David W Scott

Off the top of my head: - Shoot VISION2 500T. - Dark scenes without any highlights are very muddy -- include a practical bulb or some highlights in every shot. - Shoot dusk for night, using the remaining illumination after the sun has completely disappeared behind the horizon. It will look like night, with no direct sunlight, but will keep your backgrounds from falling into completely blackness. - The 6008 has variable shutter, so use a larger opening to shoot in available light. Sorry, I missed 'The Brown Bunny'.

I may be being too simplistic here, but did you account for the filter factor on each exposure?

I'm very curious to see your results. Good luck! :)

I believe "pCAM" calculator software has a preset for 2/3". If not, you can create a custom preset for any format not covered. pCAM and pCINE are great. They run on Palm, but the author indicates that they also work well on Pocket PC running a Palm emulator. Take a look here: pCAM and pCINE calculators

Everything else being equal, the "Super 8 look" is the look of 35mm -- blown up to show only a tiny percentage of the frame. Breathing focus and apertures, shaky camera work... those are stereotypes. But Super 8 has an undeniable aesthetic that is present no matter how well, or how poorly, it is shot. To me, the defining feature of Super 8 is the sense of being closer to the texture of the medium. Looking at Super 8 is the equivalent of standing 12 inches from an oil painting. It doesn't matter whether it's the Mona Lisa or not -- you are going to see the brush strokes.

Niagara Custom Lab They've told me that they will cross-process.

Thanks so much for your generous responses. If you'll indulge me a little further... :D OK, so now you are on set. You've collected a "bible" of references. You've shot tests. Everything from here on "counts". How rigid do you find you have to be to maintain that look? Do your references have an organic influence on how you work, or do you set very strict rules (i.e. though shalt always use this eyelight, though shalt always remain at T4, etc. etc.) As a director, in pre-production I break down a script beat-by-beat and develop extensive notes. I continue to work with these references in rehearsal. On set, I (almost) never refer to any of that material, because that work is now an organic part of the result. Is that comparable to the process for the DoP? Or do you keep the bible right there, in front of everyone (like your gaffer) for the whole shoot?

After you have determined the look of a show, what do you prioritize as a "must-do" to maintain that look? What are the photographic aspects which you find you must control or remain consistent with throughout a production, day-in and day-out, over every shot? Because in production, every day can be different... weather, actors, blocking, pages needed... I'm curious to learn from your experiences.

He's doing basically the same thing. Just a few more words to explain it! But it's the kind of explanation that really clarifies things, especially for folks who aren't conversant in stops. The only difference between his technique and yours is he compensates once, on the meter, and you compensate every time, on your aperture.

With Nautical Twilight starting about an hour before Sunrise actually occurs, I would shoot timelapse. Start your timelapse exposures before Astonomical Twilight, and let it run right through full sunrise. That's the only way to capture the entire event. If you simply shoot a slower framerate, say 9fps, then you only have about 30 minutes (on a 400 foot mag) to capture part of the transition. Your aperture will be determined by which part of twilight/sunrise you deem most important: if it's the first tickles of colour, then wide open is your only choice. Here are some good tips on timelapse: A Time Lapse Primer from SOC Magazine

For convenience sake, you can get a 135 (35mm canister) daylight loader. Basically, it's a black pastic box with room for a 100' roll of stock, and a seperate compartment for the still canister. With everything in the daylight loader, you can turn on the lights and very quickly crank the film into the canister. It might be overkill for the occasional self-loaded cartridge, but if you have the volume, it's very handy. I used to load up 20 or 30 rolls of Tri-X at a sitting.

Sorry, the wording was from JVC publicity info... I thought they were doing something more than just peaking. I agree, on its own, peaking has limited usefulness when the resolution of your viewfinder is overwhelmed by the source.

I'd love to see a switchable focus assist that superimposes a 400% zoom in a small circle in the middle of the viewfinder. Then you could leave it on all the time. I haven't tried JVC's method... of outlining objects with good edge definition. That would seem limiting.

Samples from Justin Lovell's transfer house (Frame Discreet)

It's possible. My local lab switched to from VNF to E-6 around July this year. Also, an 85B filter is recommended for Ektachrome 64. If you are using the built-in 85 filter on your camera, then your images are 200 degrees bluer than recommended. Easy to correct in telecine, and you may even prefer the look. But if you expose by the book, go for the slightly oranger 85B. There's another advantage to using 85B -- you disable the 30-year old (possibly faded) gelatin slide in your camera, and then use a brand-new glass filter that you know is correct. I think the 64T looks really nice under tungsten light. 200T may well have more grain, but I don't notice it as much -- because I'm distracted by the greatly improved detail and the ability to see into shadows and highlights. Comparing identical shots in 64T and 200T, the 200T looks like you have lifted a veil off the lens.

The E64T looks quite sharp in motion. When you stop and look at the stills, there isn't a lot of detail there. (Kind of like video -- high contrast masks the low resolution.) The 200 and 500 could be made to have less grain... by crushing the blacks. You get a look that is closer to the Ektachrome, but still with better latitude. No matter what you shoot, work with your telecine operator to get the look you want. VNF processing is for older colour reversal ("Video News Film", I think.) Many labs were still running VNF chemicals when Kodak introduced the E64, which is an E-6 processed film. The labs stuck with VNF for a while, because they were still processing old rolls of VNF film that people were turning in. As a stop-gap, they were tweaking the VNF process to develop E-6 as well. Predictably, the results aren't as good as running an E-6 film through E-6 chemistry. E-6, processed in VNF, will give a bluish cast, especially in shadows and daylight exposures. E-6 processing yields a much cleaner, more accurate colour. (Doesn't do anything to reduce the grain, however.) Please note: Kodak is considering releasing Ektachrome 100D in Super 8. This film is even more fine grained, and more vibrant, than the 64T. People shooting third-party rolls of 100D have given it a big thumbs-up!

Have a look at some comparison shots I took at night: Super 8 stock discussion on Filmshooting.com These shots aren't pushed -- they'll give you an idea of what to expect from these stocks at night. The E64T will not give you anything in the blacks. It will also be extremely grainy if pushed. Killing that grain in telecine will require softening the image and throwing out what little resolution you have. 500T is your saviour for night shooting. It digs deep into the shadows, and will hold highlights without blowing. A couple of tips for shooting at night: - Have SOMETHING in your frame that is properly exposed, or is a hot highlight. Otherwise, the whole frame will look muddy. - Rim light is your friend -- you can let faces go completely black, so long as a rim defines the contours of the face. - Eyes are amazingly reflective -- a little eyelight will open up an otherwise underexposed face.

Yes, for personal/art shooting, the difference between $19 (Canadian) and $50 (Canadian) makes a difference. I am more likely to casually shoot a $19 roll of film. I am even more likely to shoot a $16 roll of Ektachrome -- especially when I can buy single rolls from the local photo store. I have never "casually" purchased or shot 16mm. It's ordered as needed for specific projects, and never shot whimsically. (My loss perhaps, but it's my $50.)

Honestly, no. Super 8 to me is primarily a personal format. I use it to: - keep my chops up - have the pleasure of capturing home and travel movies - use in documentaries when I am seeking a certain kind of texture Super 8 is not the easiest beast to shoot dialog with. I'd much rather rent an AATON, or even an NPR. That doesn't mean I am ruling out shooting drama on Super 8. I just don't think it would be a film with a good-sized crew etc.

Also, Super 8 has the cheapest per-roll price for beautiful Kodak Vision2 neg stocks. (Per-roll price directly impacts a format's accesibility for new filmmakers -- moreso than per-foot or per-minute prices.)

Here is a link to the most comprehensive list of Make/Model/Years of Production: The Super 8 List Everything seems to come to a grinding halt with 1983. There were a number of cameras introduced in 1983 -- some stripped down models (see Chinon). Nothing lasted past the 1983 model year.

Who actually owns the designs/jigs/parts for the Beaulieu 7008/9008? I assume S8Sound and Ritter were either simply re-badging cameras or building from parts. Who actually holds the pieces needed to make brand new 9008's?

All the advantages of 16mm magazines, without the need to hire a clapper/loader :P Reflex viewing and electric motors on cameras that cost less than $500. "Home movie" status makes it easier to cross borders, and you can stuff twenty or thirty rolls of film in your carry-on luggage. (Uh, I guess that's now subject to whether you are allowed luggage on planes anymore?!) Candid shots of people are easier to take, especially on the street, because you look like a tourist. Good quality "alternative" processing and transfer services available. For many cameras, you can do your own clean-lube-adjust. If you break the camera, it is affordable to replace it.

The term they used was "focus assist". I may be wrong, but I understand "focus assist" as simply providing maganification in the viewfinder, i.e. a "critical focuser". This is necessary because the native imaging resolution is SO MUCH higher than the resolution of the viewfinders. Obviously this is much less of an issue with optical finders. (But not irrelevant -- I can't correctly focus a medium-format TLR without using the critical focuser magnification.)

Nice idea! Wireless synch pulse, with integrated recording and resolving! I didn't see a link to your web site in your profile. I look forward to reading more about your experiment. Dave