Tom Hepburn

Hell all, It's time to get some lights better than the ones I have from Home Depot. I'm looking for: 2 - 1k fresnels complete (Doors & Scrims) 1 - mini Mole complete 1 - 750 Zip complete w. stands.. or something similar. I'm basically doing this for myself and not commercially so they would need to be reasonably priced. Thanks, Tom Please email me here: tom@tomhepburn.com

One other option is an adjustable over the lens adapter. I have two for some old lenses I took off of my Cine 100. Since I don't have a ton of lenses and don't see that changing anytime soon, this works fine for me. My 17-68mm ANGENIEUX is a series 7 and so a series 7 filter drops in perfectly. I can use up to 3 glass ND filters by adding retainer rings, I've only ever needed 2 though. The other two lenses, I put on a scanner, measured the lens size exactly in Photoshop and then it was off to Ebay to order an adjustable (adjustable to maybe a few mm either way-your measurements still have to be close) over the lens filter holder. So for example the adapter step up ring for one lens might be 44mm to series 7. Another lens might be 40mm to series 7. So I can still use my series 7 glass filters. They have small adjustable metal "teeth" that can be bent slightly, but some are plastic and are not very malleable. So for a 20 bucks or so I'm covered. Just though I'd mention it as it hasn't been discussed as an option. Tom

That's exactly what I would have thought in a public place. Hmmm. Seeing that this isn't going to be "released" I wonder if I could at least post it on my youtube account? Does anyone know of a free legal service (ha that sounds funny doesn't it), that could answer general questions along these lines? Or maybe a Cinematographers union? I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm glad I asked. Thanks for the info folks. Tom

Hey all, I shot some footage of the Chicago Marathon last weekend. I was close to the finish line so I saw some emotional moments caught pretty close up. My questions is when does one need to get consent from a subject in a public area and when do you not. There were no interviews, only mid shots of individuals finishing. Thanks, Tom

Hello, Although I?ve done my share of (Video) editing, this is my first Super 16/16:9 project. Here is my workflow: Shoot Super 16 film Process and transfer to miniDV tape using the 16:9 aspect. Take the 29.97 interlaced footage and convert it in aftereffects to 23.976 fps with 3:2 pulldown, and interpret the footage 16:9, 1.2 pixel aspect ratio. I?ve also used Premier Pro with the same results. I?ve tried various run throughs, but one of two things always happen on my computer monitor ((windows Media Player (full screen): The footage seems too wide and the subject is stretched horizontally or The footage is correct horizontally, but doesn?t appear to be 16:9 and thus not wide enough. It?s kind of like (an impossible) 1.1 pixel aspect ratio if that makes sense. Maybe I need to get a full night?s sleep and try again, but things seem a little off to me. Any wisdom that could be thrown my way would be appreciated. Thanks, Tom

Hey Dave, I wasn't talking about the grain, just that the post images looked a bit soft. I'm good with the grain situation. The make up of the grain in the post images seem reasonable. I've got three primes that I'm going to use. I used to have them on my Cine 100 so I know they can take crisp images. Unless, someone has a Ziess that they want to give away.....but I don't know who that would be......Dave Tom

Thanks Guys, Saul, I didn't have the funds for a HD scan this time around. After doing a dry run on my computer (which had a nice mushroom cloud above it upon hitting "import" :), and calculating the cost, I'm going to have to stay with SD, at least for now. However, and you'll have to take my word for this, while my camera was being serviced I decided to send my "pre" negatives to a different place and telecine to SD. The results on the blotchy grain were the same, just at a lower resolution. So, I'll hope that measuring and minute focusing will improve the images. Thanks again for the input. Tom

I think that's a bit personal Marc.

Gentlman, After reviewing today the two, I did find the newer ones a bit "soft." Ironic ey?-see original subject? One difference in these example is that the "pres" were scanned at 1920 by 1080. I used 7231 stock I used a $30 computar 12.5mm lens (yep, you read right) on the shot in front of the bricks. I used an Angenieux/Bell and Howell 17-68mm zoom on the shot in front of the picnic tables. the meter was set to asa 80 I took a reading, adjusted 2 stops for my ND filter and 1/3 for my yellow filter, as well as another 1/3 since my shutter is 144 degrees. I over exposed 1/3 on the shot in front of the picnic table. It was processed at transferred via telecine at standard 16:9 to MiniDV tape. I digitized it in Adobe Premier Pro, imported into AfterEffects and exported a still. In an effort to get more accurate readings, I've purchased a Spectra IV A. I was using an older analog Sekonic meter for these shots. David I took your advice and focused on the ground glass and locked the viewfinder, but I think I should have taken more time. I wonder if the lack of crispness was do to my not nailing the viewfinder and my eye. It seemed pretty in focus at the time, but things were pretty chaotic as my kids did the sound because of a no show, and did a heck of a job I might add for an 8 and 10 year old. As always, I'm interested in any further info. I was glad to see the blotchy grain gone, but would like to get things more crisp. Thanks in advance, Tom

Hello All, Here is what was done to the camera and lenses: Reset gg to specifications and brought flange focal depth to zero. Lowered movement friction for greater efficiency and lubed interior motor shaft. Collimated/calibrated the lenses Both "pre" and "post" images were shot with the same film stock. Enclair Stills I'd be interested in any thoughts anyone wants to share. Thanks, Tom

Good news folks, The problem is solved. I believe it was a problem with the camera (with a little user error sprinkled in). Anyway, I'm totally pumped at the tightness of the grain with the 7231(b&w negative) I shot! Finally, a sigh of relief. Now I can work on my camera skills, story telling, and editing with decent footage. I'll post some stills when I get home from work, but I need to tip my hat to Bernie who worked on my Eclair and lenses. Thanks to this board as well. (a happy) Tom

I hope no one minds me posting on this forum as opposed the lighting forum. I have an old analog Sekonic light meter. I?ve already called Sekonic and they said they would call back and didn?t. Anyway, I?ve been using a Kodak exposure disk to do set my fstop. And to do that, I need the reading if foot candles. No problems so far as I can get those on the face of my meter as long as the high slide is NOT in. However when I put in my high slide on a bright day I lose the 1:1 ratio of needle=footcandles. So in other words using the high slide renders the footcandle display useless. Can someone tell me what the footcandle display needs to be converted to if the high slide in? This could all be obvious, but if so I can't figure it out. Here is a scan of the light meter face. Face Thanks, Tom

Just wanted to write a quick update. Since my camera was off being serviced, I decided to send my processed film out to be telecined again. This time I chose a different company and different format (SD as opposed to HD). The results were the same so I can rule out that it has anything to do with film transferring/scanning. I did talk with Bernie and the camera and lenses were in need of adjustments in terms of image capturing. So, when I get the camera back, I will test and post the results. Unfortunately my next shooting project revolves around the Chicago marathon in early October and the preparation involved in running such a race. I'm going to either take a chance that all is well and shoot 1,200 feet or scrap the project. Expensive if there is something wrong, other than user error (right ;) ) but subject and scheduled event, won't be available again. You gotta love it. Tom

Well Nicholas, I can tell you what has worked for me since purchasing my Eclair 2 months ago. I've only used 100 ft loads in my 200 ft mag so far. In the dark, I load the feed side of the mag and put the cover on it, with black photo tape at the seams of the mag. Then in very muted light, I thread to take up side. I'm pretty much giving up 2 feet or so of film to get the loops right. I feel like I'd rather burn a foot, rather than the whole reel. I'll be moving up to threading the 400ft soon. That I'll attempt to do in complete dark (changing bag). I'm getting pretty good at it myself. As I'm sure you know, if the loops are wrong, the filming makes a different and louder sound. If that is the case, it's back in the changing bag for adjustments. I think it's possible to do it without looking, but it'll take some practice and some sensitive finger tips. Hope this helps and I'll be looking for more responses myself. Tom

Tom, does your K-100 have two letters preceding the 4-digit number? No there are just the four numbers. Unless there is another number stamped somewhere. I'm getting these from the back of the strap handle. Tom

You know if you have a good editor or animator work on it and they're experience, they should be able to get the look you want. A lot of "cheese" comes from post production plugins trying to get the film look along with damage. You already have that film look so all you need are various types of damage, color shift, and perhaps a frame jitter or two. Also, you can tweak a little more or a little less. When damaging the film, you have to live with whatever damage that is applied. That would be my choice. Tom

"6= a single lens model" Oooh, I'm sorry, but thanks for playing Patrick :lol: That's really cool research though Patrick. I'll be it was fun to do it. I love a bit of history. I've got to tell you that I love this camera though. What a workhorse. Tom

Here is my serial # Patrick, #7691 Figure that one out? Tom

I would try this link. It might be worth a call: http://www.eastmanhouse.org/inc/the_museum...-technology.php Also, there is a guy (Mike from Omaha) probably knows if it exists: http://messages.cinekodak.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=54 Hope that helps. I have a Cine 100 myself and love the images it takes. Tom

Sorry Nicholas, You're fine with that film. There are two sides of the film, one is shiny, and the other isn't. The side that IS NOT shiny is the emulsion side. That is the side that will be exposed to light and give you your image. Just make sure that the emulsion side is facing out toward your lens when you put the mag on the camera. That's it. You'll get it, but practice first with leader. Tom

Sure. just make sure that when you open it to unload you do it in complete darkness. Good point on the manual Dave. One thing I did find confusing on the ACL II manual though, is that on p.21 it shows the feed side (200 mag) motion as counter clockwise and on p.22 it shows the feed side (400 ft) turning clockwise. The only reason I can think of is that back in the day the 200 ft rolls were wound emulsion out (like a-minina loads). I'm pretty sure unless you order it special you'll get 100 ft and/or 400 loads emulsion in and so the feed side should be turning clockwise. Hope I didn't confuse the issue. Tom

If you buy 100 foot daylight it will be on a metal spool that will keep the most of the light out (hence "daylight spool") in a low light environment. I would still load it in a place where you can see the threading path, but with the minimum amount of light to be able to accomplish that. When you load film on a core, you'll need to do it in complete darkness. I just went through the very same thing a couple of months ago as my Eclair had just arrived. If you're using 100 foot loads, then I would put the same 100 ft metal reel on the take up side, that way when you unload it (in minimal light again) you can pop it right into it's little plastic Kodak case for processing. so to answer your question, yes you would need a take reel. Note: The following graphic is on a core, NOT the 100 ft daylight reel we're talking about. So when threading you want to go for the emulsion side to be facing out when you're magazine is loaded, closed, and ready to snap to the camera. On a 100ft roll, the emulsion side is in. Hopefully the graphic will make sense. I got the picture from Saul, who was a great help as I was learning to thread this camera, and I just added the callouts. Hope this helps, Tom

True, if you flip the metal locking piece up and pull off the flange, it will accept a daylight spool and/or the ebay core your looking at. I have a picture of a Eclair mag being loaded and showing the direction, emulsion, etc. Let me know if you need it. Tom

Being a Yankee form the Midwest, I go with: awn -gen - eew Tom

As Fran noticed, I thought I should also point out (if you didn't recognize on the slate) that most of these are using either a yellow #1, G (also Yellow), or K-2 (yellow) filter. So I thought I should post one more with NO yellow filter, only an ND. still_no_yellow_filter