Jump to content

Patrick Neary

Basic Member
  • Posts

    871
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Patrick Neary

  1. Hi-

     

    I have a collection of my dad's kodachromes from when he was flying off the Coral Sea (aircraft carrier) in 1955, and they look like they were taken last week. I wonder how many photos being taken this year, or last year, or next year, will be viewable in any form 50 years from now.

  2. I am a bit confused about what to charge. What do you say?

    Any thought and information will be greatly appreciated...

    Thank you

    Eduardo

     

    Hi-

     

    Like Tom sez- On any kind of no/low-budget project there is no such thing as a "standard rate"; you ask "what are you paying?" and then you look to see if the project has other redeeming qualities (good script, visual opportunities, nice people, chance to work with cool gear, etc) and say yes or no.

     

    If you say no to their rate, maybe the producers can find a little more cash for you, or they'll go on to the next candidate.

  3. Hi Bill-

     

    In light of what you are looking for, I wonder if this link might be of some small help, it's just an inventory of 16mm equip't, but might give you an idea of common camera/lens pairings:

     

    http://communication.ucsd.edu/bjones/Movie...mm_cameras.html

     

    Again, by far the most common focal length to adorn amateur 16mm cameras was the 25mm, but available c-mount focal lengths included 10mm, 12mm, 13mm, 15mm, 16mm, 17mm, 20mm, and on up into telephotos from a variety of manufacturers.

  4. It's too late. I think it's rather funny that we are even discussing Bigfoot on a cinematography forum just because it was shot on 16mm.

     

    Hi-

     

    My impression was that this thread was about old 16mm cameras and lenses. I don't think it's just me, but I still find old gear cool and interesting and fun to discuss- more so than, say the thread currently underway about why Shane Hurlbut didn't dish on Christian Bale in the latest AC...

     

    I get irritated (from a purely photographic perspective) with the dumptruck-loads of pseudo-science surrounding the particular chunk of film that Bill is referring to (Discovery Channel, ugh), so it's kind of refreshing to see someone making the effort to at least look into that basic aspect of it.

     

    Plus I grew up in the PNW during the 70's, so I can't help but be drawn into this!

     

    And as full disclosure, my last 2 personal, just for fun projects: www.kinografx.com

  5. There was a cool viewer called (i think) the KVS-Pro or something similar, that was a Craig viewer with a sound head mounted below for sync/mag track editing, it looked very handy. The Craig viewers are very cheap and easy to find, but not as nice as the Moviscop.

  6. >So identifying this camera by it's aperture identification shape is a high priority for my research now. Once this camera is identified, I need to determine its lens mounting type and lens options.<

     

    So I'm kind of curious why this is so important-

     

    Almost any circa-1960-70's 16mm camera available to amateurs would have been c-mount, taking any number of a vast array of c-mount lenses. The only exceptions I can think of are the cine-kodak special and the magazine cine kodak, which had funky mounts ("S"?)

     

    Also, my K100 turret has the same rounded notch in the gate, and I've seen left-over single-lens mount front plates for sale, so Kodak either made a single to turret conversion kit, or did the conversion as a service, it would be very easy to go back and forth.

     

    I think what Charles is talking about re: the 16mm magazines is that the small cartridges had a square window that acted as a sort of gate, the film was enclosed in the cart, and there was another small vertical opening that the camera pulldown claw reached through to grab the perfs . It's been a long time since I had one of those but they usually had a small window that could be opened or closed (they slid open when inserted into the camera) to reveal one frame of film.

     

    Somewhere out there there is/was a cine-kodak forum with some very knowledgeable dudes.

  7. >So this third question is, can anyone offer a logical explanation for a cameraman putting a C mount lens on his K-100 that did not have a corresponding viewfinder lens of same focal length? In other words, while this is possible, in practice, is there any reason a person would do so intentionally?<

     

    What a fun post, I'll take a first swipe!

     

    This question is like asking why did you wear mismatching socks on a particular day? A camera store may have plopped a 20mm lens on the camera because it was sitting there at the time. The guy who shot the film was most decidedly not a cinematographer by any stretch, so how would he even know, or care?

     

    >There are other camera/lens related issues I hope to bring up as my research continues<

     

    One thing you might think about, if you haven't already, is that issues of theoretical lens and film sharpness are all going to go out the window when you're talking about an amateur who's shooting while running with a camera, especially when you don't even know where the focus on the lens was set.

     

    Set your still camera at 1/30 (roughly 16fps) or 1/60 (about 24fps) and run down the street full tilt taking pictures, with the focus set at 3', or 6', and with a big greasy thumbprint on the front of the lens, and 2 days worth of trail dust, and see how many are sharp. The answer will be none of them.

     

    I hope others bite on this, it's a fun subject!

  8. If you would have done a simple scratch test, which you can process yourself in Dektol and Rapid Fixer you can steal from just about any school darkroom, you could take it out and show it to them as proof that you aren't as fault.

     

    Hi-

     

    You don't develop a scratch test, you just run a length of film, pull the take-up side film out and look at it. Adding a development step is unnecessary and adds one more variable to the test which you don't want.

  9. What mount is this?

    Are these Series I or II?

     

    Hi-

     

    They are either Mitchell standard or B&H 2709 mounts, the 2 are very similar, (but not interchangeable as I understand). My bet would be on 2709 as the little angle finders came from either a 2709 or Eyemo turret.

     

    The 75mm might be a eyemo mount, it's hard to tell from the pix.

  10. I know I am retro, but I was thinking of typing my stuff on a manual typewriter. Is there a way to set the margins for a manual typewriter to type my own movie script?

     

    My wife and I go to a regular arts and lectures series here in portland (visiting authors pontificating about the creative process), and you'd be surprised how many nationally known writers still plunk away on typewriters.

     

    There's a shop close by that still services typewriters (Ace Typewriter) and can bring an old Remington back to showroom quality for less than the cost of a couple reams of paper, I highly recommend them!

  11. I would love to have that sucker. Of course I'd need three other people to help you lift it! Crystal motor, some Super Baltars, even a vid tap! It would look sweet on top of a Worral on

    the old McAlister- not to mention the nice images that would be coming out of it.

     

    Tell ya what Steve, let's go halfsies, half the time in Texas and half the time in Hollywood. Hmmm, maybe I could rent it out as a prop...

     

    Bruce Taylor

    www.indi35.com

     

    Wouldn't it be great to work on a production that was willing to use a BNCR as the A cam? And screw the video assist, the director would have to actually watch the actors!

  12. Hi-

     

    Film travels through the camera vertically, so to speak (unless you're shooting vistavision, or holding the camera sideways...) so altering the shutter timing only results in vertical streaks.

  13. I had one of these back in college for about 5 days, or more specifically, two windings, after which the motor jammed beyond any kind of easy fix. Needless to say I don't have a very high regard for anything Beaulieu. They're nice to look at but just seem very delicate.

×
×
  • Create New...