Paul Bruening

Sadly, that's what killed the whole 14n and DCS line-up. I'm crossing my fingers that no OLPF may turn-out to be a strength in this application.

I've been studying The Complete Dossier. I'm thinking, like David, it's likely that shot he suggests. Brother, the production value of that whole movie and, especially, that combat scene. WOW! Francis talks in the commentary about how much footage they shot for that scene. Who knows how many amazing shots never even made it into any version of the movie. I guess that's a secret that Walter Murch and a few others will ever know. Maybe, if we're lucky, Francis will come out with a 4 hour long version of Apocalypse Now that has every scene they shot with all the delicious footage they can jamb into it. Shame they can't go back in time and explore all the ideas Francis had for this movie.

People are people. Ideas lead down various paths. If the technical content of a thread is strong it won't divert even with the various emotional states of its contributors. I don't think Freya's efforts to provide some perspective hurt that thread any. Nor, do I think that the level of emotional involvement was too great. Not all people have a dry, technical relationship to their craft. I'm sorry about D.R.'s time-out. But, it won't kill him. Time heals wounds. I look forward to his return. Our moderators seem to have a good sense of when things are heading into flame-oblivion. Worthy of note is that they can allow a discussion of their jobs, here, as is occurring, as moderators and not beef on that. Also, worthy of note is that this forum, generally, tries to iron out its differences socially instead of knee-jerk banning such as what occurs over at the other, oh-so paranoid site. I can't help but to feel enormous respect for all my fellow posters on that point. ...whatever all that's worth.

I've been surfing the still photo forums searching for more information on the DCS and OLPF. There doesn't seem to be much agreement on the subject. I do find a couple of mentions that RAW data can be better software manipulated for aliasing than JPEG. There are statements that bracketing eliminates aliasing. There are also mentions that down-sampling can reduce or eliminate aliasing. Since my 4.5K scans have to be down-sampled by high-base number, fractional rates (like 4,500 to 3,840 HR), it may be a self-solving problem. The most common complaint seems to come from wedding photographers shooting wedding veils. Maybe, I could only write stories of people getting divorced. I'm not happy with the softening that OLPFs do given the amount of enlargement my images will have to sustain in big screen presentations. As well, I'm wondering if the inherent irregularities of film grain will temporally break up aliasing. Maybe the human eye won't catch one "jaggie" frame at 24 FPS.

EDIT: CTB, actually. I have room to spare on the light so I'll keep adding CTB and some green until I get as close to white base as possible, as you fine fellows have recommended. I really do appreciate all the supportive words. It does mean a lot to me. Thanks for all the help.

Hello Michael, Thank you for your supportive words. I am using full CTO on the light. I'll try a little green per your recommendation. I did my first tests (so long ago) with unaltered halogen. The amount that I had to push the color correction was junking up the data, no doubt. The light is bounced into the head through mirrors. Heat's no big problem. The long light path and mirror angles solved my uneven light distribution on the back board. I covered the back board with a rectangle of bright white paper topped by a rectangle of full frost plastic. That eliminated the bits of backboard that were coming through the film and appearing as little, faint blotches in my images. Low f-stops didn't knock those out of focus enough on its own. Even with all this light travel, diffusion and gelling there's light to spare for F5.6 at 1/30th. Your offer of constructing a counter is kind. Bruce's (Paul Moorecroft's) software manages all that for me, already. Phil's answer was his usual, generous helpfulness. I'd expressed concern to him in a PM about the validity of my rig. I'd begun to question it after XiaoSu's recommendation to get a RED, apparently, as an alternative to my heavy commitment to Techniscope and my telecine/scan system. Given that my sensing technology is in the same ballpark as a RED his comment caused me to reassess. I think that the low or no compression rate of my RAW data stacks up quite well against RED's 9:1 and 12:1 compression. I can't account for if the no OLPF factor on the Kodak is significant to my final output. Adobe crunches OLPF in software. So, I feel okay about that. Tests will reveal if it's a usable approach. Being able to multi-scan HDRI means that I can pull all of the latitude from the negative. Photoshop CS2 and better has a well respected HDRI thingie already in its software. I also get all that color and contrast enhancement that comes with HDRI. So, I feel that I can knock the socks off of RED in those departments. From the tests I have already scanned it is apparent that I can save a thin negative (knowing there are, inherently, some losses to image quality) with better results than an equivalently underexposed RED image. I assume I will get roughly the same compensation on overly thick negatives. All-in-all, I still think I have a viable system. As well, as DSLR technology gets better and cheaper, my system can grow with the times. My current calculations put my overhead down to $0.000491 per scan. That's about $85.00 to single pass scan a 120 minute feature in 4K Bayer. $170.00 for an HDRI version. I have no reservations about that.

I'm putting an air scrubber in the film path. It's an old trick from the optical days of printing. It should cut way down on the digital dust busting. The Kodak doesn't have any dust cleaning mechanism in it. I'll just have to knock dust off it with air. I don't have to change lenses on it so the chances of gathering dust are low. If I can go with something like a Canon T2i, it has its own methods of cleaning its sensor as well as putting me up to 5K Bayer. But, that's all part of my very uncertain future. The Kodak is notoriously slow to save its maximum image and file size. It will cycle something just below 8 seconds per frame. The new Canons are WAY faster. I'm fine with the results I'm getting with gelled halogens. I still prefer the broad spectrum light they deliver as opposed to the spiked light of LEDs. It's still the best results for cheap that I can easily arrive at in my sticks and string level of engineering. I'll do a pic of it when it's finally running dependably and no longer an ongoing experiment. I would like to take this opportunity to once again praise Bruce McNaughton for all his genius in this project.

No, thank you.

.

Thank you for your post, Ben. Your idea is interesting to me. I have looked at some iPhones on Ebay for lowest prices. I am thinking of how I could put that big screen behind my pressure plate. I can break the unit up to reduce mass. I'm not sure how it can sit behind my film area and still be accessible for controlling. I'll give it some more thought. Meanwhile, what kind of light does an iPhone screen produce. I am interested in CRI and spectrums. In answer to one of your questions I use gelled, halogen light to manage color.

Please, help me clear-up my ignorance, Mr. Jannard. How is the image of a 4K Bayer sensor better than an Arri 6K scan?

That monster is what I have. As far as I can tell, it could pan and tilt a Buick. It had to handle Mitchells along with their ginormous metal blimps, car battery heavy motors, obies and other metal accessories that, collectively, really add up (as shown in the picture). My Worral is an old Panavision unit that has loop rings affixed to it at each corner so technicians can put poles through it and lift it Raiders of the Lost Ark fashion. It takes almost every thing I've got to heave it up onto a standard tripod.

I may the last person on the cinema planet who has anything nice to say about Nikons for cine use. I guess I'll end up eating my prior defense of them.

This is where my ignorance of high-end scanning equipment really shows through. Do any of these scanners have air scrubbers? I'm putting an air scrubber on my scan rig with the notion that if the dust isn't there at scan, there's much less you need to bust digitally.

Where do I find that button on my Mitchell?

Funny thing is, I still like Phil and I don't like you. Phil has helped a great many folks with information, here. He's a valued contributor. What are you? You're a crossover from a forum where you may well be liked and respected. Yet, I don't feel comfortable with you hopping over and talking down to fellow members. Your adoration of Mr. Jannard as though he is a religious, cult leader is the creepiest part of you and the RED fanboys. Otherwise, his cameras seem to be finding appropriate use throughout the industry.

.

OMG, Alex. When I was a kid all the neighborhood boys had seen the movies that you posted on that link as many times as network TV played them. We could even make all those engine sounds with our voices, sinuses, shaped mouths and uvulas. You didn't want to be in the house when all the guys were gathered in front of the TV on The Seven Ups night.

.

...a phallusious argument.

Wow. I've become one of Cesar's missions in life: "Destroy the evil, photoshopping, 3D-joking guy." You know, Cesar. All my jabs at Jim Jannard haven't hurt his business one iota. If your technology is any good and needed by the market, you'll make money. If it doesn't, it won't be because of me.

Okay, Thomas. Help me out here. Don't A-bombs blow stuff up? Don't they irradiate and kill living stuff? Can you blow up matter slow enough to push matter without damaging the matter you're trying to push? I'm not being sarcastic. I really don't know how these things are supposed to work. A link to the doc would be nice.

Holy smokes, Phil. Thanks for all that.

LOL