Vincent Sweeney

I'm confused here Bruce, you do understand that motion film has nothing at all to do with still photos, right? Random grain being repeated 24 times a second fills in a detail gap, after gap, after gap, giving even the small 16mm frame great perceivable detail when in motion. Repetition of random grain and the resulting images of a 15perf 65mm frame seems hard to even comprehend and certainly has to be close to "12K" in digital terms, although I hate to use that word when talking IMAX. Not sure about the registration errors you are talking about. I'm an avid IMAX viewer and haven't seen this. In fact all I see are images that are more immersing than 3D because of its resolution. Their system is pretty damn well designed I think. Wait, what is Mitch referring to? Speak! ;)

Thanks for the response guys. I like Nizo, owning a 560 myself, but I would have to locate a 6080 that has been serviced it looks like. Any ideas on who may have one or can do that? DuAll has a 9008 we can rent. I was surprised at their purchase price though. I assume they were $10k new? I wonder how the 6080's Schneider 7 - 80mm compares sharpness wise, between F2.8 and F8, to the Canon 1014's 6.5-65mm or the 560's Schneider 7-56 mm at the same stop range? (I list those two because I know them for reference) The Special is out for me since it can't do 24fps.

The IMAX guys from the discovery channel show finally made it! This is what big screen theaters were made for. I can't imagine seeing a tornado on 15perf 70mm. http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/tornadoalley/

You were netting the gate? Not the back of the lens? I can understand the hesitation but that post effect will disappoint you I bet. At least that is what has happened to me. I wouldn't let Walmart handle even normal prints. There must be a real photo lab around.?

"Old"? It was made in the 90's. It is rare to catch since the theater needs to have 70mm projection capabilities and less and less are around that have them outside of IMAX, which I doubt will ever be showing it with their stuffed corporate blow-ups and 3D filling their schedules. Find the 70mm theaters near you and check their web sites. I saw 2001 in 70mm two years ago at the AFI in Maryland. They are the type of theater that would show it, although the downside is often their screens being too small to take advantage of the format. Hopefully his new one will be coming out soon! (also on 70mm)

If you are hoping for the kind of quality you see in store bought DVD's, you won't get it from your home computer. If you have the budget, I'd send the uncompressed files to an authoring/compression lab who use much more advanced compression equipment. Results seem to be better the less compressed the file they have to work with. I saw a DVD of an indie feature recently that was made from a 2K Cineform file that looked almost studio level quality and I judge that best when you put it into a BluRay player and see how well it is able to uprez to a large HD plasma. The best standard DVD compression I have seen so far is the newer Bladerunner transfer. Uprezzed it almost looks BluRay-like... the actual BluRay looks just amazing. If you cant send it out, trial and error seems like the only way to get the best out of your home system. The catch is that too high a bit rate will cause some DVD players to freeze up and maybe not the one you are testing it on.

Dear S8 experts, Can the Leicina Special or the Nizo 6080 still be serviced? If so, by whom? Will the Special do 24fps? Also, is it possible to put 16:9 frame lines each? Can they go SuperDuper8/Max8 do you think? Maybe it's a sin but I have to ask. What's the downside of these cameras that may not be obvious after reading as much as one can on the net about it? What makes the Special seemingly more stable than other S8 cams if it is sharing the same film cassette/gate technology all the rest are? Is this just rumor? How good/practical/functional are the viewfinders on each? I assume each one still needs a barney for sound indoors? Sorry for so many questions. I'm trying to prep for a likely special project this spring. The film will go through a 2K scan for HD mastering. Money isn't really an issue in this case, as far as camera rental goes so I'm trying to research the best overall S8 cam for sharpness, reliability, practical use on a set and noise level. I've narrowed it down to the Special with the 6-66 or the 9008 (from Du-All) or the Nizo 6080, so far, and this selection is partly due to noise levels or I'd likely just go with one of 4008's that Pro8 has. I'm also looking into rigging up a crude video tap possibly, on whatever is chosen. Thanks to Michael's sticky post for leading me in a good direction!

Sounds like a worthwhile shoot. The 2.40 16mm is a wonderful choice, having been there myself (on Kodak and stuck to 50/200/250 stocks) Being able to tweak your frame a little is nice at times too. I'm curious about the net you mentioned. Can you go into that more? Any test pics to post? The plastic cam sounds very cool and looking forward to some updates.

No "Never Let Me Go"? I'd put it on my best, along with "Black Swan" and "Shutter Island". Can't wait to see "Biutiful; it looks like a good contender. Catching "Get Low", "Blue Valentine" and "King's Speech" at the Spirit Awards voting screenings.

Why not archive to 65mm? Some loss over 50-100 years would be less minimal, it would seem, and it wouldn't be that expensive in comparison to the troubles of other methods.

Bluntly, if you sent your reel to me I'd not bother to look at it because I would assume you are going to try to sell me on using your red camera. I'd also assume your experience was very limited because you have a reel with the one (trendy) format on it. I'd spice it up a little, shoot some Super8 "artsy" shots, which is cheap enough, get rid of that shot at 1:27 and the one before it at least, and go from there.

There is a 4K Sony equipped theater not far away that I have been to but do you think they have shown anything but 2K files so far? I saw a couple shows there but didn't notice much of a benefit over the last 2K digital theater I was in so I have to conclude they are doing a cart before the horse kind of thing here.

I was in a situation recently where a producer was asking me what they could get away with for their (low six-figure) feature. I think he wanted me to confirm his wish to save money and shoot with a 7D, and explaining why it could be a bad idea can be tough but tests like this help show their severe limits. Making a test like this one but instead with a person wearing a knitted sweater might be a good move. Showing how impractical DSLR's are for the camera crew is another story though.

I have seen it, not to mention real world use, and it really reminds you how those things can bite you badly if you aren't always on the look out, though even then you can't always catch a tweed suit or a wall of bricks in time. The Alexa in that vimeo test is really impressive. I didn't realize it had that kind of DR.

I agree, loved the camera work, which is no surprise from that team. I don't think there was a special rig, just a great operator. Experience counts here.

Interesting. I thought it was just on the 66 stock since last week I did some pick-ups on it and noticed how cheap it was (even though I wasnt paying). Now if only some smart labs would start deeply discounting HD scans, I think it would help show to a lot of digitally trained students, and directors who can't decide if its worth it, the benefits of film for many projects.

I don't think you will find that available anywhere. Having it done on a Spirit or any modern HD/2K scanner is what you want and you'd be amazed at what it will do for that little format. Cinelicious and pro8 both are set up for real HD transfers from S8mm in LA.

Well... I guess that is one way to interpret what is known about this movie. Though you might want to consider the director's and crews' past work and go from there. Someone saving the world from a meteor is probably the last premise they would be involved with. Think more along philosophical themes. If you were joking, I didn't get it.

I believe that was 2008 and part of 2009 so I would think pretty unhappy at that time. Good thing they have improved steadily since then. Regarding his new film, which seems low budget for him, I think they are mixing formats; why I don't know. He seems to like hyper clear/texture-less images so moving to more digital acquisition makes sense as it gets more acceptable, esp. when 65mm isn't practical.

It does seem really rare but can happen. It seems like the hairs you do find are more of the type that will stick near the opening via "static". Yes, I would do a gate check after each set-up. Having said that, I did lots of B-roll recently for a film on an Aaton and would go through a whole 400ft roll without checking because the takes were long, and we didn't have one issue. Once for a few scenes there was something (a chip maybe) on the far right of the image that I couldnt see by checking the gate. Zooming in 1% on the image took care of it though.

That's about all it was good for at the time of the movie's production dates but you'd think Malick would have gone for Vistavision or 65mm for those elements still. Regardless, I have a feeling the movie's quality was of great concern and controlled better than any other in recent times and should be a rare experience for us. Thanks for posting the pics. Any further details to go along with them?

A (loose) acquaintance of mine was on set during some Penn shots. It was 35mm as well. Malick apparently rejected some or all of the red stuff that was tried out. No surprise there.

Chris I have a feeling that your age or maybe just general attitude will keep us from being able to communicate effectively on a forum so good luck out there, things will pick up soon for you, I hope.