Jump to content

Patrick Neary

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Patrick Neary

  1. Hi There-


    I peeked at mine and don't even see 2 wires in there- just a light blue-insulated one the clamps in where your gray one is, there isn't a second (black-sheathed) wire in sight. Do you have the XLR power-in conversion on yours? maybe it's part of the ground?

  2. Hi There-


    Is the bicarbonate powder just baking soda or something else? Where do you get it? Agitation or just let it sit?


    I occasionally do slop tests of ECN in HC110 and would love to have an easier way to remove the rem-jet!

  3. Hi-


    I've got a 25mm Cooke Speed Panchro up on the 'bay right now that was a great, sharp lens.


    The "General Scientific" lenses (I've got one of their teles) are also sharp and solidly built.


    All of those Eyemo lenses are so old that you pretty much have to look at each one on a case-by-case basis.

  4. Hi All-


    I just threw this up on the 'bay, it's a very nice Eyemo that has been converted to accept Mitchell 35mm mags, and has an AC motor with speeds of 12, 18, 24 and 48fps, and even better has a variable shutter, 0 to 160-degrees, set manually from an access hole in the front turret.




    It's quite a nice camera but I just haven't used it other than for a few tests, and it's time for some spring cleaning.


    PM me or post here (or ebay) if you have any questions about it.









  5. Hi-


    I've been using 2 FloLight panels for the last year and they are great- rugged and very versatile.


    I also carry a bunch of those little white rechargeable "home security" led lights from Costco ($20 for 2-pack) and other than a slight green spike they are also great. Stick a piece of velcro on the back and you can put them anywhere, they are quite bright and have two power level settings and last forever on a charge.


    A friend has a couple lowell blenders and sorry to say those things are awful. Cheaply made, flicker like crazy every time I've tried to use them, and the battery holder is a disaster. A good idea not well executed.


    Marc, yes, continuous processing machines used in labs have to have the remjet removal tank designed carefully. Sprays are directed at the base side of the film in such a way that no remjet-laden water finds its way round to the other side.



    Just out of random curiosity, what happens to all of that remjet sludge; just down the drain or is it managed differently?

  7. Hi-


    I do this every so often for quick slop tests, usually to check focus of an old lens or some other simple camera test. I've been souping the color neg clips in HC110 (dilution H) @68 for 9:30 and they form a decent, though grainy image that just needs a bit of contrast oomph in photoshop. The rem jet is horrible to deal with, it gets all over everything, and I don't make a huge effort to wipe it all off the film so it leaves interesting streaks and skid marks.


    And just to clarify, no variation of Super 35mm is ever used with anamorphic lenses and neither in anything yielding 1.85:1.



    well then I must be the only person to ever shoot 1.85 with S35...

  9. You might take a screw or two out, and see if they're metric or inch....


    -- J.S.


    I can't, I wasn't the one who shelled out $15 for all 6 of them! :)


    I was just curious, not having seen that particular movement before. My guess is similar to Simon's. it has a very rough look, quite different than the polished, refined engineering of something like a Mitchell or B&H.

  10. Hi Stuart,


    IMHO they are louder than a 2C.


    Nothing is louder than my Mitchell GC with its peanut motor.


    And that includes mistreated leaf blowers and large radial engine aircraft.



  11. Ah, finally someone who understands the value of seeing something fail!




    Every imaging system has artifacts and shortcomings as you know, it's just a matter of deciding which ones you can live with (and afford).

    I got to see a new 35mm print of 8 1/2 last week and I thought if some of those pixel peepers looked at this they would proclaim that 35mm was unsuitable for theatrical origination.


    As far as adapting lenses, I've tried some of my manual AIS, AF, and pre-AI Nikkors (with a $30 adapter) and the difference in quality from the stock zoom is not subtle at all. PK (even older M42) lenses may be cheap, but if you're careful about buying, as with any mass produced stills lens, they can be extremely good glass as well. When I was shooting for a newspaper (pre digital days) I tried out three or four 85 f2 nikkors before I found one that was really good.


    The 20mm f1.7 Panasonic lens is quite good, and not that expensive for a fast wide-ish angle, the main problem seems to be with the supply.


    I haven't even begun to mess with image control parameters with the GH1, but I suspect it's just as malleable as the Canons given enough button pushing.

  12. Yes and I'm greatly encouraged but I want to see it next to some Canon stuff. The Canons I suspect would not do nearly so well.


    There's a clip on vimeo somewhere of a guy wearing a coarsely-woven black flat cap which is quite eyebrow-raising given how little aliasing there appears to be - but again, it's very hard to evaluate this stuff off a 6mbps h.264.





    Here's a collection of poorly shot clips (mine) that i think show off the GH(13)s bad side (notes on the vimeo page)



  13. How does it do with regard to rolling shutter and aliasing?






    I'm only trying out the AVCHD 24p "C" settings so far, but my very scientific testing which consists mostly of vague recollections concludes that its much better than the Canons, I ran into some instances in footage of downtown buildings the other day where one building out of the skyline with strong skinny verticals aliased like crazy. I'll upload a clip or two to vimeo today, or maybe some stills here to illustrate.


    Rolling shutter is effectively gone, or at least minimized greatly from factory settings.

  • Create New...