Jay Taylor

Hey Fran, They must be working on something. Focusing is going to be quite a challenge with a 28k camera. Although, I seriously doubt anyone's going to bother trying to shoot handheld, wide open, closeups with that type of camera. Jay

Hey, I realize this isn't exactly on topic, but I was amazed by something Jim Jannard said over at reduser. The thread is here? http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22453 Someone mentions an optical viewfinder, or more specifically, needing a mirror for the dlsr functions of these new cameras. Jim says this? It's funny, because all I keep reading are people requesting some sort of optical viewfinder for the Red One. People were hoping Epic would have an optical viewfinder, but that's not going to happen apparently. Who is he listening to? Jay

Tom, Be honest. You're from the future, aren't you? Can you tell us how things turned out with Obama? I'm just messing with you. :D Jay

Hey Thomas, I'd love to know what brand and model LCD you're referring to, because every LCD television I've ever seen, sd or hd, looks like a big steaming pile of feces. :D Jay

Hey Simon, I paid $800, not bad for a Rex 5, but not too good for a camera that is practically worthless in it's current condition! The seller has also recommended I shoot a test roll to be sure the spots have an affect on the image, so I suppose I'll do that. He says if the footage isn't useable he'll pay to replace the prism, so hopefully he'll keep his word. I can't imagine these spots not affecting the image though? Jay

Paul, LOL, I see red people! Jay

Okay, I had a dummy roll of film in the filmo my grand dad gave me, so no telling how old it is, but I loaded the bolex with it, and took the lens off. I shined a light off to the side to exaggerate the shadow a bit, and took a picture of it as the camera was running to see if I could tell if the shadow was falling on the film or not. It definitely is? It's hard to get the camera to focus so close, but anyways? The shadow is exaggerated for the sake of clarity, but it's still there when the light is straight on. This definitely wouldn't work! Jay

Hey Nick, Just out of curiosity, I swung out the prism, and put a white piece of paper behind it. I shined a light into it, and sure enough, the spots left a shadow on the piece of paper. I suppose if I ran some film through the camera I'd end up with odd shapes of underexposure. The seller said he'd take care of the expenses. I wonder how much a new prism would cost though. Jay

Hey guys, The seller has offered to have the prism cleaned or replaced at his expense. He wants me to send it back over to him so he can have a bolex technician look it over. Sounds like a good deal to me. BTW, the username of this seller is cineforte. He sells a lot of bolex equipment, and has 100% feedback from the 658 buyers he's worked with. I think it's safe to trust the guy, so I'll let you know how this works out. Jay

Hey, Not good! I've sent an email to the seller to see what can be done. If the seller ends up being no help, any idea how much a new prism may actually go for? Probably wouldn't buy a NEW new prism, straight from the factory. Anyone have any spare prism laying around? Jay

Oh, I forget to mention that I can't see these spots through the viewfinder. That seems extra strange to me. Jay

Hey, I just recently grabbed a bolex rex5 off of ebay (yikes!), and since receiving it I've had time to inspect it quite thoroughly. Everything works fine, but from what I can see, it seems there's some fungus/dirt/something inside the prism. It doesn't appear to be on the outer surface, but in fact, inside the prism somehow. Does anyone know if the prism is made up of multiple glass elements? Anyone have any idea how to take it apart? Is that a bad idea to do on my own? :P Here's some photos? Gross, huh? You can see that there's actually two parts of this. One on each side. The picture's bad, but you can see how it looks angled from the side, as though it's actually inside the prism. That one's from the side of the prism. It looks like some sort of goo right there, but it's solid. I'm guessing something maybe seeped in. But then why would the fungus be on separate sides? So, I'm assuming it's fungus of some sort. Although, what's strange is that you can only see it from certain angles. When I shine a light straight at the prism these spots cast a shadow on the film plane, so I'm assuming it would screw up anything I filmed. Any idea how to clean it? Or any place you'd recommend I send it to be cleaned? Does anyone even offer that service? Or can the bolex not be saved? Jay

Hey Tenolian, It's because the Red uses a bayer filter CMOS censor. The video has to be debayered, which causes some of the resolution to be lost. So 2k ends up being less then 2k. So in order to get a solid 2k resolution, you shoot with something around 3k, and bring it back down to 2k in post. I'm really tired of all these K's. :P Jay

Hey Tom, I agree with you that perhaps 4k will eventually become THE mastering format standard, but I have a hard time believing people will be going out to buy 4k televisions and projectors when it seems most people don't even care about HD! I could post lots of links to articles that discuss this, but I'm sure you've seen them yourself. I mean a lot of people thought once the HD-DVD/ Blu-Ray battle ended everyone would rush out to get their HD televisions and blu-ray players, but they haven't. And with the economy the way it is I don't believe anyone will be buying this stuff even for the holidays. Regardless of the economy, most people don't see the difference, or they at least don't think the difference in picture quality justifies the cost. Yes, costs are going down, but do you really think people are going to replace their entire dvd collections, and spend all that money all over again, just for the boost in clarity? I'm getting a little off topic. Sorry! Jay

Hey Klas, If someone doesn't have the money to rent a camera, how do they have the money to buy a Canon 5D for $3000, plus all these shoulder mounts, matte box's, adaptors, around $2000 each? Not to mention lenses, a fairly beefy computer, hard drives, and some editing software? And of course there's people who make movies simply to be hip and trendy. Of course, they don't last very long because they soon realize how hard it is. There's some teenage boys who live on my street who just suddenly one day decided to buy skateboards, and get a camera and video tape it. Did they do this because they seriously wanted to document their attempts, or because they saw the same thing on MTV? After a couple weeks they gave up. Haven't seen them skateboarding since. I get the same impression seeing a lot of films people are making these days. They all want that super shallow dof, slow motion, etc. Are those the kinds of things essential to telling a good story? Hell no, but then again, I never get the feeling they're interested in telling a good story. They're interested in super shallow dof, and slow motion! All style, no substance. Because it's "cool". But just to make it clear, there's nothing wrong with using consumer cameras, and adaptors, or whatever. All I'm saying is the impression I'm getting from this generation of "filmmakers" is that their intentions are simply to attain some sort of filmmaker image. It's considered hip to be an artist, to be "deep", or at least give people the impression that you're deep. Jay

Hey Patrick, Well, how about a camera designed for movies? :D Jay

Nick, I have no problem with affordable tools. I'm not made of money! What I'm bothered by is this attempt at giving filmmaking this "trendy" image. A lot of people seem to be more drawn to this image, then to the idea of bringing any vision to life. Haven't you noticed how many people seem more obsessed with the specs of their camera then how to get the lighting for a certain scene just right? For a lot of people it's more about using the latest equipment, then doing something meaningful with it. Not taking a jab at people who can't afford super professional gear. I'm one of them! Jay

Hey Saul, I've been getting the same impression. A lot of people don't really seem to be interested in filmmaking, so much as they are in having the filmmaker "image". It's this weird status thing, "I'm so freakin' cool. I make movies. Isn't that rad!?" These people shoot with these silly little consumer digital cameras, and put these ridiculous adapters on them, and buy these cheap-o brand matte boxes, and none of them ever bother with any sort of lighting. They have these insane camera rigs, 8 feet long, makes the entire thing look like a missile. It all feels so phony, ya know? And of course these movies they make are all based around trying to be cool. Usually some movies about drug deals, or criminals, or hip hop zombie ninjas. Enough already! We get it! You love Quentin Tarantino! Ahh, feels nice to get that off my chest! Jay

Hey, Remember, when the Red One was announced I believe it was supposed to be 4.5k, up to 60fps. Turns out it's 4k up to 30fps. Also, as of right now, the epic and scarlet "modules" are, for all we know, nothing but renders. I'm assuming they don't have any prototypes, but there's really no basis for my assumption. I'd bet that some of these options will disappear before any of it actually ships. Truthfully, as much as I like the idea of a full frame, vistavision, sized sensor, I doubt very many people will be going for that option. And honestly, how many people are actually going to buy that 28k sensor? 645 sensor seems strange, too? Jay

Hey Chris, I realize the issues involved with a bayer sensor. I wasn't taking any of that into account. I was just stating what I feel a lot of people are looking for. How it's done, I have no idea. How about those Foveon sensors I keep hearing about? Paul, you're killing me with these pictures! Jay

Hey there, I think I know what everyone really wants. No, it's not 28k? A camera that shoots 1080p, or 2k, with nikon, canon, or pl mounts. S35 or FF35 sensors, with at least 60fps, if not 120fps. If someone could put this together for three to five thousand dollars you'd have a winner. Perhaps it's just not possible to do for that price range. Even so, I'm still a film kinda guy. :D Jay

Hey Daniel, AMEN! A lot of stopmotion animation is done with DSLR's these days, and that's one of the biggest complaints. After 100,000 exposures (if you're lucky!) you're basically stuck having to buy another camera. Planned obsolescence… :angry: Jay

Hey Tom, Well, I certainly have a new perspective. Film doesn't look like film depending on how it's scanned and processed. Hey Simon, Hollywood's a long way from Nashville! But seeing as there's no labs in Nashville that offers traditional post production, I'm going to have to travel! I've love to hear more about your lab. PM me about it. Jay

Hey Karl, I believe that's why, in this instance, it is difficult to tell the difference, because honestly, all these photos look digital to me. Whichever photos are film aren't doing film justice. It's the scanning and processing that's giving them digital characteristics. I was browsing flickr last night and found a lot of photos shot on film, but I thought they looked terrible, because the photographer is scanning in the negatives and then processing in photoshop. I actually think scans of prints look better. It's one of the reasons I'm interested in traditional editing, color grading, and printing. Jay

Hey Tom, How are these pictures being scaled? There's some nasty looking aliasing on all of them. If I had to pick one, then maybe #3. If I had to pick a second one, maybe #4. I'm really not liking the way any of these photos have been processed. They all look harsh to me. Maybe I'm whining too much? Jay