Bruce Taylor

Wow, Paul. I had no idea you were such the psychologist. The talents here at cinematography.com! I have to say your comments and observations ring true, the pendulum that swings between the dominant (selfish) and compliant (self sacrificing) is an interesting one. The more highly dominant one party is, the more compliant the other must be for any sort of relationship to work. And I mean "work" as in operate, even if the workings are disfunctional and destructive. Annie, the good thing about reaching your absolute limit as you have here is that you are recognizing the path that got you there. We really only have the power to change our own behaviors, and that's not easy to do. Best, Bruce Taylor

I like film. If you want to shoot on film, I think it would be worth really checking it out. Go get the quotes from the labs and camera rental houses. You might be shocked at the deals that can be had that might make film possible. 35mm 2 and 3 perf change the game somewhat as well. 35mm recans and short ends are still plentiful and cust costs dramatically. Just a thought. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

check out these guys http://www.usedmovielighting.com/ Even though they are in CA, they have some amazing deals. Look at their ebay auctions too. It's best to call with your specific needs because they have a lot of gear that isn't even listed. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

I am sure Sergey will speak for himself, but he is in the business off selling equipment I think, not shooting with it. I have purchased a fair amount of gear from him including a lot of Lomo lenses and he is a very good seller in my experience. As far as Lomos go, you can do a lot of research on this website and elsewhere, for instance www.Konvas.org. You can also look at Russian films shot before about 1992 to see what they look like, as Lomos were the lenses used at the time, both spherical and anamorphic. I use them and like them. The story I have heard (and it might be true), was that the Russians took a lot of east German lens designers from the Zeiss facilities after WWll and that they went to work at Lomo producing Zeiss- type lens designs. The later lenses I use are quite good, and have modern multicoatings. Likely equivalent to Zeiss lenses of the same production period in terms of sharpness and look, though the mechanical execution is a bit rough. They can be very good, and they are still priced quite low compared to others. Even new they will benefit from a visit to the lens doctor though. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Hmmm, could you adapt a 35mm projector front 'scope lens attachment? They were made to screw onto the regular, spherical projection lens. They are easily available on ebay for less than $100. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Here's the deal: The item location is listed as West Hollywood, and everything's more expensive there. I could just strangle the West Hollywood hairdresser that does my daughter's hair. Bruce Taylor

1. Simple answer is no, this is an MOS camera not made for sync sound filming. It is loud, that's the way it was designed. It is also very small, compact and cheap, that's the trade off. You can use precise crystal sync motors with it, but recording sound while filming for use in the sound track is not recommended. 2. It uses a 3 lens turret, and there are some people that replace the turret with a plate that has a PL mount. I think Sergey Kravchenko has had a modified 1M with PL mount for sale. Les Bosher comes to mind as some one who could do it. But why not just use the Lomos? Set up properly they are excellent lenses and very inexpensive, especially in the OCT18 mount used in the 1M. 3. The biggest mags available are the 400' variety. That's 4.5 minutes of filming, should be enough for most uses. 4. No, a well maintained Konvas is not a piece of poop. It can be an excellent tool capable of making quite stunning images in the right hands (check out "The Cranes are Flying"). That said, they are a very old design and require a fairly high degree of maintenance, so don't think you're going to buy one and go out and shoot your feature without a complete maintenance service which can cost $1000 or so (camera body, all mags, viewfinder system, motor, etc). If it does what you want it to do for your project, it could work out great for you. It can make very good pictures. It is a highly portable, compact camera that's easy to place in difficult places. It is awkward to hand hold. it's noisy, it uses great cheap lenses, the biggest mags are 400'. If that's not what you need, then you will be much better off getting gear that fits your project. Adam Frey of the Konvas.org group made a feature with his 1M, "Hunting Dragonflies." You might contact him to look at a copy and talk over your plans. Good luck, Bruce Taylor Konvas and Kinor Rentals www.indi35.com

I don't know anything about SR2s, but might it be possible to simply draw the 2.4:1 lines with a pencil on the gg. I have done that many times w/ other cameras. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Kevin and Phil are both right. If you are making a straight to DVD movie it is extremely unlikely you'll make any money. If you have a film you feel you need to make, "a film from yer heart," then by all means you should make it! Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Be very careful about adapters and wide lenses, you may have very expensive mirror clearance issues. It would be safest and best to get one of the lenses made in the CP mount. I know the Angie was out there, there may have been the Kinoptic as well. If you want one cheap, keep an eye on ebay. When I was using my CP16R I would see them going between $250 and 400. Whitehouse is a good professional resource, but if you have no budget you'll need to look elsewhere. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Indeed, a sad day. What great color and contrast. K40 could make S8 look amazing. I haven't heard mention of the extraordinary archival stability. I can pull out 8mm movies I shot in the 60's and they look no different from the day they came home from the lab. The 40's and 50's are beautifully preserved in shoe-box stored boxes of slides in my Dad's basement. Amazing stuff. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

I've got a Moviscop I'd like to get rid of. $50? I bought it awhile ago used but never used it, bulb works. My favorite tabletop viewer was the Moviola M50 (I think that was the model#). Best picture this side of a flatbed. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

I have a suggestion, send it to Bernie O'Doherty at Super 16, Inc. He'll fix you up for a reasonable fee. He'll make your Eclair happy again. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Good point about that niche market, it was mostly "sub-prime". (Spies-a-Go-Go?) Unfortunately there was no representation of S16 in the demonstration, the difference between 3 perf and 2 perf was not perceptable to those who sat in the audience. The demo included presentation of projected HDCAM SR 4:2:2 and HDCAM SR 4:4:4 versions that all looked excellent, I don't think they addressed ATSC encoders, that's an good question, maybe I can get Kodak to answer it. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Hey Olivier, Sorry I only have the matte boxes for 35H. Maybe Steve Beverly has a spare one for 35C? Bruce Taylor

But why would you not want to live in LA? It's Paradise!

S16 is 1.66:1. 16x9 is 1.78:1. S16 requires cropping to 16x9 too. Karl, please don't take my statement as rude. It wasn't meant to be. I meant it sincerely. I dig the format, I spent a fair amount of my cash on the format (can't convert these cameras back to 4 perf!) and I push it as a way to help people shoot the films they really, really want to make. I respect that you have a different perspective on many issues. I'm not saying I'm right all the time, I'm expressing my opinions, that's all. No one really knows the future of S16 or 2 perf, we're all just taking an educated guess. Concerning your note about 500T in 2 perf, I wish you had been in the Gower Theater at Paramount on Saturday. 500T in 3 perf and 4 perf projected in HDCAM SR and film output from the HD scan on a 30ft screen. Looked fantastic. Really. You should ask Vilmos what he thought. You're all right Karl. Don't take me too seriously, I don't! Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

TV is 16x9 now. 2 perf is cropped to 16x9 for tv. So is S16. Lots more negative than S16. I said "true cost of digi acquisition and post". The whole process. Moving and manipulating data is not free. 2 perf film aquisition may put it closer to electronic aquisition when all factors are calculated, at least that's what I think Kodak was trying to present. Film also has monetary archival advantages that need to be considered. I don't know which world you're living in but in mine, time cost = monetary cost. Time = money. Yep. We're all rooting for the underdog. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

S16 and 2 perf 35mm film and processing costs are approximately the same. But 2 perf has significantly more exposed film real estate than S16, even when cropped to 16x9. It also offers the possibility of a 2.4:1 release with even more negative area. The significant improvement of film stocks is an important factor here too-- that's why 3 perf got traction after all. With Kodak, Panavision and Deluxe behind 2 perf it is no longer on the fringe. Regular budgeted shows can use their familiar vendors and workflows. Of course this is going to cost Kodak if people start shooting 2 perf instead of 3 or 4 perf. It would seem to me that they are trying to keep film in the game. They are losing market share big time to digital, here's a strategy to maybe keep a little more film rolling during the decline. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Ditto! The point of the seminar was that one can shoot film at 1/2 the cost of 4 perf, 2/3 the cost of 3 perf with no noticeable loss of quality from the larger formats. Kodak (and a few other people) are hoping that when productions factor the true cost of digi acquisition and post compared to 2 perf 35mm, there will be enough advantages to keep the film rolling. I hope so too, of course. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Yes, I wonder. At the Cinegear show Kodak held a seminar on 2 perf production, I wrote a synopsis of it here. There we are in a screening room @ Paramount full of production types, old school guys w/gray or white hair. Vilmos Zsigmond is in the audience, among others. VP of marketing for Panavision is there. The DP of the network show "Ghost Whisperer" is talking about how he snuck 2 perf into the show. And Kodak paid him (I would have to assume) to shoot a full production value 10 minute demo in 2 and 3 perf. If 2 perf is going to get some real traction, now is the time. If not, well... it's going to remain on the fringe. Who knows? There have been some bets placed on it, we'll see if they pay off. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

And Panavision says they have a dozen 2 perf bodies currently available... -Pana VP Andy Romanoff last Saturday. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

The format, shooting style and the resulting look used to make "The Celebration" were just right for that story. In much the same way S8, 16mm or 35mm are used in film formats, I think your choice depends on the needs of the story and visual style you want to create. When I was a student shooting Super8 I worked within the limitations and qualities of that format. I can shoot bigger formats now, and that changes what and how I choose to photograph. See what you can afford, what will work for the story and most of all, make your movie! Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

I think you should ask Cinelicious to look at the issue. They're good people over there. When I rent gear I want clients to let me know if they experience any problems so I can fix them- otherwise I might not know there is anything wrong. If you can't come to a satisfactory resolution or still can't figure it out, have another telecine shop transfer the offending footage. That should sort out if it's a camera or transfer issue. I mean the Ursa Diamond at Cinelicious is old, but so is your NPR. Good luck, let us know what you find out. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Mr. Vale, thank you for your always interesting comments. Years ago I had read something about 2 perf as a kind of marketing scheme for Technicolor's proprietary release printing process. That they kept the lab costs artificially low to generate more release print business. They buried the optical costs. IIRC, when producers had to pay the real costs for optical work the advantages of the format started to go away. I was pleased to write the summary, it seemed a shame to let all that information slip away at the end of the session. Spies-a-Go-Go. Now that's what I call a title! Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com