Jump to content

Gautam Valluri

Basic Member
  • Posts

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gautam Valluri

  1. Hello Everyone, I was just wondering if the lens size matters in 16mm? For example, how is an image shot with a 25mm Kern-Switar C-mount lens (which is tiny) differ from an image shot on a PL-mount 25mm Zeiss Superspeed MK III (which is considerably bigger)? Besides the obvious sharpness from the quality of glass, I'm wondering if it affects the FOV in anyway by having a lens with a larger diameter? Any thoughts, diagrams or examples would be welcome. Thanks!
  2. Bumping this as I'm also looking for more info on the technical specs on this film. Such an extraordinary film, so relentlessly puts us in the perspective of the lead character!
  3. Once you have a sample of only the camera noise, you can feed it as a noise 'profile' in software like Adobe Audition. It's usually under the "noise reduction" menu. Once the software has the profile, you can remove it from the entire sound recording by doing "Apply profile to entire file" option.
  4. Stephen, don't forget to record some room tone and if possible, also a few seconds of your Aaton running without any other sounds. This is so you can profile it in sound editing software to remove camera noise if needed. Good luck with the shoot!
  5. Also I'd like to know if these were direct filmouts from a Digital file (is that even possible on 70mm?) or was there a 15-perf and 5-perf "internegative" made for contact printing these projection prints?
  6. The film's duration is 2 hours 46 minutes, roughly 18,675 feet of 70mm. $20,000 / 18,675 = $1.07 per foot. Sounds kind of low to me?
  7. Congratulations David! Thank you for all that you do on these forums, this is amazing news!
  8. Thanks for the tip, I will do another test roll at 50 ASA to see what it does.
  9. Excellent work Kamran! Thanks for sharing. You could perhaps consider putting this up on https://sixteenmillimeter.com/ and perhaps also on https://www.filmlabs.org/ to reach a wider user base...
  10. Yes The Lighthouse was shot entirely on the Double-X but Jarin had done extensive tests with 16mm Tri-X as well. There are some of his posts from that period on these forums somewhere. Understandably, he couldn't share the results with us but he did mention exposing 7266 (Tri-X) at 80 ISO and then developing as negative yeilded much better results compared to traditional 7222 (Double-X).
  11. They went with the 7266 with a bit of desaturated 7219 mixed in, exactly like The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Maki, the finnish boxing film from 2016. I remember reading an interview with the filmmakers back then where they said they bought out the entire European supply of Tri-X from Kodak, and had to even ship some from North America. Could've been exagerrated. I did get a 122m roll of 7266 shipped from Kodak last year, it took them a few weeks to deliver and it seemed like it was made to order. The film also looks like it has the Guy Maddin / Bertrand Mandico vibe, which could be a bit much for a feature-length film. As Jon mentioned above, always a pleasure to see Tri-X and SR3 features. Also, I remember Jarin Blaschke doing tests of 7266 as a negative during The Lighthouse pre-production. He claimed 7266 at 80 ISO was a far superior 16mm negative than 7222.
  12. Greetings! Last summer I did some tests on some old 7217 stock where I exposed at box speed (200 ASA) and push-processed the footage 1-stop. I was pleased with the results, especially with exterior shots. I'm wondering if I can technically get the same kind of image if I simply expose the stock at 100 ASA and process normally? Considering push-processing pretty much doubles the per meter costs of development. Also, this stock is easily 15+ years old. Thanks in advance for your views, G EDIT: Just adding that I went through some other posts on the forums already and I couldn't find any specific responses to push-processing comparisons with overexposing pertaining to expired stock.
  13. Hi Tommy, Thanks for taking time out to respond to my queries. I was previously unaware of the work you guys were doing on the S16 cameras. Hoping you guys will find the resources to pick it up again soon! In the meantime, wishing you the best for the 65mm camera systems development. Best, Gautam
  14. ADOX used to have the Pan-X 100 ASA Super 8 film. Could this be a repackaged version of it?
  15. Robin, I wasn't aware that Logmar proposed S16 cameras. I just found out about their cancelled Rockhopper and Galapagos cameras. I stand corrected! Looking at the specs now they looked promising, except the lack of 400ft loads, and I'm sorry they never got it off the ground.
  16. Considering the costs of developing 5/65mm and 15/65mm that pretty much three people will use, isn't it better to be spending all that money and time in developing S16 cameras? What's Logmar's end-goal? How do they plan to turn a profit for their investors?
  17. It's great that Logmar is making the 5/65mm and 15/65mm camreras but apart from Christopher Nolan and a couple of other filmmakers, no one else will use these. Why not make an affordable, lightweight, ultrasilent Super16 camera body? This is the most demanded market currently and the cost of owning a second-hand SR3, XTR Prod or a 416 is no longer possible for most independent filmmakers. Logmar could be doing what the early RED cameras did for digital filmmakers- offer professional quality, modulable camera bodies at affordable prices. An ACL-style multi-lens mount system with adapters, 12-48 fps crystal sync speeds, a basic video tap, a basic timecode with light weight, easy to load co-axial magazines is enough. Supported by the possibility of spare parts and servicing, this could be a very profitable market. Logmar already must have done a lot of research and testing for their S8 cameras that they could transpose to a S16 system.
  18. Thank you Frederick for the info. This is really worrying. Over at some of the analog photo forums, members have started compiling lists of all airports currently using CT scanners for hand-baggage. Perhaps we could also compile a list to sticky-post on these forums? Copy-pasting some of the info here: HOW TO IDENTIFY THE CT TYPE X-RAY SCANNERS The following machines are currently on the market; Smiths – CTIX L3 – Clearscan Rapiscan - 920CT / Connect CT IDSS - Detect 1000 Nuctech - Kylin Analogic Cobra These US airports currently use CT scanning technology: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) Houston Hobby Airport (HOU) Indianapolis International Airport (IND) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Logan International Airport (BOS) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Miami International Airport (MIA) Oakland International Airport (OAK) Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) Tampa International Airport (TPA) Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD) European airports Amsterdam Schiphol Rome-Fiumicino International Leonardo da Vinci International Airport Stockholm Arlanda Airport (in progress) Shannon Airport in County Clare, Ireland Donegal Airport, Ireland source: https://www.thenationalnews.com/travel/2023/04/05/airports-where-travellers-dont-need-to-remove-liquids-and-laptops/ Please add on more airports if anybody can confirm. Info on how to contact these airports beforehand would also be useful. And also perhaps fake "ISO 3200 film" stickers?
  19. Here's a 'freewheeling' test roll of 16mm Fuji Eterna 250D I shot back in late-2018. I reckoned this stock was about 5-7 years old at the time of filming this test so I just metered it mostly normally and just overexposed it a bit in-camera here and there for some shots. I processed it myself normally and didn't have any remjet issues. I used the rest of this batch of Fuji Eterna to make a film in 2019, which I contact printed onto 16mm 3383 and everything came out nicely. Seeing that the last Eterna stocks were rolled out by Fuji in 2013, I'm guessing your stock is atleast a decade old. I think some people on this forum suggested overexposing by 1 stop per decade? I would probably do two test rolls: 1- rate the stock at box speed for the -3 to +3 exposure tests and process normally. 2-rate the stock at box speed for the -3 to +3 exposure tests and push process +1. If possible, please share your results with us when you have them. Also, more recently, a friend shot some Fuji Super F 250T and had remjet issues. This predates the Eterna stocks and was probably about 20 years in a freezer. Might be worth giving a heads-up to your lab before you send these in.
  20. Excellent work, very interesting! Did you have remjet issues with the 125T?
  21. 500T one pass through an carry-on X-ray machine should be fine as long as its fresh stock and as long as its an X-ray machine and not one of those new CT scanners that more and more airports are installing.
  22. Yes I noticed this yesterday. Anyone knows what's up?
×
×
  • Create New...