Alessandro Machi

If I win a Film Festival and the prize is a sound barney, that does not mean I got something for free, does it? I paid to make the film, I would have to be voted ahead of several other films, and of course lets not forget the standard $40.00 entry fee, that does not sound like got something for free. I got something for hard work, not for free. In fact, if you add up the budgets of all the Super-8 films I would be competing against, it would be safe to say that thousands of dollars were spent on all of the Super-8 productions, and that a decent percentage of the total budget was spent on the film stock. Super-8 productions usually have a higher percentage of their total budget devoted to film stock than 16mm or 35mm because usually you have little or no paid crew. I won 2 hundred dollars in a film festival last year. Last year I probably spent between $500-$800 in entry fees and shipping costs for the various festivals I entered. What exactly am I getting for free? My point is the heightened interest in film festival awards translates to more film being purchased, so Kodak is not actually giving anything away for free, it just looks that way.

The point that was made several posts ago that if it's on the polaroid it will be on the negative is a very salient point in the world of lower budgeted productions that may be limited on the amount of lights or the type of lights that are available, or where the lights can be placed. Lower budgeted film shoots might need to get away with using less lights because of limited personnel or limited lighting packages, and they may take risks that are not normally taken on a bigger budgeted production. Lower budget shoots would definitely benefit from polaroids. Higher budget shoots have more people power available to cross the t's and dot the I's. I see your point about higher budgeted shoots scorning the use of Polaroids. A higher budgeted production may have an experienced hair and make up person that knows to stay away from jet black hair color, that knows how to just ever so subtley add highlights that allows dark hair to read better. On a lower budgeted shoot, hair that probably isn't getting the same treatment as it would get on a higher budgeted production can be evaluated via a polaroid to give an initial indication as to how balanced the hair is to the rest of the scene. I would say that on higher budgeted shoots Polaroids are probably not necessary but that polaroids are an excellent resource on lower budgeted shoots.

Who said the polaroids are for the client to approve? I don't do shoots on the level that you guys do but I wouldn't hand over a polaroid to a client for their approval specifically for the reasons that are being cited. Polaroids are just a form of low cost insurance just in case one wants to make sure they have not made a slight error in their contrast choices. Nowadays, if clients are on the set, isn't the production being done in HD so they can look at the monitor?

Nate never said that. No one said you go from person to person asking their opinion about a polaroid. I'd show the picture to the crafts service person if their table was unwittingly in the shot. If the make-up person saw the polaroid, it's because they want to see how the actors face looks, and this is assuming you want the make-up person to see the polaroid. I would say one big downside to a polaroid is that it takes at least a minute to properly "develop" it. So I wouldn't recommend snapping polaroids all day long. Another downside is the pictures can be "leaked" to media and perhaps that causes some other unplanned crises. As for who gets to see the polaroid, compared to an HD monitor it's small potatoes. If you are this against a polaroid, I cannot begin to imagine how much you would be against having an HD monitor on set.

The easy solution is for Kodak to spend a very small amount of money and give out the sound barney's as film festival prizes. This would create a lot of positive energy for people who purchase Kodak super-8 film products. Another solution would be for Kodak to test the sound barney product and if it passes muster Kodak could publicize it on their website.

Shooting into backlight will probably cause desaturation. Also you probably should consider going preset otherwise the camera's auto white balance settings are probably negating your filters by trying to maintain white. Whenever you do special filtering I strongly recommend keeping the camera running and on a tripod and actually afix the filters so that later you can see what changed as soon as you put the filter on.

I believe Kodak has to do a bit more than just make film. Not that that isn't appreciated, but Super-8 would benefit from giving out prizes at film festivals for films that were shot in Super-8. I'd love to see Kodak offer a film equipment repair grant to those who can competently fix Super-8 cameras. In the end it costs Kodak nothing to front these ventures because it ensures more film will be sold.

It's expensive if you only plan to pose with the camera and not actually use it. :D

Auto Knee is either on or off. With the auto knee off, the camera is completely useless. With it on, it's useful in daylight situations only, (and only after the technicial made the necessary adjustments per my request). The camera is a 750 line broadcast quality dockable camera made in the early to mid 90's. I once heard that the camera that replaced it had "better contrast". This could have just been a scam to reduce functionality on the Z-ONE-C so that the new camera would look like it had cutting edge improvement to it, because the Z-ONE, which came out in the late 80's, ran rings around the Z-ONE-C Anyone else have a Z-ONE-C so I can compare notes?

For what it's worth I matched two DVX-100's with two JVC KY-27 chip cameras. You can mix and match the older style 3 chip cameras with 750 lines with the DVX 100's.

I recommend studying your results on a waveform. I have never been happy with a Hitachi-Z-ONE-C that I purchased used a few years ago. The idiots at Hitachi designed the camera to have an auto knee THAT INCREASED CONTRAST as you opened Iris. The dimwits actually thought by driving down set-up as you iris'd open they were doing you a favor. I had to fight the Hitachi Service technician to ignore what he had been told by Hitachi, I mean really fight him on this. I mean I really really had to fight him. I think he was concerned because I was the first one to ever tell him he was wrong for supporting Hitachi idiots at headquarters on this issue. He actually suggested that I throw more light on my backgrounds to make up for the camera's contrast shortcomings. I'm doing ENG, and to appease the idiots at Hitachi, I should light my handheld ENG shot with a HMI 10K??? My JVC KY-19 and KY 27B run rings around the Hitachi from a contrast point of view. What bugs me the most is the technician who repairs the cameras is absolutely brilliant, but he's not a camera guy so he doesn't understand that just following orders is not in the best interest of the camera guy who has invested in a Hitachi Z-One C and just wants to get make back his investment and then some. I still lost my investment in the camera because I can't use the camera in low light situations because dark hair completely disappears and turns completely matted. I get angry just posting about it. The technician also insists on making camera adjustments with light flooding a chip chart at f 8.0. What a crock! I don't need the camera to perform flawlessly at F 8.0, I need it to subtly differentiate black tones at f2.0. Grrrrrrr. To this day I don't understand how the Hitachi Z-One could run rings around a Z-One C which came out a few years later and should have been a newer and better camera.

ya know, ambient life, aka the directors son, the producer's spouse, the producer, the film student intern, the Executive Producer that wants to move the shoot along and bark that the image looks pretty good as is, the extras. yeah, that's what I meant!

I'm not sure I'd be too comfortable employing somebody who is using this tool to see if "it'll be in on the neg." It was intended to be a little more fine tuning than that!! Might I suggest your eyes and a light meter? :D The Polaroid serves many useful purposes. It allows for others involved in the creation of the scene to get an understanding of what is going on and what might need to be changed. I've seen make up people look at the polaroid and readust an actors make up as a result. In addition to determining what will be on the negative, the actual contrast of objects is presented on the polaroid, however, the bonus is the negative will have a range that can be made to either match what is on the polaroid or give significantly improved contrast values if that is desired.

The one time I was on the set of an HD production it looked a 6 inch monitor. I assume if one wants to use a large monitor one would have to provide an actual room to put it in to keep ambient life off of it.

That's exactly the point. My website has a page devoted to the Polaroid camera that Four Designs company converts to take modern film.

John Smith, just what exactly are you zzzzzz'ng about? The original point of this topic thread is that the actual acquisition format one chooses usually does not make up that huge a percentage of the total budget of most professional productions to warrant being the only consideration for choosing between film or digital. Sometimes that point gets lost, as in the other topic title on this forum that claims that HD is 20 times cheaper to shoot than film.

I went back to that same store today (I needed a mini DV tape as I had run out) and I was surprised to see that what I saw looked a lot better than what I had seen on Sunday. When I got closer to the screen I could still see some weird gunk in the solid red color areas and in some of the dark areas, but overall it looked a lot better. It would be wise if the TV stations would have an information window that could be accessed so we could see what MBPS they are broadcasting at. I think it's better to let the audience to have access to MBPS information in the same manner that we can see caloric information on products we buy.

For my personal taste, what I saw in the store was absolutely completely unnacceptable. I do agree that when there was no panning or motion going on the image looked good. In low light conditions I can shoot ENG at +18DB with an S-VHS back and if there is no motion in the scene I can clean it up better with 10 year old DNR circuitry than if I had shot the same low light scene on BetaCam SP at +18DB. But we all know that analog DNR at the highest setting is not an acceptable way to clean up an image because when there is motion you get unnacceptable chroma trails, the kind I saw on the HD sets. And yet there it is on HD, chroma trails and technological trickery that was rejected long ago in the analog world. But once the first HD sets are accepted and dumped on unsuspecting consumers, each year the HD ets will both improve and come down in price, and it gives the sales personnel excellent opportunities for "upselling" but with a reduced price. Nirvana for anyone in sales.

Some shows in syndication will drop purposely drop a video frame every couple of seconds. The idea is by the end of the show they have gained an extra 30 seconds so they can run one additional commerical. I see the dropped frames. I literally flinch when I see the dropped frame. I asked someone once if they saw it, and they said no. The MPEG stuff I am seeing is worse to my eye than the dropped frames. Interesting explanation about HD and and compression. Because film only has 24 frames per second versus standard definition that has 60 fields, which would exhibit less compression artifacting on when broadcast on HD? While the grain dithering is not liked by HD compression, isn't dealing with 24 different frames a second less taxing than dealing with 60 fields per second?

At first I thought I was watching some pretty amazing stuff, from a distance anyhow, as row upon row of HD TV was playing the same channel feed. So I walked closer, and my spider sense started tingling. Everytime there was motion on the screen, I saw commotion among the pixels. It reminded me of putting Analog DNR up to the highest setting and watching chroma float along after the image. Blockiness would appear until the motion or camera panning had stopped. So I asked the rep about whether other people noticed what I noticed. He said, "well, normally the customer does not notice what you notice until we point it out to them to explain why some sets cost more than others. There is a video card in each set and the better sets have better cards in them and less blockiness in them". I was watching an image of a guy throwing a hatchet at a object, the camera was panning back and forth quite rapidly, and at one point, I was staring at the face of the guy throwing the hatchet (it was a medium wide shot, and I SAW BLOCKS ON HIS FACE THAT TOOK A WHOLE SECOND TO CLEAR UP AFTER THE PANNING HAD STOPPED BEFORE TURNING NORMAL AGAIN!!! So then I got to thinking, it's quite possible that FILM and the PROPERTIES OF FILM probably put out a much better image on HD then video shot on HD. Can you imagine the chicanery going on as Digital salesman sell HD and HD production as the superior answer to film and then show FILMS transfered to Hd to prove their point! The HD signal I was seeing was being transmitted via satellite to the store, so perhaps the store is mucking up the signal via an inferior distrubtion system then when one watches Hd at home, but my gosh, watching those screens was on akin to electroshock therapy, (edit note-I've never had electro)

HD will one day be significantly less expensive than shooting film, but nonetheless the percent of the total budget devoted to either Film or HD is still a small enough fraction of the total budget as to not merit being the sole reason a professional production would choose one method over the other.

This topic is probably already under the film labs forum however it is a blow to Super-8 filmmaking. http://www.franklinfilmlab.com Farewell From Franklin Film Lab It is with a very sad heart that we must say goodbye to all our customers, acquaintances and friends that we have come to know in the past four years. Processing your films and helping you to understand the processes involved has been a real pleasure. Most of all, helping the students who are our future filmmakers has been the biggest enjoyment to us here at Franklin Film Lab. The reasons for closing are many. The changes within the industry itself pertaining to the demands of running a business in California and the constant restrictions placed upon a small business are unbelievable. The latest and also the proverbial ?straw that broke the camel?s back? is the new chemistry, which Kodak has volunteered to agree to change in the B&W Reversal films with the adoration of the EPA. (Environmental Protection Agency). This new chemistry, while environmentally friendly, is not so friendly to the equipment, the film and who?s to say how safe it is to the operator. There are several problems involved and we are sure that after having 30 years of experience in these chemistries there will be more problems in the near future. Allow us to list some of the problems, which are arising: #1: The new bleach is highly caustic. Much more so than the older bleach which has been used for nearly 60 years. The new bleach will slowly, but surely eat away Stainless Steel. Our new machine is made entirely of high grade Stainless Steel. Since our new machine is designed completely different than that of the older systems being used elsewhere there is no way of running the system without complete damage to it. The one main tank can be replaced with a titanium liner but the costs are impossible to justify the changeover. A new PVC liner will be less expensive but the lack of heat transfer capabilities would negate the temperature control system. Another fact to consider is the possibility of the new bleach to come in contact with personnel. It will burn the skin within a few seconds. #2: The new bleach will cause all Polypropylene pumps to fracture and fail which has already happened at another lab in the LA area after their conversion to the new bleach. They experienced a failure during a run and lost about 18 rolls of film. Student?s film. These pumps must be replaced with a PVC style pump. Another $600.00 for each pump added to the changeover costs. Another lab?s holding tank for the new bleach sprung a leak and spilled its contents into the sewer without proper treatment. Now how can that be environmentally friendly? #3: The new bleach will not allow the operators to Push Process film. Pushing film to increase the speed or to enhance the grain is done by extending the time in the first developer. To achieve this, the older machines being used elsewhere must slow down the run but by doing so it also extends the time inside the new bleach. The problem another lab has experienced with this has been a complete removal or ?melting off? of the films emulsion from the base of the processed film. Kodak?s response to this problem was that they never really recommended push or pull processing before and highly discourage it now. #4: The costs involved for us to convert to the new chemistries are many. Another cost to convert to the new system will be a need to change the mix ingredients for the first developer as well. In the old first developer there is a Sodium Thiocyanate, which is a metal solvent. The new first developer uses another type of metal solvent you can only get in large quantities from Germany. Those quantities will last our lab about five years and the storage considerations are worrisome. Other labs mix from Kodak?s kits. We mix from scratch to lower the costs of processing, which we pass on to our customers. #5: Our customers have shown a desire to continue to use our lab because of the quality of the old process we offer; the finer grain achieved in the Plus X in the older process. To change over to what everyone else is doing will only make us just another lab. That was not our goal. We refuse to comply and become just another cow in the herd. Though we are told the conversion to the new system is not ?really? mandatory, as a business, we have learned to read between the lines when it comes to outside sources such as the EPA and their control over businesses especially those in California. #6: We at Franklin Film Lab are very concerned about the world environment. We are the only motion picture film lab that we know of that is being restricted to sewage discharge in the way we are experiencing. We are in a different county than LA. LA allows discharge to the sewer system to be 10 times higher in TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) than the San Bernardino area. And people wonder why the Santa Monica Bay is so filthy? With those restrictions in mind we needed to devise a way to eliminate those discharge levels. For the past 3 years we have been reconstituting our developer and fixer run off and taking those used, reformulated chemistries and donating them to many major high schools in the area for their use in the photography programs. One school, Franklin Film Lab?s owner?s alma mater, class of 1974, was able to continue their photo program last year just because of this donation system we implemented. It will no longer be feasible to continue this next year since we will be closed. A special note from Frank Wood, Owner of Franklin Film Lab: In closing let me say thank you to all those students who found our lab and have shown us respect and appreciation for continuing to use our lab. Let me also express our apologies to those mentioned for us not being able to continue to be a part in your desires to make films and trying to make a difference by staying away from VIDEO. I truly respect Kodak for doing what they can to help the environment and continuing the film experience. I am sure they too read between the lines when it came to the EPA?s suggested conversions. I sometimes wonder though, if you hug a tree too tightly, do you end up killing the entire forest? It?s just a thought. Good luck and God bless.

here's a gasoline price quote... ?We haven't gotten there yet, nor have we gotten to the prices that our European friends are paying for a gallon of gasoline, anywhere from $5 to $7 a gallon,? Baxter said. Europeans are quick to remind Americans that they have it a lot easier in terms of gasoline prices. Gasoline prices in Europe are routinely three times as high as in the United States. Here's the link.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4652952

Not true. Film and Video Transfers Film Chain looks real darn good. And the auto censors make the one-light real time transfers pretty darn good, as long as you can tolerate a few seconds of "adjusting at the head of each scene change".

Hi Brian, you probably missed my previous post because it was posted only one minute before your post. One Film cartridge of reversal stock is around $15.00-$18.00, Developing is around $10-12 dollars. If you buy five cartridges from Kodak, there is approximately a 20% discount. If you have a student ID, you may be elegible for an additional discount. Kodak only charges the actual shipping cost to ship your film there are no other mark-ups. I believe there is an additional two percent discount depending on how you pay for your film. Negative stocks are perhaps 10-20% more than reversal?