Sam Wells

Hi, these figures were given to me by a lens/camera tech for the three I own, I have not varified this:

10mm Switar RX: 32 mm (older style, not preset)

26mm Macro-Switar RX (preset): 38mm

75mm Switar AR (f 1.9): 40mm (older, not preset)

Let us know if this turns out to be correct or not. Hard to find these sizes.

-Sam

I don't ever remember Kodak/Fairlawn processing B&W reversal.

I like Forde Labs in Seattle for this, but I don't know if they do Super 8.

-Sam

David, I would say that's pretty much the very definition of a "classicist" from my point of view.

-Sam Wells

Basically I think that Kaminski takes risks in his techniques that pay off when Willis just kept with what he was happy with and did not really want to advance?!!

Not to echo Wendell Greene's reply, but advance to What ?

I'd rather say Willis is a classicist, if I had to, I guess. That is no vice, though...

-Sam

EXR 50D is 5245, EXR 100T is 5248, and Vision 250D is 5246. Make I've even considered, instead of overexposing, is pushing one stop without underexposing to compensate. This will get you more density than normal and more contrast, which may punch up the colors. I've never tried it though.

This is related to the posts in the other thread. I've done this with 74, it works pretty well.

But I don't think the Vision stock are affected by a push all that dramatically, it just helps.

-Sam

'46 seems as contrasty as '45 from my tests. I think if you made a faster version of '45, you'd end up with '46, you know what I mean?

 

Anyway, there's nothing really wrong with '45 that needs fixing, if you want a fine-grained, low-speed snappy stock. And I don't think that '46 needs to be any more contrasty -- it's already more contrasty than '74, for example. It could be a little finer-grained and saturated to intercut better with '45 though.

 

I'm happy that we finally have something lower-contrast and fine-grained for filming in bright sunlight when we don't want too much contrast -- '12 is a much better option than using Vision 320T, for example (320T is too grainy for daytime work unless you want that texture). And when we want more contrast and saturation, there's '45.

 

I think what we're missing now is a more saturated higher-speed stock, something even a little snappier than '79. Maybe pushed '74 covers that, I don't know.

 

I know Sam is fond of contrasty stocks, but for me, it really is a show-by-show decision whether to use a higher-con or lower-con stock. For example, on "Northfork" I really could have used a low-con slow-speed stock outdoors to work better with the skip-bleach processing I was doing to the print. Fuji F-125, which is what I used, is actually a rather snappy stock like '48.

David I think it really is the kind of saturation you get with 45 which is why I don't think my 'ideal faster 45' would be 46. Yes the contrast is there in 46. Actually what I've done is shoot 74 w/ a filter & push. That helps, but to really get someting that looks like fast 45, it's better

to not compensate for the push. But, then it's not much faster, especially because I like to push the 45 (rating it "80", I can end up back where I started :(

But 45 has a unique quality, and the pushed 74 trick esp. with a high # printer light (which seems to help) will not hold like, blue in the sky the way 45 will......

Of cousre it's a film by film call. And the look of "Northfork" was a world of its own !

-Sam Wells

You can always push the stock 1/2 to a stop for more zing as well. But I also think that a super fine grain, high contrast/saturated stock would be geat. Atleast one. Like '45 but faster.

A faster version of '45 ? I'd love it. For print, 46 is boring. (altho Spirits w/ davinci or Pogle seem to love it). Actually 74 filtered is better, and they both look better pushed one, but then they're getting too fast for most daylight.

-Sam Wells

Actually, it was Clouquet that took over because Unsworth had died.

 

Unsworth was the first DP I really studied, after I saw "Superman" and saw that it was dedicated to his memory, which caught my attention. I read articles on Unsworth and started watching his other movies.

 

His parts in "Tess" (mostly in the first third) are probably the most beautiful.

Thanks for the correction, David.

I have to say although I have a slight memory of some differences in parts of "Tess" (a film I really liked) I couldn't recall favoring any over any others. In fact the film grew on me as it went along.....

Anyway, for Cloquet: with "Au Hasard, Balthazar" and "Mouchette" among his credits - not TOO shabby !!

-Sam

If John Toll had done nothing else but "The Thin Red Line" his talent would be proven.

Too bad he was up against Janusz Kaminski that year (who won it, right ?)

I'm personally rooting for Cesar Charlone for "City of God" because it used so much Super 16, it would be a mini-coup or something.

I figure if he wins Panasonic will only sell 45,000 DVX100A's this year instead of 50,000 :D

(nothing against Panasonic mind you)

I don't get too worked up about all this.... although I did want to see Michael Chapman win years back for "Raging Bull" (I wanted to see a B&W winner ! - and his work was truly great) but, because Geoffrey Unsworth had taken over for Ghislain Cloquet (sp?) when he died during the shooting of "Tess" they pretty much had to give it to him. (Not that he didn't deserve it either).

-Sam

What is it you are you trying to achieve ?

-Sam

You also have to factor in light loss caused by the S8 camera's beam splitter.

Could be 1/2 stop at least I bet - it's been a LONG time since I shot S8, and forget what that loss was on my camera (Nizo, nice camera).

An actual dedicated Light meter much easier to work with, though

-Sam

I've seen very good blowups from ECO 7252 via 5272/2272 IN.

But there is really no equivalent 16mm color reversal stock.

Flashing 7239/40 would be the closest, but a trip through grain city I suspect.

The ECO blowups had great skin tones (as good as I've seen in a blowup from 16mm) and beautiful evironmental colors. But, grain looked different than what I've seen lately from

Vision neg originals - an overall wash of grainyness as opposed to blowups from V neg where the grain is accentuated in midtones, hides a bit in deep shadow & hot highlight.

-sam

Question: are you fans of the subjective or the objective?

Well I'm a fan of the camera movement in Kenji Mizoguchi films where the camera moves not just through space but non-real time.

I'm not sure what category that falls under: "objective" time of the movement, "subjective" time of the narrative... ?

-sam

This is why I am thinking - how come the 16mm people here would not use the DVX when they could really add pep to this movie post-production for next to nothing on the edit suite.

Maybe because I love the "pep" of say 7245 with beautiful if not quite endless highlight latitude and color you can eat with a spoon, etc

-Sam

Is 9.5mm negative stock is still around.

A couple years ago in Paris you could even get Velvia in 9.5mm.

35mm's appeal here in 21 Century is not just that it is also the theatrical projection standard, but that it's bulletproof in terms of *all* the display formats one might end up on, including those which don't exist yet.

I thin 16/S16 and its future has to be seen somewhat in that light also (2003 was a pretty good year for S16 getting into US movie theaters - more S16 origination than HD origination happened...)

OTOH, HD is mounting a real challenge in made-for-TV, and some new stuff is gonna break through in Electronic cameras in the next year.... I think EK & Fuji WILL have to keep some kind of lid on pricing...

-Sam

I think he had a very good technical sense as a director.

Watch the DVD's by all means, but don't miss the films in 35mm prints.

Mirror & Nostalghia are my faves.

-Sam

Or maybe could someone provide me with some link

where i can see some images captured with it?

Capture your own images !

Get a roll of Kodachrome 64 at a photo store, shoot some slides.

(64 slightly different than the current 16mm stock, but you'll get the idea).

-sam

Check out U-Matic. It might have been done on that. Tube cameras where also around that time.

Probably 2" Quad. Late 70's could've been 1" Type C.

Certainly tube cameras.

-Sam

A client has just brought into the Lab a Bell and Howell 16mm camera which has a metal magazine loaded with Kodachrome type 'jour'. Is there a lab in the US that can process this film stock?.

 

Thanks

Dwayne's processes 16mm Kodachrome

http://www.k14movies.com/

I don't know what issues with the (50') ? magazine

That's some old film stock in there, if it's Kodachrome II you may be out of luck;

although it could be processed as B&W negative

-Sam

See this week's New Yorker (Feb 2, 2004) profile of Larry Cohen for a history of transgressions (like stealing shots ON TOP of the Chrysler Building :blink: )

-Sam

I like the look of closeups with a wide angle lens in a "non-romantic" like setting, (meaning, don't do this if you're trying to make your leading lady look good!), but you have to be careful or everyone onscreen will look like Kramer from Seinfeld.

From an interview with Chris Doyle:

'When we did Fallen Angels, I started with a 9.8 mm lens. I thought that was rather distorted but Wong Kar-Wai said, "Let's go further." So, we went to 6.5mm. [Actor] Michelle Reis turned her head and her nose became like Pinocchio; it just extended through the whole frame [laughs]. I said, "What are we going to do?" and Wong Kar-Wai said, "We don't show her the rushes, do we?" '

B)

-Sam

Unfortunately when Kevin told the lab guys to scratch up the film, he failed to tell them to scratch a "WORK PRINT" so the original is in terrible shape.

Of all the "Don't Go There's" in the world this has got to be "Don't Go There" #1 !!

I'm surprised to hear the lab would be willing to do this (couldn't you simply write "Critical End" on the can ?) <- JUST joking

But anyway, congrats !

-Sam

I would not assume that a lens that wide would work with a Reflex Bolex, rear focal distance is very critical and limited at 1.9mm !! I'm pretty sure the 1.9mm Super-Tegea would not.

Link didn't work, BTW.

-Sam 1.9

more fully-budgeted black and white movies tend to look slightly less contrasty, or maybe they're just shooting colour stock.

I wouldn't say the B&W negatives are generally contrasty, you can look at the curves for various gammas on Kodak's site -- B&W reversal yes, it's supposed to be.

I would sa B&W can appear contrasty in high contrast situations as compared to color neg, but it can look flatter too, in well flat lit situations as there is no color to make anything stand out.

It can really be an art to get a nice snap *and* smooth midtones in B&W.

-Sam