Patrick Cooper

I found this Youtube video of a parrot who has quite an amusing vocabulary. Some of the language is quite strong so be warned! The title of the video is called 'X Rated Parrot' for good reason. It's part of a continuing saga. There is also 'X Rated Parrot 2', 'X Rated Parrot 3' etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTXQnt0qOv4

"Super 35 will get the same aspect ratio by cropping the top and bottom, taking advantage of less negative area but using spherical (regular) lenses)" I think the name 'Super 35' is misleading. It was because of this name that I used to think that Super 35 relied on a similar principle as used in Super 16 where they widened the gate horizontally to get a 'wide screen' format (now I realise this is not the case and not really practical because of the soundtrack.) And of course the other film format which incorporates 'Super' in the name (Super 8) has a considerably larger frame size than regular 8mm. So Super 35 seems to be the exception to the rule here regarding shooting formats that use the name 'Super' in that you end up with a smaller (narrower) frame size. Out of curiosity, is the height of the 35mm frame used in anamorphic photography close to the height of a 35mm still frame?

I found this rather inspirational film clip brought out by Arriflex, promoting the 16mm format and their cameras.

A few nights ago, I caught an episode of 'Eyes' which Ive never seen or heard of before. It's another one of those law / crime courtroom dramas but done in a fresh new way. I am curious about the shooting format. I am assuming that it's shot on 35mm and yet it looks cleaner than 'Law & Order.' Perhaps it was shot on a slower speed stock than that other law show. I notice some of the new Fuji Eterna emulsions tend to have a very clean look about them.

A camera that Superman would be proud to call his own...

This theory reminds me of some advice that Ive read on this forum. And that advice is if you have a set of lenses for a film project and one of those lenses isn't as good optically as the others in the set, try and use that particular lens for close ups. This is because close ups tend to look sharper than mid shots and long shots. Why that is, I don't know. Could be partly psychological I guess, or the fact that more fine details can be identified in close ups.

As already discussed, one of the main applications of tilt and shift lenses is in photographing architecture. If you ever tilt your head and look up at a building through a photographic lens, you will see a phenomenon known as 'converging verticals' where the lines of the building appear to fall away (ie look narrowest at the top and fan out at the bottom.) A tilt and shift lens allows you to line up the vertical lines of the building at eye level and once this is accomplished, the lens can then be raised relative to the camera body to include the top of the building, while maintaining the appearance of vertical lines. In other words, the lens keeps parallel to the building the whole time so vertical lines remain vertical. The basic principle of these lenses was borrowed from the view camera which is a rather 'ancient' but highly versatile camera design. In movies set in old times, you've no doubt seen a large wooden, old fashioned looking camera with a black bellows between the camera body and lens, and the photographer is hunched over under a black cloth at the back - well, that's a view camera! And view cameras are still made to this very day.

Though depending on the size of the tank, you might have trouble getting enough 'light coverage' on the wall when doing a long shot. Though not such a problem if you were simulating a small window letting in light. Though are you simulating a large window in which the entire wall will have the rippling light effects? I wonder if there's a light source that can project a wide enough beam through the water filled tank...

Yes it was common to pay people to shoot your wedding on 8mm back in the good old days, at least here in Australia. Though I'm not sure how common it was for these people to shoot 16mm....I suppose the wealthier families could afford to have their weddings shot on 16mm. A few years ago when I was out and about shooting super 8 with my Canon 1014 Autozoom Electronic, and old guy came up to me and said that it's good to see that people are still shooting on super 8. He also said that he used the very same camera as mine to film weddings with back in the 70s. My parents' wedding was shot on super 8 in about 1968 or 1969 but at the time, my parents couldn't afford to pay for the film so the film maker kept the reel / s. I know this would be an almost impossible task but I wonder if this footage can be tracked down. Ive no idea what the guy did with the films that couples didn't purchase - whether he stored them or threw them away. The film maker actually lived not far from my parents at the time. Knowing my luck, the film is probably on ebay....

"So in his office, the light that would come in through the office window would be refracted (right word?) through the water thus creating a pattern on the wall / his face." Ah this might make the lighting effect a bit easier to accomplish. You could simply have a transparent tank or aquarium filled with water to the side of your actors and then have a bright light source on the other side of the tank shining through the water. Though even so, I'm still not sure if you would get the desired pool-like light patterns projected on the actor and the wall behind him. I guess this depends if you want those light patterns moving (like in a pool) or static. If you want more movement in the light patterns (to simulate a ripple effect), there could be someone agitating the water or have a fan blowing on the water. Make sure you have thick styrophone under that tank and a very solid support underneath - a cracked and flooding tank is always a possibility!

Perhaps it's not a real person being suspended by the balloons. It could well be a dummy. Afterall, the character isn't moving. All of the shots of the boy hanging by the balloons are filmed in extreme long shot so this would help complete the illusion.

I'm wondering if many forum members have shot footage with the Pathe Webo / Super 16 cameras? If so, what would your opinions be on the image registration, both at 24fps, high running speeds and single frame? I am tossing around the idea of doing time lapse shooting with a Pathe (I don't have one as yet) though one of my main concerns is if there will be any variations in the exposure duration with each individual frame that would cause flickering. Interesting thing about this camera is that they gave it a fancy name (Super 16) despite the fact that it's a regular 16mm camera.

I particularly like the dramatic impact of the bottom photo. I'm often on the lookout for a low viewpoint when I'm using a wide angle lens myself.

A prime lens is indeed a different beast to a zoom. Though I wouldn't say that there is too much difference in image clarity. The photographs that I have exposed with an old Vivitar 75-300mm zoom on my 35mm still cameras have very nice clarity. In fact, when I was projecting a slide that was exposed with that particular lens, one of the audience members remarked how clear the image looked. However, I wouldn't use extension tubes with a zoom lens. If I ever get my hands on a Switar zoom, any compatibility problems should hopefully be detectable in the initial test film.

Also try reading a variety of different books on cinematography to get a broader understanding of the subject. There is likely some old film making books in your local library. Check out photography books too as this will help with the technical aspects of cinematography.

"I thought this discussion was about zooms - I guessing the lens your friend used on his R16 would have Switar AR primes - not zooms ..." If someone has used non-RX Switar primes on their R16 with success, then I assume there wouldn't be any problems using non-RX Switar zoom lenses on an R16 or any other 16mm C mount camera for that matter, unless you can prove me wrong. By the way, what does the 'AR' designation mean in the Switar lenses that you mentioned?

"Sorry, dont quite get your reasoning here" Well as everybody knows, an RX lens can only successfully be used on a Bolex H16 reflex camera. Additionally, I have read of someone using non-RX Switar lenses on his Beaulieu R16. So if that is the case, then any Switar non-RX lens could be used on any 16mm C mount camera theoretically.

Out of curiosity, would anyone know of any inexpensive interval timers that can be inserted into a camera's threaded socket that would normally accept standard mechanical cable releases?

There's a fair chance that such lenses would be mounted on a 16mm C mount camera that is not a Bolex....so they would have to be non-RX! I'm not familiar with the aspheron knob but a preset aperture sounds very handy. There will be many times when I would need to close down the aperture without taking my eye away from the viewfinder so a preset aperture would be ideal.

Good to know that there are at least some Switar zooms in C mount. Out of curiosity, would the 12.5-100mm and 17-85mm lenses be RX or non-RX? And since they are Switar optics, I'm assuming that the sharpness would be pretty good for zoom lenses?

I'm wondering if anyone can provide me with a complete list of all the Switar zoom lenses available in C mount, both RX and non-RX versions? I get the impression that not many Switar zooms were made with C mount.

Although this is unrelated to 16mm gear, a number of times I have seen Canon XL1s on eBay with starting prices of $1 each. Within a few days, the bidding price always escalates into the thousands.

There are many, many different types of bayonet mounts found on cameras, both movie cameras and still cameras. There are adapters available for some mounts which solves at least some of the compatibility problems.

I wouldn't think so, unless some guy was using the metal detector wand like a baseball bat and whacking your film with it. But check with others just to make sure.

"In my opinion, if you truly want to archive it, you'll want to have your film scanned into an image sequence. That way it's independent rather than a particular video format. You can then turn it into any format you want to either now or in the future." That sounds ideal and seems to be the most flexible option. However, what type of storage device would you keep this 'image sequence' on? Of course there's every chance that such a device might oneday fail. Then again, you could always have back ups on additional storage devices.