Jump to content

Nicholas Kovats

Basic Member
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nicholas Kovats

  1. Matt, As per my detailed description it is a standard Bolex H8/H16 Rex 4 body w/ 3x C-mount lens turret. The modifications are internal only. There are numerous YouTube videos available of this camera in action. Again, as per my description, bitworks.org in Toronto is responsible for the digital transfer on their sprocketless 16mm transfer bay. I am sure with a little bit of research on the net you will find numerous transfer houses in the US with the same setup. Emphasis on sprocketless. As I described above a Cinemascope 2.4:1 mask exists in the camera. There is no horizontal loss only slight vertical as per the UltraPan8 viewfinder, i.e. 2.8:1 -> 2.4:1. There are 2000 16mm wide 8mm high frames in a standard 25 ft R8 roll which equates to roughly 1m 23s of glorious UltraPan8 footage. I appreciate your enthusiasm.
  2. Will, A local film cooperative has made first contact and they have previously purchased 6000 ft of 2 perf R8 E100D. They spool this down into 100 + 25 ft lengths for their members. I will update accordingly if this ends up generating a discussion on the possibility of a bulk negative R8 purchase.
  3. Hi Martin. It's great to see your post as I have been a great admirer of your anamorphic explorations for some time. And your a consummate historian as well. I am in direct contact with Tony Shapps of the Widescreen Association fame who like yourself has preference for the external anamorphic lens method. He also has in his possession one of Stuart Warriner's custom Bolex Pan-16 cameras. Very difficult engineering as I have explained in a posting in the UK section of the 8mm forum, i.e. http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006398 "What Stuart Warner accomplished with Pan 16 was very difficult from an camera engineering perspective and is not cheaply reproducible for the masses. He choose the more arduous path of modifying the 16mm gate to replicate the 1/2 pulldown cycle of 8mm. But its even more complicated than that as there is only a single standard 16mm perf per 16mm frame height. How in gods creation did he manage TWO half-pulldown 8mm gate cycles with only ONE perf! Think about it. Film transport is a modern and proven engineering wonder. Continuous movement to intermittent to full braking to expose the frame in the gate then immediately switch to ramp up to intermittent back to continuous. All in 10ths or 100thss of a second. And he achieved two PAN16 frames per standard 16mm height with ..I repeat...one single perf. The head hurts. I suspect Stuarts' invention of the mythical VPC (Variable Pitch Control) for PAN16 projectors was an attempt to control the variability of his PAN16 camera gate pulldown and PAN16 projector gates. One has to respect his pioneering efforts, indeed. "
  4. David, Predominately reversal stocks, i.e. 1. Ektachrome 100D - color 2. Plus-X - b/w 3. Tri-X - b/w 4. Wittner: CHROME DOUBLE V50D-8 based on based on Fujichrome Velvia 50 5. ORWO UN 54 - b/w 6. FOMA Fomapan R100 - b/w 7. Cine Chrome 50D - color Some suppliers,i.e. 1. Toronto -> http://lift.ca/equipment/store 2. Germany -> http://www.wittner-cinetec.com/katalog/04_filmm/d8_filmm.php 3. US -> http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html Edward Nowill in the UK will reperf any 2R 16mm negative stock into standard double perf regular 8mm. Turn around is approximately 8 weeks. Would you be interested in testing an UltraPan8 camera, David?
  5. David, My rudimentary mathematical calculation has been outed. I humbly accept your correction. Aside from the math what are your thoughts?
  6. Hi Dom. There are in fact several suppliers of reversal 2 perf R8 including a 10 ASA stock. I have been in contact with Ed Newill in the UK and we have discussed reperfing 2R 16mm Kodak or Fuji negative film stock, e.g. V3 50D, 200T, etc.
  7. Thanks, Toby. I will be posting additional footage in the near future and another individual based in the US has ordered the 2nd official UltraPan8 conversion.
  8. Chris, The design intent is ease of use with off the shelf components. No flipping or masks. Native spherical optically centered ultrawide film-making. I supplied my H16 for the optics needed for the UltraPan8 conversion of a standard H8 body which was supplied by Jean-Louis. Total cost was approximately $460 CAN and is quite modest relative to a standard 1.77 AR Super 16 conversion. The 2.8:1 Ultrawide viewfinder also has a native 2.4:1 Cinemascope frame-line for composition or extraction purposes.
  9. The forum mulched one of the links. Here is the correct one, i.e. "1. My original design for a potential adapter setup which was never implemented, i.e "
  10. *I apologize for the cross-posting with the Super 8 forum but as this is a hybrid Bolex 8mm/16mm technology I felt it was appropriate for 16mm filmmakers. Thanks for reading! -------- The emerging popularity of 1.33:1 televison in the late 1940s and early 1950s spurred tremendous development in ultrawide motion picture technology. Its zenith best represented by the stupendous Cinerama and Cinemascope film based formats. I would like to expand upon these spectacular ultrawide antecedents with the ntroduction of UltraPan8. It is a new ultrawide native spherical film format utlizing modified 8/16mm cameras and the entire 16mm width of 2 perf regular 8mm motion picture film. It's native gate dimensions are 10.52mm x 3.75mm with an aspect ratio of 2.8:1. This is wider than Cinemascope at 2.39:1 and a bit smaller than Cinerama's 2.87:1 aspect ratio. UltraPan8 represents a 41% increase in imaging area over Super 8 film and a respective 62% increase over regular 8mm film. Standard 16mm optics provide optically centered full frame coverage. Key design principals were the interchangable film transports of the Bolex H8/H16 ameras and the historical engineering of both 8mm and 16mm film formats sharing identical perforation dimensions. One of the design intents was freedom from bulky 16mm Cinemascope anamorphic projector lens setups. Here are some examples of previous ideas and testing for comparison purposes, i.e. 1. My original design for a potential adapter setup which was never implemented, i.e http://www.flickr.com/photos/90929958@N ... otostream/ 2. Anamorphic test shot utilizing 16mm anamorphic projector lens + stepdown ring + Beaulieu 4008. Cinematography by Justin Lovell,i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrvQCV2kfn4 The camera was modified by Jean-Louis Seguin and includes a native 2.8:1 UltraPan8 viewfinder with a Cinemascope 2.4:1 mask. We are also working towards modification of a 1936 8/16mm multiformat worm gear Bolex projector for film based projections. The 8 bit digital overscanned files of the inaugral test roll were provided by John Gledhill of bitworks.org utilizing his sprocketless 16mm transfer bay in conjunction with a linear 12 bit imaging camera w/ 14 bit mask. The digital deliverables included 1. Sequential 8 bit JPEGS. Full and half resolution. No color correction applied albeit some gamma. 2. 1700x600 DIVX file. 3. 700x250 DVCPRO file. Here are some sample frameshotsof the overscanned final output 8 bit JPEGS, i.e. 1. http://db.tt/mOoaVKp 2. http://db.tt/yQvrul9 3. http://db.tt/JSbM3IC 4. http://db.tt/qXFY2mJ 5. http://db.tt/kAhNgUU Here are MPEG4 links to the 1700x600 DIVX file. I have added music/credits to the unedited raw footage but I have decided to display the test roll in its entirety, blemishes and all, i.e. YouTube = Vimeo = Here is the orginal 1700x600 DIVX file available for download and for your examination. Keep in mind this is not the full resolution sequential JPEGS, i.e. DropBox = http://db.tt/rnEYkBs There are visible issues in the footage and they are being addressed. Although this was my first time filming with a Bolex I could not wipe the perpetual grin of my face as I shot this test roll, that being the fact of native UltraPan8 in the palm of my hand...a tad lighter than Kubrick's handheld 25 pound 65mm camera shots in 2001! In fact 2001 is THE original inspiration with its gorgeous 65mm Cinemascope cinematography. And why not re-introduce film based spectacle in these times of the digital imaging onslaught? There will be forthcoming updates regarding additional footage and an inspiring academic paper detailing the important historical engineering modifications of the UK based WideScreen Association. "From the heavens sprung such images."
  11. The forum mulched one of the links. Here is the correct one, i.e. "1. My original design for a potential adapter setup which was never implemented, i.e "
  12. The emerging popularity of 1.33:1 televison in the late 1940s and early 1950s spurred tremendous development in ultrawide motion picture technology. Its zenith best represented by the stupendous Cinerama and Cinemascope film based formats. I would like to expand upon these spectacular ultrawide antecedents with the introduction of UltraPan8. It is a new ultrawide native spherical film format utlizing modified 8/16mm cameras and the entire 16mm width of 2 perf regular 8mm motion picture film. It's native gate dimensions are 10.52mm x 3.75mm with an aspect ratio of 2.8:1. This is wider than Cinemascope at 2.39:1 and a bit smaller than Cinerama's 2.87:1 aspect ratio. UltraPan8 represents a 41% increase in imaging area over Super 8 film and a respective 62% increase over regular 8mm film. Standard 16mm optics provide optically centered full frame coverage. Key design principals were the interchangable film transports of the Bolex H8/H16 cameras and the historical engineering of both 8mm and 16mm film formats sharing identical perforation dimensions. One of the design intents was freedom from bulky 16mm Cinemascope anamorphic projector lens setups. Here are some examples of previous ideas and testing for comparison purposes, i.e. 1. My original design for a potential adapter setup which was never implemented, i.e http://www.flickr.com/photos/90929958@N ... otostream/ 2. Anamorphic test shot utilizing 16mm anamorphic projector lens + stepdown ring + Beaulieu 4008. Cinematography by Justin Lovell,i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrvQCV2kfn4 The camera was modified by Jean-Louis Seguin and includes a native 2.8:1 UltraPan8 viewfinder with a Cinemascope 2.4:1 mask. We are also working towards modification of a 1936 8/16mm multiformat worm gear Bolex projector for film based projections. The 8 bit digital overscanned files of the inaugral test roll were provided by John Gledhill of bitworks.org utilizing his sprocketless 16mm transfer bay in conjunction with a linear 12 bit imaging camera w/ 14 bit mask. The digital deliverables included 1. Sequential 8 bit JPEGS. Full and half resolution. No color correction applied albeit some gamma. 2. 1700x600 DIVX file. 3. 700x250 DVCPRO file. Here are some sample frameshotsof the overscanned final output 8 bit JPEGS, i.e. 1. http://db.tt/mOoaVKp 2. http://db.tt/yQvrul9 3. http://db.tt/JSbM3IC 4. http://db.tt/qXFY2mJ 5. http://db.tt/kAhNgUU Here are MPEG4 links to the 1700x600 DIVX file. I have added music/credits to the unedited raw footage but I have decided to display the test roll in its entirety, blemishes and all, i.e. YouTube = Vimeo = Here is the above 1700x600 DIVX file available for download and for your examination. Keep in mind this is not the full resolution sequential JPEGS, i.e. DropBox = http://db.tt/rnEYkBs There are visible issues in the footage and they are being addressed. Although this was my first time filming with a Bolex I could not wipe the perpetual grin of my face as I shot this test roll, that being the fact of native UltraPan8 in the palm of my hand...a tad lighter than Kubrick's handheld 25 pound 65mm camera shots in 2001! In fact 2001 is THE original inspiration with its gorgeous 65mm Cinemascope cinematography. And why not re-introduce film based spectacle in these times of the digital imaging onslaught? There will be forthcoming updates regarding additional footage and an inspiring academic paper detailing the important historical engineering modifications of the UK based WideScreen Association. "From the heavens sprung such images."
  13. Might I suggest shooting with a new film format called UltraPan8? Details forthcoming. :)
  14. Another suggestion might be to mount the proposed slits externally. Having the slit sitting at the frame might produce soft edges slit side dependent on your far end plane of focus. Trumball had the slit resting in the same focal plane as the artwork. A suggestion might be to mount a slit in a threaded C-Mount holder, i.e. http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productid=1619 And I believe these precision pinhole/slits will fit the above holder, i.e. http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productid=1619 But then again image sharpness is probably not your end criteria as it was in 2001. :)
  15. Matthias, Motion picture slitscans are a fascinating topic. The penultimate example is Douglas Trumbull's work in 2001. I found this elemental explanation on how the effect was achieved, i.e. http://www.underview.com/howscan.html. What I suspect you are attempting is a variation in solidity with moving objects. Check out the live band sequences in my film "Silly Billy" whereby each frame was held open for approximately 3 seconds. The variable movement of the subjects produced an interesting Francis Bacon screaming pope effect whereas 1. if the subject stood still they were recorded "solid", 2. if the subject moved they were recorded as a "wispy trail" but connected to the solid bits. On average there were 3x solid moments interconnected by wispy trails in one single manual 3 second exposure. Now my "slitscan" was the standard Super 8 squarish frame (1:1:33) open for 3 seconds. I suspect if you were to mask the the standard Super 8 frame with a slit you will need to increase your exposure time per slit/frame. Now will the light spill or bleed over the edges of the slit as the exposure time varies? What if the slit was moved during filming? Do different slit shapes produce different effects? Can you achieve a smooth effect when locking off the camera on a tripod? What happens when you handhold the camera while circling your subjects 360 degrees? Good luck with your experiments!
  16. That was one goofy goat liberation film! Did you color grade the K40 footage in any way?
  17. Great 1:2.4 test footage! You have lots of patience for this shooting method.
  18. Matt. You guys achieved a good density with 500T that I have still not been able to achieve, i.e. http://vimeo.com/4991727. The transfer was a "one-color average light" pass and I suspect my regular transfer facility could potentially "tweak" it a bit more. But it is still definitely grainier than 200T....which is an amazing beautiful stock. I have even had 200T wide open shots (f1.8/2.0) push processed to 400ASA and the color fidelity was still good. I am very curious about 50D and may have some double perf 16mm stock re-perforated for my new R8mm film format. Good luck with your presentation.
  19. Considering in general the minimal latitude of reversal film...your E100D looks great! Good focus and exposures. Did you color correct during transfer or afterwards? And if so by what method? Good stuff.
  20. I have now uploaded my experimental 1995 film "Silly Billy" starring my infant son, fireworks and various bands such as Shadowy Man From A Shadowy Planet. I have retained the original 1995 edit reflecting my then obsessions with film grain, macro body parts, explosive color and time exposure. My 2010 edit involved a switch of two musical pieces. or Technical: I utilized the German Leicina (Leica) Special Super 8 camera with the superb optics of the Schnieder 10mm Cinegon Macro. The combination of manual time exposure ( 3 seconds per frame) in conjunction with interval of 0.5 seconds between frames produced what I called the Francis Bacon Screaming Pope effect. I shot close to 300-500 frames that evening of various musicians at Sneaky Dee's long ago. The organic "fluid-ness" was produced by the long exposures which froze people in approximately three positions interconnected my "streaks" in each frame. The same technique was utilized regarding the fireworks but in glorious Kodachrome. My infant son was a labour of love captured by handheld macro shots. The slow motion effect was achieved by setting the transfer playback at approximately 5 frames per second in the film/digital transfer bay. ENCODING: Codec = MainConcept AVC ACC MPEG4 VBR = 20Mbps PIXEL = 1.00000 (square) Cheers! Nicholas Kovats Toronto, Canada
  21. My 2009 b/w super 8 motion picture film "Fixiology" is based on footage shot at the 2008 Cycle Messenger World Championship held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This was my initial attempt to mythologize my former profession and hardworking former colleagues partaking in international competition. Event details are still available here, i.e. http://cmwc2008.com/. My original intent was to focus on bicycles and the races specifically, i.e. men and women, muscles and speed. But the magnificent setting dominated by the majestic trees of Ward Island and the nostalgia triggered by so many familiar faces dictated the final edit. Technical: -> running time = 5m 52s -> camera = Nizo 156 Xl Macro w/ Schneider zoom -> meter = sekonic 1 degree spot meter -> crane = monopod -> fps = 24 -> transfer = framediscreet.com + photoplays.ca/ (deliverable = 29.97 fps avi w/ inserted pulldown) -> editor = Sony Vegas -> trancode = MainConcept AVC MPEG4 29.97fps VBR 20Mbps PIXEL 1.00000.mp4 Festivals: 2009 Filmfestival Weiterstadt - Germany 2009 Parkdale Showcase - Canada 2010 University of Toronto Film Festival - Canada Cheers!
  22. That is simply an awesome aspect ratio, Ryan! Call it Super Cinemascope. Are you local to Toronto? You apparently utilized Justin's transfer system (Discrete Frames) here in TO.
  23. Great test footage, Ryan! What is the final calculated aspect ratio, i.e. 16x9 + 2x compression? It is definitely wider than 1:2.4 a la cinemascope.
  24. Wow. The subtle and varying shades of black on the dress are most impressive! And how the shadow has sharpened. Those are classic Kodachrome skin tones. Would you agree that film transport (velocity) is another factor in the overall film resolution? My girlfriend reaction was interesting. She was not so impressed as I was. I suspect motion picture still frames do not meet most people's expectations of a "high quality" still photo. But I am beginning to understand the "uniqueness" of both mediums. Excellent work!
×
×
  • Create New...