Sam Wells

Hey the film epic is an Italian invention anyway ("Cabiria"; "Quo Vadis ?") Let's hear it for Giovanni Pastrone already :) -Sam

The f number will be lower (unfortunately :( ) as say Cooke 9-50mm zoom: f 2.2 T 2.5 The difference will typically diminish as a lens is stopped down because less air to glass surface area is being used to form the image. -Sam

Hey John, I've always wanted an f 2.8 T 2.2 zoom ! an f 2.0 T 1.4 even more :D Do you about something that I don't ? (maybe this is the secret of the RED zoom lens ????) I think ya postraned the numbers... -Sam

Amen ! -Sam

I got into using the spot meter heavily on a film where I had things like pyro effects on construction cranes 30' up - not easy or wise to use incident ! - or otherwise lighting inaccessible objects - also stuff like things reflected in water and so on. So I turned into a "spot meter only" person for awhile (also saved on shoe leather !) But sometimes, like in many daylight situations, incident is faster, I don't like being an obsessive meter reader. I'm not sure this helps you but.... -Sam

For the record or whatever I'm a major fan of Morvern Caller and think it was even more daring. -Sam

Well I'd prefer to use the term "grade" over "correct" You might ask, if you've shot properly what does a film lab timer have to do, but a great negative printed at the wrong lights...... Beyond that, I think this is an aesthetic or even philosophical question. I mean - *just* my opinion - film to tape (disk whatever) is a translation and really like a literary translation, which one is "right" ? The very virtues of film origination suggest more than one answer to any color grading scenario I think. Have a colorist set up to TAF or whatever "base" they use as a standard (word deliberately in quotes) then look at you're negative - can the colorist's intervention look better ? I think so. -Sam

When you do it with the emulsion as opposed to post you're guaranteed to be working in at least "12 bit 4:4:4" no matter what :D I'd just prefer something a little less over the top than a Velvia look. What I really like in color reversal is not just the sort of black crush but the way Kodachrome goes almost monochromatic in underexposure. Thinking of Tim Sassoon's theory the "noise" shows up in the luminence so to speak not the chroma which manifests as "veiling" in ECN. I've started to play with trying to get this quality in post but would be nice to have it built in plus available with a purely photochemical situation. -Sam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot-lambert note the first paragraph. Really the only time I have used Foot-lamberts is in mesuring screen brightness for film projection. (I have a Sekonic spot meter that will read in FtL from a reflective spot measurement. NB acceptance window with a "chopped" light source such as a film projector might not be optimal - I haven't investigated, but it seems to "good enough for .gov work" ! -Sam

If you transfer with the film running at 29.97 then there is no 3:2 pulldown, you have one film frame for each full video frame. -Sam

Yeah there's some gunky stuff in there (or was - it's been awhile). Doesn't seem to come out when held properly, straight upright. -Sam Wells

I would just use miniDV/DVCam instead. It can look grungy enough if you like. If you really need the reds smearing 3/4 inch Umatic without time base correction could work. I don't know if there's a "NTSC Low Band Color Under Look" plug-in for post software, I'm afraid to ask :D -Sam Wells

A transfer to digibeta & then encoded in H.264 is hardly "fresh off the telecine without any compresion" (plus it's an interlaced transfer). I'm not sure what you want here. Std def ? High Def ? Full bandwidth color ? A tour of your local post facility might be the best way to see fresh off the telecine.... -Sam

That scenario sounds more like 40 footcandles to me, did you add a zero when reading the meter's scale here ? Wrong slide ? 40 fc would mean an effective EI of 250 if I did the math right, more in line with that camera's sensitivity as described here. -Sam Wells

Yes, for instance I've always thought the term "follow focus" was an unfortunate one, if you're following you're late :D -Sam

All of those, Mitchell - Fries/Mitchell (a Steven Williams answer would be better than mine - the only Mitchell I've actually used is S35R - a great camera - not sure about 60 fps...). Too heavy though -- --Maybe your definition of "35 Bolex" is different than mine - for me no heavy cameras & batteries - I need fast and flexible --- Arri 235 actually might work for me (and handheld ability) but not my pocketbook :( The original idea for Aaton 35 might have been the ticket, had Godard been less obstreperous... -Sam

Hi Nick, I'd love a "35mm Bolex" Am looking at reflexed Eyemo (a friend shoots with one) but 100' yikes. I'm thinking a 2 perf or even 3 perf Eyemo would be kinda neat. Not that it exists. No contact printing but..... I'd rather Kodak made something like that than a Super 16 camera :) <-- note irony etc please There's always After Effects and Twixtor, shoot 6 fps it's interframe compression for film :lol: -Sam

Or so one hopes :D Curtis: google "Latham Loop" "pellicule" and "pellicle" are both correct I think. -Sam "getting loopy" Wells

:D p.s. Loading a 16BL is really no different than a 2C etc.... Find some "35mm" loaders ! -Sam

There was the Lafayette I remember. I used (in fact I have it now, but it no longer works) an Eiki aftermarket mod similar to this one. http://www.visinst.com/Projector.html I had a great old Kodak 16mm Kodascope projector with a simple rheostat that was adjustable 12-24 fps. I'll try and think of sources. -Sam .

VIDEO GUY looks like's he's in his 20s or 30s but is quite a bit older than that; maybe his graying hair has been "color corrected" ? (Although it has a reputation for being never twice the same color....) :D -Sam

Well if you get to S16mm and a serious level there are 800' magazines for the aaton XTRprod & Xterrra. (I think someone made some for Arri 16SR3 as well...) 22 minutes. The problem with say a 400 mag (11 mins) for a say some 6 minute takes - should be obvious: load reload short end etc. IF you are talking about takes that are really long. Of course you're likely to end up with short ends anyway. ps re Jia Zangke and "Platform" at least he would have been limited to ~ same length of time with 1000 mags in 35mm as you would be with 400's in 16mm... He seems to be shooting HD now though....................... -Sam

I have not actually shot this stock (except in still form E100VS) so probably shouldn't answer but have shot lots of reversal - I absolutely would not overexpose it (unless for the effect of a little hot exposure). There is limited latitude with this stock and I suspect the push won't help either. (It's not illegal to shoot film at the box rating BTW, with reversal there's a reason Kodak gives one..) I think it's limited latitude won't "kill you" but it will constrain you which you can use creatively or be screwed by, your choice :D --- I always **liked** the limited latitude of Kodachrome (esp. the kind of black crush effect where the color falls off to a kind of monochrome) -- but for that reason Kodachrome & other projection contrast film stocks are not "take what's thrown at you" stocks but rather demand a proactive approach. -Sam Wells

I worked on a bunch of Indie films in the 80's with 16BL, they all had the Jensen - in fact IIRC that's what the NY rental houses had too. Worked fine. ...As for hand holding a 16BL I can think of 50 things I'd rather do, more if I had time :ph34r: but that's "just me" I suppose (except I'm sure it ain't just me, but....) I was never a fan of that camera to be honest, but it is a tank I guess. -Sam (not a tank driver <_< )

I shot a scene for an Indie film using a 2K junior gelled with some CTO and I forget what else if anything as the morning sun and _no one_ who saw it thought it was artificial light; I even changed verticle angle a slight bit throughout the scene. (shot in continuity, thankfully !) Shot on Fuji F125 tungsten. As I recall it was a dusty room (we didn't smoke it though) and that helped maybe. I let some "hotspots" happen and let corners of the room stay a bit murky. If it's not available light realism, then what's most important to think about is the _feeling_ of the light IMO. -Sam Wells