Michael Lehnert

Actually, I just noticed: shouldn't this thread be somewhere different than the "Lighting" forum, like maybe "General Discussion", as we havn't mentioned dedolight, arrisun or kino-flo once? :D

Hey, I hope you reconnect to your "old place"! I am not entirely sure how widely taught, shown or accesible those "Frenchies" are right now in US film schools. So every opportunity should be used. Maybe someone could enlighten me about that? "La Jetée" is really heavy stuff. ARTE (a pan-European art-focused channel) broadcasted it in the late 1990s where I finally caught it, original with German subtitles. I must admit the last film I saw from him was "Level Five". Since then, I wasn't able to catch up with this work at all. So even here in Europe, many filmmakers lack adequate exposure. I just watched "La reprise du travail aux usines Wonder" from tape archive for an article I am writing, and I was thinking that those 9 minutes of 16mm are more insightful as a piece of documentary than many of the recent feature-length investigative documentary films. At least, documentary filmmaking is back on the agenda, as it was kind of "underground" for most decades since the 1970s.

It would be nice to see Gus van Sant return to the level he had when he shot "My own private Idaho". Similarly, it would be nice to see Chris Doyle return to his inventiveness and visual creativity he contributed to the early Wong Kar-Wai films. It would also be nice not to have to see a collaborative oeuvre as "Psycho (remake)" again.

Thanks for that tip, Alex. I am gonna check it out!

Well, I probably assume the same as you do, Kodak Ektachrome 100 D... <_<

Giles: Hmm, right... sorry to hear that they weren't forthcoming on your request, Giles. Kahl behaving as we know him. Great to see a consistency in character :) , isn't it?. So after the MI5 style did not get far, I think one should call in the SAS. B) Kevin: All right then, I will try my hand (doubt I'll be more successful than Giles, though) and give those guys (rather one guy, I think) a phone call as soon as I find a spare minute and one hour afterwards for calming meditation to cure the anger... ;) I'll keep you posted!

Jason, that must have been a hell of a class. I am glad to see that this is taught, as it really matters. After all, I don't think Spielberg, Romero, Coppola and Scorsese would have developed as they did without French cinema films being screened and discussed in their classes. Back in school, too many years ago ( ;) ), we watched those films in our French-language and English-language classes, and debated the content with our teachers despite that we should have actually learned language grammar and irregular verbs :lol: . The term "cinéma copains" came to mind after a screening session with Jean Rouch, where he told anecdotes about the making of "Chronique d'un Éte" and the intellectual atmosphere around the IDHEC, the Cahier du Cinéma group, and years later at Aaton with JPB. He died only a few weeks later, and is much missed at the Cinéma du Réel get-togethers. This term really pins it down. If you find some time, check out the films by Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet (who is also no longer with us :( ) - that is a cine-life transforming experience, too. I just finished a phone call about the prominent quote by Peter Wintonick that is given online. I don't have Wintonick's book here in London, so needed to double-check the correctness with a friend. I think that he makes an unmistakeable point conceptually on 'Inspiration', 'Category' and 'Influence' with which I wholly agree: I discussed these (lacks of) politics of contemporary filmmaking and that important definer of Cinéma Vérité, Direct Cinema and Nouvelle Vague (cf. my earlier posts) with a friend in Poland, and he came up with this (provocative?) encapsulation: Now that's something to digest... :P . Most will dismiss it as cr*p, I'm sure; but maybe not... a background on the political economy of cine-tech houses and their corporate history helps to get that point. (although ARRI is not devoid of politics, either) Cheers, -Michael P.S.: I hope that at least the weather in San Diego is better than in London, and less dangerous than in Texas - gosh, James, don't get killed when ... well... doing anything, really.

"Z" is an excellent film by Constantin Costa-Gavras (who is a huge Eclair Cameflex fan, by the way) which is actually based on the same-name novel by Vassilis Vassilikos. It's a fictional account that bears intended likeness to the assassination of Gregoris Lambrakis in Thessaloniki in 1963, which shockwaved into France's political scene because of the close international relations between France and Greece ? quite complex stuff by any means. That accounts for the French involvement in the production of the film. Costa-Gavras had also links to the IDHEC and hence knew the French film scene personally, although was not involved in these three or two "cinéma copains" circles. That is why he is usually not regarded as part of N.V., C.V, let alone D.C. And he would be the first to aknowledge that. As Costa-Gavras really created his own style of filmmaking that he cultivated over the next decades as a political filmmaker (much more political than most French filmmakers, IMO) he has refered to his films as 'political statement films', for they discuss power, authority and abuses of those in global politics. "Z" is pretty much a rhetorially established, but visually intense and inventive thriller. If one were to force a link-up to vérité-work, one would also need to regard Oliver Stone's "JFK" as vérité-work: so clearly attempting to establish traditions with French cinema in these cases may be not the right approach, despite the French production background in "Z"s case (mostly because no other European country wanted to be involved in producing the film for political reasons). Actually, if one were to look out for a case for debating the categorical fault lines between Cinéma Vérité and Direct Cinema and the politics of documentaries regarding self-reflectivity, accountability and honesty (as in "hônete vérité"), which is all fundamental to the credibility of both C.V. and D.C., one should ask into which category Michael Moore then ("Roger & Me") and now ("Fahrenheit 9/11") would fall, especially in light of Caine & Melnyk's "Manufacturing Dissent"?

From my past experiences with Kahl, I fear one would need a MI5-style secret-extracting special ops team. But maybe these are past antics and Kahl is more accessible now. Let's see. Actually, if you want, I can give them a call next week to check it out. Might save you the German classes, plus the RyanAir discomfort...

Hello James, a pleasure being in contact with you! I highly appreciate you taking the time. I can fully understand where you are coming from as I have a multilingual background myself, and have to author in various languages as part of my works (BTW, I am not at all a job competitor to you :), just to declare that). With German not being the easiest language to deal with, I can fully see your problems, esp. in respect of the "pedantics" of some authors' writing styles. My point is that in those cases, easing the straightjacket of translation a bit by including a more Anglicized text could ease the resulting consistency problems the German composita and grammar bring along. It might also make some texts an easier read, which might broaden the audience appeal. And that is what Smallformat seems in desperate need to be in order to survive. Again, thanks for revisiting this thread, James, feel free to contact me in the future.

I just checked that story with Bild, and IMDB quotes them correctly. Bild is a German tabloid, like the UK's Sun, and hence, some stories they run must be taken with a pinch of salt. However, this story seems to be possibly legitimate. According to the story (also published online), several reels of the camera negatives were ill-processed and hence unusable, with the exception of the footage depicting the execution of Graf Stauffenberg played by Tom Cruise, who conspired to kill Hitler in 1944 but failed at that. This is what a spokeswoman of the production company stated publicly. Colin Ullman, who is actually representing Fuji in Germany, says that he has been approached to assist in salvaging attempts of the footage. Bild claims that Angela Reedwisch of ARRI could not be approached for comments or did not want to comment (they say she went "into hiding", but that is a bit of a dramatic scribble, IMHO). The blame game that develops when things go really that wrong is inevitable, with money and people politics not helping, as Joe Zizzo from this board had also recently freakish problems during a production which are apparently not resolved either. The thing here is that the parties involved openly talk about a sabotage at ARRI, which is quite an accusation. The reason why German media is seriously entertaining the sabotage suspicion is twofold: Firstly: the "Valkyrie" project really caused serious turmoil in Germany. You have Tom Cruise, a recently rather erratically-behaving person plus a member of a "faith organisation" that is not recognised in Germany and regarded as potenially involved in illegal and/or society-undermining activities by the German state playing a character that could be described as one of very few national symbols of resistance against the Nazis. Scientology likening their legal position in Germany with the prosection of faith groups like the Jewish community in Nazi-Germany isn't helping at defusing the tension, either. And as if that weren't outrageous enough for many parts of German society already, there is also a recent debate about the Nazi past in Germany in general, with high profile people in the media being fired because of essentially making pro-Nazi remarks. Others start to question the Good-Nazi/Bad-Nazi narratives around Stauffenberg and whether his motives and ideas would have changed the holocaust at all, had he succeeded to kill Hitler. So there is quite a vulcanic atmosphere around that film. That people would go as far and sabotage the film if they could isn't really totally out of question. Second: ARRI has a little bit of history in that respect with a not unsimilar alleged case. In the 1960s, the controversial Leni Riefenstahl, who was of course responsible for Hitler's cinematographic imagery, "exiled" her filmmaking to Sudan, where she ethnographically photographed and filmed the native Nuba tribes. That was widely interpreted as an attempt to redeem herself of her Nazi past and show her as a person "loving black native people", who were of course regarded as inferior beings under Nazi ideology. When Riefenstahl's footage came to ARRI in Munich for development, sizeable parts of the footage were inexplicably lost or damaged, and the cinematic part of this project had to be cancelled by her. There were claims of sabotage from ARRI's side then as well, and the roots of this incident have not been clarified until then. Expect German newscasters to bring this story up soon. This might well develop into something quite controversial, if it's true. Let's see how the film fairs at the German box officve (if they can finish it ;) )

Okay, I don't know where to start, frankly, as your last two posts are implying, opinion-changing and mangling a couple of things against my persona. Normally, I would walk away in order not to wake up the moderators here, but plenty of unregistered readers, amongst them many film students, come to cinematography.com to do their initial research before heading to a library (if they do that at all anymore; Red user manuals seem more highly valued today then an original print of the Cahier du Cinéma ? and why not, actually...), so what they read here matters. But as you want to insist on all this, and probably realised by now that I cant afford to have my name attached to a two-person-debate where incorrect terminology and genealogy is included ? not on this subject matter at least ? I am very easy prey for you as you force me to reply ;) . Let's go back to where this all started: namely your easy-going claim that... I maintain that such a statement cannot be taken as face value as you subordinate one filmmaking style to another, reducing it to a technique. It's not that simple, and I have extensively elaborated on that in my previous two posts. Pleae re-read them thoroughly. Can I also just remind you that it was actually Michael Palzkill who first red-flagged that your claim is not accurate! I just wanted to support that because I think that putting this clear actually matters. There are few truly philosophy-inspired and intellectually-laden film concepts around since WWII, so film-historically, we cinematographers had it pretty easy not to be bothered too much by bookish stuff when making a film. However, when we come out to discuss the prime example of "bookish" concepts, then, I think, we should at least pay our respect to what these people thought up ? maybe I am biased because I had the geographical advantage to easily meet and talk to these cineastes, and hence learned first hand from them and what they and their films are all about. And as my own filmmaking is influenced by their legacy (as more and more pass away) yes, James, despite me being an easy-going guy, I actually take my cinematography and all that very serious indeed. C.V. is a documentary film approach. Nothing else (and that is already alot). As stated in my earlier posts, I have said before that Cinéma Vérité (as for stylised documentary films), Direct Cinema (as in unstylised documentary films) and Nouvelle Vague (for feature films) and their disctinct but neverthless friendly person-circles cross-influenced each other. There is no clear cut line of "that-came-first-then-was-that-and-that-just-was-usurped-by-cronies". To claim that C.V. influenced "Godard and his cronies" :unsure: and they "usurped" that style from Rouch, most prominently "Moi, un Noir", for their 2-year-later film is really bold. Actually, Rouch was heavily influenced by Godard, Truffault and Rivette via their writing in the Cahier du Cinéma before he postulated Cinéma Vérité with "Moi, un Noir". And Rivette's statement that "la seul critique d'un film doit être un autre film", the only valid critique of a film has to be another film, lead to the idea to take the plunge and start making feature films themselves. When watching "Moi, un Noir" or "Chronique d'un Été", you will see that actually, the stylistic spill-overs from Cinéma Vérité around Rouch to the early films of the Nouvelle Vague around Godard and Rivette are not that obvious at all. Sure, these guys hung out together and politicised their approaches, but it's not that Godard "usurped" Rouch and hence, Nouvelle Vague technique can just be called Cinéma Vérité as well. That's really not it at all. :mellow: :huh: which would mean, if you subscribe to that, that you changed your view. But "Narrative Vérité" is an inexistent term created by you which shows that you havn't read my earlier posts. :rolleyes: :o Hmm, you came up with the "I rest my case" analogy, not me. I also never stated to be a judge. I am just substantiating the case of the defence against your claims. This is a jury trial, with the readers of cinematography.com forming their opinions based on the thoroughness, style, and background of our points of view. It's just that your case rested on circumstantial evidence, with extensives source-dropping that actually undermined your very case (please read my review of your sources earlier), and I hence felt compelled to second Michael Palzkill in pointing out more thoroughly, forensically, if you want, that your case was not entirely accurate and inform the jury that when they have to talk about French Cinema of the 1950/60/70s professionally (which they might have to or not, depends on their film projects), there is more to it than meets the eye. Hey, I give a free lecture here, don't shoot the forensic guy while under oath :D . :blink: Really? Wow, you researched all of us really thoroughly... :wacko: I never said that the EB is a "TOTAL rag" ? I usually don't shout either, by the way, as I try to stay mannered ? or that it is an unreliable source. But there is a difference between name-dropping a source and quoting a source. And none of the EB source material you brought up seconds your case. Quite the contrary, actually, as I discussed in my second post. Only HighBeam Encyclopedia mentions Nouvelle Vague filmmakers like Godard at all, and then only as being influenced by Cinéma Vérité, which is kind of "Duh!". But there is nothing stating that Cinéma Vérité is a Nouvelle Vague technique, or that these terms are interchangeable or the same. In the contrary, as a clear separation is made by the encyclopedist by differing between C.V. and Godard & Co as N.V. I believed to be even so kind and give you a couple of other encyclopedia hyperlinks -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_New_Wave -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinéma_vérité -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Cinema to read through as a quick-ref, and they distinct between C.V., D.C. and N.V. as well. And that is all what it's about: 3 degrees of separation of and in the "Cinéma du Réel"! ^_^ Cheers, James, I shall leave it at that from my side as I cannot contribute to this further. Best greetings to Texas. Hope the weather there is better than in London.

Info from Kahl would be absolutely welcome, as being not very open in the past might have unnecessarily hurt their business case (but then again, maybe not) recently, esp. with the Schmalfilm fall-out and angry customers. I think Giles Perkins would be all too happy to add the "heritage" and "origin" of the Kahl film stock to his Film Stock List PDF on onsuper8.org. Let's see if Kahl is more cooperative with a bit of pressure from cinematography.com :)

Ehm, Steven, I very much respect that you stand for your case. Out of this respect, I really don't know how to break it to you, but actually, well, all the above quoted sources are talking explicity about Cinéma Vérité (!) as developed by Jean Rouch, showcased for the first time in "Moi, un Noir" in 1958 and the following tradition, as I talked about it in my post. Most of the above sources also make a defining distinction between the mutual approaches but different formalities between Cinéma Vérité and Direct Cinema documentary filmmaking (note the absence of feature directors and feature films), as it appeared in the US and UK via Leacock, Pennebaker, Wiseman and also Chris Marker, the Maysles Bros and many more. Only one source, namely this one (and this is most certainly not "many" as you put it) mention Jean Luc Godard at all. And then it explicitly makes a distinction between documentary-film-based Cinéma Vérité on one hand as "...pioneered in the late 1950s and early 60s by such French documentary filmmakers as Jean Rouch and Chris Marker...", and feature film directors of the Nouvelle Vague on the other hand, who saw these films as being "...influential in the work of a number of directors (!, as in feature film director, which Nouvelle Vague stands for), most notably Jean-Luc Godard..." Note: Two hands, but both are part of one unifying body, which is French cinema in the 1950/60/70s out of its overarching intellectual context. Unfortunately, that is still not meaning that Nouvelle Vague and Cinéma Vérité or Direct Cinema is the same! It's not, and not making that distinction might work in some environments, but it some others, it might be a bit embarrassing (like saying that the 416 is a really cool 35mm camera...) As you have so thoroughly googled for your research, can I also draw your attention to the circumstance that all those directors normally associated with the term "Nouvelle Vague" and which have also been mentioned in all the earlier posts in this thread, like Louis Malle, Claude Chabrol, Alain Resnais, Agnes Varda, Francois Truffaut, Jean Luc Godard, Eric Rohmer, and Jacques Rivette, are not mentioned at all in your sources, while all the C.V. and D.C. documentary filmmakers I have mentioned have not been brought up in this whole thread about Nouvelle Vague until you incorrectly brought in Cinéma Vérité, which is a distinct circle of people. Sure, all those guys knew each other well and hung around with Jean-Pierre Beauviala in Grenoble, building together their perfect 16mm and 35mm cameras, but still, they where running their own group gigs. Your claim, that Nouvelle Vague (a.k.a. French New Wave) and C.V./D.C. are exchangeble terms or even the same, would be a bit like saying that Mini and Rolls-Royce are basically BMWs, because these two companies are part of the BMW Group. But, actually, Minis or Rolls-Royces are still not BMWs, and will never be, for their respective drivers, car historians, anoracks, you name it, even though their technical background and technolgy and know-how and even production philosophy is shared. As you are putting so much trust into online encycs, please allow me to give you a better fix: -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_New_Wave -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinéma_vérité -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Cinema I am always a bit sceptical against referential stuff in the "cloud", as incorrect or half-cooked info can easily end up being perceived as "correct" despite being quack, but the above entries, though rather sketchy, are quite good and also make exactly the same differentiations as other people here do, including myself in my post. I think you lost your case, James. No hard feelings, though, I hope. *offers-friendly-handshake-to-move-on*

Sorry, folks, but actually, I just must have a go at that as this is so often said but nevertheless quite incorrect! Likewise, Cinéma Vérité is not to be mistaken with Direct Cinema, which is something different either, although not alot of people understand that either :) . The reference to Jean Rouch as a very good example for Cinéma Vérité filmmaking, filmmaking essentially closer to "documentary filmmaking" than "feature filmmaking". However, the reference to 'truth' is not to be read as being 1:1 (as it is so often done), but must be seen in context of the deconstructivist and post-/modernist philosophy that French intellectual and artistic life of that time was related/inspired/unseparately-linked to. The concept of "truth" is very much considered questionable and is hence constantly deconstructed (to put it really really simply). Accordingly, the idea of a "truthful reproduction" is equally misguided when making statements of any kind, incl. in filmmaking and the film rhetoric that is used to communicate with the audience. The notion of evoking self-reflectivity in the crew, in the filming, in the film, and in the audience is an important guiding principle here - and despite what many people think, this notion is absolutely not at odds with grand Hollywood films by Hawks or Ford or Lang, which the Cahier du Cinéma authors adored. Nouvelle Vague wanted to slash the illusion of "truthful filmmaking" (as in believing that the perfect illusion that is screened in theatres really is how it was then or how the depicted characters go about, and that included "realistic" Hollywood Film Noir pieces, except maybe some Samuel Fuller films like "The Crimson Kimono". By bringing out the camera and getting rid of elaborate staging, and seemingly being more "realistic (as in close to life)" than the "realistic (by perfect illusion set-pieces)" Hollywood productions, they were making the filmmaking process a rhetorical protagonist because the viewer realised that all this had to be made somehow for cinema as it was fundamentally different then anything s/he had seen before: it's about bringing out ruptures to the perfect illusion of cinema, confronting the story and the viewer with themselves cinematically, and thus - after the deconstruction - allow a new form of reconstructing (note: not already reconstructed!) access. Cinéma Vérité has similar ideas, but other intentions and approaches. Clearly rooted in ethnography, Jean Rouch or Pierre Perrault or Johan van der Keuken never made documentary films that were truthful in the way of being "honest, exactly reporting, factual, reportage, journalistic (hmm, let's erase that last word - as if...)". I fondly remember a debate with Jean Rouch in Basel where he showed some of his scripts and proudly explained how he directed his "lay actors" in the French colonies. Cinéma Vérité uses naturalistic techniques found in documentary filmmaking, but at the same time, it undermines the very approach by very stylistic camerawork, juxtapositioning editing, and very exact mise-en-scence of mostly lay actors or ad hoc extras, some of which are quite obviously and often unknowingly provoked or stimulated by the camera presence or the auteur of the film to make statements or come out with comments that s/he would otherwise not have made in public or even in private. It is unlayering unconcious processes of the depicted people and the society/system they form, and it has thus a very clear political message that it wants to put forward. Intercutting Colonialist rituals with aboriginal-native rituals was one of those mirroing effects that allowed Rouch's to actually state in the end much more reflective and thoughful messages for the viewer than would otherwise have been possible had a thought-laden script been excercised-through about... I don't know, blood-diamonds or Islamist fundamentalism vs American Imperialism or whatever rocks the boat in critical filmmaking at the moment. In a sense, Cinéma Vérité is very proactive in its doing, but 'honest' rather then 'truthful' when it comes to what it is about and what it wants to say - it is and makes fully aware of the power that filmmaking is. Direct Cinema à la Richard Leacock, Bob Wiseman or D.A. Pennebaker & Chris Hegedus are much more straightforward by hoping that their political intentions with their film becomes clear when the constant presence of the camera (made at all possible with light-weight sync-sound Normal 16 NPRs and ACLs - Rouch, however, filmed on 35mm, and all Nouvelle Vague as well - Philippe Garrel used a tank-sized Mitchell S35: so much for liberated camera!) wears the observed subject out and s/he slips - despite camera presence - away from the original self-styled self-presenting acting to his/her day-to-day behaviour that the film crew can then catch on film - a demasking by time made possible by constant shooting. The problem I see when people today say "I want my film to be like soo New Wave'ish" just like that, is that will all-too-often come across like an empty statement, something understood as a mere filmic mannierism devoid of real political intent and background, and it is unfortunately often treated like that as well. As it is now decontextualised from the politics of mainstream filmmaking (which is were most young film students today want to head their career in the end; not at all then in the 1960s), it also seems a bit pointless as anything but a cinematographic excercise to "try out how they did it technically then". And as Ram Shani very importantly pointed out earlier here, Goddard & co were not "crétins" or amateurs picking an 8mm or 16mm camera (as someone immediately assumed) and running around with available light, an out-of-sync Nagra shooting on coarse-grain B&W short-ends: these were highly-skilled, highly-precise and highly-intelligent people that could have bettered many super-glossy mainstream films of today had that been their intention B) . Working-ethics-wise, all these filmmakers were actually closer to Stanley Kubrick's precision than today's many über-staffed sets with plenty of cine-machinery sorcering along awe-inspiring imagery shot and composed frames in advance for DVD caption and sales. So be cautious when you go for that "Nouvelle Vague" look - it might bite you back, horribly. :)

Hmm, a rumour heard by you, David, will have more credibility than many others factual statements ;) . Hence, should indeed a tighter-grained replacement for 7218/5218 show up soon, then that would be excellent news above all for those filming on Super 8, as 7217 and 7218 really changed the way people can work cinematically with that format. We shall see and anxiously await news...

Not a lot of feedback in this thread... maybe that says more then a thousand words about the subject... Let me add a thousand words, nevertheless... :P Kevin, if you would have asked me that question about any film stock supplier/provider: Kodak, Spectra, Wittner Cinetec, even Pro8mm and GK-Film, I would have said: "Yeah, give it a go, they are reliable, consistent and sell a certain aesthetic that might be helpful for your film projects". With Kahl, however, I really can't say any of that, and as you are located overseas for Kahl shipping, and the films are quite highly-priced, your risk is higher than mine was when I used to buy from there on occassion :unsure: . I as well as some colleagues dealt with that company in the late 1990s. Its unique selling proposition then was to offer a range of B&W (no colour then!) film emulsions that could be bought as metered film stock (as in 50ft or 400ft reels in tin canisters) which the buyer then had to load her/himself into those famous Russian reloadable Super 8 cartridges. With this business plan, Kahl avoided the problem of loading film stock into then non-accessible original Kodak cartridges, all the while offering great flexibility in using and reloading S8 films when needed. The film materials used were short-ends or cold-storage stocks from Orwo (for 'Original Wolfen', the Agfa plant located in the city of Wolfen which fell to the GDR/East-Germany after WWII) and Foma (the Czech film manufacturer) as well as a range of Russian-origin film stock. Herr Kahl was not forthcoming on giving details about the exact provenance of the stocks upon request and it took serious "private detective work" by a friend of mine, Henry Bohlmann :ph34r: , to actually prove the Orwo and Foma link at all B) . The problem with all that was that Kahl sold them under his own brand and a generic DIN/ASA-derived name (Kahl 18, Kahl 24 etc.), but it was unclear on some occassion which of the same-EI'd film stocks available from the manufacturers were actually used under what name by Kahl :mellow: ! The results from the film stocks were inconsistent from load to load, but the medium-speed films had on average higher contrast than Plus-X, grain closer to Tri-X than Plus-X, and could expose very densly (but without much tighter grain!) without straying-away alot from the recommended EI. Some Double 8 shots we made then with an old Bell&Howell really had an archival flair to it. However, some films behaved completetly different than advertised (which we found out only after buying several test reels of it): A extremely low-speed high-contrast B&W film that should have been ideal for black-&-white titling and optical work was anything but high contrast, and head enormous latitude as plus. Development at Kahl was errouneous as well, and 1 out of 4 reels had scratch-marks on it that had to originate while processing. Advance-payment only demands, Russian-only tech sheets and patchy contact availability by phone was also dish of the day <_< . Needless to say that this was not fostering the best business relationships, and I havn't used Kahl since. However, the dark fringes of the German 1990s S8 underground scene, well, those guys loved those stocks and made the unpredictability part of their aesthetics - very Warhol/Factory..., just less controversial, daring and without resulting cultural impact (any member of the ANRRP Hamburg still alive?) :rolleyes: . I recently read about Kahl a year ago in the German Schmalfilm magazine by Jürgen Lossau. He mentioned there that he had received a considerable amount of letters of complaint from his readers about Kahl, and as a consequence of that, he would no longer advertise or mention Kahl Film in his magazine. Whether there is a personal vendetta behind that or fiefdom-defending going on here is difficult to say (the rather "close links" between Jürgen Lossau and Gottfried Klose of Kahl's competitor GK-Film are no secret, after all) :wacko: . Giles Perkins' S8 film stock list is also lacking background info about Kahl film stock, so maybe not alot has changed about giving details about the current stocks since ten years ago. On the other hand, Kahl's business survived to this day, so he must have some happy and satisfied customers :huh: . I hope that helped a bit to form a view on Kahl. Feel free to come back on that ^_^ . P.S.:

In London and the United Kingdom: Todd-AO in London's Camden Town. The only lab in the UK that is developing Super 8 Vision2 negative film in-house. They are dedicated to the format, take it serious and have theatre- or broadcast standards. They claim a 24h turnaround, and with Royal Mail posting or delivery and all, it takes 48hours on average. They also offer excellent telecine on Rank gear, and particularly their color-grading is the best available when it comes to a company serving the Super 8 format. Widescreen Centre off London's Baker Street The elderly owners of this shop are phantastic people, and it's the easiest way to buy a Super 8 cartridge or Super 8 equipment on the go. All things film are handled by Jake Astbury, a respected filmshooter and consultant. They send the exposed cartridges off to Andec in Berlin, Germany - they are one of the many cooperative partners Andec has across many European countries. Andec (like Todd-AO), is IMHO the only other professional lab in Europe you can trust pretty much blindly when it comes to Super 8 being respectfully treated on well-maintained and professional machinery. If you are located in Germany or Switzerland, turnaround is pretty fast, within one week (development day is Thursday). They also uniquely offer S8-S8 contact prints and have a most excellent B&W service which stood tall when no lab in Germany other than ARRI and Geyer wanted to touch Black & White, let alone Super 8. From the UK via Widescreen Centre, turnaround will take at least one week, if not 10 days. Telecine is done at the Widescreen Centre, however, using Flashscan 8 machines. Obviously, that can't compete with Todd-AO's Ursa, but then again, they do it for less high prices! From what I hear and have read in this very forum a year ago, color-grading is not the most inspired and is sometimes not that sophisticated to please demanding customers. Maybe that is because their consumer- & broadcast-clients seem to prefer the "corny nostalgic look" to their footage. I havn't used them, so I don't want to imply anything. In total: Both Todd-AO and Widescreen Centre offer a service suited to their distinct market segments, with Todd-AO having excellent all-in-house service and gear, and Widescreen Centre having an excellent cooperation with Andec in Berlin for development as well as a reasonably-priced Telecine.

Wow, Alex and Kevin, that's great! (congrats on that timely purchase :D ) I am really looking forward to you guys starting a new thread with all about these rather rare cameras. If you find some time for tests, I would love to hear how they faired, are operated and - most of all - about the results. Alex uses a 1014XL-S amongst other cams, as far as I remember, so that would be a good comparative test. Don't know about your equipment, Kevin, but you know you stuff, so I am intrigued to get some info on that. Which marques or models do you have? Keep us in the loop, please. (Hmm, maybe you two should open a new thread, not that we go OT here ;) )

Yes, I guess, not a good sign. What I did not like about 'Elonga8te' or 'Elong8ate' is the look of the word when typed, and the confusion the 8 placed within causes, as part of the intrinsic pronounciation of "eight" is taken up again by using all letters of the word 'gate'. This causes a sort of double-phonifiation. If you trust on the intinctive reflexes of the human brain to decypher a word even though it is mispelled or uses unconventional orthography via its purely visual impression, then I put a solution to you that you might maybe like: "Elong8te" But if you want to put a new branch of business up with Ultra 8-modified cameras for hire or so, then I fear that in the US, going with Max 8 because of the potential liking to Vigeants efforts is a good business proposition: that way, clients know you are both in the same market. Problem with that: don't know if Pro8mm trademarked 'Max 8'. If so, you won't evidently be able to use it. If not, however, I suggest, to quote Arnie, that you "DO IT NAAOU!"

I would't write the whole A-Minima design off just yet, or even never touch it again, even if your distrust towards it is based on this understandably freakish experience. It's design accomplishes what it sets out to do, and its track record has been really well, as other owners here in this thread attest. The thing is that all symptoms that would indicate a catastrophic camera failure, like scratched or torn or ripped film, audible alarming noises or shutter/transport irregularities or electronic erratics while shooting, light leaks from the spools, blurred, streaked or overexposed pieces of footage, seem to have been excluded or not yet proven. Have you been able to see all of the dailies from the material shipped from NY to LA yourself in the meantime, just to doublecheck the claims your director or the lab made to you originally? The reason I ask is the following: You mentioned that there was some political tension on set due to your AC requiring considerable time for the reloading, and that is was only a $100K project. Without implying anything here, but because of the exceptionality of all this, could it maybe be that there is the possibility of a social or financial fall-out directed at you, that someone is trying to get back at you? Now this would be even more extraordinary, but I just wanted to add another perspective to all this... and it's not that social problems or sabotage never occured in filmmaking history... Were you able to get hold of Grenoble? What did they suggest to check on that A-Minima?

I really hope you can track one down and then get it running (if it needs heavy repairs CLA, that is). I would love to see some footage, even down-res'd for the "cloud", of a Mekel, Visual Instrumentation & co. Please, if you find one, be so nice and inform us about that and keep us posted. There have been posters before who wet our appetite by saying they had one and would shoot a test, but then never re-appeared... Maybe the Mekel opens a time-space continuum that swallows up its operators, black-hole'ish...

Yeah, I know, it's just to much a nice marketing clou to leave it out. But.. I don't know... :unsure: If you wanna sell Elongate as a format of its own (i.e. without the "Super 8" addition), then I would motion "Elong8" or "Elong-8". If you wanna sell it with a reference to "Super 8", then I would probably second "Super 8 Elongate" - the rhythm of it when you pronounce it is kind of nice and musical... B) What do you think?

Sorry, Martín, I won't join you down that road you are inviting me to, because i think "...I will pissed to those ", as you would put it. I think the conclusion John and I posted earlier is reflective enough and covers all the factual circumstances, especially including and taking into account your views, research, knowledge and experiences! At the same time, however, your original reply to my post stating in a very robust voice, using stark words and in absolute and unmistaken manners that what I said was "... that's not true ...", which I accomodated very friendly and forthcoming for over two days, cannot stand without being put into some sort of context. Without being disrespectful to your opinion or work or experience or crew, but the way you put forward your statements was just too reminiscient of too many people who posted here that "collimating a lens" is not necessary "because the mount makes them fit alright, yeah, and after 20'000 feet never EVER had a problem, so TAKE THIS", and then find that their images at the 21'500 feet mark that went to arrilasering could have been much better had they been more accommodating to technical aspects from other 'viewpoints' and not just their 'opinion'. The NPR mag uses a higher number of rollers of sprockets than rivaling cams, so the risk that one of those might leave marks on the S16 frame area is proportionally higher. The mag mods are not too much of a cost position (even if you are on a personal micro-budget) when compared to the costs that can incur when you have to reshoot damaged material or revisit it in post. Taking the risk is fine by me, but it might "piss off" your client or producer and damage your reputation if something should go wrong that could have been anticipated. And as it is a matter of probability rather than impossibility, I think it is legitimate to put this point to Steven, all-the-more as you were not entertaining it at all. Bear in mind, your "it's not true" riposte came against my post that - neither absolutely nor insistently - stated that "Usually [!!], cine-technicians modifying the NPR-body adapt the magazines at the same time ... and that the costs are unavoidable" as in "it's included with the mod package". You will find that the word "usually" pretty much defines the sentence, and does not contradict your experiences, despite you saying "it's not true". After all, you will certainly not claim that S16 magazine modifications are done only by a minority amount of techs who tend to "overblow" stuff and want to take out "naive customers" - if that is your presumption of cine-houses, I am sorry to hear that. But I don't think that this would reflect how NPRs have been treated over the past 40 years, despite or because your and your environments positive experiences (which I respect, but would not put forward as the one and only valid rule, as your tone and style implied). So putting to Steven only one viewpoint, namely yours that was intend to refuting my original post, and which was only centred around what has worked well for you for now, but is equally well underestimating the potential (!!, again, read my lips, no new taxes ;) ) problems that can arise and potentially ruin a serious project (i.e. esp. when it goes to screen or DI, as your work does) and which cannot afford work in post, is not something that should stay here uncommented in a forum like this. If you feel that your reading of my post is derisory towards what you stand for or are, then I am sorry to hear that. It was not my intention. But as a fellow member of this forum, please also consider how your own posting style comes across, can be understood and gives out as advice. I shall leave it at that, Martín. Good luck and good light!

I have Les' contact details at arms length, thanks, Martín, no need to go online ^_^ . I intented to ring him for a PL-Mount adapter anyhow. Will discuss this topic. In the meantime: Thanks, John, I was already questioning my sanity. All this was also my knowledge and undstanding on the NPR before getting sets for S16 conversions. This is also what I originally knew from Rune Ericson's modifications and always got from the technicians' side, which is why, Steven, I stand by my original post that modification of NPR mags for S16 has a reason and a point to it and should be done if you want a secure, risk-avoiding and - dare I say - professional approach to your gear. It would have somewhat astonished me if techs would have managed to change the comparatively high number of rollers and sprockets in NPR mags (when compared to Aaton, Bolex 16 Pro, SR or ACL ones) for decades without rhyme or reason, plus charge for that and get away with it. And after so many years dealing with what I would regard as in-the-end trustworthy cine-technicians as far as my film group is concerend, I doubt they "overblow their tables". Precision-mechanics is not a joke. ...which is why I am so astonished that Les who I know as a perfectionist is putting out to customers that the modification isn't really something worth bothering :mellow: . Conclusion for Steven: Check it out, it might well work unmodified for some time, as it does for Martín, but if you own your gear and want to use it long-term with the necessary trust that one puts into it, then get them modified as most other people do. After all, you can run a brand-new car on 91 octanes even though it requires 98, but the engine won't like it too much in the end.