Patrick Cooper

Unfortunately, slating at the end of a shot will not be practical either much of the time with wildlife. As a shot ends, I will be immediately setting up and readying for the next action by the animal/s. Could edge numbers be used effectively for identifying certain shots?

"If you're trying to save money, do you really need both workprint and telecine transfers?" I won't be using workprints in the traditional sense. The purpose of the workprints is just so that I can see the results of my footage shortly after the shoot. This is a project that is likely going to take a very long time to complete - probably well over two years. So the final transfer will be a long way away. And I figured that workprints would be a way that I could view and assess my exposed footage in the meantime. Of course another option would be to view my rushes with a one light telecine but I get the impression that it's quite expensive to transfer only a small amount of film at a time. Although a workprint is not exactly cheap, I guess the 50 or 60 bucks that I would need to pay in Australian dollars per 100 feet is not too bad - though it still is a lot. Though regardless if I choose workprint or telecine, I can't really see any cost-saving way of viewing rushes from 16mm negative - both options cost money. Though if there is an inexpensive way that I can view my rushes with reasonable quality, then I'm open to suggestions! "...as Mike said, just slate your shots, fill out camera reports, and tell them which takes to transfer." With this film, I'm shooting quite a bit of wildlife so unfortunately, there will be numerous times where slates will be out of the question. When the action is happening thick and fast, for example when a school of dolphins is frolicking in the water and leaping for joy, I will be too preoccupied with trying to find focus on my subjects and anticipating their moves. By the way, what sort of information is filled out in a camera report that could be useful in my situation? With using key numbers as a source of reference, I am assuming that these are the same as edge numbers? This will also show my lack of knowledge of workprints but when a workprint is made, will it bear identical key numbers to the negative it was printed from for the representative frames? I'm guessing that key numbers would be less convenient than slated shots to a telecine operator who is trying to locate selected shots...unless there's some modern high tech way that edge numbers could be quickly detected during a telecine session.

I have a 1960s edition of the AC manual and it is extremely comprehensive. Just about everything you are looking for in regards to cinematography will be in there - dof tables for different lenses, exposure compensation for high speed photography etc. And since most of the cameras that I use and plan to use in the future were made during the 60s and 70s, this particular edition is very handy in covering details about such equipment! However, there is nothing about telecine in this edition though I assume that later editions would cover that topic.

I?m shooting an ongoing project on 16mm colour negative on an extremely low budget and I am considering getting work prints made by a lab as a means of viewing my rushes after each shoot. I will likely be exposing 100 feet or a couple of hundred feet at a time every few months and the aim is to eventually telecine all the accumulated footage with a Rank or Spirit and do a ?best light? transfer with (hopefully) minimal colour grading. I know that this is going to be cost a lot! I am totally new to the world of professional telecine and work prints but I was wondering if there was a way that I could reduce the cost of the telecine with the work prints. As in any production, obviously there are going to be some shots that I don?t want adjusted or corrected in any way, and preferably not transferred. Unfortunately, it is not likely that I will be attending the session because the transfer house will be in another state so I can?t convey my instructions to the operator in person. I suppose that drawing up a shot list of which shots to be included and which ones to exclude would not be very reliable as a means of communication. So I was wondering if there was some system where the work prints could be utilized to indicate accurately which shots I want transferred? I know this sounds a bit vague but is there such a system that is similar to an Edit Decision List in principle that involves using work prints as a point of reference for transferring certain shots in telecine? By the way, different companies will be doing the work prints and telecine so I hope that there is some common system in place that is understood and used by different parties. If there is such a system, I hope it can significantly reduce the cost of a telecine session.

I saw a print of '2001' not too long ago at a local cinema and the colour was beautiful. What I found particularly effective watching this film on the big screen was the part where the lone surviving astronaut makes his visual journey through all those dazzling colours near the end. Very hypnotic. I also saw 'Baraka' projected outdoors in the evening during sort of a film festival held at our local botanic gardens. When I saw 'Microcosmos' at the cinema, I was really blown away by the sharpness, clarity and colour of the on screen images. I assumed this was a 70mm film. I was really surprised when I found out on this forum that it was shot on 35mm. Probably some of the best looking 35mm Ive ever seen.

And don't forget 'Punky Brewster'!

When I first read this topic title, I thought it read: "Making an actress pregnant"....it is 11.42 over here and I am tired.

'The Battle of Algiers' was certainly a very 'different' kind of film. Prior to my viewing of this film, I assumed that all feature films were made to entertain people. This film was clearly not 'entertainment.' Some films are designed to deliver a certain message to the audience while being entertaining at the same time. Not this film. It's sole purpose was to highlight the struggle of this group of people resisting against an oppressive force - and it did so in a very stark, grim way.

As many of you know, one clever way to acheive reflex viewing with a non reflex camera is with a lens fitted with a dog-leg viewfinder, such as those bearing the name Pan Cinor. I thought I recall reading that some people thought that the optical quality of these lenses was quite average. I was wondering if anyone else had any different opinions on the image quality of Pan Cinor reflex zooms - ie bad, okay, good, excellent etc?

"what are some other good 60 + 70's movies" Klute - a 70s film with a 'dark' atmospheric look.

From scanning information which is widely available, I know that the shutter speed of a Bolex H16 Reflex is approximately 66th sec when running at 24fps. However, information regarding shutter angles and speeds of non reflex Bolex H16 cameras are harder to track down. Would the shutter speed of a Bolex non reflex be 48th sec like the majority of 16mm cameras? Additionally, what would be the shutter speed of a Bolex non reflex be when used in single frame mode?

"And those would be? (Make/Model)" This is not a definitive list but here are some super 8 camera models that can accept 200ft cartridges. Chinon Pacific 200/8XL Chinon Pacific 200/12XL Elmo 230 S-XL Elmo 240 S-XL Nizo 6080 Remember that not many cameras were made to take 200 feet of film so your choice is a bit limited here. There was a review of the Supermag 400 in an issue of 'Super 8 Today' some time ago.

"OK. More info on that, please. What camera models might use such a mag? Has anyone here ever used one?" I believe that any super 8 camera that was designed to use the discontinued 200ft cartridges can accept the Supermag 400.

Last night, I watched the DVD of John Carpenter's 'Christine' on my PC. I haven't seen this film for ages and it was great seeing it again. The whole concept of a possessed car is really interesting - thanks to Steven King's original story. With regards to cinematography, I really liked the wide blue flares that emanated from the car's headlights at night. These flares would stretch the whole width of the screen. They were quite visually striking. Out of curiosity, are these the telltale flares that are produced by an anamorphic lens? I also watched the special features and it was noted that the dop had the idea to use Fuji film stock in the first scene with the automobile factory and Kodak stock for the rest of the movie. The reasoning behind this was that Fuji film produced a softer, browner image which gave the first scene more of a nostalgic look as it was set in the 1950s. In contrast, Kodak Eastman has more of a contemporary look so this was suitable for the majority of the movie.

Well done! Did you get the bayonet mount version or the m42 screw mount version? I recently exposed some colour negative film for the first time with my K3 and I'm waiting to see the results.

I wind, then shoot, then wind, then shoot. Luke, what actually is involved when removing the original wind key from the camera?

Regarding telecine sessions, I read that a lot of camera operators / dops work closely with the colourist to achieve the 'look' they are going for in terms of colour, contrast etc. For someone who is totally new to this, or in the case of an unsupervised transfer, it must be difficult to communicate effectively with the colourist in getting the 'look' you want. I, myself, would not want anything too flashy or elaborate in terms of a look - I would prefer a natural look with nice saturated colours but not oversaturated (still realistic looking overall.) I realise that such a statement would probably be too vague as a set of instructions to follow and many colourists would likely interpret this in many different ways. I assume that if I said that same thing to ten different colourists, I would probably get ten different 'looks' and some of these 'looks' may not be agreeable to my tastes. However, I'm not really fussy about getting a very exact or specific 'look'. Is it right to say that certain negative stocks have a 'default' look - for example Fuji 250D or Kodak Vision 2 100T (regardless of colour enhancement in post?) Though I'm guessing that it would not be sufficent to ask a colourist that I want the 'default look' of Kodak Vision 200T when he/she is colour correcting Vision 2 200T film stock for example. Would a better idea be to supply a Kodak or Fuji demo dvd containing a sample of the film stock that I like the look of so that they can replicate it? Though I'm hoping that I won't be charged for the time it takes for them to play the DVD and analyse it.....

I was shooting negative film for the first time recently with 16mm and I shot a grey card, grey scale and a colour chart on the head of the roll. I filmed the grey card and associated paraphernalia in neutral overcast / open shade conditions and several days later on the same roll, I was filming in the warm glow of late afternoon light. So with my future unsupervised transfer, I hope the colourist gets the hint to leave the 'warm' look in.

"Yep, but the DV I use only to be able to work on a slow PC, it's only a work copy. When I'm done with my editing I simply put the DVfiles in another folder, FCP reports media off-line, I connect with the uncompressed footage, change the sequence stettings to my uncompressed codec, and everything is genuin 10bit 4:2:2" Okay, I'm trying to get my head around all this advanced terminology but are you saying that once the high res uncompressed footage is converted to DV and edited, it is then converted back to uncompressed with no quality loss? Or do you mean a DV copy is made of the uncompressed footage (seperate file) which is edited, then FCP takes note of the cuts in the DV footage using the timecode or whatever and applies these same cuts (edits) to the uncompressed footage - sort of like working with an EDL? As you can see, my knowledge of NLE editing is almost non existant...!

"I'm pretty sure it's a bad idea to shoot wildlife with a camera that sounds like a vehicle." I must admit, I got some very strange looks from two kangaroos that I was filming with the K3....

"...for editing on a slow pc you can convert the footage to DV or even lighter codec and reconnect when everything is done with the source-media..." Forgive me for my lack of knowledge of video editing and all the terminology that goes with it but what exactly do you mean by 'reconnect'? Additionally, wouldn't converting the footage to DV give the same resulting quality as if you had telecined the footage to MiniDv / DVCam in the first place?

Ive never had a professional telecine done but I plan to sometime in the future. The transfer to hard drive seems like an attractive option (similar quality to DigiBeta without the need for renting a deck) but the only concern I have is whether my pc could handle the massive file size when editing.

I, like many K3 owners, grow a little tired of winding the handle of the spring motor on the infamous russian camera. It can certainly be a pain when filming subject matter like wildlife where you have to quickly wind on after a shot to catch the animal's next move. I have read some posts on a few online forums about an accessory that can be fitted to the K3's handle to make winding easier. Descriptions of this item are usually very brief with regards to details. Is anyone here familiar with this device and is there a proper name for it?

Good luck finding a 16mm camera that can run at 18fps. Most 16mm cameras that I have played around with have an option for 16fps, but not 18fps. I would recommend shooting at 24fps for nice looking smooth motion. Plus it's even more critical if you are planning to shoot synch sound for this feature film of yours.

Thanks for posting those stills - beautiful colours!