Curtis Bouvier

actually as I watch the video more, it looks like the video is indeed running at 12 FPS, and the band member shots are the only shots at 24 fps (or 24 fps slow motion) i can't believe how much variable frame rates takes a part in this!

Video in reference is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5CzYQrTcxI...feature=related the effect I am looking into can be seen clearly at 1:09 for a little bit and 1:29, and through out the video. every time the video shows something that had taken place in the past, the frame rate is very low. this is an 80's video so the frame rate would have had to be in halfs to fit into 24 fps. meaning 12, 6, or 3, as all 3 of those fit evenly into 24. I'm guessing the frame rate is 6. what do you guys think? I think this is a very effective way for emphasizing a narrative element that has taken place in the past at some point, and I'd like to try working with this! has anyone here had any experience with anything like this? I'm having a hard time determining whether the rest of the video is running at 24 fps or 12 fps. The majority of the video looks abnormally choppy as well, so i'm guessing there is a possibility they did indeed shoot 12 fps ( and 3 or 6 fps for the slow parts). let me know!

enhancer? can you tell me a little about that? Also the film you mentioned is that tungsten based? would that have any effect on the warmth? or realistically what would they have done, countered it with some other type of filter or?

here is the type of color i am discussing http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1063/rollup.jpg and probably what it would have looked like with out a filter (done with photoshop) http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8688/rollup2.jpg Now this was filmed in 1992-1993, way before digital color correction. any guesses as to what film stock was used and with what type of filter? I'd really like to know. I love the look of this film. any ideas would be appreciated! thanks

wow thank you for taking the time to give me that response my friend, its perfectly clear. this one guy mentioned an 8mm m42 lens that would offer a decent look for this k3 (has a fish eye look for 35mm, but supposedly not too bad on 16mm!). but it was a little pricey, i guess i'll have to see!

Ok, my nikon d70 lens is 17-70MM i get a nice wide look on 17 and a decent zoom look on 70mm on my K3 lens, set for 17, it has the same look as my nikon lens at 70mm... the K3 lens has the same zoom range as a nikon 70-200mm lens is this because the K3 lens is actually 17-69 FEET? not mm? i'm kind of confused as to whats going on here.. i was planning on picking up some cheap m42 lenses off ebay, but now i'm not sure what to buy lol

If the rotating shutter is about half an inch in front of the film, and you focus on something in the viewfinder. wont that half inch distance cause the film to be slightly out of focus? speaking with the K3 in mind. what do you guys think?

can you tell me a little more about this "sniper" unit? sounds really interesting, what hardware exactly is involved and how does it work! i know you wrote some details already , maybe you can go a little further, perhaps some pictures etc

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6287/scan1a.jpg http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1598/scan1bm.jpg http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7711/scanpreview.jpg

ok basically what you do is just put the 35mm negative adapter into the scanner, its a small black frame that is made to hold the strips of film, it wont hold 16mm film so it doesn't matter if its cut or not. all you do is run it through the scanner horizontally, ahh hell i'll just take a pic for you. once you load up the software and can do a preview and see where the film is, then you select a crop on what you want. its a bit odd, the software wont convert the negative unless you have just the frame selected. if its too odd, it will just make it a white blue, and then you have to manually convert it in photoshop which is time consuming is hell. i'll get some pics for you.! one quick question, the default lens than comes with my K3, is this bayonet mount?

yes indeed it was. i wish there was another option so i could pull out a bit and get some wide angle shots, i don't know if they ever made any other lenses for this camera :unsure:

heres the project in its entirety: http://www.sendspace.com/file/bwt6j2 68MB WMV file (plays in windows media player / vlc viewer etc) i did a copy of this before but I was unhappy with a few aspects of it so I redid it entirely last week.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9310/kras7a.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1308/kras11a.jpg <----- my favorite http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6747/kras13a.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8223/kras5a.jpg <------amazing color accuracy http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7638/kras19a.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5407/kras18a.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4041/kras12sa.jpg <---- too big for fileshack so i resized it to 720p http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4679/kras8a.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/599/kras10a.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7051/kras15a.jpg --------------------------------- sharper versions of the Glock 26C http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2782/kras4c.jpg http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/8106/kras4b.jpg hope you guys enjoy! i'll try and get a hold of some super16mm frames, and we can have a look at the grain on those, should be real interesting.

i was gonna bring them in, and they said they only do 35mm. so I was sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place. the timing was right because i have some family that needs a bunch of old film slides scanned, so they helped buy the scanner! its a canoscan 8800F, does 9600 DPI. i got more scans coming in a bit here, i'll post a whole bunch instead of a few at a time

wow i had my settings all screwed up and i was manually converting some stuff. this pictures are too grainy because of the scan. heres the real deal. http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8106/kras4b.jpg http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2782/kras4c.jpg