Jay Taylor

Hey there, Seriously, last post? Lets go back to those photos you posted. You won't believe me at this point, but I know I'm telling the truth. On first glance I thought the top photo was digital because it has those harsh clipping highlights. Then I glance at the second photo and something about the horizon looked digital to me. I'm not sure what, but it was enough to confuse me, because here I'm seeing two photos that both show signs of being digital, and yet one was supposedly taken with a "canon 35mm film still camera". What can I say, I'm naive. Then when asked about posting a 4k file, you say, "If anything, the grain would really stand out more for the film shot and the digital shot would look much more pristine." Again, I'm naive. I sincerely believe that one of these is supposed to be film. Not because I think either one looks like film, but simply because you say one is. I decided not to answer, because, honestly, why walk into some kind of trap? At that point I'm waiting to be surprised as to which is film. I felt that whichever one was film must have been scanned under the worst conditions, cause neither looked all that great to me. So then it turns out they're both digital. I didn't guess, so you assume it's because I was stumped, and that somehow proves that digital looks every bit as good as film. Even though all I could think is "since when did film start looking so lousy?" Of course, if I had tried to pick one, I would've been wrong, too. Why? Because I'm naive. Why should you need tricks to make your point? Digital should speak on it's own, right? Anyways, just trying to explain to you that you didn't make the point you think you did. Of course, like you said, hindsight is 20/20. But whether or not you believe me, that doesn't apply here. Tom, did you look at the comparisons I posted? Even if I hadn't told you which ones were film, or polaroid, or digital, the differences are extremely obvious. Now, if you actually happen to prefer the digital photos, alright then. We'll never see eye to eye. And I suppose I'm finally done. Jay P.S. I don't mean to say that the pictures you posted are lousy. Nice lighting, composition, etc. It simply has this digital look to it that I personally don't care for.

Hey Tom, That's right. You're the calm, level headed one. All digital users are. Us film guys are CRAZY. Using an "obsolete" and "inferior" format, desperately clinging to the past. Yap, you've made your point. Job well done. Why do I bother getting into these discussions? I'm OUT! Jay

Tom, You didn't prove the point that you think you did. The reason I didn't say both were digital because you claimed one was film. I should've known better then to assume you had any integrity. I'm not answering anymore of your loaded questions. Jay

Hey Tom, You asked the question which is film and which is digital, giving the impression that one was in fact film, and the other was digital. In looking at the photographs I suspected that the top was digital because of the harsh clipping. The bottom photograph looked artificially clean, thereby making me consider it to be digital. But because of your wording, which is film, and which is digital, I really couldn't choose one over the other. It was a trick question to try and prove your point. How about putting up a legitimate comparison? Or is it too difficult for you to make a legitimate argument? Jay

Hey Tom, Here's my own comparison, and I'll tell you from the start which is which? http://www.flickr.com/photos/society_works/2907492311/ That one's film. http://www.flickr.com/photos/anniee/2131257282/ Polaroid. http://www.flickr.com/photos/randie/2928165359/ Digital. http://www.flickr.com/photos/louobedlam/2679058231/ Film film film. http://www.flickr.com/photos/saviorjosh/2138576156/ Polaroid. http://www.flickr.com/photos/25077496@N03/2926927843/ Digital. I could do this all day long? Tom, there is certainly a grey area where film can be mistaken for digital, and digital can be mistaken for film. What you need to understand is I don't like the look of that grey area. I like film that looks like film! Film that could not in any way be mistaken for digital. I sometimes wonder if it isn't so much digital catching up with film, but that film being made to look digital. Certainly, I've heard many people complain of Kodak's modern filmstocks as looking too digital. Anyways, I personally believe the purpose of this thread is really about appreciation for the film medium. Can't there be one pro film topic without someone coming along trying to preach the gospel of digital to us? Contrary to popular belief, digital is not going to save the world. Jay

Hey Todd, I've been trying to think of an analogy to explain this whole thing. What if when photography first started out, they stopped selling paint, thereby forcing everyone into photography? Or suppose that all the brush makers decided they were only going to make pointed round brushes now. Sure, you could still paint a picture, but you'd be missing out on what can be achieved with other brushes. I guess it's something like that? Jay

Hey Tom, You RED heads seems to think 4K makes a HUGE difference. ;) I'm not really sure what more there is to say. I love film, and you seem to think I'm wrong for loving it. Honestly, I don't even have the energy to address all the things I disagree with you about. So I'll simply say that I disagree. :) Jay

Hey Tom, I get the impression people think digital artifacts are more acceptable then film artifacts. I personally feel that digital artifacts are way more intrusive. What would I say about a 5K camera? Look, no matter how many K resolution some digital camera has, no matter how much latitude, etc? It will look digital. It will look electronic. I don't enjoy the aesthetic of the digital medium. I have every right to feel this way, and I should have every right to shoot on the medium of my choice. But that choice is slowly being taken away from me. What would you say if suddenly all these digital camera manufacturers called it quits? What if they all got together and decided, "Digital's no good. Film's the way to go"? All the people who swear by digital would be completely bummed out! Imagine how the film medium buffs are feeling these days. Look what happened to Polaroid. Is digital really a replacement for shooting polaroids? No, it's not. It's not the same thing at all. But what choice do you have now? Thankfully Fuji still makes instant film, but for how much longer? I'm not suggesting that digital should go away. I just don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to choose their medium? Jay

Hi, I've been making a point to avoid digitally projected films due to the fact that it looks like big screen tv. I don't feel like I'm watching a film in a theater. I feel like I'm at a rich friends house sitting on his sofa watching disposable entertainment on his super duper, high definition, will be in the trash in five years, big screen television. Something I find amazing is how people who are pro digital seem to point out things like hairs in the gate, or grain, or unsteadiness. Have these people never enjoyed a single film in their entire lives until digital came around? "Dammit! I see a hair! This film is ruined for me! Look at those tiny little dots swimming around! How distracting!" I can't imagine being bother by these things. Never in my entire life has a film been ruined for me because of a stupid hair, or some grain, or unsteadiness. I'm assuming these same people loathe silent films, since they can't hear anything? My biggest issue with digital is that it's being forced on everyone. What is this "choice" that everyone's talking about? Sure, right NOW I have a choice. What about in ten years? Some people say things like digital being best suited for certain stories, and film working for other stories. What happens to those stories that work best with film in ten years when we may no longer have the choice to shoot on the film medium? This entire topic is so frustrating to me. I'm seeing a medium that I love slowly being taken away from me, while a number of people are in fact cheering on its death, and there's nothing I can do about it. Jay

Hey Tom, Funny thing is, ALL things digital will be outdated in 5 years. Not much of an investment really. It seems to me that people who are into digital don't really understand why people that shoot film love the medium so much. You have this strip of plastic with these little holes on the sides. You run it through your camera. You get it back from the lab, and you have these little pictures one after another on this strip of plastic. You run it through a projector, and a light shines through these little pictures, and projects them on the screen, and creates the illusion of movement. I realize with digital that it's still pictures one after another, but it's all ones and zeros, you know? It's JPEG's, or whatever. Something about the strip of pictures on a piece of plastic. Something about the way the light is burned into the emulsion. Something about having to think about your exposures, because you can't see what you're getting until it's developed. All of this adds up to magic for me. I don't get that sense of magic with digital. It really saddens me to think that I may not be able to experience this magic in ten years. Jay

Hey there, I'm looking for one of the old animation motors used with the Mitchells back before the modern motors. Something like a Richardson, or a Stevens, or even one of the original Mitchell stop-motion motors. There's an interesting motor on ebay right now that Ken Stone is selling, but he says it's not complete. Bummer? Anyone have an old motor they'd sell me? Or know where I could get one? Jay

Hey again, Not much discussion in here! I'm not surprised. This motor business is super complicated. I stumbled upon an old thread over at the stop-motion message board. Someone built a single-frame/intervalometer using a superior electric stepper motor, and a stepper controller from applied-motion. The controller comes with some software to help program everything, and the person that did this posted a video showing how the software works. Looked quite non-programmer friendly. Anyways, applied-motion also carries servo controllers, which include the same software. However, the specifications for the software claim that only 8 inputs are programmable. I'm assuming, in the case of a live action motor, I'd only be able to setup 8 speeds. Is this correct? I had worked out ten speeds I'd like to use, and now it looks like I may have to take another couple off the list. Out of curiosity, how are the old mitchell "wild" motors put together? Of course, those are AC, so that would probably be too dangerous to mess around with. Jay

Hello again, Does anyone know of any forums that might discuss electric motors, and how to build them? I'm wondering if there would be anything wrong with having a dc servo coupled to the 1:1 drive shaft if I intend on shooting at high speed. I figured that would be the only way to have a motor capable of high speed, and single frame/intervalometer functions. Although, if making two separate motors would be way easier, I have no objections. Any resources on writing code for the controller? Would it be best to use an eprom, or a microcontroller? Or something else? So many questions. Having a hard time finding the answers! Jay

Hey guys, As soon as anyone starts regulating the internet, it will die. In any case, if you take down the torrent networks something else will come around to take it's place. Honestly, why can't cable/satelite/internet providers offer some sort of on demand service that gives you everything you could want for a flat rate? Just imagine never having to buy a dvd, or album, or whatever. You just pull it up on your screen and watch/listen to it? What if you had the same access wirelessly? There'd be no point in downloading this stuff illegally. If something came along that gave you access to every movie, tv show, album, etc, ever made, instantly, for the same as what you pay for cable, wouldn't you sign up? Jay

Hello, Hal, I will need to find someone who has the equipment and expertise for any of my machining needs. Paul, I've been interested in learning electronics/motion control/animatronics for quite a while, but like I said, very limited experience with any of it. I'm wanting to learn this in order to aid my film making endeavors. After talking to a few people I'm starting to think you can't have a motor capable of high speed, and single frame/intervalometer functions, but certainly it's possible. The Lynx C-50 can do this (with the optional quicksync controller), the Fries motor can do this (with the intervalometer remote), the Jackson Woodburn can do it with all functions completely built in! The Fries is a dc servo, I'm assuming the other two are as well. Would they be coupled to the 1:1, or the 8:1 drive shaft? First thing I'm trying to figure out is what kind of motor (servo or stepper), and which drive shaft to couple it with. http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/page14.html That article claims steppers can be hard on a cameras gears. Of course, everything else I've read suggests that creating circuits to control steppers is quite a bit easier. So? I realize I'm at the bottom of a very steep hill. Jay

Hey guys, Okay, trying to simplify things a bit. Rather then being able to punch in any speed to two or three decimals, I decided to have about ten preset speeds ranging from 6 to 120. I could use a rotary switch to select the speeds rather then some sort of numeric pad. Would it make it easier if only 24 were crystal, or would it be no more difficult to make all speeds crystal? As far as ramping is concerned, could there be a flat rate applied to all speeds? Each ascending speed would then take slightly longer to ramp up then the previous speed. Of course, how is this done? I'm assuming you'd want a servo connected to the 8:1 gear shaft, which would require 900 rpm's for the top speed of 120fps, and each frame would require a turn of 45 degrees. I suppose you could have the motor connected to the 1:1 gear shaft, but then you'd need 7200 rpm's for the top speed. Wouldn't vibration be a problem at that speed? So what I'm imagining, as far as the controls are concerned, would be three rotary switch's. One would be for the live action speeds, 6-120. I suppose you'd have a switch that would change the control to the second rotary switch, which would be for single frame exposures. It would also have about ten settings from 1/8th of a second to 1 minute exposures. Then there could be another switch/button that would activate the third rotary switch for the interval settings. I'm thinking about 12 selections from 2 seconds to 1 hour. Then you'd need a power button, a switch for reverse running, and a start/stop button. Also, a power connection, and an outlet for possibly a remote. Sound feasible? I thought that you could have two separate motors inside the casing. A servo coupled to the 8:1 shaft, and a stepper attached to the 1:1 shaft. That way when you enabled the single frame control, it would change over to the stepper. Of course, I'm not sure if you could fit two side by side given the small amount of room. Also, I'm thinking it may not be possible anyways due to one of the motors being stationary when not being used. Would this cause some drag, forcing the working motor to compensate? Alright, tear it apart if you want, or suggestions on how to make this a reality! Jay

Hey everyone, Hal, I've consider a lot of the things you've mentioned. Ramp speed, braking, etc. I've also read a lot of arguments over servos and steppers. I guess I'm oversimplifying, but the controller itself would be responsible for timing, and that's it. The speeds, the ramping, braking, it's all timing. Sounds simple in concept, but I realize it's probably quite complicated in practice to build a controller capable of all that. Another type of motor I had in mind would be responsible for the variable shutter. Something that would allow to program fades and dissolves. I'm assuming with something like that it would need to be synced somehow to the main motor. This getting into full blown motion control territory! Well, is there anyone you guys would recommend that builds these types of things for a living? Jay

Hello, Paul, I sent you a PM. The only thing I'd really be worried about is having to program the controller. As far as just hooking up a servo to the camera to make it go, it's probably not too big a deal. But programming it for different speeds, intervalometer functions, and all that? no clue. I know I sound naive, but I'm sincerely interested in figuring out how this stuff works. Jay

Hey guys, So this is probably over my head, but has anyone ever built their own crystal sync motor? I have a Fries Mitchell, so I'd like a motor that could do 1-120 fps, all crystal speeds. How are most motors built? Do most use some sort of DC servo's, or something else? Like I said, probably over my head, but I'd still be interested in learning how motors are built. Jay

Hey guys, This is somewhat off topic, but? I recently read on Wikipedia (so who knows if it's at all accurate!) that the Academy considers a feature length film 40 minutes or longer. Anyone know of a 40 minute feature? Jay

Hey Bruce, Wow, thanks so much for all the information! I'm learning. :) How long could I expect the battery to last if I was only shooting single frame animation? Does the amperage requirements affect which batteries you can use? For example, the batteries you listed are rated at 12Ah. If the Norris required less then that, would it cause any damage to use a battery with more? Now I'd be interested in figuring out how you'd get a 30v battery for a Fries motor. I don't think I've seen any 15v batteries, so how would you get 30v? I've seen a lot of rental places that have the Fries cameras, and the batteries they include seem to vary. I've seen 26v, 28v, 30v, and 36v batteries, all supposedly working with the Fries motors. Why would this be? And hopefully one last question! Is it possible to run both the norris and the video tap off the same battery? Or would it be better to have dedicated power for each?

Hey Tim, Thanks for the information. It's starting to make a little more sense! I'm definitely not going to hook up anything until I can be sure I'm not going to destroy my equipment. Are there any books or websites that you would recommend? Also, would it be easier to just use some sort of dc to ac converter in order to just plug it into the wall? How would that work? Anything to look out for? Jay

Hey Bruce, The Norris is actually an intervalometer/single frame system. I should probably contact Norris directly to see about how many amps are required since it's nowhere on the motor itself. How do you go about wiring a couple 12v batteries together? I'm sorry, I don't know much of anything about electronics! Jay

Hey guys, So rather then sell my camera, I got myself a Norris system. The norris needs 12-24 vdc. What does this mean? Okay, so 12-24 volts, and dc, meaning battery, right? But why the range? Why 12-24? Are some functions more power hungry then others? If I hook up a 24v battery, will it fry the motor if I'm only using 12v functions? Eventually I'll be getting a Fries motor for the camera, and it uses a 30vdc. I can't seem to find these anywhere. It also says that at 24fps, the motor uses 2 amps. At 120fps, it uses 10 amps. Do you have to power down the battery for 24fps? So obviously I'm clueless about the battery, power supply thing here. Can someone explain how this stuff works, and above all, where do I buy these batteries? Or could I somehow build a battery pack? And how? I read an article on Ron Dexter's website, but I'm still confused. HELP! Jay

Hey everyone, Well, I'm planning on putting this camera on ebay in the next couple of weeks, but I'd rather someone on here grab it! So once again? 1 x Fries Mitchell 35R w/Nikon mount 1 x Cohu video tap w/ colorado integration system 1 x 400' mitchell magazine I'll even include the Nikon lens you see in the pictures. It's one of the series E nikons, 50mm, f/1.8. And shipping is included if your in the states. Asking price is now only $3000! However, price is no longer negotiable. Jay