Jump to content

Pavan Deep

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Pavan Deep last won the day on November 23 2016

Pavan Deep had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About Pavan Deep

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    UK
  • My Gear
    A-Cam Reflex & Eclair ACL II Super 16
  • Specialties
    lecturing, writing, script editing, cinematography
    http://www.lightbreeze.co.uk

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.analoguefilmacademy.co.uk

Recent Profile Visitors

17022 profile views
  1. In believe Kodak's main business has always been manufacturing film, they made cameras, but other manufacturers made better cameras, most would agree that they made and still make the best film stocks. I don't agree that it would be impossible to make a camera system that used a cartridge like the old 50ft 16mm magazine cameras used. In fact only recently I started using these old cameras and old magazines loaded with modern single perf, there's lots of these cameras about and they are cheap. The results have been excellent and using these camera has been fun. The beauty of these cameras is they are small, ideal for the individual, lone filmmaker, most accept c mount lenses, so we can use those Switars lenses, most also seem to run at a variety of speeds from single frame, 16fps, 24fps, 32fps and even 64fps. The downside is they are old and may not work properly, they are noisy, most if not all are purely mechanical and are spring wound, but these issues can be solved. However they only accept 50ft lengths of 16mm giving about 1 minute at 24fps. Pav
  2. Hi I am looking for an Arri SR1 magazine? I know the SR 2 & 3 cameras can use the same magazines. Are the SR1 magazines different? Pav
  3. Almost all home movies were shot at 16fps, as it was the standard speed in the silent era of the 1920's, when cameras were hand cranked I think two turns indicated 16fps and cameras that had spring motors were set to 16fps. When playing footage that was shot at 16fps on 24fps naturally it will be fast. Virtually all amateur cameras were set to 16fps, but during the 1930's some amateur cameras started to feature 24fps as well as other higher speeds of 32fps, 48fps and 64fps. 18 fps was only introduced with Super 8, it was the slowest speed [so less film was used] that was capable of producing acceptable sound, a lot of Super 8 sound cameras only run at 18fps, in fact as far as I know Kodak never made a Super 8 sound camera that runs at 24fps. Pav
  4. I agree and think cropping is the only thing to do here, I am not sure what software is available to remove that, especially if it's on every frame. As said there's no scratching just a dirty gate, the gate should be cleaned before and after every roll of film, as said it's all about cleanliness. I saw the film 'My week with Marylin' set in the '50's about Marylin Monroe and Lawrence Olivier where they're making the film 'The Prince and the Showgirl', the film crew seem to be c leaning the gate before every take. Pav
  5. I thought it was a rule for everyone to use their full names on this forum Pav
  6. Off the top of my head Theeb 2014 Suffragette 2015 The Wall 2017 Mother 2018 Pav
  7. This is very good, I'm looking forward to the feature. The mood and style reminds me of some unique and lesser known Indian filmmakers like Mani Kaul and Kumar Shahani. Pav
  8. It is very sad news and quite a big blow, but I hope someone will come up with a rescue package for the supply of analogue photographic chemistry.. Pav
  9. Firstly, I must point out that for me the DIY method is not a substitute for professional transfer facilities and their scanning systems. I have created a something that produces great results, it’s easy to use where I can quickly check my films after processing. I totally agree with everything you say. I have scanned thousands of feet of 16mm and Super 8 and have used about three to four cameras over the past five years, this is mainly because each successive camera is better. I think DIY set ups should offer a certain ease and with the right care acceptable quality can be achieved, I have found the quality from consumer digital cameras pretty decent, most importantly they are cheap, quite disposable and quite easy for this work and best of all they allow us to have a standalone system. I have used machine vision cameras in the past, but I couldn’t get quality images with ease. Pav
  10. For me DIY film scanning is about ease, the convenience and getting the most out of the Super 8 or 16mm frame. A while back I decided to scan my Super 8 and 16mm films; at first I did what everyone else seems to do, I adapted a conventional projector, but I quickly realised the limitations of projectors, I realised that the best way to get the most out of new film was to design a new and simple film transport system to advance either Super 8 and 16mm. Mine is a simple standalone machine, I don’t use complex electronics or software, I have used a bright white ‘even’ LED and a normal consumer mirror-less digital camera, which saves each frame as RAW or JPEG, by using a ‘normal’ camera I don’t need to run the computer at the same time. I am in the process of re-working the system to include a filter tray for scanning negative film and am building a new gate and a claw which is kinder to film. It’s a frame by frame system where the claw triggers the camera via a micro-switch and the cameras remote. Currently I am using a Samsung NX Mini, the interesting this is that these little cameras have lens inter-changeability and they have a simple remote which can be easily linked to the micro-switch, I am using a 50mm Schneider enlarger lens. In the next few weeks I shall be scanning some new Kodak 250D which I have used in a Super 16 camera. http://www.lightbreeze.co.uk/Film%20Technology.htm#telecine Pav
  11. Looks good, what lens are you using? What number is yours? Pav
  12. The film vs digital thing debate is perhaps less vocal here, I agree that 16mm has such a distinct look very different to digital. High end digital is excellent and the digital workflow is somewhat easier. I think most have accepted that film is film, its workflow, its look is far more superior and digital is different, as most still spend a lot of time and money for digital to look like film. Interestingly film has not gone away, far from it recently we have seen that some the biggest films being made on film. There has been a move to use larger formats such as 70mm, but 16mm is also being used more and more. Pav
  13. I just like to add that they are called magazines and not cartridges. The 16mm magazine cameras don’t run at 18fps, most have a few running speeds 16, 24, 48 and many also have 64fps too. The Russian camera mentioned, it is a clone of the Bell and Howell, but unlike the Bell and Howell cameras it has an odd lens mount. The popular manufactures of 16mm magazine cameras were Kodak, Bell and Howell, Revere and Keystone, these cameras are small and all of them take c mount lenses and have spring wound motors. As for steadiness I was amazed when I saw some footage shot with a magazine camera. The cores in the magazines are smaller than the normal ones, there are videos Youtube about loading the magazines. Loading them the way they were officially loaded is tricky but there are alternative and easier ways to load single perf film. Pav
×
×
  • Create New...