boy yniguez

Hello, I hav a bolex REX 4 and was looking on ebay for some cheap but reasonable options for lenses when I came across a set of angeniuex lenses that claim to be "non RX" lenses. What kind of difference does this actually make? If the gate and ground glass is the same on RX and non RX bolex cameras then it should be fine right?

 

Any information appreciated.

RX pertains to the reflex viewing achieved via pellicle or prism which diverts some of the light to the eyepiece and the rest to the film gate (sorry i don't remember the percentages). RX lenses would mean therefore that the f-stops were calibrated to give a corresponding correct exposure to the film such that an f4 setting on the lens delivers an f4 amount of light to the film yet still allowing some light to go to your eyepiece.

While this is not about how he lit, it's about how little what we do has changed in 500 years.

 

http://www.bluesky-web.com/broadcastvideoe...hiaroscuro.html

excellent article, very good point, walter. modern cinematographers have it easy actually with that 20k staying in place for a few hours while the shot is being made. painters of old, i could imagine viewed their subjects with available light mostly daylight streaming in through windows and painted what they saw. rembrandt went a step further and decided he wanted his models lit with very directional sunlight except judging by the angle it streamed in, it came in through a skylight hardly bigger than a 4'x4' and of course moved in the course of a day with differing intensities over different days. his images look like he painted close to midday for an hour or so (paintings are not done in one day remember) or mostly probably stared at his scene very carefully during perfect light and committed that to memory and painted what he remembered! fill light came only from what bounced off the models clothes, hardly from the surrounding walls which seem mostly dark anyways (dp - pd relationship "paint the walls darker, i want more contrast!). of course he has some paintings done with artificial light mostly likely with one candle on the floor usually hidden from view (avoiding flare? he he!) that illuminated parts of the scene close to it and had a nice falloff that left the rest of the scene in darkness. so for me keyword for a rembrandt painting is contrast (the yellow tint is just patina from the aging)! to go back to the original query of rembrandt exterior day the situation has to be perfect, the sun has to come from one side with very heavy dark clouds overhead blotting out most of the fill from the sky (david, overcast just diffuses the light and make it come from all directions!) or the scene is such that the sky is blotted out by something overhead, a canopy, an overhang, a tree canopy and that objects or parts of the setting don't give out much refections (no fill!). now to convince your director to relocate all your scenes......

As I understand it flare also lowers the contrast. Those internal reflections wind up putting random light into the shadows thus lowering the contrast.

yes, leo but not always! i've encountered flares that created ghost images on small sections of the image, not an overall drop in contrast!

I hope an expert can help me create a solution for this problem:

 

I purchased a mini wireless color video camera to install on a radio-controlled helicopter. The camera is about as big as a quarter in size. I subsequently purchased a wide-angle lens to replace the lens on this camera. I unscrewed the original pinhole lens and, to my pleasant surprise, the threads on the wide-angle lens matched and it screwed on nicely. However, I discovered that in order to focus, I had to unscrew the wide-angle lens to the point where it hardly has any threads holding it on. Is there such a thing as a lens length extender? Or should I maybe just use some electical tape to secure it? Any ideas?

as long as there is at least one thread to hold onto so that the lens doesn't wobble you could epoxy it on!

How would you set exposure on a film camera for a sunset?

i understand the question to mean that the shape of the sun is the most important part of the scene, so i would normally get my exposure with a spotmeter reading just outside that circle. it would also mean that on hazy days that even the shape of the sun is not clear, you would not shoot it!

do some tests, strike a match a meter away from your exposure meter - you'd be surprised how bright the initial burst of flame is! if the illumination doesn't reach your intended t-stop, use two or maybe even more matches bundled together! the initial burst is what matters, once it settles into a flame it hardly gives anything but you could soak most of your matches (except the tip by which it will be held) in lighter fluid for bigger flame. obviously you need to be careful. also format has no relation to light-gathering ability, more a question of availability of lenses for them that would be carrying a wider t-stop.

If you are going to go that far you could paint the barrel internals white at the same time :lol:

leo meant internal reflections among the elements! painting the inside of the barrel white would if anything lower the contrast not produce more flare.

Just watched this again on dvd... there are a few scenes with a number of fires in the frame but the flames are burning bright white and not warm/orangey as norm. 'Just wondering if anyone knows is this has been achieved with over-exposure, filtration, neg proesses, in the d.i. or by using white burning/very hot propellants?

 

Curious to know...

haven't seen the film but it sounds to me like the cinematographer used the fires as actual sources of filming light thus rendering them way overexposed.

That is very good advice.

I think her moving at apparent normal speed is going to be good enough for me.

She is a dancer and I have seen her walking very slow with out any abrupt movements.

I will try doing the ones with her standing still also.( with very short ends @ 3 FPS this will the cheapest project I have done :D).

What about the shutter angle?

 

Thank you for your reply Tim.

closing down your shutter would counteract any blurring you hoped for in the first place!

Allow me to lay down the law for circular track for the benefit of those who are in the dark: the ONLY time circular track can, and should, be used if you're tracking around some object WITHOUT panning. The camera has to be locked off in pan, basically. If the object doesn't stay in frame during this circular track without panning, you're basically doing it wrong. You're filming the nodal point in the circle's mid and that's it. For everything else straight track will do the job much more gracefully.

and who may i ask laid down this law? what if you want a change in size of the subject during the track? that can only be done if the subject is NOT in the nodal point of the circle (unless of course you are zooming)!

sorry but i have no idea what $600 would afford you but i was actually referring to kinos and maybe K5600 jokers.

boy y

Have fun out there.

yep, try tracking a moving character with it! for inspiration check out every frame of THE ADDAMS FAMILY that has angelica huston in it!

I agree using your 35mm still camera is a good way to get a feel for what kind of look you make get with certain lighting/stocks. When I took a cinematography class at NYU, the professor had us shoot slide film to experiment with contrast ratios and exposures. I still have them and they can be great visual references when you need them.

it is true slide films are great learning tools for exposure as their lattitude is so narrow and margin for error is so small but as for contrast you're better off using a stock closer to what you'll be shooting in (which of course could be one and the same if you're filming in reversal stock).

Well, let's back up a bit. If you place a theatrical blue gel on a tungsten unit you will not have much exposure left. What units do you have to work with? Perhaps you should be using a higher speed T stock.

 

F

then you'd be better off lighting with daylight lamps since you'd be getting the same color temp from light coming in from your windows.

the greatest feature of the Leica M3 that later models don't have is the 100% view meaning the size of an object in the viewfinder is the same as that seen by the naked eye such that shooting with both eyes open ( a must for photographers who want to see what's going on outside the frame ) is simpler to adjust to. later models give only 75% view. also the summicron series in any focal length ( summicron is the name for leica M lenses with f2.0 widest f-stop ) are the sharpest.

any clear. non-flat piece of glass would distort your image if placed infront of the lens. i used to use bottles, drinking glasses, even glass candle holders to alter portions of the image.

jim mentioned he was shooting in video so your shutter angles would have no meaning for him. shutter speeds in video are expressed in fractions of a second thus jim's "1/60". the "chunking express" blurs would be at 1/6 or 1/12 and frozen action would be at much higher speeds like 1/10,000.

i believe that would be for the Bolex RX camera so the standard name for the mount would be C-mount.

simply put, it means when you are starting to coil the cable, every odd-numbered loop is on one side of the coil and all even-numbered loop is on the opposite side. this is to prevent twisting the cable as you go along.

boy y

david,

if you spliced together a positive and negative image of the same scene such that even numbered frames are positive and odd ones are negative, would you see anything upon projection or the will the images just cancel out each other?

boy y

hi,

you could also carry your film (raw or exposed) in FILM SHIELD bags which are lined with lead. they have protected my 3200 asa still films.

vaseline would create streaks on the diffused portions of your image.

he would just blow on his lens causing fog and shoot the same scene until the lens clears up giving him choices of degree of diffusion.

Hello,

I have to shoot from helicopter for my next film. i don't have budget for any gears !!!!

so it has to be hand held ? how to kill vibration and shakes of the chopper and get a smooth shot ???

(will air pillow help in absorbing vibration?or any other cussion ?)And genarally how to go about it to get a good immage!! ( i will be shooting over the forest and water ) :ph34r:

hi,

i've done about a dozen aerials and have tried resting an arri III with a prime lens on a baby pillow on my lap as well as hard mounting the camera on a tripod to the inside of the chopper cabin with some rubber insulation and they both work. i was even able to use a zoom on the hard mounted one but be careful not to extend the lens barrel (no mattebox, it will catch the wind) more than a few inches out of the chopper body because of wind turbulence. levelling a hardmounted camera will be a problem as choppers navigate by tilting its body all over the place so you might want to use a cartoni head that can roll your camera axis. a polarizing filter would help cut haze in the atmosphere but unless it is mounted flush on the lens barrel with no part sticking out it could just fly off. as far as vibration is concerned there are airspeeds depending on your chopper model where it is minimal mostly when it is cruising forward at a fast clip. hovering is the worst.

good luck.

hi,

i believe your light set-up would be sufficient if you could keep your talents (singer and horse) in pretty much a small spot and the whole scene is in limbo. i have no idea how big an equitation manege is but if your horse is allowed to wander then you're in trouble. depending on what your director wants you'll need horse wranglers to coax the animal in place. also, if he wants to see the perimeter walls is there's enough outside light so you don't have to worry about that?

note: some horses freak out with lights in their eyes so you may have to raise them high enough not to bother the animal.