ishan vernallis

wow!

you guys are really amazing!

i can't thank you all enough.

i'm looking forward to seeing your piece steve.

thanks for sharing it, and giving me a chance to see what 200t

looks like w/o 85 filter.

this post was a great start to the new years learning curve.

cheers!

much thanks david and chris for the insight.

yes, the nd filter factor. thanks for saving me from possible over exposure.

it is all a bit of new world to me.

my experience so far is using the ND filter on my dvx100

which i understand in a functional way. but the science of it?

if i might pose another rookie question (or two)-

i'm shooting various lenses on an acl

all with different diameter front glass

so there is no way ($) i'm going to buy filters for each lens.

at this point i'm also working without a matte box/ filter frame.

but

the acl does have this gel filter slot, which while maybe not being as precise/desirable

as putting glass on the end of the lens it is what i'm hoping to make do with for now

as i can swap out lenses and keep the same piece of gel set.

as far as gel nd filters (wratten?) which would you suggest having?

if i wanted to budget for only two. a .3 and a.6 as d. underdahl recommends in his book?

he writes that a .3 cuts 1 stop. and a .6 cuts 2 stops and that you can layer them together to cut 3stops.

what all this filter talk makes me realize (did you just hear the gulp as i swallowed my pride?)

is just how unclear i am about the notion of what actually comprises a whole "stop".

(laughter, do i hear laughter?)

it seems like going from f32 to f16 is a jump of two stops.

why?

i understand the basics of how to use a light meter.

film speed in relation to aperture, shutter angle and such.

but if i were to try to tell you how many stops are between f 5.6 and f 11 i'd be at a loss.

is there a simple description/formula that will clarify this concept for me so that when i am using an ND filter i get the correct exposure?

slowly slowly

piece by piece

i think i'll go to the woodshed now

and practice some scales.

thanks.

What are you testing? The results will not be reflective of 200T with the right filter.

thanks for the input charles-

basically testing a bunch of stuff i've not used yet.

an acl 400' mag that i've never run film through,

and i'm curious to see what i'll get out of a few lenses

that i've only looked through at this point.

but it seems like it might be worth the while to wait until a filter comes

in the mail and to shoot some other stock,

(i had ordered a filter, but the seller didn't get to the post before early holiday hours closing today)

might just shoot video instead this week.

it would be a shame to loose what could be nice color

just for a lack of a bit of orange...

happy new year!

beginner question.

i'm hoping to do a camera test in a few days.

shooting kodak vision2 200t.

the film is balanced for 3200k

and needs an 85 filter for daylight.

just a shortend thrown in on deal.

we're shooting outside.

i dont know if i'll get a filter by thursday

with the holidays and such

if i go filterless.

how off will the color be?

can i easily color correct in post/fcp.

as i will be editing this footage digitally anyway?

would it be any different than tweeking with hue parameters

for digital film to compensate for off whitebalanced video?

you would think there would be some sort of plugin for fcp's colorbalance

called "filter 85"? (1/2 joking)

thanks

hi andres

were you shooting in squeeze mode or letterbox?

looks great.

Wouldn't you know it,

just when finally I got a super16 camera

there pops up a live theater project that necessitates

actually projecting 16mm film on stage.

All of my projectors are eiki ssl standard 16.

I'd be willing to lose the audio on one of them

to be able to widen the gate.

Has any one done this before?

Now I'm kicking my self for not buying that super16 pageant that was on ebay

a few months ago.

any one got a super16 projector they want to sell?

thanks!

I was interested in seeing your clip

but the link did not work/

nor did this piece directly from your website...

other clips in your portfolio did.

thought you might want to know.

I recently purchased a C mount 17-85 som berthiot dog leg zoom to use on a non-reflex bolex rex16.

The problem is that when the lens is screwed in all the way,

it does not mount in a manner so that the dog leg viewfinder can be attached to the lens.

I've seen pictures of how this lens is supposed to fit onto the camera,

but this one sets the viewfinder mount so that the dog leg

would be running through the bottom of the camera body.

Does this mean that the lens mount is way out of whack and needs to be collimated?

Where does one get the calipers...

(or whatever they are actually called)

the two point wrenches,

that enable one to turn the c-mount threads and other parts

of a lens. It seems like if I could just screw/unscrew the cmount further/less into the lens

that all would be well.

Any Ideas?

Thanks!

Thanks for the input Chris and Robert!

much appreciated.

If this has already been addressed... please forgive the repeat post.

nothing was coming up in the search engine.

I have a music video in the works,

and I'd like to shoot both on 16mm and standard def 24p video (dvx100).

(we won't be doing a HD telecine for this project)

what I am wondering is- what format the 16mm comes back in when telecined

for standard def work...

will it be progressive? (I would hope so)

will it be usable on a 23.98 (24pA) timeline? or only a 29.97 one.

or do they do a true frame for frame 24 fps progressive transfer,

that is only really good for a 24p timeline....

I'm just trying to figure out what mode I need to shoot my dvx in

so as to be able to cut it in with the 16mm transfer.

I suppose it may depend on the lab,

but if anyone has any advice,

I'm all eyes.

that angenieux viewfinder is for an eclair acl camera... i seriously doubt it could be applied to a 12-120 lens. it'd be like hunting for a duck with a decoy moose.

I just got around to calling up dwanye's photo

as i saw online that their order form listed

100' rolls of 16mm kodachrome...

and was sooooo excited about the prospect.

Then the sales person told me that they sold out only a few weeks ago!

I feel like I just found out that the last Chinook salmon

swam out to sea, never to spawn again.

the topic title says it all...

anyone have or know where I can find just the sunshade

for a kinoptik 5.7 lens?

thanks-

ishan

[

Anyone have a contact for Kinoptik or Kinopik vendors in the US and other than A Cam? I guess maybe

Du-All since they sell the A Cam, no?

hi alain-

i was in contact with the kinoptik folk in france a few months ago

looking for a sunshade for a 5.7 (which they quoted at 527euro?!?!? 120euro shipping!?!?!)

parlez vous? I can forward you the email.

did you guys composite the pigeon for the arial shots?

or were you flying your r.c. helicopter that close to the birds...

great shots!

so lets say Matthew shot with an HVX,

could a power pc 1.67 powerbook handle HD?

or do you need a newer intel model?

i've been doing SD on the same rig (except 1.5 ram)

and am hoping to soon start working with HD telecines...

will my machine be able to handle it

if i go easy on the compositing/ effects?

thanks

thanks martin

you're too kind.

i'll definitely drop you a line next time i'm heading down.

(usually get there every month or so)

it'd be fun to combine a test rental with a semi serious super-short short shoot .

:rolleyes:

I think you do need more modern glass if you are headed that way. Why not rent a high-end zoom like a Cooke or Canon to do those shots with? I've heard the Optars are very nice high-res lenses that cost a lot less than Zeiss but you still won't find one of those primes used for less than $2000 most likely.

 

Your lens will always matter more than your camera and often more than even the medium you are shooting to.

 

"It's all made in the glass."

Thanks for the words Adam.

Unfortunately, my remote location

(5 hours north of san fran, 7 hours south of portland)

makes gear rentals rather impractical... (but very nice for the other aspects of life)

so, unless some special project showed up that warranted the travel to a rental house...

I'm weighing the cost of ownership with the desire for quality images.

I am still curious if any one has bothered to get 2k hd telecines made

for 16 footage shot with older primes

and what the results were...

or even theoretically would be?

I asked george at optical electro house a while back

about doing stop motion/timelapse

on an ACL and he said you needed to make/have a special motor for it...

sounded like he might have one that he rents out,

or maybe he could make one for you ?

Hope you all don't mind me bringing this old horse of a thread out from the archives...

But it brought up some questions for me regarding HD.

A few months ago I decided to make the jump from working in standard def video to HD

by learning how to shoot in 16mm, with the idea of eventually shooting super16

and getting 2k telecines made to post with...

What I am wondering, a bit into the process,

is how good does your glass have to be to even make it worth the while ($)

to have the film converted to hd.

I've been slowly getting to know the principals of working with some simpler film cameras,

using early nonreflex filmos and bolex just warm up to the new medium,

and have acquired a few nice older primes (angenieux/switar)

for these cameras.

Now that I have a S16 ACL on the way, and am wanting to start thinking about actually shooting for 2k transfer...

does that mean having to spend $1200 plus (Zeiss) per lens in order to get the kind of resolution and contrast

that a 2k telecine would do justice for?...

would using my older prime lenses for a 2k conversion project just further enhance their limitations

when presented in hd?

much gratitude for directions down the road.

out of curiosity...

could some one maybe clarify what the difference is

between the super speeds and these tevidons?

obviously the super speeds are a bit faster...

but is that a $1000 difference?

would the tevidons be about as contrasty as the speeds?

do they have the same coatings?

thanks

o.k.

Am I very confused,

or is this seller way off mark...

They just wrote to me regarding a

Bolex Kern Macro-Switar 26mm f1.1 RX Lens:

"The 26mm f1.1 lens should be ok for standard 16mm or super 16mm for your Eclair acl. Rx lenses are needed for Your Eclair."

I have never heard that The Acl needed RX lenses.

Did I miss something along the way?

whooops.

just now saw the pdf on the preceeding zeiss lens post.

which more or less explained what I was wondering.

Still though, curious if any acl shooters bother with the rx switars?

thanks.

question:

I've been reading here and there

that it is possible to use switar RX lenses

on nonreflex cameras, if they are over 50mm.

In my case I am particularly wondering about

using them on an Eclair ACL.

Has anyone had good results with this?

Is there a compromise in picture quality?

Seems like if you're wanting to keep the glass small

and relatively inexpensive, that the switar AR lenses are a good option.

Yet, most of these are very old and not as sharp as the newer

switar macro lenses?

any input would be most appreciated.

thanks.

when ever i've done video for live theater

the lighting designer is always very happy

when i rig a means to cover the projector lens when it's not in use...

a simple pulley with a flap that allows complete black,

or even an old p.c. cd tray which has the eject motor intact

can be remotely switched.

the thing about shooting the dance with the projected video

is that you will have no control

over how bright the dancers are in relation (proportionally) to the video.

whereas if you composite you can set levels for both in post.

it all depends on how much you get to work with the lighting designer/ board op

to see what the video and dancers look like together for your camera,

which can be very different than for an audiences eye.

are you documenting a live theatrical performance

or going into a space just for the shoot?