Marty Hamrick

I'm talking to a guy now on another forum who has done some neg on his Workprinter and he is dealing with the orange mask issue,which he says he hasn't worked out yet.He says he now is going to try running it through an 80A filter.Thank you,George for the technical rundown.All issues to think about when you're pondering any DIY procedure.

Amazing stuff, David.I shoot in media events all the type like this.Political rallys,sporting events and such.The frames I've seen adds a very dreamlike quality to the hyper realism of a reality type event like this.Excellent work.

I would be interested to hear some experiences some folks here have had with the workprinter, a rather intriguing DIY transfer system.I was wondering if anyone here has had the experience of transferring negative stocks and if the slow running projector (6fps I think?) is gentle enough to handle it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee don't everyone answer this one at once.I emailed the people who make the workprinter and while they offer transfers on reversal film at 20 dollars a fifty foot roll,they don't do neg.No one here has tried?Someone did attempt it on 8mm filmshooting.com although they said telecine was much better.I would like to hear from people who have attempted it.

I would choose the Arri BL.If you're doing a lot of handheld work,make sure you get the offset viewfinder (I think there was one made by CP that will work for the BL that's a good bit brighter than the one originally made by Arri and it is 100% orientable,it was either made by CP or Angenieux,can't remember which).This will enable you to shoot off the shoulder ENG style.

I would agree with the others that the Arri S is a better choice for an MOS camera,although I have used it for sync,but if you have access to a BL I wouldn't bother.

Marty

I'm looking at a project in 16mm that will eventually also be for HD release.It's all MOS so I'm thinking about using an Arri S since I can it free.I want to be able to compose for 1:77 and 1:85 for possible 35mm blow up.I know since it's standard 16mm I'll pick up some grain but I'm not really concerned about that.I want to know if ground glass can be had for an Arri S marked for those aspect ratios and where I can get them.

What about a "hot splicer" then? Is this recommended? Where might I buy commercially prepared cement?

I plan to do a lot of practicing on a test roll first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I used the Griswald splicer for prints like John said and some home projects (original reversal for direct projection),but I definitely would not want to use it for something that would go through a contact printer.

I've used the Bell and Howell and the Maier Hancock hot splicers (they're identical) and the 16,35,65-70 foot pedal splicer for dark room splicing print stock.John P.ever use the foot pedal splicer?I forget who made it.

I would be interested to hear some experiences some folks here have had with the workprinter, a rather intriguing DIY transfer system.I was wondering if anyone here has had the experience of transferring negative stocks and if the slow running projector (6fps I think?) is gentle enough to handle it.

There was a run of "cutting edge" super-8 commercials more than a few years ago, Nike specifically, along with a bunch of others.

 

The notion that super-8 is a superior imaging medium just because it's film doesn't really fly. It's a special effect, something you use for a distinctive look, not as a general-purpose production medium. I can't imagine shooting anything that is supposed to say "quality" on jumpy, grainy, dirty super-8.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree it's a signature look.Music videos,insert scenes in features and TV shows but recently I saw some Pro 8mm negative transfered via Rank and it looked anything but grainy,dirty or jumpy.

I would also prefer it to something DV originated if it's something narrative.I've been less than impressed with the DV originated features I've seen.

I can't add much except to say it's crucial to have experience with film before you make a decision on whether or not you want to use it.I shot film years ago and shoot video now simply because that's what my market demands.If/when I get the opportunity to shoot film again,I would definitely want something budgeted for a test to see what I needed to get the look I wanted.Back in the 90's though we never had the budget or time to test,but I can say that every time I shot film,I duplicated the lighting scheme I would have for video except for the amount of fill I used.Often I found that using less fill and higher lighting ratios than was possible for the same shot in video I got a wonderful contrast range in the shot.I found also the daylight stocks,particularly Fuji handled mixed lighting sources (most of them uncorrected)much better than video.But then my experience is dated somewhat.Video cameras have improved since 1993.

Phil I think the other posters are right.You need to shoot more and experiment more before you make a decision on which is best for which project.

Marty

If a business can turn around a marketing idea in 7 days with HD for X amount of money, or turn it around in 30 days for 1/2 X with film, which would the business choose?  Many times having the idea turned into reality in 7 days (or less!) matters more than saving money by taking a month.

 

Am I saying that film can save money over video?  I think it's possible that a streamlined film project can cost less than an HD project where the lure of the endless supply of tape causes production excesses to occur, especially among newbie clients and newbie HD crews.  Newbie HD crews can cause budgets to

The conclusion is that film can be a cool idea for mom and pop shops that don't need a result instantly, and for very high end companies that can just hire the best people who have a proven track record to get the job done.  Most up and coming companies want to dive into the latest technology because in many instances their business may have some type of relationship to it.

 

It's the newbie filmmaker that has the hardest road to hoe, and that's the person that Kodak has to try harder and harder with each passing year to help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting,although I don't see the corporate world jumping on the super 8 bandwagon any time soon.It would take some intrepid,cutting edge marketing to get the format taken seriously.You would have to show that the profit would be higher because of the film image being superior and selling whatever it is the film project was selling.

I could see someone making a name for themselves shooting specialty commercials in super 8 by establishing themselves with a signature image,but still that would be such a specialized look I can't see enough business to support a super 8 production company.

Who knows?I've often thought the way for a mom and pop business to survive is to carve a specialty niche that is not cost effective for the larger companies to mess with.

Sony makes some nightvision cameras that shoot in darkness and record in DV. They call it nightshoot. Other than that in the pro world we use nightvision attachments that go between camera and lens that you can rent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I once used a camera that was specifically designed for very low light levels.It was Sony with very heavy and highly charged CCD's.This was back around 1989 so I don't remember the model.It shot Beta SP( if memory serves I think it was a dockable,but I could be mistaken) and picked up really good levels with just ambient light coming from a single street light several hundred yards away from the subject.We were doing a special series on drugs and prostitution in the trucking industry.I've also used the attachments though I found them to be a bit cumbersome in tight quarters.

Marty

I have a few super 8 cameras sitting in one of my drawers in my bedroom.From time to time I'll play around with them and I hear some folks mention music videos and such gigs in s-8.I'm curious to know who is out there shooting paying gis in super 8 besides the people who are shooting segments of features such as David Mullen's excellent work in Twin Falls Idaho.

So who's got paying gis in super 8?Back in the late 70's and early 80's I shot a couple of commercials and industrials in super 8.That market for s-8 is long gone.

Hi,

 

> Phil is right about the work & trouble involved, but once you see the end product, it's all worth it.

 

I used to agree. I just don't think it offers enough of a bonus, if you're finishing to video. You end up throwing away the extra dynamic range in the transfer just to give it a bit of snap, or it looks so flat and milky it's completely horrible. Okay, so it's that I'm inexperienced in the medium, but if that's the case then it's just a matter of knowledge and frankly it's somewhat easier, hugely cheaper, and at least factor-two faster to get better results out of electronic imaging. I would contend that anyone who disputed that simply didn't know what they were doing with video.

 

I'm not going to turn into a PD-150 nut; the sooner we can get rid of the over-DSP'd, compressed and subsampled systems currently in vogue the better. Even now, though, as far as I'm concerned film is an overpriced, capricious pain in the neck which doesn't offer nearly enough advantages to make it worth my while to put up with it.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil I think it just depends on the project you're working on.I used to shoot promos for a TV station.Glamour shots of TV news anchors for the show open,smiling and turning to the camera as well as spots that try to convince you that these people are your best friends who are working hard to bring you the news..yeah right.The majority of the stuff was beta SP.I think I stretched video to it's aesthetic ends for some of these spots.On the production and lighting end as well as the posting end.The few we shot on film were a breeze in post because once it came from the colorist,it was perfect.No image manipulation necessary and it was waaaaayyyy easier to light.Highlights could go off scale and be brought down in the telecine end,although that was seldom necessary.I even remember in my main field,TV news,in talking to some reporters and anchors who were with me during the film days still say they "looked prettier on film".And this is Ektachrome we're talking about shot in news conditions and aired on crappy old RCA telecines, as oposed to today's digital formats(of course these same people have aged 25 to 30 years since then so their memories may be a bit skewed).

I agree it's overpriced and doomed forever to be the elitist medium while they're still making celluloid,but for the poetic narrative stuff I still say if you can get the budget,shoot film.Video,no matter what you do to it,still looks like hard edge reality whereas film still has that dreamlike quality.HD,from what little I've seen (will definitely do more in the future)is the best alternative imo.

I haven't shot film in ages,but I still hold onto my film connections and some equipment for my experimental projects.I hope to do more but I'm just not sure there will be a paying market for me in film in the future.

One of the biggest differences between production techniques is very simple but you have to keep in mind if you're accustomed to video.You can't keep rolling through when you alter shots and such like with tape.400 foot mags hold ten minutes so you make the most of it.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=4345

 

R

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the links.

Rocky Mountain Film Lab in Colorado processes many types of older movie film, including:

Kodak Ektachrome 160

Ektachrome 160 Type A

Ektachrome 160 Type G

Ektachrom 40

Ektachrome SO185

Ektachrome SM and SMA

 

www.rockymountainfilm.com

560 Geneva St.

Aurora, CO 80010

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those old processes are very expensive.I think the old Ektachrome 7244 SM is compatible with VNF process (although that process is going the way of the dinosaur soon)or at least I remember the lab I used to work for being able to do it in the same soup.

Im in the us, were ican i get my ektachrome film processed.

 

thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where are you?On the east coast there is Bono in Arlington,Va. and on the west coast there is Forde in Seattle.

I don't remember if I read it on this list or CML,but someone mentioned an editing software that iads in post syncing audio that was originally recorded wild.Anyone know of this?

Marty

This is what I love about film cameras, whereas with video cameras the price tag will always dictate your image quality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is all interesting to me as I'm looking at the possibility of shooting with one in the near future.The only experience I have with any Russian camera is with a 16mm K-3 and very limited.It's an MOS shoot so noise isn't an issue,but it's theatrical so registration is.I'm sure a registration test would be in order right away before I trusted it on a shoot.Anything glaring I need to look for right off the bat with these cameras?

Marty

Just wondering here.I've seen a few Eyemos here and there for reasonable prices.Some with Nikon mounts which would be OK with me since I have a Nikon still camera and the same lenses could be used.I know an Eyemo can be concerted to a mirror shutter reflex camera and I would like to know how much that costs and who does it?

Does NFL Films hire it's own people from it's headquaters in the East Coast

And then send them all around the US to shoot the games,

Or do they hire local cameramen (& women) to shoot the games?

Is it a permanent job like working in a television studio,

Or is it a contractual per game job?

Do the cameramen have to have their own equipment or is it provided?

 

 

Superbowl gonna suck this year there's no team to root for-->GO JETS, next year

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a little of both from what I've seen.They have cameramen who have been with them for a long time that travel.These are guys who live,eat and sleep football.I was shooting beside them once and one of their end zone guys was commenting about which side a particular player was going to run.He had studied this player's college record.They seem to keep a staff of folks who have been shooting with them a long time but do hire PA's and AC's locally.From what I've seen,some of the equipment is provided and some are the shooter's own packages and some are rental.I've seen alot of older cameras on the sidelines,Arri M's, Arri S's,Eclairs and some SR 2's and 3's.

I agree on the teams.No team I really care about.

Marty

This year's Super Bowl is in my home town of Jacksonville,Florida.Anyone here coming down?Any NFL or ESPN shooters here?I'll be in the stadium for the game.Too bad I'm not a fan of either team.

Marty

With no shutter, you get a lot of vertical smear from the movement of the film advancing through the gate, which normally happens when the shutter is closed.  With a normal 180 degree shutter, you could shoot at 12 fps and slow it down to 24 fps if you want a 1/24th shutter speed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a slight divergence off the subject,but still talking shutters.In projection,if a shutter is mis timed,there will be smear.That is,the shutter is out of sync with the intermittent.I have a problem on one of my projectors at the drive in yielding a flickering image.Timing the shutter does nothing.I'm inclined to think that the motor is off just enough to throw the speed a bit,but not enough to be noticeable in the sound.This is a standard two blade shutter.Am I on the right track here or am I mssing something?

Marty

Even more fascinating if you count the original Technicolor 3-strip system, or the earliest EASTMAN Color Negative which was EI 16 daylight!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I was interning back in the 70's the stock of choice was 7252 ECO.It had an EI of 25 for tungsten and 16 for daylight with the 85.I remember being a 110 lb 15 year old helping to carry several cartloads of lighting instruments.

Marty

Hi;

 

I do this a bit with my bolex, I use an 8mm cctv "lipstick" cam and just tape it with a little rod splint, it looks kinda crappy but it works great for framing when your doing funny things with your cam like strapping it to a tree etc, I just run it into a little sony handycam for viewing, the really cool thing is you can keep a reference of the shot on minidv!

Olly

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've worked with similar a long time ago but isn't there a such thing as a universal video assist designed to work with cameras not originally designed for video taps?Last I heard it was around 600 bucks.Too much if you're using a K 3 but if you were using say an Arri S or an Eclair,might be a consideration.

Marty

Well, after all these positive comments [and some research on the web] the Ecalir is sounding great...A question though, I see two different models ... an NPR and an ACL?  Are there major differences between the two?

 

Mark.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you go with the ACL make sure it's the French made model.The English models were lemons.Not sure if the Brits ever built NPR's.

Marty