Aapo Lettinen

if you need 16v and have a spare 4-pin power cable (you can have one made too) you could use two 8.4v nimh airsoft batteries in series so would have 16.8v output. you would need some tamiya connectors for it and small amount of wire for the connections.

orwo films can be developed both negative and reversal. If you are intending to scan the image then negative is much easier to work with

should'nt be much difference compared to new film. freezing is only necessary if you need to store the film for many years, for example knowing that you won't shoot the stuff in the next 4 years or more. It may not be a good idea to freeze opened cans, you never know how much humidity there is inside and it may lead to unexpected results. factory fresh unopened cans can be frozen more reliably. for storing film about an year or two, I would never freeze it. completely unnecessary and there is always a risk of damaging the film when freezing. EXPOSED film is a different matter, it ages much quicker than raw stock. you start to see clear effects in couple of months and if storing for example one year before developing, there is serious effects in the image already and you need to compensate with special processing

Of course, he definitely did something right if lots of people willingly watched the movie and paid for it and maybe even thought they liked it :) and even thought that it was "challenging and intelligent"! It's just like... why the mass entertainment needs to be done in a way that it feels like I would need to tune down my brain activity to 20% or alternatively multitask web+email+some gardening conversation at the same time to be able to watch a hollywood film... they are generally somewhat entertaining but most of them are just plain dumb and underestimate the viewer a lot just to ensure that even those persons like it who can't concentrate 2 minutes to a movie without doing something else at the same time, like playing/checking web on the phone or talking with someone when the movie is rolling :blink: I don't know how much film origination would benefit a generic Hollywood movie if at all. depends on the movie I guess. film is generally much better for some genres than others and it would need "more humane" approach to the characters and a deeper, more emotional story which is kinda unseen in Hollywood in general. Maybe it just adds to the viewing experience on some films to have those countless slaughtered animals running and screaming on the screen rather than projecting the neat and slick story on the skin of thousands of tortured slaves suffering quietly for our viewing experience ;)

Cant tell the difference duh. Mr Deakins have been captured by the story then which is good for him because it may be very difgicult for a professional cinematographer to actually watch movies without analysing them at the same time for everything :)

I just realised that the digital devices will definitely have a soul or two as well..think of all that child/forced labour used by the warlords for mining the minerals used for the camera electronics. Maybe thats why digital imaging does not look as pleasant and calming to the eye: instead of just dead animals the digital image has a lot more frightening souls in it and the viewer of course senses that difference

Maybe it has something to do with the slaughtered animal souls going to the gelatine and later transforming to the film's silver crystals and finally to the colour specs when the film image is exposed and developed. So a film image DEFINITELY has more "soul" in it compared to a digital image. (Though I don't know if electrons have souls, maybe they are too small for it, who knows ^_^ ) When projecting a film image, the souls are in response of moving around randomly in the image area so that the audience can experience pleasant "grain" structure in the image. That is, actually, millions and millions of small piggy and calf and chicken souls running around in great soothing harmony, creating an artistic expression of the reality :lol: ---------- Anyway, I think that the "soulless" would reference to the colour+contrast (grading) of the finished image which is purely an artistic choice of the filmmakers and may enhance the story/mood of the film or not. The texture is a different matter but most of the content is shot rather clean anyway, both film and digital and noise/grain can be enhanced or reduced if needed. film can also be shot relatively grainless looking depending on the format and lighting conditions and one can also make film image look "clean and flat and soulless" very easily

Yep the problem is the IGNORANT OPINIONS and persons bashing the movies with too little information (or experience) to analyse which cinematography related things were made for which reasons and what were the faced restrictions and challenges. Kids analysing movies like Instagram photos is the main issue and people commenting on cinematography without necessarily even knowing which parts of the critique were actually cinematography related and which were actually acting or directing or art dept or script related.

the main problem is that most of the persons commenting on cinematography of the films don't have enough information about the actual working conditions on set, the challenges which needed to be solved, how the cinematographer collaborated with the other departments and actors (simplifying the lighting to give more room for the actors for example) . persons analysing movies as a series of stills images (I like that shot, I don't like that shot) forgetting that most of the actual "cinematography" in movies is about finding the most practical solutions (THE BEST COMPROMISES) for any challenges during the production (extremely quickly if needed) and making the best compromise possible to get the best possible end product AS A WHOLE. It may sometimes require making the image look less perfect because you are trading that perfection for something more important, more needed for the scene. It is not Vimeography or Photography you know, the idea is not just put beautiful looking images after each other to make a slideshow with music. the goal is to tell the story the best possible way and one has to compromise for that, every single shot and scene

to me it had lots of those moments when I'm feeling like some kindergarten teacher is trying to teach me how a drinking glass is used :blink: Loved the visuals and most of the music and sound design except those moments when the screeching sound was too overwhelming, the audience being like Anyway, would have hoped the movie to have a better script and less dumb characters. it was not Shyamalan-bad but could have used a lot more work on the script before actually shooting anything I think. maybe Nolan script =no need for quality control before green light :P

I don't particularly like the Nolan movies that much btw, that is because of the scripts and twists he uses. the movies look great in general and the look suits the story and world of the movie quite well. the Interstellar was especially bad, so many plot holes and stupid twists (and the annoying and illogical child characters!) and the freaking Matt Damon character who has gotten himself in trouble (AGAIN) and thus needs to be saved so that lots of better characters can be killed for it Private Ryan style. The whole "we have this secret facility which we want you to find and come to so that you can save the world but we do everything possible so that you won't find out its existence or location" Of course there was also this sound design + music which made one's ears bleed (the wormhole scene was an absolute nightmare, so difficult to watch because the screeching and music hurts one's brains) but that's another matter though I'm sure it was also one of Cris's great ideas <_<

Filmmaker's opinions and preferences should be based on what suits the particular film best. A choice based on the needs of the movie and story rather than only one's personal preferences. There is no "right" or "wrong" shooting format for a movie IN GENERAL, one needs to evaluate and decide the formats based on the particular movie in question. there is lots of "movie nerds" around who watch some stuff others have made and some Deakins and Fincher and Nolan interviews and mash up a very strict opinion about how all the people in the world should make movies, making it some kind of personal crusade for or against a format or shooting style which they (or their idols) do or don't like. To me it's kinda... extremely unprofessional attitude and kind of movie elitism and at times also lack of personal reasoning and experience (thus absorbing the opinions of the idols rather than creating one's own opinions) Kind of "you are stupid person because you are shooting on film" or "you are stupid person because shooting on video" type of high school attitude. persons throwing curse words like "CELLULOID LOVER!" or "PIXEL PEEPER!" on each other :blink:

This is going to a some kind of new meta level, not sure where it'll lead but interesting indeed. I have couple of pounds of industrial gelatine flakes here if you want some over your popcorns. maybe even coating a camera with it? could make it more analogue, at least it would have the correct smell then. goretex suit coated with wool to make it fit better in VR

I think the problem with student films generally could be that the persons haven't yet found their own voices and style and thus it is mostly testing techniques of well known filmmakers and copying their styles for making a kind of mashup... It's like learning to play guitar but not having any voice of your own so you are just playing the music other people have made, the same songs everyone else is playing, and trying to copy their style 1:1, and worshipping some of those idolised artists when dissing the others. and claiming that one HAS TO HAVE certain brand guitar and pickups to archive THE sound which is the only one which should be used in "ANY MUSIC" and only one playing style is the right one ;) It's, how would I say, kind of narrow-minded approach to the world and will be faded away when one learns more and begins to find one's own style and techniques. just check Youtube for example, how many freaking Chandelier or Shape of You covers plaguing the place or channels repeating "cool science experiments" others have done a few million times. or slightly differently edited versions of the same cat or dog videos or "people get hurt and others laughing" material stolen from the user who stole it from the other who stole from who knows where :ph34r: So little original content, so little creativity, just freakin covers and remakes and copy paste content all over the place and everyone wants to do more of them instead of trying to do something of their own, something more valuable and touching and beautiful :( not just another "crappy looking and boring Ridley Scott or Chris Nolan or A. Kurosawa imitation with shoestring budget to test a new camera and led lights"

for example: "250 ml Red Beetroot juice 2 teaspoons of washing soda 1 teaspoon vitamin C " http://www.caffenol.org/alternative-recipes/

I personally mix my own developers for tests, for example a D76 style developer with the hydroquinone substituted with Vitamin C . This is especially because I need varying quantities at a time and the raw chemicals are easier to store than working solutions. you have to have a good source for raw developing chemicals of course. I also use hydroquinone on different self mixed formulas but are more vitaminC oriented generally. generally you need for a developer, depending on the recipe: sulphites (wine store sulphites can be used for example, it is cheap if you can find the right source) , vitaminC (relatively cheap if bought in larger quantities. I bought a 400g package from eBay for my tests, did not cost much, maybe 15-20e or so) . Methol and hydroquinone can be purchased from a photo supply store or a b/w lab who wants to sell you some. compare the prices, they are not very expensive chemicals but for example some eBay sellers are asking 10x the normal price or more per gram... You will also need either Sodium Carbonate or Borax for pH adjustment. some formulas may require a small amount of Sodium or Potassium Bromide as well (photo supplier or b/w lab) . and some require Sodium Thiosulphate as well. phenidone is generally relatively expensive compared to Methol etc. older chemicals, if you want to use phenidone in larger batches I suggest using x-tol or similar factory made phenidone developer. technically you can make film developer from household items; food additives and such. for example Coffenol: instant coffee, crystal cleaning soda, vitaminC tablets... Or you can make Rodinal style developer from expired pain killers and lye based drain cleaner... the fixer is more economical to purchase as a factory made solution, ammonium thiosulphate is not economical to purchase in small quantities compared to factory mixed fixing solutions

with the mk1 the cine-EI was 2000 but it may have changed on the mk2. A good practical ISO for the FS7 is somewhere around ISO1000 by my experience and one can experience blue channel compression madness if underexposing too much, especially with warm lighting. So protecting the dark tones /shadows may be a good idea depending on your lighting style # the anecdote of the time was that the FS7 has "the same" sensor than the Sony F5 has but "the signal processing is different". The sensor resembles quite much the F5 look indeed so this may very well be true, but the noise levels are miles away from the F5. I think it's more like that "the FS7 uses the same sensors than the F5 but just those ones which did not clear the F5 Quality Control or accidentally dropped to the floor once or twice during manufacturing" :lol: I myself pictured in my mind a Sony manufacturing line where the F5 sensors are moving around on the upper conveyor belts and under them goes the FS7 manufacturing line which catches all the sensors and grease which accidentally drops from the F5 line so that the scraps don't go to waste :lol: The FS7's I have used had close to double the base noise compared to F5. this may vary from camera to camera

Dynamic range is determined by the clipping point and noise floor and if the camera becomes less sensitive (the noise floor rises) then the camera loses dynamic range

Global shutter generally eats up about one stop of sensitivity so the camera also then has about one stop less dynamic range. Nowadays cameras are sold by the dynamic range and sensitivity so no one wants to do global shutter anymore, it is bad business for them. Of course the global shutter also affects the maximum framerates available from the sensor which is also a marketing point ;)

Incorrect loop causes more noise, possible scratching and even jamming in film camera. I have not used the npr but i assume it is pretty similar to aaton ceras in "incorrect loop tolerance" and it is always best to use the recommended setting. Does the 2finger aaton loop adjust also work with the npr, would be useful because the loop needs to be set in changing bag

I have never had those small mags but on this ebay listing you can see some kind of cores installed to them. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Three-3-Eclair-Camerette-Cameflex-100-35mm-magazines-Good-condition-/122758682356?hash=item1c94fcd6f4:g:rngAAOSwVGFZud18 if you own a lathe or know someone who has one, you can easily make similar style cores out of plastic or aluminium. probably the normal 2" cores are too wide for the mag and you would not be able to use full 100ft loads with them

what Dom said. it is best to use a dedicated sensor swab for cleaning if you need to do it by yourself and if in any case the blower can do the job, then use only the air blower and avoid cleaning the sensor filter unless you absolutely have to. if using swabs, first check what the dirt actually is so that you won't scratch the filter when trying to clean it. I personally have to clean the sensors only couple of times a year with swabs but I use the blower when changing lenses to ensure there is no loose dust on the sensor (more of a problem with a dslr where the filters are closer to the sensor so dust shows clearer, vs a pro camera like Alexa or Amira where the outer filter is relatively far away from the sensor so one needs quite a lot of dust on the filter for it to show on the image. I normally carry a blower and some sensor swabs and sensor cleaning fluid when on a gig, you never know when some serious dirt go to the filter pack and needs to be cleaned. Used them on dslr, Red, Amira, never had a problem or any scratch on the filters but you have to be careful when doing the cleaning of course. for small sensor camera like blackmagic it may be hard to find small enough swab to fit there. I would NOT recommend using any kind of lens paper or tissue for cleaning, the sensor filters scratch way too easily to be cleaned like a normal lens

yep, and interesting model as well :D

Great! :lol: :lol: here is some modified Soviet stuff :lol:

This is starting to get interesting again, even if we have stepped on a 10 year old forum loop again :lol: But shall we return to Camera Porn again on page 15? :lol: Just changed to verifying the LTO archive I made today. Will have couple of dozen more tapes soon to continue archiving the raw materials of this shooting block