Patrick Neary

Hi- As I understand it, the 7.5A% setting (in 720 or 1080) only changes the analog output, not what's going to the cards, which remains at 0.

Hi- I don't mean to sound like I'm ragging on Sekonic, I'm not, (their meters are great) and realizing that everyone has their own way of working, (and their own balance of craft and art) I'm just having a hard time seeing what the profiling really adds to the metering or photographic process that you don't already have access to. My spot meter has a very conservative averaging feature that's a vaguely similar idea, but I never use it because it's an extra step I don't really need. Maybe there's a specific instance where it would be indispensable (man I love the spell-check feature here), I just can't think of any. And I sure wouldn't download someone else's "pre-tested exposure profiles" and rely on that.

yes, that's what I thought the automax was, but looking inside mine can see it uses a geneva movement, and kind of an odd magnetic clutch coupling to the motor, among other things. It's fitted with a nikon mount, so I was hoping to rework it somehow to run at a more useful speed than 16fps, but my machining and fabrication skills are, ummmm, not up to the task. :)

hi there- I think Clairmont or Otto Nemenz had/has a rig kind of like a 3-D setup that allowed you to shoot the same image simultaneously with two cameras, so you could roll one with color, one with B&W or something similar, and combine them in an optical printing step. I suppose you could also use it to run one camera exposed for highlights and one exposed for shadows and then do an HDR kind of thing in post.

Hi Hal- I don't see any RPM markings on the unit, but I might shoot a test with HMIs for laughs to see if I pick up any flicker- Of course that test won't be shot with the 100' rolls I got from CERTIFIED FILM (off ebay) awhile back. I've already mentioned somewhere else about the rusty film cans taped up with scotch strapping tape and their shipping which took almost two months, and their non-existent communication...now I go to open the first cans (100' daylight loads) and film literally just spills out. It hadn't been secured by tape, a paper band, nothing, and seemed to not even be secured to the spool itself, so it just unspooled itself, or never was wound correctly in the first place. Nice operation there, guys. And more housecleaning, I see above I made a comment about the "eyemo based automax", and having somehow secured one of those too, I see -for the record- that it doesn't share anything in common with the eyemo, except that it also pulls 35mm film. oops. oh, it's not for sale... ;)

.....except that published curves are just your starting point, and are independent of any exposure, processing or storage or (most importantly) post-production variations that affect your final image. I suppose you could test a stock through your production and post workflow and plug-in a profile based on that, but by then you'll already know that you're losing highlight detail at +4 and shadow detail at -3 so having your meter beep at you (or whatever it does) seems kind of redundant. Sekonics are still great meters though!

Hey there- Is there a "rosetta stone" available (on the net) that correlates scene file settings (ie DETAIL CORING : 0 ) with the actual numbers needed (ie 00005002: 8 ) so that I can do an initial setup on the 'pooter with simpletext? thanks!

Hi- I can't believe no-one has mentioned "Dark Star" from a pre-Alien Dan O'Bannon! Who could forget the beach ball? And the Chicken (or was it ham) sandwich? (saw it on a big screen years ago, and it looked pretty bad)

Sekonic's exposure profiling seems more like a marketing dept. invention than useful tool... Like Chris sez, there are so many variables in shooting (both stills and MP) that the idea of profiling a camera or stock seems a little nuts. But then I guess there are people out there who REALLY like to fidget with their meter! (and others who don't use a meter at all.)

Hi Paul- I'll shoot you a message too- (no 2-perf parts, but I've got some Mitchell mags you might need? :) ) sorry for diverting this thread!

Hi- Why in the world would Mini-DV even be on the table??? And Filmlook? Antique! :) Go get an HVX200 (or rent one, they're everywhere): much better picture, good frame rate selection, still very inexpensive! good luck with your project!

Hi Tim- Nikons are around 46mm so, not as deep as PL- I know with other Nikon mounted 2Cs I've seen, the shutter housing (to the left of the lens mount as you look at it from the front) has to be shaved back to accommodate the girth of the lens... I'll shoot you an email, probably easiest!

Hello- I used to have a set of Cooke Speed Panchros (series II) and they were gorgeous. I wish I still had them. If I were getting into a 2C again (I'm not) I'd get a PL or Nikon hard front. PL is obviously easier to integrate into existing production, Nikkors are easy to find and cheap and can be very good. In fact, if anyone is interested I've got a nikon front for a 2C around here somewhere....

Hi- The nice thing about NOT having the full-frame sensor though is that the smaller sensors (like the digital rebels) correspond very closely to a super-35 frame (and close enough to academy) that you can use the camera as a director's viewfinder as well. It's the best all-purpose dp tool out there!

Hi All- Has anyone here ever been able to modify an automax sequence camera to do anything other than time-lapse? Does the design of the Geneva movement exclude running at 24fps for some reason? (steadiness?) The camera as configured does run at "cine-speed" 16fps (I guess their definition of cine-speed is rooted in the early 1900's...) but I am wondering if retrofitting some other type of motor, or altering the existing one, might make it crash-cammable.

Heyyyyyy, I wanna see that- I did finally find the Brian Johnson interview buried in the first box set (disc #16, I think) The on-location interview with Martin Landau on the same disc was a scream- some character wearing skimpy gold spandex wandering around in the background with a giant - well, ape-thing, made it unintentionally hilarious. -then tried to watch a couple of the season 2 episodes.... UGH! And I used to be a card-carrying member of the fan club!

I promise, one last link and I'll get back to looking for real work: (it is nicely done!)

Showing again how much free time I've had this week...I dunno if this is true, but it's kind of funny (from an aviation newsgroup): Last month a Hollywood producer was detained for several hours for honestly answering a TSA screeners question as to his purpose for visiting. The answer to the question: "I'm here to shoot a pilot." :)

I recently picked up a wood/brass "zero-image" pinhole camera and thought IT was a work of art, then saw a link to these- http://www.boyofblue.com/camerapage_3rdeye.htm fantastic stuff!

I'm not sure I'm really in the movie business at all- But I see positive returns on every project because I get paid for shooting (except on the aforementioned feature and a few shorts). But to add to the list of despair, 3 other 16mm features I shot, all with budgets between $100k-$150k, are still in shoeboxes in the producers' closets. One deservedly so. But two were made by a fairly established actor, had very good non-name actors and good scripts, I thought they'd make it to cable or dvd or something no problem, but no-dice. I haven't talked to the director in several years, so I don't know why they apparently died on the vine. He had previously written and directed "Def by Temptation" (shot be Ernest Dickerson) which had Samuel Jackson and a few others- that one was picked up by Troma but I remember him being not happy about the deal for some reason. One TV movie I did (The Legend of Sasquatch) is out there, but it was part of a syndicated series I was already shooting, just three episodes strung together pretty much. I also shot 2nd unit on a couple TV movies (P.U.N.K.S. and Miracle Dogs) that did receive wide exposure on Disney and Animal Planet, but those were produced by established companies and had name cast. I'm supposed to start shooting a $1+ million 35mm feature this summer (name cast), maybe then I'll be in the movie biz- But that project has been a long time coming. I think one of the things that has allowed this project to get as far as it has though, was a nice short we shot (also in 35) that played a number of festivals- and that 12 minute film had a budget almost twice what you're talking about for a feature. You might look at "The Puffy Chair" -it's on netflix- I don't really know anything about it, except it was very low-budget, no names, and was one of the best movies my wife and I saw last year!

Hi- I think you would have to ask yourself why anyone would want to buy a romantic comedy with a pseudo-typical plot, average acting by as yet unknown people (mostly friends) and few if any special effects. Even as just a film-goer, would you seek out and pay to see something similar? The first feature I shot (for a friend) was a 16mm no-budget (I think $7,000 or so) B&W "thriller" and I think the only sale he made was me buying a copy off amazon ($14.99) just to have in my collection. That's not a very good return!

You could just run 400' loads and then use the rest of the space inside for snacks.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I see some problems with your explanation- and I'm sure others here will chime in too (and then correct whatever I've muddled up) If your meter says f4.0, then you have a certain number of footcandles falling on your meter. That doesn't change between your meter and the front element of your lens. A simpler explanation might be: An f-stop is mathematical; the ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of the aperture in the lens. A T-stop is just an f-stop adjusted for light loss within an individual lens (which is what I think you were getting at in a kind of roundabout way) :)

Hi- On a lark, I just shot and souped some 8521 that was more like 12 years old, and it was just a little foggy, not too bad!

I was always under the assumption that a lens like the 10mm retrofocus was set somewhere near its wide-open hyperfocal distance (about 8 or 10 feet?)...