Jump to content

Stephen Alexander Griebel

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stephen Alexander Griebel

  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, perform
  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) corre
  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
  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 leas
  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.
  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 observ
  11. Sorry for posting in the General Discussion area, but I'd like to get input from all film AND digital guys (and gals) as well as yall in lighting, special effects, etc... I prefer the look of film but the ease and economy of shooting digital. Has anyone tried to do both, shooting, editing, projecting digitally, then filming that with a crystal-synched 16mm or 35mm camera? It would be shot on something comparable to the big Red One (I have seen footage and find it too video for my taste) so it would be very high quality footage to start with. How would it compare to a "naturally" film
  12. Ahhh..."comet-tailing"... I did an exhausted search for "tail", which as always, left me disappointed. I guess you just have to keep at it :unsure:
  13. As ugly as just about everything of early-mid 80s video was, the light tails (especially on hot lights) is something strangely attractive. Does anyone know if its possible to reproduce this on film-- it may be something akin to a slower shutter, the equivalent of streaks but if so, that's not what I'm looking for. It seems like something inherent in the format and it was "corrected" to give video a sharper look but I was wondering if anyone knows the technical reason behind it-- tape stock, processor, lens? It was done on Boogie Nights-- I'd have to go back and watch the commentary again
  14. It's Monday and still no drive. I called and got a UPS tracking number just to see when to be at my house. Well, I found out why I haven't received it yet-- it's in South Carolina for some ungodly reason (I'm in Virginia). I'm sorry, guys-- I understand that others have had worse experience-- like processing troubles, but I think the situation now qualifies as "awful", if not before this latest debacle. And just because my film wasn't botched by the lab doesn't change the fact that it'll now take a miracle to make those two festivals-- AFI because-- well, it's AFI and I really believe in m
  15. I should have known something was up earlier this year when I had a test roll of 7265 plus-x on my new Bauer 715xl processed and telecinied. They included not a full data file (as requested) but a standard-play DVD, with a 30mb filesize. Needless to say, I wanted to see how good their setup was (and one would think they would want the same if I were to stick with them) but hey it wasn't the end of the world. Well, it turned out my external lightmeter wasn't functioning properly so everything was underexposed. I got a new meter and about a month ago shot another test roll and got that ou
  16. Hey guys. Just got a 715 and compendium from germany real cheap. The compendium is called an ewa-SK8 and it says it supports Bauer, but the 715's lens is super-long when focused to macro, and I don't know how to fit it exactly. There's a nizo on the box and in the manual (which is in German) but no diagram for the 715. I've spent about two days now trying to figure out various ways to attach it, but there's little to no support with all the "arms" which I have to bracket together across the long length of the body (Bauer geniously placed the screw thread on the far back of the bottom too).
  17. forgot to mention that I'm using an external meter (the internal compensates I assume).
  18. I keep on reading how to compensate for super 8mm reflex viewfinders' light loss and am wondering if by simply closing the eyelid on the viewfinder you can save the 1/3 stop lost by it (that's the number I have found on these forums). If so, as long as your eye is pressed firmly, wouldn't that stop the loss as well-- I know that's the way it was with my reflex 35mm Konvas but I'm not sure if the split-image viewfinder has this affect or not.
  19. I've got about 3500 ft. of 5222 B&W stock and 400 ft. of 5277 Color that I'd like to get rid of. The ends range from 200- 400ft and have been refrigerated since I received them a few months ago from LA. If anyone's interested, make me an offer-- thought I'd go straight to you just because I'm not sure about getting middled by selling it back to a distributor. But then again, I dunno, that's why I'm asking yall... I'm selling all my 35mm equipment and stock so I can move to 16mm for more flexibility. Thanks!
  20. Hi guys. Got an upcoming shoot on 5222 and I have a scene which involves someone walking down a long stretch of red carpet, bulbs flashing on both sides of him. It's a long backwards track as he walks toward the camera. I can't really afford all the extras so I'm doing it ultra-stylized by blacking everything out and just having bulbs flash. Couple questions: 1 Which bulbs are good for this sort of thing? If they're terribly expensive or hard to find: 2 Could I just shoot a few ones by themselves and add them in post? For the culmination as the character reaches the end of t
  • Create New...