Sam Wells

I think they made the digital primos for the reason they said they did -- to get the most sharpness possible given the limiting resolution that the F900 & HDCAM would present. As for 35mm optics "not being as good" - in 3 chip this is a moot point (barring the P&S) because you can't use them as is... BTW there was a long thread on CML about this, starting from questions about the Angenieux-Zeiss adaptor, with Panavision arguing it out with engineers from Zeiss and later Cooke delurking for the occasion. Although it went over my head, guess what, there were three different points of view, are you shocked ? !! Of course with the digiprimes Zeiss proved what you could do with a design dedicated to solve a specific problem i.e. how to match the state of the art in film lens quality whlie dealing with the prism issues head on. I think nobody can say they didn't succeed. This is different, we don't know exactly what the issues are, but I suspect they are not primarily about "resolution." Panavision, Cooke, Zeiss, Leitz know how to make optics with high resolving power. Interesting that Panavision is talking about electronic compensation for lateral chromatic aberration...... suggesting there _are_ issues - with that particular single chip at least - and ray angles.. -Sam

I have not shot the 100D yet (if it had been available in 16mm sooner for a project I began mainly on 7245 I would have considered it) but I shot a bunch of still stuff on Ektachrome 100VS (& Velvia) as a test/experiment. It's quite a different look to me than Kodachrome. But I don't consider Kodachrome to have "extreme saturation", really.. I have questions as to how to print from 7285 AND retain that unique look... -Sam

That's a pretty sorry Bolex you'd be emulating. Well one with a bad spring motor will slow down but.... The Arri RCU or CE controller should work - if I understand your intention you don't want exposure compensation, as you said "pulsing" An Arri S with VS motor is great for this, it's just like a motorcycle B) -Sam

Sampling, but as Mike suggests isn't it going to be effectively more like 3K ? Perverse thought du jour: what if you swapped out the F900 for this on a Vialta telecine :lol: -Sam

I think the fog filter would work a bit against the hi contrast deep black look your rating and processing suggest you're after, so Mitch's suggestion is a good one. I always push 45 one stop, but I rate at 80, geez, now I feel conservative for once :lol: -Sam

I would suspect matte box ' filter kick back issues only if all the footage shot at the same time & lighting, otherwise it would vary I'd think. The "very long time" between exposure & processing -- depending on conditions - could certainly contribute to the problem, all the more reason to attend a retransfer, if it's purely a Telecine issue they can do it again and hopefully right, if it's fog level there may be options & you can warm it up etc. 85 vs 85B is insignificant. -Sam

DX is rather grainy but you can get a nice midtone, probably more "New Wavish" than pushed Plus-X (I like contrast, shoot & reversal, but pushing Plus X neg looks quite similar) at least as far as the filmsyou mention. In any case Coutard liked to shoot Double-X. But 35mm "helps" grain wise. I'm not sure what he used on Bande A part but likely it was Double X. (Looks pretty nice in the Criterion DVD :D My observation is that with Double X, shooting 16 especially, it's the tradeoff between grain & gamma. I found 0.65 typically flat but that's me perhaps (some labs will consider .65 "normal" others 0.7 as "normal"); 0.75 and it really gets snappy but is quite grainy now. Tests are a good idea. -Sam

No no precision on a matte box. Some folks use pencil on the ground glass. I actually use Scotch tape on the gg in my Arri S finder, "primitive but effective" the edges show 1.85 -Sam

If you're going to argue the professional qualities of Rodenstock optics, spell it right. I don't know anything about this line of Rodenstock lenses. Try before you buy. Mitch has covered the issues. (Nikon makes printing Nikkors, it does not follow the lenses in their pocket cameras are of the same quality. etc) "Jack Parker" this week ?

Yeah but if you have a crowbar you'll never be short of charged batteries. Although your sound mixer will hate you if those alarms go off. -Sam

My experience here is very limited, but since no one replied... I would lean toward daylight stock but I don't know the look you want. Refractive index of water is about 1.33 --- need to figure your focus from that (and focal length as well - everything magnified, a 50mm will look like 66mm) -Sam

New or "new used" camera which you have not shot with before I might suggest at least one of your first rolls through it should be factory fresh raw stock, if any problems, you'll have eliminated one variable. (Hopefully there won't be !). -Sam

By far the most amazing thing here is that a motion picture technology article in the daily press quotes someone - John Lowry - who actually knows what he's talking about ! -Sam

BTW Did anyone here see the $30,000 JVC D-ILA at NAB ? What did you think, especially from a "film snob" :D point of view ? Also SONY's Qualia (otherwise bizaare product line, that) projector ? -Sam

You'll edit your movie on it and show it at Landmark Theaters :D

Read again, according to the article it is Texas Instruments not Kodak that stated no intention of going 4K; it states Kodak is developing a 4K (D-ILA ?) projector. Ironically, according to what I read, the DCI's demo last week was doubling up 2 2K TI DLP's to show effective 4K... -Sam

I've purchased that oil (Arri) from CSC (Camera Service Center) in NYC -Sam

It also should be pin-registered. Forscher had a pin-reg mod for Nikon, I'm sure others do. (I had a friend who did a DIY pin registration for an F2, very elegant (looked Mitchell like), he was using it for multiple pass slide graphics, combined with a kind of moco'd mini- lathe bed. He was actually sucessfull for awhile in competing with some big firms using mini-computers or mainframes. But when it became doable on desktop, workstations :( -Sam

Maybe not for you. For that cost most you can get is DV as of now, not even SD. So basically you can stay with your real world of production solution that is 480/60i, 4:1:1; I'll take the 1080/24p, 4:2:2 at the same cost anytime. To each his own. We all have our preferences. One likes the Blair Witch look; most would pass. Mitch We'll see; the Kinetta is quite complicated with many features. The cameras being developed take existing components and just put them together. Sorry I was talking about getting professional quality work done in the real world. Skip it. Whatever. -Sam

I learned threading a Mitchell that was always mounted upside down. First time I had to do it with the camera mounted rightside up I had to resist the temptation to thread it standing on my head :rolleyes: -Sam

You've got to be kidding. This isn't a real world of production solution for anyone I know. -Sam

I love Kodachrome for some things but strictly for telecine I'd be inclined to shoot 7245, I push this stock for print and it looks kinda "E6" to me. I'm not sure if my idea of "reversal look" is the same as yours, nor am I ever sure when I read that on forums like this, as all reversal stocks do not look the same to me. Pola screen in some cases can help give you a "reversal look" as the term seems to be commonly used; red enhancer may be usefull - or not --- I mean if you want to get heavily into post techniques & gear you might simulate all kinds of things..... Just because todays color neg stocks have a bit of latitude doesn't mean your exposures should be all over the map. Although this can depend on your map I suppose ;) -Sam

Also there are lots of kinds of filmmaking where "having guys with light banks or reflectors" is impossible or not desirable. Why give that all away to DV ? I know how to light and I know how to work without artificial lighting as well, (I've been doing this lately because parts of the world aren't there to stop for you to light them); for me if DI's can be part of the process, as the lab already is, then why not ? -Sam

Yes I know, you've posted this on 8 different threads. -Sam

There was a huge thread on this here a couple of months ago. -Sam