose to shoot it on mini-DV, its pixels roughly equivalent to grain, but mainly the lower quality, which is why many out there prefer super 8 and 16mm. Scott, I'd also say it's a waste of time and money to shoot an entire feature on film. Many filmmakers have found it absurd that you must run film through a camera to record what you see. Well, now you don't, only there's something about it which don't quite sit right, at least with this guy. Anyway, I know someone with a theater room, so I might project a DVD of Red footage and film it in super 8 just to see. Will post results when I get them.
  • Create New...