Jump to content

Doug Palmer

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Camera Operator
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is a problem we all have at times, me included. I don't think, Jared, the previous user "idiot" tightened it on purpose ! Somehow these rings seem to tighten themselves. I haven't tried Robert's canned-air trick though sounds a good one. Whatever method is taken, I suggest covering the lens element with some protective tissues and perhaps some stiff card. It's all too easy I've found, to slip when using pliers or whatever.
  2. I hadn't till now realised this appears a common problem and Bolex didn't think it out properly. There is indeed quite a strain on the cover-plate, and I would think metal may be necessary to repair yours, perhaps using small bolts. My one is luckily broken in the middle and can be easily taped over.
  3. OMG that price just for a small piece of bakelite or whatever it's made of. I was also thinking of replacing my broken one, think I'll carry on with the gaffer tape 🙂 Or maybe it's possible to knock up one simply out of metal...
  4. I hadn't read it properly... the Resolve stabilisation. Would be interesting yes to see how it looked before.
  5. Haven't been to Camden for many years... looks great, and seeing all the cyclists. If you say unsteady, which I can't see btw being handheld, maybe it's a small adjustment needed to the pressure-plate tension. Nice exposure, UK afternoons getting shorter now...🙂
  6. I rather like that staccato look at times, but yes, panning does look jerky. Unless combining with slomo. But for fairly static scenes you don't notice any difference.
  7. Maybe 40 too fast, though perhaps 36 would pass for certain actions, then that's another half-stop out of the way !
  8. Another thing you've probably thought already, half-close the variable shutter to reduce one stop. Also... don't know if you are thinking of shooting closeups of non-actors, but I have found that giving them a bit of slowmotion, say 32 to 40 fps often helps.
  9. I wouldn't have thought much of a problem with dust, unless it's a dusty environment. Any specks way out of focus and likely invisible at the gate. No problem of course with bayonet models where the filter is enclosed on withdrawal, unless you then forget to insert 🙂 Unfortunately, even with filters over the lens there's going to be difficulty focusing through the dark viewfinder of the Bolex. Maybe though with a matte box it'll be quicker to take off the filter briefly.
  10. They look right, but a lot of money ! Maybe you can find cheap s/h filters, also made in 2x2 size. They tend to keep well for many years. The template Brian mentions is not really necessary btw.
  11. When Imax started in the 1960s, film emulsions were nothing like they are today. Projection light output not as good either. So it made a lot of sense to create a very big film format. Maybe something could be done today using a new Vistavision projector, and utilising the full Imax width screen. Keeping the film-grain tight as possible with slow emulsion. After all, 35 is (supposedly) much more available than 70. So you'd end up with a slightly different aspect ratio with a non-digital film appearance. Cameras much more user friendly. I don't know if it would be feasible to put registration pins in the projector. Obviously everything would need to look rock steady. Ellston Bay was a short made in Vistavision in 2018, then shown in London Imax. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it. Maybe someone here ? Don't know if 15/70 or digital. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5852116/
  12. It's very sad indeed if as Tyler says, 15/70 projection is now dead. A 54 year lifespan isn't bad, though I'm sure many devotees like myself would still support the cost of providing those mammoth rolls of film. I think Simon mentioned: unlike 35mm there haven't been any monochrome Imax's during this time. I wonder why. It would be great to see something like Ansel Adams-type footage of Yosemite and so on, not to mention the many creative possibilities of chemical black and white film projected on to that vast screen. Maybe indies should take over...
  13. Another thing that separates 15/70 Imax from all other formats (including digital Imax).... the extreme height. In fact, depending on your seat it's sometimes not possible to see part of the base of the frame. Perfect for accentuating high places or creating vertigo 😆 And it's sometimes disappointing I find, when Nolan changes abruptly to normal 70mm height. We shouldn't forget that 15/70 Imax has been a highly successful format worldwide, since its creation way back in 1967. Cameras and projection ingeniously designed.
  14. Hi Jake, maybe attach a small video camera to the side of the K3 at the same level as the lens. I did this with my Bolex and it works well, viewing the image on the monitor. Not perfect for avoiding parallax but pretty accurate when using wide lenses.
  15. Apart from tracking and craning shots, there's very little camera movement. At least in the Imax films I've seen. The action is allowed to take place in a more leisurely fashion, similar to the old Cinerama, with more screentime needed to take it all in. And I've noticed often the main subject with say a person in mid closeup, happens in the lower central part of the frame, where your eyes are naturally placed. Haven't seen TV Imax, but would think it would'nt work too well.
  • Create New...