grant mcphee

I've just had 3 films developed for £30 (including return postage) from Dwaynes in US. Takes a little while to post but is pretty cheap. Was cheaper a few months ago when the Dollar was weaker/Pound stronger. I think this is the cheapest I've found though sendeancameras.com do really good deals - think it was £100 to buy, process and telecine 3 films.

Hello, Has anyone had any problems with squeaky 1000' arricam mags? I'm using fuji stock. One of the stocks is the usual, smooth as glass when you feel it with your fingers but the other is ever so slightly ridged throughout - not major but still slightly ridged. I'm not sure if this is causing the squeaking. There is definitely one mag which we have identified as problematic. I've tried putting a tiny bit of lubrication in the rubber o rings as they looked like they may have been rubbing against the film core. Mainly seems to be a problem on the feed side. I'm not sure if this is the problem or the ridged film. When I say ridged it is barely noticeable but ridged none-the-less. The problem seems to stop after a couple of hundred feet so I'm not sure if it has to do with tension adjustments. It sounds more like chirping birds than film rubbing. Any ideas or anyone had similar problems. I've tried attaching the film to the take up core in different ways which dosn't seem to make any difference - as the manual recommends, the opposite way, folded over etc. we are shooting 3-perf thanks

thanks dominic, It's the pre-reflex model so has a fixed 144 degree shutter. I think you might be right about the loop being too tight. I've loaded this camera about 50 times and not had a problem, but there is always a first. Will be sure to be more aware that it can cause problems in the future. Or handy to know if I want that look again. I was pretty sure it was running smoothly though. Might do a test, developing a few feet at home just to check. Had a similar problem with an acl once but rather than a slight blur I got nothing but an abstract mess. I have a phobia about loading eclairs now. At least it was something I was doing myself and not someone else's show.

sorry guys. I put a version on you tube for someone to have a look at so you can see it there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjjJY0fJoLE thanks

Hi there, I've just got some rushes back from filming a friends band on my bolex. I had 4 100' rolls developed and the last one came back with a strange streaking/slow shutter effect. I've no idea what caused it. Could it be flair? The other rolls were developed and telecined at the same time but shot on different days. The one in question was the last to be shot so I'm concerned that it could be damage to the camera as the others came out fine. I was using a non-reflex bolex (with a 144 shutter) at 24fps with 50hz stage lights. A pan cinor zoom. The stock was '18 which had been spooled down from 400' (fine on the other rolls, except for a couple of scratches here and there). And a best light tk onto minidv . Here is a link to a couple of clips from the footage http://rapidshare.com/files/137085678/jacobtest2.AVI.html I've never seen anything like that before and would love to know what caused it. Thanks

Hi there, I had a search of this, the s8 and 16mm forums but can't seem to find anywhere in the UK which will process fomapan. I thought about buying a home kit but would prefer a lab to do it for me. Ideally looking to get some double 8 developed and maybe some 16mm. Any ideas? If not in the UK is there anywhere in Europe? I tried Andec but they don't seem to be able to give great results. On the subject of European B+W, I can't seem to find anywhere that sells Orwo. I tried the filmotec website but they don't seem to sell anything. Thanks

well the guy who shot that sequence said it took 4 months and he used two cameras - one academy and one 1.85:1. It's probably not going to take much longer to take two frames on one camera then two frames on another if they are right next to you and framed on the same action. I saw him with my own eyes 3 days ago state that that sequence took 4 months (the live action parts took 2 weeks) and he told a colleague that he used two cameras while doing it specifically so they could have an academy print and a 1.85:1 print. I did not get an opportunity to ask why.

What I find odd is that both versions were for cinema release. Vistavision or 65mm would require specialised equipment which may not have been available in more provincial cities, so it may be feasable, like Karl says that two prints were made where cinematographic integrity would take precidence. Though, as far as I'm aware 1.85:1 dosnt really require any specialised equipment, and although the animation in Jason is fantastic it is not really known for it's outstanding cinematography. The academy print was British as it had the BBFC certificate card at the start of the first reel.

Hello, I do work at a local film festival every year as a print viewer (check to see if the print is suitable for public showing/for insurance purposes etc). Jason and the Argonauts was being shown as part of a Ray Harryhausen special. The print we were given (original) was academy though we were told it was to be 1.85:1. There was a lot of confusion as everywhere stated that the original print was 1.85:1. Though whoever sent the print insisted that it was academy and should not be masked. Eventually someone asked Ray Harryhausen who said that the film was shot twice with two cameras - one academy and one 1.85:1 so that two different prints could be made. This seems really bizarre. Why would this be done and was it a common practice at the time (1963)? It would kind of make sense if only the 1.85:1 version was used as a print and they were very forward thinking and used the other for tv (a bit like some more recent dvd age super 35 shoots).

Thanks David, Yes, I'd thought about cropping the 4:3 stuff. Someone else has mentioned this to me so I think I'll now do it. cheers for the feedback. PS music is by Midlake

hi there, i've just bought a pan-cinor 17-85 2 viewfinder for non-reflex cameras (the one with the dog leg). Unfortunately, when I attach it the viewfinder is at a 30 degree angle so makes framing just as difficult as when i used the non-reflex viewfinder. I did a little search on google for a manual but had no luck (unles I wanted to pay for one - was hoping for an online pdf). I also noticed a few other people had a similar problem but could not see any online solutions to their problem (or one that would solve mine). The closest I could come up with was someone saying their was a tool (a 'bottle top'?). Unfortunately I don't have this tool and have no idea what it looks like. Does anyone know a way I can adjus the viewfinder without this, and ideally without having to resort to making one or sending off for one. The viewfinder is curently on camera left (where the non reflex viewfinder was). I'd be happy with it there or where the fine focus finder is (where the viewfinder is on reflex cameras). Any help appreciated.

Hi there, I've just put together a showreel and I'm looking for a bit of feedback. http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=33605825 it's on myspace so is a bit compressed. A mixture of 16mm, hdcam and hdv. I'm a 2nd ac so this work is only really for getting more experience/enjoyment but it would still be great to have a bit of feedback. thanks.

Hello, I've got an old PD100 which I'm convinced has a back focus problem. Obviously there is no external way to change the back focus in the way you would with a camera with changeable lenses - digibeta etc. I zoom in, get a sharp, slowly zoom out and the image looks a little soft on the wide end. f I use the 'push auto' button I get it sharp, then when I zoom in the image is completely out at the long end. I've had a similar problem with a Z1 where, after the lens was repaired the engineer had done something which resulted in the back focus being out. Any ideas how I can repair this myself without spending a few hundred pounds at an engineers? Thanks

Thanks Dirk. That makes sense.

Hello, I've always taken it for granted but I don't know the exact reason why reversal has less latitude than negative. I assume it's got something to do with one being an additive and one a subtractive. I spent about half an hour having a look but could not really find anything in-depth. If anyone know or has a link to a good site it would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hello, When you invert the camera (turn it upside down for a quick low-mode) which way up do you board the slate? When I've done it I boarded it proper way up to 'reality' (upside down to camera) with 'inverted camera' written on it. Not sure if this is right. Any ideas? Thanks.

Thanks for your comments saulie. Really appreciated! The shot with the girl running. Yeh, I was really suprised when I saw that. Horribly grainy. I forgot that I used some of the old fuji 500d (it was given to me after a shoot I was an assistant on so, although fridge stored was quite old). I just used it to see how it would compare to the 500t (which was used in the other night scene -pushed one stop). I'll know not to use it again. It was in the camera already from a lowlight day scene so thought I could get away with it. Grant

Hi there, I've just put together a little teaser/trailer from the rushes of my first properly graded 16mm film (as apposed to onelight/home processed/reversal and bits and bobs here and there). It was shot on standard 16mm (Arriflex SR2 with Angie 5:1 and a K3). The idea was to give the film a natural feel to it, in terms of lighting and camera movement. We didn't really bother with marking actor positions, and run-throughs were very limited. This is something I'm not really used to so was quite difficult for me. But, as we intended, the 'feel' of the film was more important than perfect composition. To get the right feeling we really wanted to use film - it was a trade off because the high cost of film meant that the camera package was very limited and we couldn't get any decent lenses or follow focuses (which did create a bit of a focus problem, though it was also decided to mess about with focus so it's not too noticible where not intended). I wanted to play around with different stocks to try and compliment the scenes, and develop and telecine them in different ways. I mostly over-exposed by a stop and pulled back in tk, though some scenes were 2 stops over. I tried pushing a couple of scenes (I was actually very happy with the results of that). And a few other ideas like opening and closing the K3 door to intentionallt fog the film. I also played about with film speeds over/under-cranking to try and highten some of the mood. As I don't get to shoot on film very often I took the opportunity to play around as much as possible within the limits of not effecting the story. The colour grading was a bit of an issue. Because I'm not a 'name' dop I felt that the lab didn't take the film as seriously as they maybe would if it were someone with more experience (it was a student film with a student discount). Quite a few of my instructions were ignored. It was a tricky situation as they had really gone above the call of duty in other areas I felt that I couldn't bring, what I thought were problems up (except for a couple of shots which were transfered in the wrong ratio). Because I mainly use film as an assistant I didn't feel I had enough confidence to tell the telecine operator that I didn't think it was how it should look. Especially as they are highly trained and are used to working with very experienced dops. They had managed to 'fix' a few shots I'd messed up I thought I would leave it. Though after getting some feedback from some DoPs I work with who are experienced in dealing with TK Ops I will definitely know to speak up next time. The big problem was that I could not attend the transfer and would really and will make as big an effort as possible to be there on the next one. I'm pretty happy with it. It's not great but what I learned is far more rewarding for me than the end result. There are bits I'm not happy with, but I'll know for next time. It's odd, I was initially happy that there was a picture there in the first place, then I got a little greedy and was dissapointed by some stuff and would have liked it to work out more as I had it in my head. It was transferred on a Spirit 2K. We used the new Eterna 500 and 250 t (1 stop over, 85b and 812) with the beach scene on Vivid 160 (2 stops over and no correction filters). The K3 footage was Kodak 18. I wanted a warm look and expected he 812 to give this, I also had 'warm eve effect/ etc on the boards/notes but they came back very cool so had to change this in avid. the kodak looked nice as it was. I would use Kodak again but would hesitate with Fuji. Any feedback would be really appreciated as I'm still not exactly sure what I was doing. It was quite a big step up from an assistant to having to work everything out quickly in my head and with no-one to fall back on/get help from other than myself. I know particularly there were a few exposure issues and focus problems. It can be downloaded as a rapidshare file here: It is 50mb so should take about 2mins to download with a 4mb connection. just click on the 'download free', unless you have a rapidshare account. Thanks http://rapidshare.com/files/91809167/londdisttrailer.AVI

I was working on a shoot recently with the Viper which got me thinking. From doing some digital films a few years ago on Digibeta and HDcam I know that, in order to keep a certain look the dop could set-up the camera through the menus to give that desired look. Due to the lack of power at that time with video post-production, what came out of the camera was pretty much what was seen on screen/tv. Either 'shot straight' or given a 'look'. Now that post production is so much more powerful it is very easy to give a/alter the look after the shoot. On most TV programmes you now see a 'colo(u)rist' in the credits, where many years ago you would never see a film timer/grader credited (though they are seen far down in the credits of features). I've spoken to a few cameramen who have said they were not happy with the look some footage they shot had been given. Because of the difficulty of giving a film shot on new cameras such as the viper, d20 etc a 'stamped in look' do you think there is a possibility that the dop's role could be split between whoever is responsible for the post production look? Will it become more of a commitee decision like when video assist became available - client's/execs chipping in with their suggestions on framing? Will the dop still be involved in the final grade as they would if shooting on film? I find it interesting, I've heard dops on shorts or tv programmes wanting contracts to say they want to be responsible for the complete look of the film. I've also heard that this can lead to problems with producers not wanting this due to fineprint legalities involving entitlement to re-run percentages. At the moment this only seems to be an issue with shorts and TV etc. The look of a movie shot on one of the high end digital cameras will have been thoroughly worked out and tested. And as the technology for grading with this footage is still so expensive and mostly still confined to large post-production houses it makes sense to have the dop supervise this. But as technology gets cheaper will this change? If a look can be achieved without paying for the expense of a DP to supervise will it be done cheaper by someone else? Will the director take that role? Will there be two DPs - A lighting DP and a Postproduction/Look DP? If there is a DOP who is fantastic at lighting but not so great with technology work with a 'Postproduction DoP' who has a great ability in image manipulation but is not so good with lighting? What comes out of the Viper is very different to the final image. But so also is what comes out of a film camera. And also, with digital scanning this, if it were to happen with movies could have happened by now. Does the digital grader have more power than the film grader. Though things like this have happened before. The Dop role spit when it was decided that a seperate operator could improve the image. Can it change again?

the dop i've just worked with said he shot some last week though hasn't had a chance to grade it. i'd imagine there would be quite a few people out there who now have/are about to shoot some.

i think you would have a problem getting a lab anywhere to process 16mm film in c41. mainly because c41 is for stills. to process 16mm in c41 the lab would have to drain their machines and use c41. it seems very unlikely they would do this very uneconomical for a one-off. a better option might be to process your reversal film in ecn2 which is what most film labs use as it is the most common motion picture process. i'm pretty sure film lab north in leeds will let you process reversal in ecn2 though i don't think they have a super 8 machine. todd ao, I'm sure cross process and they seem to do s8 negative as well so they might be worth a go. if you really want to cross process in c41 you can buy something like a lomo tank and a c41 kit and do it yourself.

Hi, I know there are/were many different brands of S8 - Prinz, Agfa, Dixons, Boots, Orwo, Fomopan etc. I was thinking recently that it must have been very expensive for a company to design, make and manufacture a film. I can imagine Agfa, Orwo and Kodak being able to do this but could Boots? Did smaller companies like Boots and Dixons really make their own film or did they relabel film made by different companies? And if so, who made this film? Thanks.

Hello, I was video assist on a commercial recently and encountered a strange problem that I couldn't/can't figure out. We were using a 435 with a pal video assist, 21" monitor for client and 9" dvcam combi to record. A fairly standard package for low budget commercials and something I'm pretty familiar with. At the start of the day I connected everything up - Camera to DV Combi and daisy chained DV Combi to Client monitor using the video out. I used a 50' cable drum for each monitor with a 5' short bnc to connect. Camera was switched on and each monitor had a picture. Nothing odd, I'd done this hundreds of times before. The focus puller was having a problem with the frame markings. He'd not used the 435 for a while so until he worked out how to sort it he asked if he could t-piece out of my bnc (he was using the one with the info, I was using the clean one). He was using the transvideo 5" so I quickly t-pieced up his monitor out of the other bnc. He got the image, as expected. I quickly checked the dvcombi which also had a picture. As the client monitor was daisy chained from this I did not check it - it was working fine before. A couple of minutes later I got a shout that the client monitor had gone down. As the only new piece of equipment used was the t-piece and on board monitor I tried changing that t-piece with no luck. I quickly tried changing the bnc to the client monitor - still no picture. We decided to switch the on board monitor back to it's own bnc as it had been at the start of the day - everything worked again. we decided to keep this set-up as there was not enough time to find out what was happening - i assumed it would be something to do with the dvcam, possibly some kind of resistance issue - though I always thought that it's output was amplified. Termination problems usually still give a picture. Later on the dop asked if he could have a monitor for himself. I daisychained this into the start - camera, 9" monitor, dvcam, client monitor. As before, the client monitor had no picture. I tried a few variations - t-piecing the output of the camera so the 9" had a seperate bnc - I would have expected the client monitor not to have a picture but on top of that the dvcam combi did not have one either. It seemed to be something with the video assist. Swapping the output of the t-piece over had no effect (always a picture to the 9"). In the end I t-pieced the output of the onboard to the 9" and kept the dvcam/client with it's own output - though not great for the grip having two bnc's trailing out of the camera. Any ideas? I'm not an engineer so don't have a great knowledge of what's going on inside. But like I mentioned, I've done this plenty times without anything like this happening. Am I doing something odd and have just been getting away with it? I don't think it's a termination problem as the sony monitors are auto terminating, and at some point I did try using external terminators in case the internal sony ones had packed up. It does suggest a resistance problem as the monitor which is furthest away is the one having the problem. Is it the output of the camera? On the other hand, I've used a 435 with well over 200' of bnc and had no problems. Any suggestions appreciated. I might be using the same camera again on a more complicated set-up so wan't to know if it's something I should get the rental house to look over. thanks

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure the double run cameras, while using 16mm sized film have double the amount of perfs. So, when slit the can be used in an 8mm projector.

hi brad. there dosn't seem to be too much on the interenet but try this: www.jpgmag.com/stories/1228 http://www.flickr.com/groups/begreataccelerate/