Webster Colcord

What about this little guy? Around 400 bucks. http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Micr...k2496-main.html

I've got a reflex NC, it's still got the rackover base but it's been locked off. I'm not sure if it was once a BNCR that later had the "B" removed or if it was something in-between. If I recall correctly, the guy I bought it from had purchased it from Martin Hill in North Carolina. You can see that it's got an animation motor, I've used it for many years in stop motion animation but it's just been sitting dormant lately, as most of my work now is done in computer animation. It was outfitted with a very sensitive black and white Cohu videotap camera by Ken Stone for use on the stop-motion elements for "Monkeybone": I do have a sync motor for it that I purchased from Martin Hill, and in the few times I've shot with that it has indeed been very quiet, comparable to the noise that my Arri 2B makes (though maybe even a little more quiet).

Landon, Cool your jets buddy. I wasn't aware that it was a D.I. when I was watching it, I was just surprised by the general softness and graininess- and I was looking for clues as to wether it was D.I. or not, and wether it was shot in 35. Some specifics that pointed to digital artifacts of a D.I.: the spots on the film that popped on several times were consistent in their shape and position, and were both on the underwater footage that looked like it had been shot on video, and the film footage. On a long pan shot, the grain "held" for a few frames at regular intervals. This is a compression artifact, I think. The fact that some of the opening titles over the film footage were soft was my biggest clue that this may have been a poor D.I. There was a timelapse shot of the northern lights that was incredibly soft and grainy, looked like it was taken from a low-rez video source- I would think that something like that could have been enhanced in the intermediate process. I figured that the fringing (around the black penguin skin against bright white) could be a lens issue, and could be on the film- but someone will have to give their insight on that... sometimes the fringe was orange, sometimes blue-ish. I agree that an optical blowup would have had it's own inherent problems, but it looks to me almost like this was not intended for theatrical release- as if the film was finished on D1 or digital betacam and released theatrically as an afterthought.

I think I just got my answer from http://www.film-tech.com/ - Super 16 blow-up. But the fringing still bothers me, that must have been a digital artifact, no?

Maybe this film has been discussed already, if so then please point me to that forum. I just saw this film tonight on a great big screen, and I noticed some very odd artifacts in the print. First off, the print seemed very soft, right from the opening titles. There was pronounced grain throughout, and an odd fringing around black areas against white- sometimes an reddish fringe, sometimes blue. There was also a pattern of black and red spots which appeared three or four times in the first half of the movie, perhaps just for one frame (not "cigarrette burns"). I was quite looking forward to seeing some stunning cinematography, and for sure the closeness to the subject and harshness of the conditions made the cinematography great notwithstanding. But I was dissapointed with the print quality, and I'm left wondering if it was a bad digital interneg (the grain did not look like bad compression though) or poor print duplication. Perhaps this emphasized an origination from a smaller neg? There are some great "outtakes" during the closing credits which show the filmmakers on location in the antarctic, but I couldn't tell if they were shooting in 16 or 35. Some shots it looked like they had a arri SR with a large lens, others looked like maybe it was an Aaton 35. To me, it looked too good to be 16mm, but not as good as 35 should look, and overall the contrast seemed muted. Even the source material that was obviously shot on video looked more poor than usual.

There's a GC package for sale on ebay right now- still under $1,000 with one 1/2 days left. Hope I'm not breaking the rules of the forum by posting this, it's not my sale... It's item # 5519293683

Well, the folks putting the physical display together have informed me that there's actually a shader for Mental Ray that will render out a 360 view with the correct distortion for the curved screen. You can download it from this guy's site: http://www.sandstrom.on.to/ But for previs purposes, I need to come up with an approximation. I changed the "film back" in Maya to 3351 X 720, which is 1/3rd of the final image size. Thanks Bruce for the info but since I changed the format so drastically from 35mm, I actually need to compute for a longer lens. I've had a good result from a 75mm lens, but there's still a few issues at the seam. It's for a gigantic display at E3.

Just to follow up a little, -each 1/3rd section comes out to 3351 X 720, that's 4.65:1 (and being CG, I can set the filmback to that) however I need to find the correct lens to not give any "repeating" movement at the point where the seam is (as would happen if I used a lens that was too wide). There's no overlapping between sections in this render.

Hey guys, this will apply to a CG render, but the lenses I'm using in Maya are equivalent to 35mm four-perf - hence, I'm posting it in this category. I'm going to put together a sequence for a 360-degree display and I would like to tile it in three 120 degree sections. The image is 10,053 X 720 pixels. I'm looking to find the lens that will give me a 120 degree wide view. Originally I thought I could do it using a 50mm lens in nine 40-degree sections, but I would rather do it with three sections to simplify the rendering. Since all of the camera attributes are variable in CG, there may be some odd setting which would give me the equivalent, but I've got more experience with 35mm lenses than with CG lenses. I know this has been done in 35mm before, but with more than three cameras shooting up into mirrors.

If you're looking to buy a Mitchell, I would recommend going with Martin Hill in North Carolina, he's an old Mitchell expert with a warehouse full of stuff, probably more Mitchells than anyone on earth. His prices are good, but the gears may be a little dusty... http://www.martinhill.com/Cameras.htm He doesn't update his site very often, so it would be best to call him- he's got a lot of things that aren't on the site, including some Arri gear.

George, I think your chipped shutter blade is definitely the problem. I've had "out of phase" problems like John is talking about above, with an old Wall animation camera with a worn gear. After reading through the postings I think my less severe 2B flickering artifact is happening because the black paint has worn off one blade of the shutter. You could try the tape fix or supergluing a tiny sliver of blackwrap onto the edge. Aluminum dryer duct tape (metal with an adhesive backing) is stiff enough for this job, and would probably never come off- the adhesive is really strong. You could cut a thin sliver and stick it to the black side of the shutter to replace the missing chipped area, then paint it black (or paint it black before cutting the sliver, then touch it up after).

Probably not what your looking for, and the seller only has two previous transactions listed in his feedback forum, but there's a very interesting 2-perf Mitchell (with quite a few accessories) on ebay right now: Mitchell NC 2-perf

They mostly show up on fx shoots, but have you considered a Mitchell S35R? They're available for under 10K and they still look cool enough to impress a client, especially with the under-slung mag.

Has anyone had experience with this product? I'm thinking about purchasing one for a 2B, the Visual Products one would be better because you could still use the normal eyepiece but it won't work on a 2B because of the door. $1750.00 is the going price, and they've told me that it will probably fit fine on a 2B, but I'll take the camera down to L.A. to make sure it fits.

- thought I would chime in to this old thread- I've got three eyemos, but none of them have the spider turret or mag mounts. I have a nice angenieux lens in an Eyemo mount, I think it's a 28, if memory serves. One of the three has "MGM" spray painted on the side. The oldest is a black bomb-spotting one with a case full of fixed infinity-focus lenses with yellow filters. I had a canon lens mount put on it. The last time I used one was several years ago to shoot some home movies of a flood- as I was winding up the spring, it snapped, which shot the winding key backward and practically broke my thumb. I have friends who have shot animation with them, no capping shutter required. Martin Hill was telling me that at one point the army hired Mitchell to design a replacement for the Eyemo, but what they delivered was too awkward and cumbersome for combat use. He's got one of the prototypes.

This is the quote from that Oct thread-

Monaco Labs in San Fran, .21/foot process, .38/foot bestlight workprint (figure in a few extra bucks for their PG&E energy surcharge). And of course it's a 100ft. minimum. I've never done video workprints; but I can tell you that any supervised telecine rate at around $300/ hr. is quite cheap these days (that's your hour, not an hour of film). The last time I got a quote from Downstream on the Spirit transfer it was $500/ hr. but I'm sure it's higher now. Zoetrope in San Fran advertises their telecine to local filmmakers, and I did a half hour there a couple of years ago for around $200 including tapestock, but it's very limited. It's an old system meant for video dailies and can't do on-the-fly repo's. But it's passable, plus it's a little bit of fun seeing Coppola's place.

I concur with what Dirk said, you want to go with a lab that you know and trust, or get a positive referrals for. I've heard horror stories about neg continuing to "develop" in the can (because the lab didn't properly fix it). You may get cheaper processing, but in the end you get what you pay for. Also it depends on the lab technician whom you work with. Mike & Spike's Festival Of Animation used Crest Labs in L.A., and I had some negs sent there and was never overwhelmed with their prints. They did a lot of blow-ups from 16 for the fest and what came out was some new form of art because it looks so off from the original (incredibly contrasty and blue). However later I read that they were the exclusive lab that did special processing (Ektachrome as Negative) for "Three Kings". In the article the director was saying that there was one particular labtech there who was able to produce the results they wanted. And then there's that famous saying for a certain lab in LA: "Can't Find It, Can't Fix It, CFI care!" That was in the late 80's, I've heard that they've gotten a lot better since then. I've had great results from Teknifilm in Portland (though I'm not sure if they're still going), Alpha Cine in Seattle, and Monaco in San Fran. Also Forde labs in Seattle do a lot of specialty processing- a friend of mine uses them for all of his 16, and he's always gotten good results. All of those labs are very willing to work with indies because they don't get a lot of footage from the major studios. Also Downstream editorial in Portland has a Spirit Datacine and probably offers the lowest rate on the West Coast for Spirit.

This is a shot that has been scanned and stabilized, sorry the file is so large but you really can't see the problem at a lower rez. It's in the upper right corner around the kick light source. This was shot with my Arri IIB in Academy, not full ap (standard Arri mnt. Schneider 35mm lens). It's a very subtle flicker. 10MB Quicktime Because it's a consistent flicker, my thinking is that it's happening on one 'taking' section of the mirrored shutter and not the other. The arri shutter has two blades, as you can see in this sequence below- I rotated the inching knob through a full revolution of the shutter. I am doubtful that it has anything to do with the baffle. George, have you tried contacting Arri? I've sent them emails in the past regarding projection equipment and gotten very helpful, timely responses. -Webster Colcord

What are those baffles for exactly? I think it was explained to me once, but I don't recall and I've got the exact same in my Arri IIB. What mystifies me is that it's a flicker and not a constant fogging. I'm at the day job and I don't have the Arri in front of me, but that is a major clue to me- that between one frame and another this flare/ fogging effect decreases and increases in intensity. I don't think that a glint off the baffle would do that, if that were so it would be consistent from one frame to the next.

I've had the exact same result with some footage shot with my Arri IIB. I'll post a quicktime when I get a free minute. A flicker around a flare from a bare bulb at the location.

Tellef- Thanks for referring me to Visual Products to get a replacement belt for the Cinema Products flatbase motor. They actually referred me to Derek Whitehouse at Whitehouse AV (http://www.whitehouseav.com) who told me that he used to work for Cinema Products and got this request so often that he ordered a whole bunch of belts for both the CP flatbase with the built-in sync motor and for the later version, which is the CP flatbase which the motors mount to. I'm sure I could have ordered the correct belt from a company like Grainger but finding the right diameter, or more so finding the correct pitch of the teeth was going to be difficult. -Webster

Pictures of the flat base motor. The strange cigar-shaped object which accompanied the motor. When plugged in, it seems to emit a high pitch until the motor achieves sync speed. The inner workings of the motor, the deteriorated belt went from the gear on the upper left to the lower right. I've found a source for synchronous belts. www. grainger.com, but it's difficult to find the correct pitch measurements. Thanks for the tip on Visual Products, I've bought from them before- I'm going to get a quote on the cost of the belt.

Wow! Thanks for posting that. Do you plan on doing a neg conform -and did you transfer with the edgecode to enable that?

John, Let me know if you can send me some pictures of your eyemo, and if you might ever be interested in selling it. Here's my email: wcolcord@aol.com