Jump to content

Tim Halloran

Basic Member
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tim Halloran

  1. Watching projected film and watching a digital projection are two totally different physiological and psychological experiences. I myself prefer watching projected film because it is a richer experience because of these differences. I find my body and mind much more engaged because of the different things my body and mind are "doing" while processing the information of projected film. I do also prefer the look of things shot on film, but I could put up with digitally captured stuff as long as it was exhibited on film. Sadly, this is quickly going away. In regards to the experience of others, we may reach a point where people just don't care, but digital projection will simply NEVER be the same as film. Tim
  2. Hey Chris, Thanks, all great tips to think about, especially the point about the ND filter. These are all practices I'm sure I'd pick up eventually but the ND thing is good common sense and something that I won't have to worry about. Cheers. Tim
  3. Does anybody know specifically how iris fades were accomplished, prior to digital editing? Was it always done with the optical printer or was it done with something in front of the lens? The reason I ask is there was an "iris vignetter" that was made for the Bolex, shown here: And it was supposed to do this: But Andrew Alden says in the Bolex Bible that the iris vignetter doesn't really work, that it just gave the effect of defocussed brackets coming in from the sides rather than a circular iris fade. So, how were iris fades done professionally back in the day, and what would be the best way to do one today, outside of a digital effect? Tim
  4. A long lens shot that I've always found interesting is the one in Hal Ashby's Coming Home, where Jane Fonda is sitting on Jon Voight's lap on the beach boardwalk. The scene is intercut, or preceded (?) with a scene of two surveillance guys watching the couple. So it is implied that the exxagerated long lens close-up could be the effect of the binoculars or telephoto lens on the camera that the guy is using to watch them. But accompanying the shot you get a clear intimate recording of the dialog from their conversation, dialog that the surveillance team couldn't possibly hear, but that is nonetheless narratively provided for us. It confuses spatiality and the privileging of narrative information which consequently reflects the tense anxiety of the Fonda and Voight characters at that moment. Good work by Haskell Wexler and a nice result. Tim
  5. Yeah, why discuss anything anyway? And who cares if it has been discussed already? We're having another discussion here, now. You worried about bandwidth usage or something? But I'll bite--why continue to talk about it? Because, maybe we can wake some people up to what is happening and possibly, just possibly, change the course of the "inevitable." Alternatively, this on-going discussion may inspire some to rethink the possible and consider setting up some more local theaters that will carry on projecting film. So you can more easily find theaters in your area that are able to properly project film. Then again, you should probably just give up. Tim
  6. If that is your only criteria for assigning value then, okay, you win. But this completely ignores the unique quality of the experience of film viewing vs. watching digital projection. The simple truth is that one (film) requires a more active engagement of the body and mind and one (digital) is experienced in a much more passive manner. Watching film requires that you physically and cognitively process alternating individual images and darkness while digital projection is a solid stream of variable light. You can see how one requires more work on the part of the spectator and thus can be said to provide a more "engaged" and ultimately more satisfying experience. EVERY person who I have spoke to who has reflected on the difference between their experience watching movies projected on film and digital projection (both "nostalgic" recollections and back-to-back comparisons) have said that the digital experience is relatively more "cold," "empty," and "unsatisfying." We seem to have accepted this argument by audiophiles who have argued for decades about the qualitative differences between analog and digital recorded playback. Why are so many people unwilling to recognize and acknowledge this same parallel distinction when talking about cinema? Too dazzled by the blockbuster spectacle, I suppose, to reflect on the evidence of their own experiences. But again, the tragedy is ultiamtely being perpetrated on those who will never know the difference. Tim
  7. Well, this whole switch to digital projection is, frankly, tragic. It is going to forever change what it means to go to the movies and for those of us who know and have known the experience of real projected film, it will never be the same. And the worst part is that the latest generation of moviegoers, and those that follow, will never know the difference and the truly magic quality of projected film. Why should anyone ever go the movies again? If I can get the same cold, dull, empty experience with a blu-ray on a big screen in my living room, why go pay that kind of money and deal with all of the hassle? The real justice would be if this actual destroys their business because people finally figure this out. I'd be laughing my a** off. Tim
  8. Film "analysis?" Assuming you're referring to critical analysis, I suppose you could start with Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art. Good practical formalist analysis of film. From there, it depends on what kind of analysis you want to do and what aspect of film you want to explore--formal aesthetics, industrial history, critical theory, cultural studies. The possibilities and avenues of study are immense. Tim
  9. Experienced Bolex folks: If I want to try out some color filters (yellow to red) for B&W shooting with my H16, is it better to use the filter slot behind the lenses, or get a filter for the front? I’ve only ever used color filters out front on my Canon 814XL-S and Nikon R10 and those were big and a bit pricey. For the Bolex, I have 10, 25, and 75mm Switars—not sure what the front thread diameter is on those but they are small. Might be cheap, but difficult to find, if they can be had at all. And there is that 49mm filter adapter that some people sell. This might make it more economical. I also have a Vario-Switar 86-OE that uses Series 8 drop-in filters which are no problem to get and relatively cheap. But questions of money aside, and maybe the convenience of the filter slot, are there any advantages, or disadvantages, either way—filter behind the lens, or in front? Or does it matter at all? Tim
  10. Email Mr. Elmo (Kevin Faulkner) from his site: http://www.mrelmo.co.uk/ "Help and info for all things Elmo." Or post your question on his forum: http://www.mrelmo.co.uk/smallformat/ Lots of guys that know everything about projectors. Tim
  11. One very important sequence in Malick's Days of Heaven. Can't recall for sure if it was Nestor Almendros or Haskell Wexler's work but it is the scene where Richard Gere and Brooke Adams sneak off into the "night." Though well-known of course for its magic hour photography, shooting this particular scene day-for-night allowed for some striking overhead sunlight which produced these beautiful glowing "halos" on the characters. Amazing thematic use of the day-for-night technique. Tim
  12. Can someone please explain this--how can a "player" not be available in some given "area?" I mean, this is the internet (the WORLD-wide-web), correct? I'm being serious--I don't know how this stuff works. And even if media can be blocked from certain geographic locales, why do it? Seems ridiculous and senseless. In Los Angeles and REALLY wanting to see that doc. Tim
  13. Deluxe, Technicolor agree to combine film services--Variety article announcing the pact: http://tinyurl.com/4xdu5en Damn. I refuse to buy into the doom and gloom, but this is still completely depressing. Tim
  14. And of course this applies to digital animation only--in hand-drawn cel animation, the "lighting" was, and is, conceived and rendered in the different individual painted cels. Not as difficult to envision during production because of the inherent qualities of the unique image, but much harder to wrap your head around when trying to describe the lighting "setup" of say, a scene in a film like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Tim
  15. Doh! That's the Hawaii-Five-O theme. :wacko: Dazzled by the works of that thing (and the UFO clip on the wall). Tim
  16. Very cool stuff--some ingenious engineering in there. Dig the "UFO" theme music you used. And is that a clip from a UFO Super 8 film used to test? Tim
  17. Nice article on the Fuji splicers, Ignacio. Thanks for posting. What's the story on that magazine, International Movie Making? I've heard of it, but is it still around? Anybody have any info on it or some contact info? Tim
  18. All excellent observations, but what does this last statement, "...impressed by its quality," mean, exactly? Does it mean that its quality is determined by some unusually artifical "cleanliness" or "clarity" or what? Because digital projection is horrible and artificial in my opinion--I can spot it a mile away and it always feels cold and plasticky. This is not because of some defect that can be "fixed" as the technology progresses--the kind of information that is transmitted via real film going through a projector is fundamentally different than the information that is transmitted via digital projection. Our bodies and our minds respond in different physiological and psychological ways to the two different processes. In this regard, digital will never be like film, period. And this is the real shame about the hegemony of digital projection which, of course, is based on a purely economic imperative that makes it inevitable, I know. But audiences today are already forgetting what happens when you watch a real projected film and future audiences will simply not know the difference, and what they are missing. Tim
  19. Try asking here: http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi or here: http://www.mrelmo.co.uk/smallformat/index.php They're more about projectors at those forums, with some seriously knowledgeable folks. Tim
  20. Thanks for all of the varied feedback, especially the positive encouragement. I guess more than having "analog ambitions," I am a guy that is committed to the world of analog filmmaking for clear and specific reasons that range from the personal to the artistic to the historical. I learned to cut 16mm film on a flatbed many years ago and have only recently returned to it in the past year after a long stint of analog 8mm filmmaking. Luckily, I have had access to a fully equipped--though unfortunately, seldomly used (except by me!)--university editing suite with a 16mm flatbed. I have never cut anything on a computer and have no real interest in it, frankly. But to get my own flatbed in my own studio would be a nice luxury. That is what this is about. The Magnasync/Moviola is not the ideal choice, I know, but it is what came my way. But that does bring up another point that I mentioned in my first post--for how important and prevalent these machines were in industry and education for so many years, there is just not that much current info or discourse about them. A couple of artist filmmakers are dedicated to the process/equipment and many people are very encouraging in theory, but I feel like this whole thing is slipping quickly into oblivion. Anyway, thanks again for the responses. Oh, and btw, supposedly Christys here in Los Angeles has some techs that still do repair/maintenance on flatbeds (I just asked the department equipment tech how he learned to work on the flatbeds and he said "I don't, I call Christys!"). After I do the cleanup and the basic checks and maintenance that some of you suggested, that might be my next call. Tim
  21. So I finally got my hands on my own Magnasync/Moviola 16mm flatbed. I got it for free from a guy who said that it was working fine the last time he used it but that it had been stored in his garage for the last ten years. Well, it looks to be stable and in relatively decent shape, but as you can imagine, it is dusty filthy and who really knows what the working condition is. I have to admit that I was hoping that I could just get to work on this thing but I don't think that is going to happen. I really need some advice on how to proceed--should I just get a manual and consider the restoration of this thing a long-term project? Just cleaning it up seems like it will be some effort but getting the mechanical and electronic workings correct might be beyond me. Or should I try to track down somebody who is still working on these things to do a service/overhaul of it? Problem is, there seems to be very little even basic info circulating about flatbeds and less still about maintenance and service possibilities. Who does it--anybody have a connection or resource? I'm in Los Angeles but would consider hiring somebody to come out here. Any experiences, contacts, or advice would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Tim
  22. The other thread on tie-ins got locked pretty quickly or I would have posted there. For strictly historical interest: what exactly is an electrical tie-in and how were they used? Why are they so dangerous? And besides the vague warning from Mr. Sprung, why the harsh prohibition about even discussing the topic here? There's no regulatory responsibility here, so what better place to discuss the pitfalls of a practice than here? Just curious. Tim
  23. Jurgen, as a former subscriber to smallformat, I miss it terribly. I will go on record as saying that if you produce a bilingual version of the magazine (side-by-side, sequential, or back-to-back German/English), I will be first in line to re-subscribe. I even like the idea of the short English summaries--if they were substantial enough. You mention airline magazines that publish in dual-language formats--what about the amazing books published by Taschen and others? Most, if not all, of Taschen's books are published with multiple-language texts--English/French/German, I think. I've always found that to be an interesting experience being able to read the English and see the other language translations. As a side note, I was so disappointed by the end of the English smallformat that I did actually consider learning a bit of German, as the other fellow above is doing. Well, you can imagine how far that went. But I did consider it! Good luck and hope to see a new version of the mag! Tim
  24. Why not share here so everyone can benefit from your knowledge and wisdom? Unless you're pitching products and/or services, which might be helpful as well, but just say so. Tim
  25. I just scavenged a funky Sony/Canon TV Zoom Lens 17-102mm 1:2.1, off an old university-equipment Sony DXC 1610 video camera. The thing looks pretty good cosmetically and seems to function great—c-mount threads are clean, everything rotates and moves smoothly. However, even though the front lens element appears to be scratch free, the coating has been completely rubbed away from the center to about the outer ¼ inch, leaving a bluish “halo” around the edge. It being an ex-school cam, I can just imagine how much “lens cleaning” this thing went through. Question is, how and by how much will this effect the image that I get from it? I just plan to use it on a Bolex for experimental work so it’s not that big of a deal. I’m just kind of curious before I shoot some tests with it. I know what coating does, and I’ve heard of people actually trying to remove damaged coatings, but I’m wondering what a lens with this coating “halo” will do. And btw, while you’re here—anybody have any experience creatively playing around with one of these lenses on a Bolex? It has a very fluid push-pull zoom that, together with the ultra smooth focus, might make for some interesting experimental effects, I would think. Any stories would be appreciated. Tim
×
×
  • Create New...