Steven Budden

No idea. I haven't seen those sizes, did you find any? Maybe use gel behind lens filters (if you can) or find some adapters, which may or may not exist. I know this isn't much help but I didn't want to leave you hanging. Steven

Isn't that something like the keyhole matte box effect only backwards, and on to infinity? Steven

Sam, Thanks for the trick. I'm getting the hang of it. Actually, the aspheron adapter switch was not clicking back into the off position fully so it was still set into "slight" macro. Also, I wasn't used to zooming out and seeing the change in sharpness, which I thought was blurriness, but I've learned it is just the way vision works. This is an awesome lens though. Thanks for the recommendation. Without the auto exposure it is fairly light weight and a little shorter than the old POE I had. It does Macro better than my 25mm macro switar so I sold that and offset the cost a little. I'm loving this film thing. I'm still curious about your feature. I just watched the Passion of Joan of Arc and that was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. Well, one of em. Was that one of your influences? Anyway, it inspires me to make silent films. Without having to worry about sound film would be a breeze (relatively), no? Esp black and white, which I'm stuck on anyway. Steven

I agree that arguing about quality in this sense is a losing battle because digital will eventually catch up and the price will keep going down. Film will survive in certain venues because of properties, not quality/ cost. And the cost of film will probably keep going up as film predominance keeps dropping. I find it all exciting because I think in order for film to survive, filmmakers will have to reassert properties inherent to that medium for it to hold its place (just as painting had to do when "threatened" by photography). Film projection won't go away. A division will form between film and digital. Hollywood will go digital for sure. Money money. Steven

How is the camera in terms of image steadiness, compared to a B&H or Bolex? Steven

Go Ebert. Steven

I see I see. I know on a bolex the difference (at Cameraspro) is only about 25% cost (600 ish for ultra, 800ish for super). But if it is more for other cameras that makes some sense. Can you still do a sountrack on a film print with ultra? Steven

Thanks. Actually, I was thinking in terms of hand processing. Because the bleach is the most caustic solution I have to deal with, how ideal if I could skip it for a look I'm going for anyway! Steven

I see I see. But... is it that much cheaper to modify? Seems like R16 would be ok for shorts or older cameras, and S16 for newer cameras for 35mm blow up, but I can't completely understand why be in between the two? Of course, all I know of Ultra I know from Cameraspro website, and when I asked Guy about it he said... no no go with Super. The applicability to any camera makes more sense than the up front cost (which doesn't seem to be that much more for super, and a lot of the difference comes from the recentering of the lens mount... right? Unless you're dong it yourself). Anyway, I'm curious. Keep in mind I learned about these issues through the bolex route... I wasn't really researching the conversion prices on Arri, etc. Thanks! Steven

Bleach bypass? Does that do anything on reversal? So all of the steps are the same during processing, just the bleach step is skipped? Any sample footage? I'm interested in getting more grain out of the medium. Thanks! Steven

Why would someone choose Ultra over super, out of curiosity? Steven

I saw that film in the theater here in San Francisco maybe nine months ago. It's pretty interesting. Actually, I just finished grad school in 2005 for painting, and Henry Darger is all the rave as an "outsider" visual artist. Art critics and historians are fascinated by the fact that he worked in such seclusion... he kind of embodies the undereducated self taught artist for them, and the idea of art as catharsis. That's why I saw the film. I had no idea he wrote a book at all until I saw the film. Anyway, they do take liberties with the drawings. It seems like a late attempt to make the film more quirky and interesting... more in line with Darger's own work. I guess it is effective to some degree in that sense. What I thought was poorly placed was that old stock footage of chicago at random points in the film, with those dated voice overs from the seventies. And twice I think they use the same footage, which was a little jarring for me. I thought the film was good and very informative/ interesting... but I don't think it was a great documentary by any means. It sort of barely held together. Imagine how much more could've been done withe such remarkable material! Steven

Thanks. I've been researching the chemistry and it doesn't look too bad. Mostly what I'll need to mix is the bleach bath and the clearing bath (simple). Didn't I read somewhere that new kodak emulsions don't require sulfuric acid in the bleach bath? I can't find that anywhere. It looks like the Chemistry is about the same for Fomopan and Tri X, just the times increase by a few minutes for each step for Fomopan. Do you use a scale and weights when you measure these chemicals? Also, how crucial is it that the temperature is at 68 degrees for reversal? Is that as crucial for the water rinses? Guess I can't just fill the tank with rinse water from my sink then? One more question... for the re-exposure... it says use a white light? What qualifies as a white light exactly? Thanks! Steven PS. I'll probably post this is Filmshooting.com as well.

I'm doing 16mm. In any case, I'm considering the Fomapan for hand processing. Once I process the stuff by hand any lab should be able to make me a print from the negative, correct? Anyway, sounds like I might have to start off with the Plus X anyway so I can use the chemical kits until I get a firmer grasp on things. Thanks! Steven

Thanks, that's helpful. Do both of those suggested stocks work with that kodak pre mixed black and white developing kit I've been hearing about? (It would be ideal if I wouldn't have to mix too many noxious chemicals in my bathroom). Same with the Fomapan... it looks cool but developing looks more technical... is it? Thanks! Steven PS. I also have this idea about using the chemicals for a little longer than I'm supposed to so the images begin to get washed out. That should work correct?

I'm curious too about older hand processing methods or a good book on this subject. Are the methods the same as for still photography? The results i've seen with the daylight tanks are so uniform, I'm really still after that Lumiere/ Muybridge look. Also, about purchasing old black and white film... I guess it wouldn't be as risky as purchasing old or outdated color film but what would the risks be exactly? And where to find old film that might give me a more antiquated look? Thanks! Steven

Probably shot on black and white and then printed on color stock with the color footage. Right? Steven

Well, Action Camera here in SF is a resource for experimental filmmakers and for a few of the schools here. Maybe since most of them shoot R 16 (and probably many on older cameras) they keep R 16 standard in stock. I dunno. Steven

And I love bolexes, both for their beauty and their portability. When I look at mine it just makes me want to run out and film. And I confess I love the spring winding, though at times a pain, no need for batteries or anything (same with the filmo). And it's easy to load and not much can go wrong with it, lasts and lasts. Then again I'm into experimental film, where bolex is the norm, but it also creeps into some features (like Nolan's Following... so they say) for the MOS shots. Steven

Hmmm... I think I've heard that 25mm is the standard focal length in 16mm. 12mm is pretty wide. Standard configuration is a 10mm (wide) 25mm (medium) 50mm or 75mm (telephoto) or a zoom which can do them all. Steven

Do 100' loads normally come in single perf unless specified, or double unless specified? Because I just bought a bunch of rolls of black and white negative kodak and they all came double perf, to my surprise (I didn't specify... I just assume they'd be single). Not that it mattered much... I am shooting R 16, but for future reference. Because if double are easy to come by anyway then why the scramble for cameras that take single perf only? Steven (I bought from Action Camera here in SF)

Hola Sam, Thanks for the help. I'll find a bolex tech in the area. I haven't been able to find a good one yet, but there must be one around. It'll work for now. Thanks! Steven

UCLA and USC are world famous programs, which means thousands of prospective students will be rushing towards a few open slots. Be sure to have back up plans in mind. Interestingly, I read somewhere that more directors working in Hollywood have degrees from City College LA than the big schools because it's cheap ($30 a credit for in state) and you're still in the thick of things.

A bolex I just purchased came with 10 rolls of tungsten film and I'm planning on shooting most of it outdoors. Since I've never shot Tungsten in daylight... Is there any difference in quality whether I use a glass lens filter or a 85 gel filter? I'd prefer glass but the camera also came with an assortment of gel filters. Also, what other exposure variables do I need to keep in mind? Any help appreciated. Thanks! Steven

Check ebay. There are often large lots of unused ones. Steven