john price

thanks all who replied... i used a 650 dedo along with the projection attachment and the iris and i had plenty 4 feet below the surface... it was a person swimming through a beam against a black background. john.

the intention is to suspend the fixture on a goal post above the water... safety chains... grip pipe... etc... not place it in the water... that means that ripples on the surface will alter the direction of the beam... i am curious how much... a note to those who respond... the light is not going in the drink... thanks, john.

working with a director who is looking for a pool of light situation at night in a swimming pool. production company cannot afford much... wondering if anyone has tried something like a 1K elliptical fixture from above... a $20 solution vs whatever an underwater fixture costs. curious how much loss and diffusion we'll see at 4 feet under water... no time to test (as usual)... shooting with an HVX and do not mind 12db of noise for this so light level shouldn't be much of an issue. john price, toronto.

catches up? i think that's the approach that has left Kodak in such a confused state... spending $$$ in research to make things 'better than video/digital'... offer more resolution... when it's the physicality of the material - warts and all - and the process of shooting that will always be different. Yes, the digital engineers will create plug ins to match any film emulsion ever produced but that's emulation... not the real thing... do you see all the musicians throwing away their instruments and mousing around with lap tops on a stage? for commercial work most of the ones I know do but for live performance the guitars drums and base are still on the stage. There seems to be no alchemy shooting digitally... you got a waveform monitor on set and an HD monitor... and what you see is what you get... when you fire up the Konvas loaded up with b+w high con and a funky old russian anamorphic, process it in a G3 tank (i really love the Apple reference... the Morse people should come back from the grave and sue for copyright!!) print it and pump 3000 watts on xenon through it and project it a hundred feet wide... that's magical... I am never going to argue that one is better than the other... they are two completely different ways of making images... happy 'film'ing in whatever format, john.

yes, some of the 1M anamorphics have the squeezing element attached seperately... glad mine dont! but if you can get any anamorphic to focus and the light is right, the 35mm scope is fantastic. Leave the 4K, hard drives and computer jiggery pokery to the Red people... nice that a Konvas set up with a working set of anamorphics can cost less than the red camera viewfinder! apples and oranges... john.

it's a one piece system... both elements are connected to the focus barrel so there's no tweaking one then the other... I think it's collimation some how... I'm going to give it to the rental house here if they have an oct 19 mount... if not Duclos says they have one so I'll give them a crack at it. happy shooting, john.

I'm shooting on 2374 optical sound negative... processing in a g3 tank at home in D-19. I make a contact print on an ACME at the film cooperative onto 2302. Sometimes I'll hand develop the print, sometimes I take it to Niagara Custom Lab (the owner used to be a partner at B&W film factory) The major issue with the stock is that the edge ID is right in the centre of the frame. I get free short ends from a sound facility in Toronto and have found that the density of the ID varies from batch to batch. I shot a series of scope portraits in the snow recently and you cant see it at all because it gets 'hidden' if there's enough meat on your neg. The 2374 is fast relative to the other hi con stocks... i'm rating it between 50 and 64 and getting pretty amazing texture in the skin tones at 64. You could shoot 5369 but it's around 12 asa and has much less tonal range than the 2374. I have heard that the 5378 / 2378 has the ID printed on the edge but you'd have to track down someone at Kodak in manufacturing to verify... i find the sales reps have no idea as you are not 'supposed' to shoot the sound stock in camera. Also be very careful if you decide to shoot the 2374 as it is polyester and would easily destroy a konvas if you have a jam. I take extra caution when loading the mags and mounting them... inching the movement to ensure that things are flowing smoothly. so far so good... If you are going to shoot scope b+w, and you are spending $$ for the production I would probably go with one of the neg stocks 5222/5231 and process with Alpha Cine in Seattle. I had some 16mm answer prints done there 15 years ago and have never seen better lab work since. I've never had anything processed in LA and there must be decent b+w there... but in Toronto I am a big fan of Niagara... I have found him to be much more consistent than the factory... I contacted your lens people and they say they can handle oct 19... thanks for the tip. John.

thanks... I am now wondering if there are special provisions for collimating anamorphics vs sphericals... There was a shop in Toronto - Cineasst - that shut down and his bench was sold to a rental house in town... it came with many different mounts from PL to c and I am hoping that there might have been an oct 19 in the set... If there is the guys will check it for nothing... if not, I'll need to find a tech with a bench equipped with oct 19... and that probably means slow motion... was your 75mm round front PL or oct 19 Steve? It would be really great to get the 80mm happening like the 35mm is. I am shooting a lot of hi con b+w at minimum focus and it's looking great... but it would be nice to have something longer! john.

hi there, I got an 80mm square front anamorphic a short while back and found that unless I'm stopped down to an 11 things look unsharp through the viewfinder. A 35mm wide open on the same camera looks razor sharp. I am wondering if anyone has experience with the 80mm. Are yours sharp at 2.8-4? The glass appears pristine so I am willing to send it away if there is an adjustment for this problem. I fear that the design of this lens is pretty complex and to make adjustments may be difficult/expensive. Any recommendations for a lens tech with experience tweeking 70's era lomo anamorphics? thanks, john price, toronto.

thank you Dominic, the big labs up here - technicolor and deluxe - used to be a lot more flexible in terms of selling ends of printer/lab stock. Now many of the more generous managers have retired and the sales staff are impenetrable. The guys in the back are friendly but their hands are tied as control over the short ends has been tightened... I am pretty sure that technicolor toronto sends all of the oddball optical jobs to montreal where they still maintain a machine of two. My colleague lives there so I will get him to ask around. We will need at least a 2000 foot can for the job so I am hoping the Kodak minimum is reasonable - like 1x2000 foot can! The polyester runs fine through our camera and the 2238 is perfed B+H which is ideal. I have made positives onto the KS 2302 from 16mm b+w neg originals and there is light weaving that is noticeable on the freeze frames... other than that for a cheap blow up, the copies look excellent... and cost me about 1/100th of a D/I. take care, john.

thank you both very much for your input. I just looked at the info page for 2238 and it seems like this is also a clear based stock though able to hit a gamma of 1.0 in D-96. In D-97 however, the curve starts out at 1.2 or thereabouts. The black and white lab situation in Toronto is not ideal for tight control - we have 2 'artists labs' that run 35mm neg and pos but I have found that 'normal' process for them runs a 1/2 to a full stop more density than material I self process at home in D-19. Anyhow, it seems like the options are to go with 5234 and try to up the gamma in processing or to use 2238 and live with a potentially higher contrast situation... the filmmaker does not want a low contrast final print so I am leaning in the direction of 2238. The next challenge will be trying to order a single can of that stuff in Canada... john.

I have been asked to make a b+w s-16 to 35mm blow up for a colleague and he's trying to do it as cheaply as possible (what else is new). I know kodak recommends 5366 for the interpos and 5234 for the interneg but I am wondering what the effect of using 5366 for both would be - in the interest of buying one roll of intermediate stock instead of 2. A little extra contrast would be okay as the director wants a snappy final print. Before we buy the stock I wonder if anyone has gone through this process. I have access to an oxberry 1700 with a s-16 gate to do the work... of course we will be testing but any wisdom would be appreciated. thanks john price, toronto ia667 1st a.c., experimental filmmaker.

Hi There, I am trying to make a special order through a rep up in Toronto but things are proceeding at a snails pace. I am wondering if anyone has a good kodak contact in NYC, LA or Rochester who is knowledgeable and kind that I might be able to talk to. Thanks, John Price IA 667 1st AC, Toronto.

I think the focus would not be a problem if I was using a bridge plate and a FF3... there is a geared ring on the lens but that set up would cost at least 4 times what I paid for the glass! I have run into older superspeeds with similar issues but in those cases I have simply asked the rental tech to try another... I am mostly shooting experiemntal home movies on hi con stock so it's not a huge deal. If a real job came along however I would definitely need the focus mechanism to perform properly. I am an IA focus puller so when I encouner these things, I am wired to try and make them disappear. Has anyone ever seen a lightweight FF rig for a 2M? I wonder if one of those old SR rigs would be adaptable? Thanks for all of the replies. John.

thanks Bruce, Only the sperical elements are moving when the focus is shifting. It seems like a newer style lens but there is a very pronounced hump in the focus between INF and 1 meter. Do you know if Bernie has experience with the square fronts? I guess I have to call him up. I am looking at an 80mm from the same seller who is telling me that the focus on it is also stiff... again because of it's design... I do not want to send the 35mm away if service will provide just a marginal improvement. Maybe it's a clump of grease in the tracking channel? It would sure be nice to get from minimum to infinity without giving myself carpal tunnel...