Jump to content

Troy Warr

Basic Member
  • Posts

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Austin, TX, USA

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. Troy Warr

    Super-8 RED

    There wouldn't be any reason to do that... the amount of detail present in an average Super-8 frame is barely enough to saturate an NTSC/PAL frame. Past that you're not getting anything out of the higher resolution scan. 16mm has more detail, but not a ton - probably OK up to 720p or maybe 1080i/1080p. Keep in mind that even major motion pictures shot in 35mm are often scanned at "only" 2K (just a tad higher resolution than 1080p) for DI or visual effects, and that looks great - generally not too much detail lost, if any.
  2. When I saw the topic I immediately thought "Repo Man" - funny that it's what spurred the thread. That's definitely one of my favorite weird movies. I'm too young to have seen it when it first came out, but I was fortunate enough to see it for the first time on the big screen in college. I bought the special edition DVD (the one that comes in the license plate tin) and watch it at least 2-3 times a year. As for the glowing car, according to the DVD commentary they did only use luminescent paint, no special effects. I'm not sure if I believe that entirely, but that was straight from Alex Cox's mouth. He also talked about how the John Wayne story from Miller was taken nearly word-for-word from a friend of his (Cox), who claims to have actually installed two-way mirrors at his home in Brentwood, and saw him come the door in a dress.
  3. 7.2x actually - still pretty severe unless you're looking for that kind of extreme telephoto.
  4. I couldn't find a website anywhere (almost looks like they don't have one anymore), but it looks like their official name is "Norms Studio Equipment" and their phone number is (818) 766-6676. You might just give them a call and I'm sure they could tell you the website if there still is one - and while you've got them on the phone, you might want to recommend some SEO. ;)
  5. I believe that it was on the blog for the movie Spoon, shot with a prototype Silicon Imaging SI-2K (can't remember the name of the blog) that they put a camera operator on a furniture dolly (the upright kind that looks like a tall letter "L" with large wheels at the bottom back), leaned him back and wheeled him around. It seemed to be a pretty agile setup, but I would think that you'd need someone relatively strong to do the maneuvering, both the keep the operator steady and to prevent accidentally dropping him, which could be painful. Those are usually well under $50 at Home Depot, or you can rent them from U-haul for about $7-8/day.
  6. While that's true to some degree, I'm not sure that it's entirely applicable if you're going to be shooting exclusively B&W. A 3-CCD camcorder will give you considerably more accurate chroma information because each pixel is sampled for red, green, and blue separately, rather than being interpolated using a Bayer pattern, for example. However, in converting to B&W, you're essentially throwing most of that information out. In that sense, a 1-CCD camcorder should record sufficient luminance information for your purposes. I suppose that two largest considerations you should make are: Will you be shooting any color footage ever? If so, a 3-CCD camcorder will give you maximum benefit there. How will you convert to grayscale - through a simple desaturation, or will you be using a channel mixer or equivalent tool to adjust color channels independently during the conversion? If you're planning on shooting B&W only and using a simple desaturation process (i.e. discarding all chroma information), I'd venture to say that a 3-CCD camcorder will give you only marginal additional benefits, all other things being equal (but keep in mind that 3-CCD camcorders often offer additional pro-oriented features that 1-CCD camcorders do not, albeit at a higher price). In other words, a 3-CCD camera will give you a more accurate picture, even after removing all chroma information, because each pixel was more accurately sampled for that chroma and will therefore retain appropriate luminance information after desaturation. But if you're not planning on taking advantage of that extra luminance accuracy, I don't think it's worth the extra money for a 3-CCD camcorder.
  7. 28 Days Later was shot on a Canon XL-1S and printed on 35mm film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/technical Just to clarify, silent and MOS mean the same thing. I'd assume Chuck meant to ask "sound or MOS." In your price range I'd recommend against film, with the exception of Super-8. You might want to look at something like a used Canon GL-1 (similar look to the XL-1S, still a moderately professional feel without the cost and added complexity of the XL-1S). If you do some searching on eBay, Craig's List, etc., you should be able to find someone selling an old GL-1 with extras (wide- and/or tele-conversion lenses, sound equipment, extra batteries, etc.) within your price range. You might try to limit yourself to $1750-2000 for the camera kit so that you'll have a bit of extra money for lighting equipment, tapes, and other expenses. This question comes up very often so you might also search this forum for other threads with a similar budget. Also don't forget that the camera is just a small part of the package; you'll need editing equipment (a PC with editing software in this case), something to record decent sound (the on-camera mic won't cut it in most situations), lights, tripod, filters, cast, crew, food, transportation, etc.
  8. If you're shooting in a studio, you might consider buying/renting a couple of HDV cameras with HDMI-out, and plugging in to a central PC with a pair of Blackmagic Intensity cards. Using the included On-Air software: http://blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/on-air/ you'll be able to bypass the in-camera MPEG-2 compression to record direct-to-disk with the codec of your choice. That would be a nice bump up in quality, very affordable ($500 for the pair of PCI cards), and would also give you some software for live mixing.
  9. Hi Ernie, As you probably know, <$300 won't get you very far toward anything but a Super-8 camera. In the 16mm world, you might try hunting for a deal on a Krasnogorsk K-3 or a non-reflex Bolex. The former is a Russian camera that you can actually find brand new for about that price (at least I did several years ago) - albeit with some inherent problems, even straight from the factory. They tend to scratch film and can have some other mechanical maladies. Several companies and individuals used to (and likely still do) offer overhauls, but after parts & labor, those often come out to more than you paid for the camera. You might either try finding a used overhauled one (or at least a well-maintained, problem-free one from a trusted seller), or, if you're feeling lucky, buy a new one and hope it doesn't scratch your film. I bought a non-reflex Bolex model a while back for around $200, and while it was kludgy to shoot with (parallax error, aging parts, some odd design elements), it did a decent job. If it had broken down at some point, I would have been out of luck, but fortunately those things are built like tanks. I would recommend finding one that comes with a lens(es) so that you don't have to hunt those down separately. As with all used cameras, be sure that the owner has run a roll through it *recently* to confirm that it's working properly. Best of luck!
  10. Hi Robert, The best ways to achieve a shallow DOF look with the equipment that you have are: - Shoot at a wide aperture - f/1.8, f/2.0, etc. - Back up and zoom in on your subject(s). This will reduce the apparent DOF - more about that here. However, as you probably have experienced, that will only get you so far on a small-CCD video camera. When you talk about attaching lenses, I think you're probably referring to DOF adapters. These work by focusing the image of a 35mm SLR lens onto a (usually spinning) ground glass, then filming that image with your video camera. You lose a stop or two of light, but you get the benefits of 35mm depth of field properties. Most of these adapters run at least $700-800, not including SLR lens(es), so a manufactured solution might be a bit out of your price range (although I'm not sure what the Australian dollar conversion rate is); however, numerous DIY solutions exist and are documented online. Do some searching for something like "DIY DOF adapter" or "homemade depth of field adapter" and you should get some results. I've seen some write-ups where people have made them for as little as $50 in parts. As for lenses, you can find a lot of cheap, used, high-quality 35mm SLR lenses from places like KEH.com and eBay.com. Look for Pentax screw-mount (m42) or K-mount, Canon FD, or Nikon AI or AI-S lenses, as these will generally have an aperture ring that will allow you to manually adjust the aperture. Best of luck!
  11. Nizos make good travel cameras because they're robust (most, if not all, have a metal body), and many of them have folding handles that help to keep them very compact. I had a Nizo 116 that I was very happy with, and I didn't hesitate to pack it in a suitcase or travel bag, as it always held up very well. Most have great German-designed glass, and the 116 at least is about as compact as you can make a Super-8 camera with a useful zoom lens.
  12. Robert De Niro and Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter have to be my two favorite examples; Christopher Walken getting choked up in the military hospital when the nurse asks about his parents, and De Niro finally reuniting with Christopher Walken before the final Russian roulette scene - not to mention everyone's performances in the POW scenes. Also, Jim Caviezel in The Thin Red Line - and apparently he wasn't even intended to be a major character in the film, but was edited as such in post.
  13. I agree - that was the only critique that came to my mind. The cinematography is beautiful, the music is interesting and matches perfectly, and the length feels right. I love the "peel-back" to reveal the credits at the end, too. My only suggestion would be make the video larger (maybe 2-4x its current size), possible offering a small and large version for dial-up vs. broadband. Great work!
  14. Troy Warr

    Quiet...

    Jim, not that my opinion should matter all that much to you - I'll probably never be a customer simply due to lack of funds - but I have to agree with David on this one. I think he's summed it up well, as he so often does. I've followed the Red project for months now out of interest in the project and its implications for the motion picture industry. I love the fact that glimpses of the camera's development have been doled out bit by bit, sustaining a high level of interest for quite some time. I think that reservation holders must feel privileged to see their cameras designed and built from scratch in front of their eyes, especially when they offered feedback and suggestions that were actually incorporated. So, maybe I'm missing something, maybe I haven't read all of the right threads, maybe I'm late to the party, or maybe it's just me - but the overwhelming feeling that I get from Red as a company at this point is not that pleasant. It could just be a result of your team vigorously defending your project at every turn due to overwhelming skepticism - that seems to lend itself to a very unapproachable, tense quality surrounding the project, despite the boundaries that you're breaking and the trends that you'll probably set. I can't help but to think it would be so much more effective to bite your tongue and present the "I told you so" in the form of a finished camera that meets or beats everyone's expectations. Threads like this one certainly don't help my impression. I guess I just find it disconcerting that a self-made billionaire feels the need to provoke a conflict like this in an Internet forum. Like David said, most of the "anti-Red" arguments have been petty, and I feel they don't even deserve a response on your part. I find it admirable that you're so open and accessible in your professional pursuits - but conversely, I find it disturbing that you've been so quick to engage your random detractors on a personal, almost childish level.
×
×
  • Create New...