Aapo Lettinen

if you CAN control the lighting, you need to first determine if you need to do something for the harsh daylight coming from the windows by knocking it down and raising ambience levels inside. You may need to raise the ambience level of the whole scene by bouncing big lights around (for example one or multiple HMI's of 1.2 to 4k range) and knock down the sunlight by using diffusion/scrim/nd on the windows at the same time. Knocking down the sunlight will lower the ambience levels inside even more which is non-ideal because you need to raise the ambience more and more. Basically you need to determine if the ratio between the sunlit areas compared to the large background areas behind the subjects is correct for you. The subjects you may be able to light separately with smaller lights but raising the ambience may NOT be a simple task. If you DON'T need to raise the ambience levels or do anything to the direct sunlight, then you just need to take care that the subjects are getting enough light especially on the camera side. You may want to add some small fill light to raise the levels on the subjects (for example a small led panel may be just the right tool for this task. Or a lantern or a small-ish 150 or 300w led with a softbox. Something which does not disturb the ceremony and is quick and easy to set up. If you want to shoot the party too, you'll need to be able to wrap the church/ceremony place quick. I would personally just focus on getting enough fill on the subjects with some non-disturbing and small fixture and then raising the ambience with one single larger fixture if absolutely necessary. You can choose to add some beautiful backlighting for the subjects but that may be too time consuming to setup and wrap and it disturbs the audience so I would just keep it simple and limit it to two lights which are fast to setup and wrap and which don't disturb anybody

you will want to meter the church/ceremony hall beforehand to know what kind of light levels you have on the areas of main interest. So you know that if you are shooting on that direction and the bride+groom are standing on that area you will need approximately this f-stop (t-stop). Then you just remember to adjust the stop when they move around depending on where they are standing and from which direction you shoot with the camera. Personally I like to use only incident meter on documentary shoots because it is very fast compared to the "nitpicking" spot meter mess which will take minutes to complete just a simple task which by my opinion can be decided more easily. I measure the ambient level and the key with the incident meter and then decide how much under the ambient I will set the exposure depending on how high the key level is. In most situations I can manage by just judging the contrast situation by eye, then measuring the ambient level on the spot where the subject is standing and setting the exposure from 1.5 to 2 stops under the ambient incident level depending on the scene/shot content, light direction and the albedo of the subject I'm shooting. This approach of mine is based on the conclusion that if you can't change the contrast ratio anyway, with film you generally need to be more careful about your shadows and dark tones than your highlights so if you can't control how high your highlights will be anyway, you need to take care of the shadows so that you will see all the details you want to see which generally are from mid gray to -3 stops (the reliable range of exposure for them on most films). So I decide which mid gray detail is the darkest I need to see in the shadows (which are lit by the ambience/fill) and will set the exposure so that this detail is not exposed lower than -3 stops. This is why I only need the ambient reading on the spot the subject is standing on and not the spot readings of the whole scene. this approach only works best when you are doing DI and will individually fine tune the shots afterwards in the grade. If wanting to do photochemical finish you will still want the spot readings and then you need to be able to actually tune the contrast of the scene with real lights too to be able to adjust things when needed. If doing fully documentary non-lit stuff I recommend my "ambient metering only / shadow centric exposure" approach which is very very quick and reliable enough for documentary style use. By my opinion, if you can't change the lighting you need to concentrate on the shadow areas when shooting on film. Forget the highlights, they will be fine ?

I think the most used aspect ratios in the film world are 1.37 , 1.66, 1.85, and 2.39 . sometimes one can have 2.35 too though it is relatively rare and most of the shows marked as "2.35" are 2.39 in the real world. This is because the normal cinema screens are 2.39 aspect ratio and it does not make much sense to intentionally shoot pillar boxed 2.35 material for cinema screen when you can just use the whole 2.39 screen area instead. in the film projection times the normal prints were anamorphic intended for 2.39 screens and you would project them with the 2x anamorphic adapter on the projector and the image would be from the full film frame area without cropping. this way you would get maximum image quality out of the print and projector. If you would use any other aspect ratio (1.37, 1.66 , 1.85, 2.35) you would project it spherical and use a gate mask on the projector to crop the correct aspect ratio from the film frame (some prints were letterboxed in the lab, others not. If it was not letterboxed you had to figure out the correct mask to use. Once I projected the Lost in translation movie with incorrect mask due to wrong info on the print and there was mic boom visible in almost every shot ? ) I think some film cameras do have closer to 1.33 gates but the normal aspect ratio for film closest to the 4:3 is 1.37 and NOT the 1.33

1 year of one's time costs about 30 000 to 50 000 euros here. People have hobbies of course where one does not count free work hours but with these projects it is good to have some comparison about the actual costs to see if it is worth the effort or not ?

the friction coupling is on the motor axle between the motor and the angle gear to prevent damaging the motor and the gears when the add-on camera motor is started and stopped by the mechanical switch inside the actual camera body (the "run" button connects the pads together and releases the mechanical lock at the same time. so without the friction system one would damage the motor at both the start and stop of filming each take. the problem with the friction system is that it slips uncontrollably during normal operation and thus one can't fit the encoder on the motor axle which would be the only easy place to mount it (the plastic gears are ng and inside the camera very difficult. without reliable encoder position there is no any kind of sync sound possibility) The diy crystal sync controllers have been discussed on this forum multiple times and here is lots of information about them as well. the thing is, it is EXTREMELY time consuming to learn to make them (for me it took about 1.5 years of my life working almost full time on them) and there is no good readily made parts or usable instructions you can use so you need to make everything out of scratch and develop them from ground up if wanting to fit them inside the camera or them working even remotely well with the camera. It is a nice 2 year project for an electronics enthusiast but it is incredibly frustrating for a person who prefers shooting with the camera instead of designing and building and testing circuit boards and writing thousands of versions of diy custom made firmware

this is like with any new tech: best to wait until the design is actually finished before paying them anything. Even if the seller would be reputable, it can take forever to finish camera modification designs and it makes them look very bad if they take someone's money and not delivering promptly ?

sad, they seem to be pretty rare nowadays. just out of curiosity, how much one would be willing to pay for one of those Tobin motors nowadays? because it is theoretically possible to make new similar style motors out of scratch if getting enough orders to make it viable. You could also ask AZ Spectrum if they have any solution to modify your original Arri motors to crystal sync. if I would own a Arri SB and lenses, I would make a crystal sync motor for it by myself and could then sell them too but because not having any of those cameras it makes no sense for me to design any motor mods for them at the moment... a external box solution could be possible but integrated crystal electronics would be too much work

have you asked Visual Products? they have one listed for sale though I don't know if they have it actually in their inventory anymore. would be worth a try anyway http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail02.asp?productID=973&Cat=3&Cat2=41

I have couple of those UE models and one U model because I intended making a crystal sync update for these cameras last year and collected some spares for it. The build quality is not as high as with Krasnogorsk cameras and the mirror and viewfinder optics are worse quality. some of my cameras have slight imbalance on the mirror which generates very disturbing flicker/image jumping up and down in viewfinder when the camera is rolling. the lenses are not as easy to service but the optics seem to be the same than on the Krasnogorsk primes, only the mechanics are more primitive. It is pretty easy to convert the UE to 12v but digital speed control for this camera is not super easy to make because of the construction of the motor (friction coupling between the motor and the drive gears and lower quality plastic gears used) . Additionally it is pretty easy to do simple speed control electronics but making real crystal sync controllers is NOT easy at all. Just want to mention that because people tend to underestimate the task by the magnitude of 20 or 30x and practically all of them quit after about half a year of work. I don't know if you have previous experience making crystal sync systems but just want to mention that because you will be very disappointed if wanting to learn making them on the fly. Personally I think that these cameras are mostly suited for simple and cheap filming using the original spring motor. They are not bad if used that way though I find the Krasnogorsks much better let alone the Bolexes or Kinors or other more expensive cameras. The Kievs are very affordable however and pretty easy to service (they are at the same level of serviceability than Krasnorogsk I think so pretty easy to open them up completely and CLA them by yourself) so they are perfect as a low cost crash cameras or for arts projects and for situations where there is a high risk of damaging the camera (filming in risky areas where there is dust, water or a high risk of having the camera stolen from you)

yes the 10ft sounds very limiting. something like 16ft or 17ft would be more useful I think

Regular 8 and super8 have very different perforation size and shape so we can tell immediately which one it is by looking at a picture which shows the full perforations. About the slitting. If the film is very precious, it should be possible to scan it without slitting to reduce the risk of mechanical damage and to be able to scan two streams at the same time to save costs. Depends on the scanner how it would work. As Dom said the projector has more complicated film path than a simple viewer so if the goal is to protect the film at any cost then it would be wise to limit the handling of it to a minimum before scanning and to avoid projecting it

sounds confusing. Do you mean that you have ds8 film which is developed but has not been slit yet and it has the two 8mm films together? There is no projector for such a film but if you need to slit a developed film to separate the two 8 films there is a Lomo slitting tool available which can do that. Test first with scrap film to ensure that the tool is working correctly. I think it would be useful if you can post a picture of the actual film here so that we can see what is going on

you can also cheap on the width if you make large windows or doors on both sides of the room so that you can have the side lights outside and open/close/blackout the windows or doors needed to make it work for the shoot. So this way you could have the set using almost the entire width of the room if needed and thus the room could be much smaller, maybe something like about 16 - 19ft wide

I think one would like to have at least 4 meters of width for the set you are shooting and then the possibility to add basic frames and lights on both sides of the set. So it would be minimum 4 meters + something like 2.5 meters times two . So it would be 4m + 5m = 9 meters wide at the minimum. To be safe I would like to have at least 10 meters wide and then enough depth to enable camera and track and background separation. Maybe it just being at least 10m to 10m square which would be close to 33 times 33 feet? If it needs to be smaller then can just make the room rectangular and have a garage door type of solution which enables you to extend the set or the camera tracks outside if needed

I don't hate that camera. I'll just replace the stupid skull logo with a Hello Kitty sticker and call it a day

that is why I only buy Apple stuff if it is old, used and very VERY cheap. No reason to pay 5x the price for a computer which has bad connections and which cannot be updated. Well, of course it is nice to have a hipster super high res display which is very expensive and so small that you cannot actually see more resolution from it than fullhd. But not gonna pay any extra for it ? Most of this stuff is made for people who are more interested in how much their outfit costs and how many megapixels their camera has than actually working on any real project (because, well, it is much funnier and easier to just buy new cool stuff than actually use it for anything)

I personally recommend against any grain or noise if the main viewing format is web based, thus having bad enough compression to mess up the grain texture. Generally one needs intra codec with good enough bitrate to handle the grain correctly. It does not look good on bluray either and services like Netflix only show it intermittent and mess up the intermediate frames so that the noise "flashes" from compressed blurred to clear and back... But if you can show it from dcp or prores file then it is perfectly fine to have grain added because intra can handle it easily. I would be perfectly happy to make a grainy master if it being shown on cinema screen so that I can either make a dcp or use something like prores422 for the master. So generally speaking, grain is good for cinema release and film festival stuff but for web release it is better to have a clear image to avoid huge amount of compression artifacts which would hide all the grain anyway

Thanks! Yes my system fits that same 15EPSS motor type. At the moment I am redesigning the controller and should be finished in October or November. It is using a external control box which houses the crystal sync electronics and the motor is modified so that the system works with a 24v battery which connect to the control box via 3-pin xlr. I will report when getting the current design finished and can then discuss about the modification of your motor. Probably it would be possible to arrange in December I believe :)

yes it would work if you don't see the area near the window in any of the shots. It does not look the same but it is close enough if your main area of interest is the light pattern on the back wall and you are not shooting multiple angles inside the room. Another cheap approach would be to mount a daylight balanced led mat or a kino over the window inside so that it creates a cold softer light which is going from the window direction. If the room is small enough you could use a autopole over the window to hang the led mat or kino over the table

if wanting to do it very cheaply you could mount a silk 8x8 frame on one side of the bucket and turn some of the dino bulbs to go to this frame through a ctb frame which would make the 'cold ambience light' when the rest of the dino bulbs are shining directly to the window to create the 'direct sunlight' . This is time consuming to get working correctly but it might look pretty OK and is cheap to do if you just have time for setting it up and the low ambience angle does not matter

or two smaller hmi's through silk frames and the dino in the middle, either on the bucket or underside it depending on what is possible to do

normally the frame is tilted by tilting the whole bucket instead of trying to adjust the angle of the frame from the mounting points. So it is not ideal to mount the dino on the same lift but if non-ideal bounce angle is enough and you have more time to adjust the dino, then it should be possible to mount the 12x12 over the bucket and the dino underside of it to get the ambience a little higher. It is more time consuming to adjust the dino then and if it starts to get windy the dino light may move a little which might show in the final image... Another option would be mount smaller 'ambience lights' on the bucket and hope that you can get them soft enough to sell the effect. It MIGHT work using something like an array of multiple Kinos or an Airstar for this but never tested it

oh I misread that your window is about 12x12' . if the window would be large you would not necessarily get even enough "ambience" from a single 20x20 and would need to either move it around for some shots to get the effect you want or to use two bounces instead of one to get large enough source so that it doesn't need to be moved. So it is one small window then? probably a 12x12 bounce would be good for it I believe. Yes the idea is to have the hmi on ground and use the lift for the frame only to get it over the window and at an appropriate angle so that the hmi light bounces nicely to the window. It depends on the shot whether the ambience is super important or not. Personally I would try to get at least some kind of cold ambience to sell the "daylight" better... people tend to judge it being a night scene if there is a single light coming from the window but no ambience is involved. Maybe you could arrange the ambience light or bounce to the same lift than the dino if it's impossible to get two lifts. The ambience would then come from non-ideal angle but it would be much better than no ambience at all.

it depends on the scene how much you need to move the lights and bounces during the shooting day. in some situations it might be useful to have two 20x20 bounces but I think you can easily manage with one if prepared to move it if needed

you can have a 20x20 bounce mounted on a lift and bounce hmi from it to create the 'cold sky ambience' and then use another light on another lift, for example the Dino, to create the "direct sunlight" coming in. Shooting at night should be easier so that you don't need as high light levels than during the day and can manage with smaller frames because not needing to block any light from the real sky or the sun