jason duncan

I'm somewhat of a newbie, so I admit I don't understand all of the info given so far. Currently I'm concentrating on filming a band in a bar (with dim light of corse) so I figured I'd have to set the aperture to the largest setting, but I didn't know that f/1.4 causes lower res. I've done research on battery pack light kits, but so far it looks like a 100W is the largest that can be ran from the pack (remember the original 110VoltAC lights that are 625W and blinding). I want to use b/w and not 500T, and I'd rather use Plus-X and not Tri-X. I've been told that if I want to film in a bar, the only way is to use 500T. I know back in the day Kodak had 400ASA b/w.

Hello all,

I read a comment by Rick Palidwor about having an aperture setting of f/5.4 will give a much shaper image than that of f/1.4. I'm confused as I thought the more light being exposed to the film the better?

Unless you need a specific "reversal look," I would avoid it. Especially if you're doing a digital finish where you can make it look like reversal anyway (if you want to.)

 

Reversal film has about a 4 stop range, while color negative has at least a 10 stop range.

 

If you underexpose reversal or overexpose it by one stop, you will end up with unusable footage. You can overexpose color negative by many stops and still have usable footage, while you could underexpose by a stop or 2 and possibly get away with it.

 

Color negative will work better and look better, also if you're going to transfer the footage to a digital medium.

I guess I'd be more worried about underexposing. I would like to film a bar band so I would need 500T but you are saying even that speed of film is pushing it? And yes, the footage will be on some sort of digital medium.

Hello all,

I was wondering your opinion on using negative vs reversal. Since I never actually view the film, I have it transferred to a miniDV tape or to an AVI file dvd, would it make more sense to use negative? especially if the quality is better than 64T. Reversal is easy for me because I can have it both processed and transferred in Michigan. I know the lattitude is better with negative but is that the only advantage? I keep thinking about the old 35mm still pictures and how they can make a duplicate from the positive print but it's always bettter to have the negative when it comes time to making dups. Just wondering if the same principle applies?

Thanks

With this LA72000, can I get a 2.35:1 ratio?

Ok this is the procedure:

 

the LA7200 is a 72mm tread, use a step-up ring for 58mm (Canon) and an additional ring extension

because the LA7200 was made for DV and the clearance for the tread is limited and wont fit directly

in the step-up ring, for the extension I use an old 72mm polarizer without the glass.

 

Very important:

1- keep the anamorphic fully horizontal

2- Adjust focus and recheck anamorphic lens position

3- Avoid extreme short DoF

4- At the begining of every shoot put a perfect circular object in front of the camera (draw a circle in the slate)

this will be your guide in post for 16x9 correction

 

Super 8mm is perfect for this adapter

 

I dont have the kodachrome test , is in Cuba but I will made another in Double 8mm cinechrome soon!

I like low speed film for my tests but I will try in plus-x also.

I'm working in the same setup for 16mm.

Do these settings also appy towards the 1014xl-s and 814 xl-s?

I recently bought a GAF S/70 but for the life of me can't find where to put the batteries... am i a complete idiot?

Does anyone know a thing about these camera's?

I have a Anscomatic ST/111. So on my model you have the batteries that go in the handle grip portion. And there is another spot for the mercury battery. A penny or nickel works good to get the little silver cap off.

Great short...luv it! Two questions for ya:

1) How come negative Super 8 looks better on some sort on Mp4 formatt? Really the only other max 8 negative film I've seen on dvd is some of the shorts in "Super-8 Cities", and I'm not sure if Rick Palidwor's "Sleep Always" is negative stock, but I have that too.

2) your scope looks like 2.35:1. I thought super 8 could only but cut out to 1.85:1?

A large frame of reflective (white) material creates a soft quality of light, with soft shadows and is generally flattering on most faces. A hard, direct light produces hard shadows that can look harsh and unflattering on facial features and skin texture.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_light

 

http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp027.htm

 

http://www.videomaker.com/article/9421/

 

Almost any kind of light can be used to bounce into a frame of material, so take a look at the units that David suggested. There is also a variety of frames that can be used for bouncing, ranging from a simple sheet of foamcore or styrofoam held in a c-stand, to larger frames made for film and photography. You'll have to take a look at how large a frame you'll need for the space you're shooting in (and that doesn't block the view of the audience), since the larger the illuminated frame, the softer the quality of light. Also consider how bright a light you'll need for shooting, since light is reduced significantly when bounced, and "falls off" with distance. Along those lines consider what power options you have at the location -- chances are you won't be able to plug in anything more powerful than a 1K without tripping a circuit.

 

If you're planning on bouncing, consider a fixture with barn doors so that you can keep hard light from spilling past the edges of the frame and blinding the audience.

Thanks fellas for the info and the links. I'm somewhat of a newbie to Super 8 and I wasted $200 filming a band at a bar. All of the film was way underexposed.

Are you talking about a light with a Chimera soft bank, or a Lowel Rifa light?

I'm not sure exactly what he had. But I do want the same set up. It was a giant spot light on a stand facing opposite of the band with some sort of sheet on a frame that he bounced and aimed at the band. I'm guessing the light shined directly on the band would have blinded them?

Griflon is a white plastic-coated cloth used on frames for bouncing light off of, usually outdoors in daytime since Griflons are easier to clean if they get dirty. Otherwise, usually one would use UltraBounce or Muslin on a frame instead for indoor bouncing, though they are used outside too all the time.

 

I'm talking about frames that are 6'x6' of larger.

I will be filming inside so I will try the other two reflectors. But where do I look for this and that giant light can? Smith Victor and Bogen Imaging seem to have the small cans on stands. This guy had a heavy duty light can the size of a watermelon.

Hello, I was at a bar and some fellow was filming a band in 16mm. He had some sort of light can with a grifflon, I think. I have tried to find this set up on various web sites and the closest I have found is a shop light on a stand with a umbrella as the reflector. Is this grifflon a thing of the past?

Auto-focus systems work by finding high-contrast edges. If the light level is too low or the image underexposed, there isn't enough contrast for the autofocus to work.

 

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panas...al-Controls.htm

Thanks Michael. Should I set my focus for manual instead of auto?

A griflon is just a white plastic-covered sheet used to bounce light off of. You could use a white bedsheet if you needed a large bounce surface like that.

 

In terms of lighting an office, it all depends on the look you want to achieve, if you have to match the color of existing light sources, whether it is a day or night scene, moody, etc. In a typical daylight office with lots of windows and flourescents, you have to figure out which color is more dominant and match to that, perhaps using flourescent lighting units. Or perhaps you can turn off the overheads and not deal with that color. Or close the windows and not deal with that color, etc. Depends on the location.

 

And if you are using a Super-8 camera without a crystal-sync motor, you may want to shoot a test to see if the overhead flourescents flicker on film. If they do, you may have no choice but to turn them off.

Wow, thanks David. I didn't even consider the flicker from the flourescents.

As a newbie who is obsessed with Super 8, I've realized lighting is as important to film as a roof is to a house. I plan on shooting in an office with mediocre lighting with reversal film using a Canon 1014 xls. What size light source? What about a grifflon? and how big? Where do you buy that stuff nowadays. With our poor economy, all of my local camera shops have gone the way of the do-do bird.

Hello all. I have a Panasonic PV-GS150 3CCD miniDV and latley it seems like I'm getting a slight blurred image if the light source is not extremely bright. I have to zoom in and then out on the subject to correct this. Is this normal for a consumer model?

I'm not sure anymore who is processing negative Super-8 film, who co-opts with other labs, etc...

 

Anyone want to take a stab. Also does turnaround time matter as to who is doing the processing?

 

The Vision 200T and 500T are really amazing stocks that open Super-8 filmmaking to those who can't afford full on lighting set-ups.

Yes, I can't afford a full light set. Are you referring to the greater lattuide of negative stock? Meaning I can be a little underexposed and the film may still turn out and not to too dark?

Watch the 16mm film "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter" and you will find Santos!

I already have the Tele but I'm looking for the "Close up" 240 lens for the 1014/814 xl-s. Do you have that too?

The 814-xls does not have lap disslove as the 1014 does.

Alessandro, I wasn't avoiding your responce. I've been boucing around from here to there trying to read this and that. I'm sorry if I didn't answer a question or if I re-asked something after you gave me an answer. I really do appreciate you taking the time to try to help me for free. Thank you, all of you.

Yea, I feel pretty foolish about the whole deal. Thanks everyone for you input and comments!

Light meter or not, the bottom line is with TriX in a bar or club stage, you will be wide open no matter what, and trying to hit the brightest parts of the stage. I've only had TriX come out good only 2 or 3 times on the stage... maxed out apeture XL shutter. Brightly lit club stages, and one brightly lit concert hall. Even 200T won't usually cut it in a cluc unless it's a really bright stage. 500T is your only real bet, and you will still most likely be at f1.4-f2.8

Wow, I thought I was doing good by having the slower of the two b/w films with a XL camera and setting the apeture to 5.6 but even with 500t I'm still pushing it. Thanks everone. I still don't understand why the mini-dv looks perfect in the same setting. Smaller lens means less light.

Yes, I plan on buying a meter after that costly adventure. Would it be too hard to match up audio if I were to film at 9fps?

The club I was at mainly had the strobbing lights going. I don't know if they could/would turn the regular lights up anymore. I thought Tri-x was slower of the two b/w films meant for low light. So you are thinking since tri-x equals 160t, I need more like 500t, even 200t wouldn't work? Once I insert the cartridge in and the camera reads what film speed it is, how do I varify that it is reading the cartridge correctly? Another thing, the lens on the super 8 is much bigger than the mini-dv but yet the video footage looks great?