Ilya Stone

Newbie question. I'm going to shoot some 35mm test footage using a Konvas camera with an anamorphic zoom lens. I don't plan on outputing to film. My eventually output will be DVD, but it would be nice to try an HD format (HD DVCPRO, HD D5, etc) and output to blue ray DVD or some similar format when it becomes available. Here are my questions- 1) Do people typically telecine films shot with anamorphic lenses at 4:3 and then have the material converted to 2.35:1 within their editing program? (ARC or aspect ratio conversion within After Effects or FCP) OR 2) Do people have the film telecined with an adapter so that the 2.35:1 ratio is already in place? You see, here is my problem. I was wanting to use bonolabs to telecine some anamorphic footage in HD. They then would send me a portable hard drive and I'd download it and send it back. Its a pretty great setup. If you haven't seen their website, you should check it out (bonolabs.com). Anyway, the problem is this. They only provide 2 telecine options in HD's typical 16:9 ratio. One has the 4:3 ratio with black bars on each side. The other is straight 16:9. I couldn't use the first option and then ARC the footage. This would leave me with black bars at top AND the sides......basically a small rectangle of footage. I can't use the second option, since a 16:9 transfer of 4:3 material crops the source footage at top and bottom. What do I do? Are there any labs that do anamorphic telecine? If so...can they do telecine in HD? Basically, the bonolabs setup would be perfect for me if they could do this. I wrote them a few weeks ago, but they never responded to these questions. I guess they couldn't do it or they just didn't take my newbie-with-only-1000ft-of-footage-ass seriously. Other oddball questions - I'm a bit hesitant to ask these in the same email, but here goes. Has anyone sent film to India for telecine? Don't they do many anamorphic films over there. I remember seeing prices for developing and telecine that were ridiculously cheap. This was briefly discussed in some past forums on this website in the 2001 archives. I suppose mailing undeveloped film is not an option since 9/11. Anyone work with Indian telecine labs? I suppose if I can't get bonolabs to respond, what chance do I have with going this route...especially for such a tiny amount of footage. Last crazy question - DIY telecine using a film scanner. Possible? Remember, I'm using 35mm, NOT 16mm. Also, I'm doing all of this to work on a project with some computer animation. I wanted to cobble together REALLY short footage shot on green screen to composite with CGI sets. No extended shots with dialoge will be attempted...only brief shots of 5-15 seconds at best. The whole film would be only 20 minutes long with 2/3rds of it being pure CGI. Since this is basically a labor-intensive animated film I'd make, is it possible to scan my own footage? Obviously this would be completely unacceptable for a professional, but for a hobbyist with no set deadlines or plans to release such a film - is this a possible workflow? I basically am just screwing around to see what I can do. My own personal artistic junk. A fun project which (hopefully) might have some cool results. The equivalent of making oddball electronic music with your buddies in someone's garage. Any advice (other than to sell the Konvas for a dirt-bike) would be most appreciated. - Ilya

Here's a copy of an email I sent to the Konvas listgroup. Any help anyone can give would be most appreciated. Hello all, Just got my Konvas 2m and an OPF-18 anamorphic lens today in the mail. Both seemed to be in good shape. Unfortunately, I was fooling around with the zoom and the zoom ring of the lens made a dull "pook" sound, and now the zoom ring doesn't move the front elements. Something inside has popped loose. It seemed to be working perfectly prior to this. Anyone have any ideas? Are there anyplaces in Texas I could take this to be looked at? I'm in the Austin area. I'd open up the lens myself if need be...but I'd really rather do such in the presence of a professional. Only slightly worried....but worried, Ilya Stone

Hello all, This is a copy of an email posting I sent to the Konvas newsgroup. I check this site out often, so I thought I'd include it here. Here's an embarrasing question from a serious newbie (of FETAL proportion!). Raf camera seems to be getting new anamorphics each week. I'm getting confused about all these zoom lenses. I hope to get a 2M soon, and am considering getting a zoom with a rear anamorphic attatchment for it. Does anyone have any advice (other than the obvious -"save your money and buy a super8 first"- ha, ha!). I want the best and most useful lens I can get (priced within reason, of course). If anyone has advice on what I should consider, I'd appreciate it. Round fronts.....square fronts.....rear attatchments.......its driving me.....MADDDDD!!!! If I could hear from anyone whose actually used one of these zooms (or any other anamorphic), I'd be grateful. The money is burning a hole in my pocket, but I don't want to make a serious error. I'd like to try some outdoor photography at dusk, and also lit indoor spaces. For some sort of idea of the shot's I'd like to get.....the film "Rushmore" is about the limit of what I'd like to see, as far as a wide angle-look goes. I'm not too fond of anything with more of a close-up and/or distorted effect. Although I like the almost "fisheye" look in "City of Lost Children" (which I realize is not anamorphic), it really is too much for my taste. The images always verge on giving me a headache....AND its too much like a David Lee Roth video, or the shots in "Bonfire of the Vanities". For a while, I was conviced that any film with this type of wide-angle look was the doomed mark of a truly bad film!! Obscure references aside, as much as I'm tempted by the look of extreme wide-angle (as I want to do some cramped indoor shots), it really has a somewhat amatuerish/immaturish quality that I'd like to avoid. "Chinatown" is often referenced as one of the best examples of anamorphic photography, and I'd agree (who here wouldn't!?). THAT would be the film I'd most like to emulate photography-wise (and yes....I know there's much MUCH MUUUUCH more to that end-result than buying the "right" lens). Still, that was supposedly using a 42mm lens, right? Well how does that compare with these rear anamorphic zooms? Also, I need a pretty decent zoom for some outdoor shots of mildly distant buildings. Northfork was another impressive work, but I'm not here to fawn in order to get advice. I can never view the photography in that film "objectively", being that I particularly wanted to film several shots of a damn (and other impressive landscapes with deco-esque buildings) in the Columbia gorge in Oregon. As a result, I'm too pissed off at David Mullen to begin sucking up....but I digress. [Mr. Mullen...if you're out there...please realize I'm just kidding around, OK?] Arrgh!! This would be so much easier if I could get my hands on this junk!! Trying to venture into the world of experience is difficult when all the equipment you are interested in comes from Moscow and Belarus! Help!! Sincerely, Ilya Stone Here are some of the zoom lenses I've seen on ebay. Zoom lens "35OPF25-2" 25-250mm, f/3.2, T/3.8 50-500 with rear anamorphic) for Konvas (OCT-19 mount) Zoom lens "35OPF17-1" 20-100mm, f/2.5, T/3.2 (40-200mm with rear anamorphic) This lens is very similar to 35OPF18-1 except of upper focal length (100mm instead of 120mm). Zoom lens "35OPF15-1A" 25-250mm, f/4.5, T/6.2. 50-500mm with rear anamorphic) Konvas (OCT-19 mount)

I agree with nearly all you are saying Eddie...most importantly that Lost is Translation is total crap! That film makes me angry on so many levels!!! But I digress. BTW...you forgot to add Michael Jackson's "Bad" video to Scorcese's sell out list.

My vote is.....PIECE O' CRAP. Next question please (you don't want to get me started on how I disliked LIT. I mean, its a racist film for Chrissake! Who does that dumb girl think she is! And Bill Murray's houndog expression is disturbing! How could he do this to me after Rushmore!!.......sorry.)

AM is a very good film. I saw it in the theater, and it was one of the best movie experiences I can remember! On repeat viewing it has much less of an impact, and the audience reaction added immensely to my enjoyment of this film. I don't think I've EVER seen an audience laugh so hard as they did in the scene where Mark (the director & "star") is having his friend Mike dub in screams for "Coven" (which Mark prefers to pronounce with the long "OH"... not liking how it rhyme's with oven!). One of the funniest films I've seen, but definitely a documentary filled with true pathos.... the seemingly "dumb" but self-aware Mark REFUSING to accept his lot as a loser. Dreaming of wanting to be an artist, and to make a statement on the realities of life, but possibly without enough talent that such a vision requires. Anyone aspiring to be a filmaker can relate! Very familiar territory...that's what makes the film almost scary! On one hand, you definitely root for Mike in his quest. His perseverence is amazing! Yet you can't help but wonder if this is all a form of arrested development, and ultimately a waste of effort! One of my top 5 documentaries - along with Gizmo! Roger & Me (before MM became what he NOW is), Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey, and "The Mothers of the Plaza Del Mayo" (a documentary on a grassroots effort in Pinochet's Chile', specifically mother's protesting the disappearance of their children - the only film EVER to make me spontaneously burst into tears at one point). Whoa....that's a downer to end on. Anyway, all should rent "American Movie". It's very, VERY funny! Check out the comments on IMDB's website if you don't believe me.

Saw VROTS on DVD. Amazing cinematography by Bin Ping Lee (otherwise known as "Mark" Lee). Apparently his other work includes "In the Mood for Love", a film I have yet to see. As for the film, I thought it was good but not great....but the photography is some of the best I've ever witnessed. A lot of the imagery has to do with the overall production design and use of colors, but still, the images were absolutely stunning. When I see a film like this, I cannot ever imagine film being replaced by some form of digital(*). Perhaps that's niave (and I certainly don't believe in the "superiority" of film), but when seeing what is possible with 35mm in this movie, it's hard to imagine anything preferable to this. Anyone know any details re: lenses or filmstock? (*)To anyone reading this, please spare me any film vs. digital debates.

I absolutely agree. I watched Barry Lyndon on DVD for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Had been putting it to the back of my "must see" list for a while. I was ASTOUNDED how good it was. Definitely an underated film. IMHO some Kubrick films are overated. I found Full Metal Jacket to be very disappointing...the second half of the movie is terrible. In one scene, a killed soldier is clearly breathing! Kubrick's "perfectionism" has always been overstated though (for example, how 'bout that helicopter shadow at the beginning of The Shining!). Regardless, technical SNAFU's are of no real consequence - his films are great for their tone, not some supposed wizardry. To me, Kubrick's overall style appeals most to younger people. His films are bold and exciting, and he was my absolute fave as a teenager. Back to BL. The movie is beautiful, and the story is engrossing. Ryan O'Neal is perfect in the title role. He's both a niave man AND an aggressive thug - and very convincing as both. How did he ever "fade away"? He was also perfect in Paper Moon. Anyway, EVERYONE should see BL, ASAP! I think it ranks right up there with 2001 and Clockwork.