Gautam Valluri

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.

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

What ASA did you rate the 125T?

ADOX used to have the Pan-X 100 ASA Super 8 film. Could this be a repackaged version of it?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Excellent work, very interesting! Did you have remjet issues with the 125T?

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.

Excellent work Heikki! Well done.

Yes I noticed this yesterday. Anyone knows what's up?

You hit the nail on the head. His fans justify his incoherent filmmaking by attributing it to intelligence. Sure it's always impressive when a filmmaker is able to convey a lot by saying very little but this is not the case with Nolan. His films since The Dark Knight Rises have really fallen off into a 2.5-hour assembly of shots. There are no more "scenes" in his films. We cut and jump around in space and time without any indication as to where or when in the story we are. After a while, it gets irritating. It seems like a waste of 5/70mm and 15/70mm images if we don't get to inhabit the landscapes of these films like we did in the deserts of Lawrence of Arabia or have some of the best talent in the industry but not let them unfurl their performances in a proper mise-en-scène. Also his final act reveals have become weak and predictable: Oppenheimer - "it was Strauss all along but wait, Oppie managed to make sure his legacy is intact..." Tenet - "I am the protagonist! You were working for me all along." Dunkirk - "Local kid dies a hero in Dunkirk...(having been an unfortunate victim of an accident)" Interstellar- "I told you I'll come back..." (okay this gets a pass for the emotional weight) The Dark Knight Rises- "It wasn't him who climbed out of the pit, it was. And also I'm the daughter of Ra's Al-Ghul" Bonus: How awkward were the gratuitous sex scenes in Oppenheimer? It felt like Nolan was trying to go full Nic Roeg but just ended up with some super cringy stuff.

Oh I almost forgot I recently went to see this really good feature documentary made up of the director's Super8 home movie archives. It looked really good on DCP. Les années Super8 :

Pin-registration issues aside, I don't see why anyone would shoot a feature on Super8 instead of just going for 16mm. The cost of buying stock, developing and scanning is almost the same... Richard Linklater shot his first "feature" You can't learn to plough by reading books on Super8 but it feels like it was more of an experiment than a serious film effort.

It wasn't in the last Kodak price list I received. They must be doing it on a made-to-order basis for big enough productions.

David, I also saw it in 5/70mm and really enjoyed it. Going back to see it again this evening. I've been trying to guess the workflow for this. Could it be that their "master negative" was a 15/65mm + IN of the 5/65mm parts optical blow up and then reduce everything optically to a 5/65mm and 4/35mm anamorphic INs? Or seeing that more than 50% of the film is shot in 5/65mm, is the "master negative" actually a 5/65mm + IN of the 15/65mm parts optically reduced to 5/65 and then that gets blown-up to 15/70 and reduced to 4/35 anamorphic? Also did they optically print the Double-X sequences onto a Colour IP and then make an IN for cutting the master negative? Or did they splice the Double-X parts inside the colour negative? So many questions! I'm very impressed by Nolan and co's committment.

I'm deeply saddened to announce the passing of Christophe Goulard yesterday. I cannot begin to explain how important he was to us in the French analog film circles. He was not just a technician / restorer of cameras, he invented incredible tools and gave life to old machines by adapting them to modern usage. L'Abominable, Re:voir, Etna and all the small artist-run labs in France were enriched by his vast knowledge and technical expertise.

I have some rolls of 8651 Fuji Super-F 250T if anyone's interested?

Jaehyun, I have some rolls of 16mm 8651 Fuji Super-F 250T if it interests you?

Bump, I still have 6 rolls left.

I don't think they did a 15p IMAX print, I'm guessing its an 8K DCP double projected?

Here is the trailer if anyone wants to check it out: I just hope they didn't do any of that AI upscaling stuff for this. I always appreciated this film for its ballsy grain and latitude-deficient b&w photography.

Hello all, Just saw the A24 trailer to Darren Aronofsky's "Pi" restoration that will be released to commemorate the film's 25th anniversary. What caught my attention was the "8K / Atmos" IMAX release. I have a copy of Aronofsky's "Pi diaries" and everyone knows that the film was shot on high contrast 16mm B&W reversal stock. I'm wondering what they actually did here? 8K scan from a 16mm film source or even a 35mm interneg seems a bit excessive no? Also, if any of you based in the US could go see it and share with us your experience, I'd appreciate it. The snorricam sequences shot on the bolex might be fun to watch in IMAX (if the image holds up). Gautam