Ray Noori

Hello all, I've started editing a feature in FCP, but I've run into an audio syncing issue. This is my first time trying to sync audio and video from different sources, so bear with me. I drag everything into the Final Cut Pro explorer window, find the corresponding audio and video clips, select them, and choose Modify->Merge Clips..., and choose Timecode in the pop-up where it asks merge using what. The problem is, the merged clip isn't really synced. The video is at the beginning of the clip (with the camera audio track), there's a 50 minute gap, and then the audio clip. It's consistent for all the audio and video. Am I doing something wrong? Can I not use timecode to merge the clips? The production slate was a Denecke TS-3EL Timecode Slate, and the camera was a RED ONE. I also tried choosing Aux Timecode 1 and Aux Timecode 2 in the pop-up after choosing Merge Clips..., but the net result is the same. I'm at a loss, any help would be greatly appreciated. Ray

Sorry for the late reply, and thank you all for the amazingly informative advice. I took Saul's advice and loaded both magazines with a dummy roll and ran it with the magazine cover off to make sure that the film is engaged properly with the wheel and the loops stay a consistent size. After I felt comfortable enough, I loaded both magazines again with real film and shot two more test rolls. The magazine with the safety claw again ran pretty loudly. But I got a call from the lab yesterday saying both rolls looked good and had registered properly. I'm now waiting for the telecine house to send me the results, so we will see. I guess it's a skill that will hopefully be solidified with enough practice. Once again, thank you all for your immense help.

Hello, I did my first test shoot on a newly acquired Eclair ACL, using a 100' daylight spool, and the lab just told me the film had not registered properly, it had gone through the gate without stopping and was exposed as a blurry mess. I am fairly certain that I loaded the magazine correctly. I used this video as a guide: http://eclair16.com/eclair-acl/how-to-videos/loading-film/. During the shoot I noticed the camera sounding strange and very quiet. Also, the meter that indicates the amount of film left did not move at all, yet the film had taken up in the take-up spool correctly. The camera came with two 200' magazines. I tried the second one yesterday. I haven't received word from the lab yet, but I'm pretty sure it registered just fine. The sound was different and the meter behaved correctly. What I noticed was that there is a huge distinction between the two magazines. One has a registration claw while the other one doesn't: Magazine #1: http://img29.imageshack.us/i/img00009201007212245.jpg/ Magazine #2: http://img534.imageshack.us/i/img00011201007212257.jpg/ Is one of my magazines simply defective? Or is there a way to use the magazine without the claw (which is significantly quieter) and still register the image properly? Any help would be immensely appreciated. Thanks, Ray

This is excellent footage! The outdoor footage perfectly demonstrates the amount of grain (or lack there of) and contrast I'm after. The image for the outdoor footage is incredibly sharp. I'm wondering how much of that is the good registration on the Arri 2c, how much of it is the prime lens, and how much of it is the stock! I have never shot reversal before, it looks like it could be well worth an experiment. It's hard to tell from the Vimeo footage how much less grainy it is than xx22.

Really? I always thought Double-X was less grainy as Tri-X. Also, someone mentioned earlier in this thread that 7222 is the only B&W stock available from Kodak these days.

Thank you Chris and Will. I loved the look of The White Ribbon and wasn't aware that it was Vision printed to B&W. That gives me some food for thought. I do love the look of Double-X, that's what I've shot my only two serious shorts with. My process of shooting test rolls came to a grinding halt this morning when I found out that the first roll I had shot had not actually registered, just run through :( I'm about to post something about that in a different topic to try and get some help with what could possibly have caused it.

Thanks Oliver. I had never even heard of the ORWO stock. I might give that a try. I've decided to do tests on both the Double-X and one of the Vision 3 Daylight stock. Expensive, but better safe than sorry I feel. Again, thanks for the advice.

Hello, I'm about to embark on shooting a short, non-sync narrative using my Eclair ACL 1.5 (first time) and the Angenieux zoom lens it came with. The final product will be in B&W, but I want to know if there are any benefits to shooting using colour stock and draining the colour in post-production. I do apologize if this question is silly. There are a few things to consider: 1) The shooting aspect radio will be standard 16mm, but the final product will be cropped to 1.78:1, increasing the visible grain. Would a newer stock like any of the Vision 3s give me less grain to begin with? 2) The lighting and shooting will be done to maximize the contrast. I'm wondering if shooting in a colour stock as opposed to Double-X or Tri-X would diminish the almost harsh contrast in B&W. I've only ever shot colour stock in Super 8mm for a project in which I actually drained the colour and assembled the footage with some that was shot on Double-X in 16mm on a Bolex. Super 8mm - Vision 2 50 D http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/05-010129L/1351/jpg/07/2010/img4/glowfoto 16mm - Double-X http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/04-230151L/1228/jpg/07/2010/img5/glowfoto 16mm - Double-X http://www.glowfoto.com/static_image/05-010321L/2276/jpg/07/2010/img4/glowfoto To my modestly trained eyes, there seems to be more contrast in the Double-X shots than in the Vision 2 50D shot that was translated to B&W in FCP. I would appreciate any advice greatly. Cheers, Ray

I have talked to the seller and we've agreed on a price of $4000, not the Buy It Now price, if I decide to purchase the package. The only reason I was thinking of moving from the ACL I have to this NPR was because I didn't think I could convert the ACL to S16 for a lower price than $2000-$3000. Has anyone had an ACL converted by Bernie? If so, could you advice on pricing?

To continue the original conversation, I'm now considering upgrading the camera to this S16 NPR if I can sell my ACL for a good price: http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...alenotsupported I'm a little unsure of the glass that's included in this specific package, has anyone used it? If so, how were the results?

Sorry for the misunderstanding Marc. The groundglass isn't 1.85, it just has 1.85 markings to make the framing easier. I will definitely do some testing with reversal stock, but shooting on Vision color stock is actually a very attractive option. John Boorman did that for The General as well I think, on top of the examples you named. Pi was shot on B&W S-16. I didn't have a chance to see it theatrically. The question of the destination format is very much open still. I have yet to get a good idea of the pricing for 2K or 4K scans. The film is self-financed at $10,000 for stock, development and scanning, so it's questionable whether I can afford even 2K scanning. I think the final destination format would highly depend on the fate of the film in terms of whether it can find distribution.

LOL! I know, it's really an amazing book and I'm glad I kept mine in good shape!

Thanks Saul! I actually had no idea that reversal tends to be less grainy. I will need the latitude badly, however, so I doubt that I'd be using reversal stocks. That's a great question, and undecided as of now. I would like to do a 35mm blowup if I can get the money together, but I'm not sure how good cropped 16mm would look blown up to 35mm.

Hello all, I need a bit of advice before embarking on my first feature shoot in a month or so. My original plan was to shoot on Super 16 with a rented camera, but for budgetary reasons I will be shooting B&W 16mm instead, using my Eclair ACL 1.5, using the following lenses: 9.5-57 Angenieux zoom 12-120 Angenieux zoom 75mm Angenieux 25mm f/0.9 Angenieux 10mm Angenieux My groundglass has 1.85 and I'm strongly considering cropping the final footage to that aspect ratio, seeing as all my storyboards are done in that aspect ratio. My original workflow was going to be: - shoot the footage, develop - telecine at 32 bit - edit, compile a final EDL - using the EDL as reference, scan the footage at 2K - colour correct and finalize Now my question is, given the fact that I will be shooting 16mm B&W instead of super 16mm, would it be worth it to scan at 2K? Especially since there will be a lot of low-light night shooting, which will inherently result in grain, which I'm ok with stylistically. Any help with that decision or any other advice about my workflow would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Ray

Gents, I shot this film last Summer over a period of 2 weeks in 16mm, using a Bolex Rex 4 with a Switar Zoom lens. One section is shot in Super 8mm. I am generally happy with the way it turned out, except for maybe some of the outdoor sequences. Any criticism or comments on the direction and cinematography would be greatly appreciated. Afterall, it was the help and encouragement of this community that made me go out and make this short: http://blip.tv/file/2209812 P.S.: The aspect ratio is enforced in post by masking the top and bottom of the picture. I had marked the viewfinder accordingly for shooting.