Marty Hamrick

There is an excellent article in a 1976 issue of Filmmaker's Newsletter with the history of the Frezzoloni company.He talks about his first model where he basically took a buzz saw to an Auricon. Marty

That sounds about right.I had the Mitchell magazine with mine.The mag had a pretty annoying squeaking habit after you ran about 300 feet of film.Anyone else experience anything like that? Marty

I have a friend who built some replicas of old hand crank 35mm MP film cameras for display.I forget which model it was (Moy and something ??It didn't ring a bell with me)but it wasn't something that could actually shoot film.It made a very convincing prop though.It took my friend several months to build.She said a functioning model would take over a year. Marty

Here in Florida we have a director,Victor Nunez.He shoots all of his films in super 16.It's a subjective choice for him.He says the look of super 16 is better suited for what he does and he likes the smaller equipment which he says,makes for a more intimate and less intrusive setting than 35mm.It's a matter of personal choice for many,not budget. Marty

When I bought my 2C,I was told that it was a 2B coverted to a 2C in that a variable shutter had been added. Marty

What,like you can't see small fibers on a blade of grass in well shot 35mm or 16mm?There's another myth that says electronically produced images are sharper than film produced images when in fact they are not.If something looks "wrong",it looks "wrong" because it was wrong for what that particular look was supposed to be.I've shot stuff on video that was suited for video and on film for what was suited for film.I embrace new technolgies too,but I still don't see HD being a replacement for film. Marty

Most people on this board have experience shooting film, and like many other things in life, it's a unique experience that cannont be described in just technical terms.>>> I really miss shooting film.There is a look and "feel" to all film formats that regardless of what you do to the video image to make it look like film,it doesn't quite get it.I shot most of my commercials and station promos on Betacam SP back in the 90's with an occasional 16mm shoot on some of the specialty promos.I remember producers agonizing over the decision of film vs.film look and when numbers were compared at the end of the day, some of the film shoots actually came out cheaper.We were shooting with classic old cameras, an Arri S, a Beaulieu R-16,Canon Scoopic and CP 16.No on argued over the value of the cameras when the film came back from the lab.> You may notice that you've never heard anyone who's actually owned (or used extensively) say that film cameras are not what they sell for, and especially since you didn't pick $95,000 Arri's to complain about, but the cheapest of the cheap 16mm film cameras, which are unbelievable bargains!!! <<< My first "big" expenditure in equipment ownership was a Beaulieu R-16,which back in 1979 when I bought it was around $1700 with a 200 foot mag a 17 to 68 Angenieux zoom and syncro pilot.I retired it in 1993 after it paid for itself about 15 times over.I see the same package now for a third of that and I'm sure some other person starting out at age 19 like I did in '79 will get the same value out of that in experience alone.Can't say the same thing for any piece of video gear much over 5 years old,let alone something that dates back to the Korean War era. <<<<<>>>>> To most of us on this board, hearing this is like hearing a virgin say sex is overrated. <<You know my ex wife,Matt? Marty

I'm not sure what it originated on,but it was released anamorphic. Marty

My only concern with hiring a still photographer to gaff is he is used to working as a DP/Dir with out much oversight. He is probably more familiar with strobes then the power required for film lights. He is not used to lighting large areas where the talent and camera moves. He is not familiar with matching lighting from master to close up. Those would be my biggest concerns.Often still photographers find it frustrating working on film or video due to the restrictions of where lights can be placed based on actors' blocking,camera moves and matching angles.Still photogs don't have continuity to worry about. Marty

The article I read (in fact I may still have it somewhere)was in Super 8 Filmaker magazine from that time.It was a 3 part series on 3 D super 8 by Lenny Lipton. Marty

I would be very careful about using a non recommended chemistry.I've seen people screw around with processes and while they have produced an image,I've seen that same image fade very quickly.I knew a guy that processed slides at very high temperatures and fudged on chemistry and while he could get them processed and on the air (this was back in the day when TV stations used slides for graphics),the image faded to magenta and was just about gone the next day.Perhaps John P can shed some more light on the specifics.I don't think E-6 removes the anti halation backing,I could be wrong on this though. Marty

Forde did an awesome job for me when I shot 16mm Ektachrome a few years back and offered some great advice for posting the spots I was shooting at the time.Just sent some S-8 their way and I'm anxious to see how it turns out. Marty

I remember the "Z" movies,some gained cult status and some were so bad they were good for a laugh.There was a 50's Sci-Fi "Moon Maidens"I remember running it at an independent station years ago.It had a very strong following,we got letters from people wanting to know when it would run again so they could arrange parties. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report may have elements of untraditional camera moves,but those are in certain scenes which are there to convey a certain aspect of the story.To break such "rules",as you well know,David,requires much technical skill.They don't exist because the budget couldn't afford a tripod,dolly or steadicam. I don't mind a movie originating in DV or having a really low budget,as long as I can follow the story and somehow manage to get absorbed in the plot enough to where the cheapness doesn't draw attention to itself.Or if it does draw attention to itself at least give us something to laugh at.I've yet to see too many of the newer breed of this genre do that. In recent years I've been asked to veiw some locally done DV originated films.Most are exploitation type and a few are actually competent enough to be picked up by a distributor.The latter remain a minority. Marty

What's even sadder to me is that when some of these guys get better budgets as a result from the success of their low budget attempt,they often go on to do just more expensive exploitation films. Thanks for jogging my memory on that title,Bob.Did that star a very young Mark Harmon?Or am I thinking about another film? Marty

Yes if the theater isn't using a brighter lamp or a faster lens capable of compensating for the longer throw. Marty

Thank you gentlemen,I remember sending cut scenes to an optical house for the work to be done with drop shadows and titles with animation.For the most part,clients for industrials just cut the supers in in their A and B rolls.I would've thought it was all electronic these days and then burned in at some later stage.Good to hear optical printing isn't dead. Marty

Having seen a few of the DV originated independent films and offered my 2 cents on this and other forums,I can honestly say I am unimpressed with what I've seen. The statement I've gotten from some of my comments about the given quality of a piece,or lack thereof that concerns me is."It worked for that film because..." What bothers me is not the fact that these films originate on video,or that they're done cheaply,or that they simply may just suck as a film,but that where they lacked was a certain degree of believability that sells an audience on the story.At some point we have to feel for the characters, be drawn into their world,if that doesn't happen, for whatever reason, then the film failed. I remember one night I was watching a late night horror film, a typical B grade movie,I don't remember the title(this was over 20 years ago).The plot was ridiculous,but the way it was done kept you watching and at the end you went,"That wasn't so bad,I'm almost ashamed to admit it,I enjoyed that".The story was one of those recycled dead come back to life to terrorize a young cast of good looking white kids who were unfortunate enough to get stuck on their island.Circa about 1971-73.The zombies were leftovers from a Nazi experiment of Hitler's attempt to create the perfect soldier(this sound familiar anybody?).At any rate,the film was competent.The cinematography wasn't fantastic,but it was competent.The cliched day for night scenes worked because the rules were followed.The sparse lighting worked in the claustrophobic interiors because they worked for the story and you didn't see things that called attention to the fact that there wasn't a lot of money for a lighting package like overly washed out practicals that look like a shot from a surveillance camera. Yet now we have movies that you have to strain to see and hear and they are excused because they're low budget indies.I ain't buying it.Low budget indies were around a long time before DV came about.Some became cult films.I don't give this new breed of "B' movie that high of a mark. Marty

I'm not sure exactly what your question is,but I think I can offer something.I do primarily TV news and documentaries these days and I've attended a few seminars from the National Press Photographers Association where they hold sessions in improving your visual storytelling capabilities. One such assignment is where attendees are given a statement such as "caffiene causes stress in the workplace" or "media perception is not reality".You are given one hour to shoot a silent scenario using 4 minutes,no more of tape.You are then critiqued on the raw tape and you're then given 30 minutes to edit the tape into a 1 minute story.You are then critiqued on your finished piece. Aside from the learning experience,the last time we had such a seminar we all had a blast with it. Marty

A fascinating post!I wasn't going to comment on it until I had read where it was going before adding my 2 cents. As for romantic/family relations and career.It can be done,I've done both ends of the spectrum.My ex wife was jealous of the fact that I had a career I was passionate about in spite of the fact that I never considered myself one who "made it".Over the years I've redefined that term many times,although I never have lost sight of my goals. A bad relationship can and will drag one down in both aspects of the situation.Your professional life will suffer because you will be trying to please the other person and your career.There aren't enough hours in the day for that.I've learned the hard way that Superman exists only in cinema and comics. To make it work,your spouse/significant other must have their own passions and will therefore understand why you are passionate about yours.However,I'm a little reluctant to suggest to anyone who is in any "artsy" field to date another artist.I lived with a musician for awhile and that was an experience I could write a book about.For short periods it was great,but we in the arts can be a temperamental lot and when you mix the two passionate personalities,it can breed some rather high emotions on both ends of the spectrum.I, too am also a musician,but yet after that experience I never went out with another performer of any kind.I don't think it was a conscious decision.It just happened that way. My current fiance is in the banking/financial field.About as far as you get from film or performing arts,but it has a level of creativity all its own. While she is not happy with the hours I work or some of the assignments I get,(Sunday I'm going to Tampa for Hurricane Ivan after I was called in from vacation for Charley and just spent a full week with Frances which left our house without power for 5 days),she understands them. Relationships can be tough in our business,but like the career military person,firefighter,police officer,physician or any other professional with a demanding career it takes as much work and dedication to be a success in the relationship as it does the career.

Back when 100% of my work was film,supered titles were shot on a high con black and white stock (can't remember the emulsion number,but I remember it was an Eastman stock High Contrast Positive) and spliced opposite your picture in the A and B rolls.Very simple,especially if you shot reversal which was about 75% of what I shot then.Neg was a little trickier,we had to make an IP of the scenes that needed the titles,shoot A wind titles (backlit Kodaliths,reversed),make an A/B roll cut of the titles and scenes and make a dupe neg from that. Since everything is electronic now,how do they do supered titles?At what stage do they go in? Marty

LOL!Yes,they want to see the reporter standing out in the wind dodging the element while he's telling you how you shouldn't be out in it.I was at St.Augustine Beach shooting the live reporter cam at the pier while he was standing on the beach telling the audience why you shouldn't be there.Industry has indeed gone downhill.It's a consultant thing,you know.Maybe in my next life I'll be a consultant so I can tell anchors and reporters to change their hairstyles and ties and collect six figures for it.But then I can't be qualified to be a consultant since I haven't been fired numerous times. Thanks,though I seriously doubt stations will spend money on a good protection system.I think it's easier for them to write off a loss on half a dozen cameras,a few ENG trucks and numerous other pieces of gear. Marty