Jump to content

Doug Palmer

Basic Member
  • Posts

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Camera Operator
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Not too much about miniature shoooting on this forum, I always find it fascinating. Snorkel lenses tend to be expensive. It's usually possible to dig the camera down low enough, or possibly use a mirror arrangement. Lens on small stop, so probably long exposures needed. Carlos, I can see that if you down-res the format it could help the green-screen combination. But I don't know as I have only used film. Maybe others can help.
  2. Hi Monica, maybe I was wrong about that foam strip by the screen. Perhaps it is meant to be there, I really can't remember now. And as Mark says, it shouldn't be affected by the heat of the bulb. And the smell could be dust. BUT it could also be from a cable, ie a possible electrical hazard. So if in doubt I'd get it checked by an electrician.
  3. Hope you're feeling better now. Perhaps not the foam... covid 😆 ? I've had these Minettes, I don't think ever seeing this foam attached. They are excellent viewers on account of their gate pressure pad and kindness to the film. However it goes without saying, a scrupulous clean first.
  4. I good S8 projector though, like eg your Elmos, should surely be as stable as a normal 16mm projector? The gate and claw arrangement is similar in many ways, but obviously you are magnifying any discrepancy much more on the screen. The Elmo lenses also very good performers, especially when stopped down a little.
  5. Strange, our experiences differ. Most S8 projectors I encounter work OK mechanically after all these years, excepting the usual broken belts etc. The cheap S8 cameras back then weren't meant to last very long maybe. Kodak could already see video coming ? Having said that, some like the Kodak Instamatics, were quite well made and still work OK today. Did you ever see Cinerama that some enthusiasts created with 3 cheapo Kodaks linked together? I remember Chris Usher's UK presentations and being astonished how the film images welded together so well. Silent cartridges and stable.
  6. The mag sound track also gave more protection due to the 'rail' effect, so there was less friction between layers of film. Regarding 'bad projectors' I haven't found many that give shaky images. The gates etc are certainly far better than the cameras' movement. Lenses though were generally inferior, so yes detail was lost for sure.
  7. It's funny, back in the late 1970s and 80s oldsters like me certainly weren't looking for a shaky image 😁 Maybe we actually got more stable images then. New Beaulieu cameras I recall were good. We used the sound cartridges which I think were steadier due to the loop for the sound head. (And also gave excellent sync sound too.) I think the "super-8 look" is perhaps more to do with the way most people back then handheld and zoomed their movies. And cheap cameras, except the Kodak ones, probably weren't very steady with silent cartridges.
  8. Whatever 16mm camera Logmar come up with, I do hope it will be small and compact, like a super-8 camera. And quiet too. However, I do realise these attributes don't happen easily together on a 16mm camera. You have to transport far more film at greater speed. If they succeeded though, I think the market could be large. I mean not just for true professionals. Lots of people want to use film, they really do. But the cost of S8 film now puts them off. A roll of film I would guess is much cheaper to produce than film in a cartridge. (eg Regular-8 film is so much cheaper than S8, though not available as far as I know in colour.)
  9. Although I wouldn't myself have been a buyer, I'm disappointed Logmar cancelled their S8 project. Glad though it looks as if a few may be made for rental. Also, the 16mm camera is interesting indeed, especially if smallish. I'm guessing hopefully it will be normal 100ft loading, with mag option.
  10. Or...as Jim adds, just after the shot taken, maybe more reliable I don't know. One thing which may be of concern: the actor's performance could be upset by the loud noise from the camera. Grimacing ?😬 Shouting ? Maybe the best way with an unblimped camera is the tele end of the zoom lens. But blimps are fun to make if you have the time, an old box and some carpet etc.
  11. All depends I suppose on the duration of the dialogue. In any case it must be quite short due to the spring motor wind of K3, so you have maybe already planned for this. Regarding the speed fluctuation, if the camera is in good order I think it should hold a fairly constant speed for the first 10 seconds, so not great but enough for short snatches if that's OK for your project. Jim's suggestion of recording during the rehearsal is a good one and should work hopefully.
  12. Yes the 1930s stuff I myself am fascinated with so others would be too I'm sure. That period of peace when 16mm film-makers felt able to do some very interesting stuff. Coming back to Roy's problem, I wonder if he may feel differently about his work in say 10 years time, maybe not "marginal" but something greater. And he may also have different thoughts of putting it in future films, who knows.
  13. I have the terrible habit of not chucking stuff out. Trouble is 16mm and 35mm film does take up enormous space. Old workprints surely are the least vital to keep. But then one has the question of somebody else using your work in a not good way possibly, so you'd have to destroy them all first? As for camera original footage, I couldn't get rid of any except obvious rubbish etc. I guess that task will go to my kids. Or maybe by then they'll just get their robot to do it 🙂 As you say, it's a difficult one when the footage itself is not likely to be of any historical interest for future generations. However, I have some old 1930s amateur drama film, amusing and quite well-acted with good sets such as a gypsy caravan, and somehow it opens up the character and perseverance of that unknown film-maker to me, also those who were persuaded to take part. So maybe even drama film that you consider as not important, may enable others in the future to know you as a person.
  14. A quick point in favour of super-8 v 16.... there is much more depth-of-field. So eg. in the harvesting shots from Heikki, the foreground and background are in focus (I think) despite using a tele lens. Although the lighting was good, this may not have happened as well on 16mm. That's assuming good focus near and far, was intended. Another use for S8 where big depth-of-field is a bonus: foreground miniatures. Also, because this Gentoo camera has good registration, maybe it could be used for plate photography, to use later in SFX shots.
  15. I'm not usually in favour of sharpening movie film but on my PC I can see it helps slightly in the first example. I've never shot with 50D in super-8. I see it does bring out the best in the format, if that's intended. And the Gentoo's pin regn. will be very welcome. Also, the fact that it's c-mount, so can take some really nice glass including still prime lenses. Let's hope though something can be done to make the super-8 film cartridge more affordable for the many who'd like to shoot with it. And it does have the advantage over 16mm of getting quick shots of faces etc, also fast changing.
×
×
  • Create New...