Jump to content

Pavan Deep

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    393
  • 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

31 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
  1. I thought it was a rule for everyone to use their full names on this forum Pav
  2. Off the top of my head Theeb 2014 Suffragette 2015 The Wall 2017 Mother 2018 Pav
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Looks good, what lens are you using? What number is yours? Pav
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. I agree that your format choice really depends on the feel and look you are going for. The Super 8 cameras you mention are excellent, but they are high end pricey cameras. If you're new to Super 8 I suggest getting a mid range Super 8 camera and trying it out. For 16mm you have more choices than the K3 such as the Bolex, Canon Scoopic and the Pathe Webo or any of the amateur cameras like the Revere 101, Bell and Howell 240, or even the 16mm magazine cameras like the Bell and Howell 200. I have used a lot of these basic 16mm cameras with very good results. Pav
  11. Yes I have used both labs for 16mm not Super 8 and they are excellent, I know they do Super 8, their service and scans are excellent. There's another company in London [i think] 'on 8mil' google them they have samples online. Pav
  12. Have you tried Cinelab London in Slough or the Kodak Lab in Pinewood. Pav
  13. Great work. How did you develop it? Did you use a Lomo? Pav
×
×
  • Create New...