steve hyde
-
Posts
446 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by steve hyde
-
-
...I saw the silver prints for the trilogy at North West Film Forum last month. The Tarr films are now available on DVD through Facets. You can also see one of the most sublime scenes from Damnation on YouTube:
here is the link to that
Steve
-
If you load it in a mag, theres no place for a roll of any kind within the body. What is it exactly you want to do with a CP-16? Because high frame rate, with 100' spools sounds like a Bolex or a K3.
Thanks for the replies. I might have confused matters by changing the subject of this thread slightly. I am considering buying a CP16 and want to learn as much about the camera system as possible. I would use it primarily for sound-sync shooting (not high speed) I was wondering if the camera accepted internal daylight spools.
Visual Products in Ohio has an attractive offer for a PL mount conversion, S16 modified gate and full overhaul for $2500. I have not heard from anyone who actually has a PL - S16 - CP16 so I have no clear sense of the quality and reliability and stability of this particular modification. If anyone has any experience with one, please chime in.
At the moment I am weighing the options. If I go for the CP16 should I get the modification so that I can shoot on S16 PL mount lenses? (I don't own any and can't afford them) or my other option is to overhaul the CP16 without mods and shoot 4:3 on a Zeiss 10-100, which is a lens that does not cover S16 in the wide focal lengths unless it is modified.
I am looking for a sturdy and reliable package to own since I make documentary films that require extended time in the field away from the rental house. The CP16 package with the Zeiss 10 -100 is a nice 4:3 16mm sound sync option, but given industry standards I'd prefer to shoot S16. At this point I'm leaning towards shooting 4:3 16mm, but not without hesitation. The ideal camera for my work is an A-minima, but that is out of my reach at the moment.
Steve
-
I know the CP16 system takes 400ft mags and even the larger Mitchell mags (in some cases), but can this camera take 100ft daylight loads?
Steve
-
...out of curiosity, have any of you guys shot the a-minima with a zoom lens on it? I have heard this can be awkward.
Steve
-
...Lots to say about the currency of truth in fiction film, but I feel like I have voiced my views on this one so I'm going to check out of this thread for a while. I look forward to hearing what other people think about this stuff.
Steve
-
....what can I say, David, I'm not always the self-appointed Mel Gibson police.... ;)
Steve
-
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am indeed offering a radical view. We need radical views because they challenge that which is accepted as "normal". It is one of many perspectives. One that may offend some and I regret offending, but I don't think less of anyone for disagreeing with me. That would go against my belief that diversity is central to our survival on this planet. Take the view as entertainment - a ridiculous line of argument - or a valid perspective.
Ken, your company sounds intersting. We will have to discuss mountain film when appropriate. Outside the closed space of this good debate.. ;)
It is not any one particular scene that reminds me of "black face cinema" it is the work as a whole. The notion may be far-fetched, but I think it is within reach. Black face was built on isolating specific characteristics and then exaggrating them to the point of absurdity. It was a way of saying ha ha ha look how different balck people are. This is precisely what Gibson has done. He has taken one charcteristic (violence) and shown us how riduculous the Maya are. This is why the film makes me mad. It is a classic case of a powerful conservative voice setting us back fifty years and this is of course the prominent theme of the current era.
As an aside, I think Black Face lives on on the show COPS, by the way, and in some ways COPS is worse than black face ever was. (it aint about the make up)
It is probably worth repeating that I am no fan of "political correctness" in art. I am not suggesting that filmmakers should go out and try to right every wrong that society has ever commited. I like the satire performances that speak to the absurd logic of prejudice against race, religous, class and other cultural differences. Satire is great for that. But this pseudo-historical authoritarian cineplex crap gets under my skin and makes me want to speak up.
Steve
-
I am getting the impression that you are much too close to the topic of Mayan Culture to see this movie in the positive light of entertainment. Your statement suggests that David and I are to be added to that "bunch of idiots", because we clearly don't see this from your perspective. I don't mean to speak for David; his own words did that clearly enough.
This is a fictional story, based - loosely - in the time period of Mayan Civilization. Jaguar Paw et al are fictional characters in a fictional story, and in spite of the apparent cliches, some of us idiots were still able to enjoy it for its pure entertainment value. Again, looking to Hollywood, on any level, for historical insight is an exercise in futility. Moreover, whether I care at all about the current state of Mayan culture, or not, my feelings have not been influenced in any way by this film. Seeing this movie, for me, was like reading a fictional action novel.
Ken
My intent is not to deliver insults to anyone - not even Mel Gibson. I am however being openly critical of Mel Gibson the auteur filmmaker and his film Apocalypto. I am suggesting that he insults the intelligence of his otherwise intelligent audience. I have not suggested that the pure entertainment value view of the film is wrong. However, I am making an attempt to explain why I don't hold that view.
For me this hearkens back to "black face cinema" which was characterized by a lot of clowning around at the expense of non-whites. While Gibson's project is much different than the old black face films (casting choices etc.) I still see similarities. Look for yourself - you will see them too. Black face cinema was once celebrated as entertainment, but as the culture evolved the culture came to see it as racist - as horribly racist. as contemptibly racist. an outrage.
Yes I am close to Latin American mountain cultures. I am currently producing a short-form documentary film on one aspect of Andean culture. It is a modest no-budget 16mm film.
As a filmmaker, I feel that I must engage in a critical dialog about filmmaking and filmmakers. Personally, I don't want to stand aside uncritically and say boys will be boys and Hollywood will be Hollywood or that it is futile to look to Hollywood films for historical accuracy. Why? Because the most valuable currency filmmakers have access to is the currency of *truth*...ask any screenwriter.... Without the power of truth you don't have a screenplay and this is especially true for fiction films. Fiction is the art of lying to tell the truth. If the fiction does not speak to truth it will go unnoticed. Truth is the primary currency of cinema art.
Gibson is pulling some truth tricks to sell his film - but worse, he is capitalizing on the half-truth of stereotypes. Filmmakers and scholars alike have to fight for higher standards and we do that through argumentation and voicing the arguments publicly.
I do not want to insult anyone, but that is the risk I have to take to voice my outrage on this film. Some people like it and yes it is true that I think those who like it are being bamboozled. I have tried to explain how and why they are being bamboozled in this thread. I make the argument out of respect to the members of this forum even if my view is different than the one they hold. I am not saying that my view is the *correct* view. I'm only saying that it is a view worth consideration.
Respectfully,
Steve
-
sorry. I made a double post
-
Thanks for voicing your views.
The fact that we tend to speak of Maya Civilization in past tense speaks to the hegemony of popular history. The Roman Empire fell, but Romans are still Romans for example. The Maya are a civilization that still exists - that still struggles to exists because the Guatemalan State has long been at war with them. They are a culture fighting to maintain their language and customs. Like most Latin American countries, Guatemala is governed by the so called "whites" ( wealthy mestizos) with strong ties to networks of transnational capitalism. The Guatemalan State depends on the labor of the Maya Civilization - the impoverished mountain people that work in the agricultural industries and garment factories in Guatemala City. The state wants the mountain people to conform to the wants of the state. However, many families choose to continue the pastoral life, living simply growing thier own food, not earning much money, speaking their own language and not paying taxes to the state. In turn the mestizos have maintained a popular racism against the Maya: e.g. they are "backwards", "stupid", "ignorant", "live like dogs", have darker skin, speak a different language, dress differently, live differently and are thus "inferior".
I am not suggesting that Gibson is conspiring to present an image of white superiority. But what I am suggesting is that he does. In other words, Gibson's lack of imagination, drove him right into the trenches of cliche stereotypes. As any writer knows, writing is a war against cliche and stereotype. Cliches and stereotypes exist because they were already established when the writer sets pen to paper. I don't see Gibson fighting a war against sterotypes.
I see a fimmaker who must be thinking: my audience is a bunch of idiots anyway. They don't give a damn about Maya culture, they want to be entertained. Cinema is a decadent art so let's serve up the decadence.
Make it a fast paced action movie and make millions when the video game comes out.
My guess is that Gibson doesn't know enough about history and geography to even understand the offenses his movie commits. I don't think he recognizes that the film he has made is ideological ammunition for the Guatemalan State... He's an entertainer and he can get away with sloppy research for a pseudo-historical movie and still make money off of it. He is not held to high standards and therefore the standards are lower than low..
Steve
-
Thanks Ken. I was specifically making reference to the Flash program on "Maya Culture" that is linked from the main menu of the website. My point is that Gibson is capitalizing on historical currency here making his project look like a work of historical research.
I'm not saying non-college educated don't have common sense. I am saying that Gibson's film works to produce a discourse on Mayan people that speaks only to their savage violence and inferiority. It is a tired half-true story and one that was used to support North and South American genocides and continues to be used to keep the Mayan people in a choke hold of poverty.
As a final statement on this matter, since we should really be talking about camera lenses or shutter smearing or something like that, I would again, encourage anyone interested in learning how and why this particular film works to produce an *orientalizing discourse* to read Edward Said's "Orientalism". This is the book about how Anglo-westerners go about creating the image of exotic savages for their own entertainment purposes and to make them selves feel more civilized and superior. This is what the book is about and this is what I think Gibson is doing.
Steve
-
...a movie is always about more than entertainment. When was the last time you succesfully erased one from your brian? When we see a film it becomes brain baggage and thus it makes an impression on our consciousness. I agree that it is a sad state of affairs that, for many people, this will be as close to Mayan culture as they will ever get - that they will not pick up a book on Mayan Anthropology - that they will not have the opportunity to even attend college (only 25% of Americans do) where they can study and learn about Mayan civilization.
This is where Mel Gibson steps in. He makes a movie that capitalizes on historical "facts" and thus explicitly (not implicitly) makes claims to historical objectivity. His authoritative marketing strategies and cinematic tone make it part education and part entertainment, but what is the substance of the education.
If only 25% of Americans go to college, that means 75% get information where ever they can find it. I suspect more and more people are turning to cinema to learn about the cultures of the world. It's easy and fun and you don't have to read....except subtitles. ;)
just have a look at the marketing website and see if they are trying to capitalize on historical truth:
http://apocalypto.movies.go.com/
Steve
-
...just to be clear, since an individual point is easily lost in these forums sometimes, I was only raising the question: what is Gibson working to communicate? I don't claim to know. What I do know is that this film is a high-concept ethnographic film - one that employs the most sophisticated technicians and technologies to present "historical facts" about a culture. Gibson chose to focus on the fact that this particular Native American culture was horrifically violent. However, for me, the absences are glaring. The Yale professor I quoted in this thread said it best: How would the Anglo-North American's feel if the Mayan's made a film that presented everything violent that Anglo-North Americans have ever done and then projected that picture on Cineplex screens all over the world?
I think that is a fascinating thing to think about. The ridiculousness of the image of a Mayan mega-movie that focuses on U.S. culture really says something about the uneven power relations between "our culture" and "theirs"...
This said, Apocalypto is a movie worth talking about.
Steve
-
Very impressive, it looks like it outperforms 7217, in terms of reducing visible grain to a nice aesthetically enhancing (as opposed to distracting) level.
However, I bet your telecine at Todd-AO was absolutely top notch and that makes a big difference. I have seen some images shot by Steve Hyde that were transferred at Flying Spot and they looked almost as good.
..It is always problematic to compare these things on a computer, but here is a still from some 7217 shot at EI 100 in bright daylight. sorry the aspect ratio is wrong and its interlaced and looks awful, but for grain etc...
-
I spoke with Paul Hillman at Visual Products right before Christmas and he is definately still in the business of CP16R S16 conversions. I intend to send mine out in February, god willing. The CP16R comes in 3 varieties of shutter: two "bow-tie" and one "half moon"; the latter is preferable for avoiding smear, but the former are rumored to be quieter and more reliable as the shutter spins at half speed. No Variable Shutter comes on a CP16, but I'd bet you could temporarily glue some vanes on (to the backside, not the mirror!) to accomplish that effect. Or you could get an Arri/Aaton and get variable shutter built in.
Is your's bow tie or half moon? Are you having the camera overhauled at the same time you have it converted? How much does Hillman charge for this service?
Thanks. I'm intrigued by this camera system and have a lead on one.
Steve
-
It depends on the frame rate you use for shooting. The R10 shoots Single frame (3600 frames) 18 frames per second: 3:00 mins and 24fps (standard) 2:30mins and 54fps (slow motion) at about 90 seconds..
Check out this film calculator:
-
Super 8 would be a distinct way to go. Velvia has long been a film stock of choice for ski photography and you can get Velvia on Super 8 from Spectra Film and Video in Los Angeles. The ski movie, I have envisioned for a long time, but will never make, because I think the market is saturated, is a black and white film on backcountry telemark skiing in the cascades. I wouldn't do any of the boring freestyle stunt photography that is so popular. I would attempt to create a black and white dreamscape where every shot records a telemark skiier cutting through untracked powder. All the shots would be on a tripod and I would use a long lens and record from a distance at fast frame rates. I would try to focus on faces as much as possible.
I think the key to a good ski film is making one that stands out from the rest of them. I am a backcountry skier and I love getting out into the mountains in the winter, but I usually find ski movies dreadfully boring.
Bill Heath made a good one a few years ago. The powder skiing segments are sublime. He used an Arri SR super 16 and filmed in slow motion. The last time I checked he had a trailer up on his website:
yes, he still has it up:
http://www.bhandf.com/2007/qt%20video/sinners.mov
Steve
-
Hi Joseph,
Buy your film direct from Kodak by calling 1800621FILM
I recommend CinePost in Atlanta for Super 8 Telecine. For more expensive and slightly higher quality telecine I suggest Flying Spot here in Seattle and Spectra Film and Video in Los Angeles. Spectra has some excellent color reversal film stock and processing packages that you should learn about.
have fun. I have had good luck and good results with my R10.
Steve
-
Robert,
Did you go for the conversion? I am considering a CP16R and want to learn about what my options are with this system.
Does anyone know if the CP with the mirror shutter is a variable shutter?
Steve
-
I guess there is hand-held and then there is shoulder-mounted. I have used an Aaton and loved the stability of it on my shoulder. Hand held I have also used a B&H FilmoDR and I like the way that you can brace the camera flat against the forehead and I like the natural lifting position of the right hand on it. I think Bolex cameras are one of the more awkward cams for hand held. It is a lot like holding a hand bag against your face.
I don't use them for that reason.
Steve
-
a cheaper way to test lens coverage is to take the lens down to your camera shop and ask them to project charts though it. It's an easy film-free way to test if a lens will cover the S16 frame..
Steve
-
Alot of the image quality will depend on who does your transfer and on what machine. I did a series of test of the Arriflex 16S camera within the last year and posted the results on the www.Arri16S.com web page, you can see them below:
16mm clips shot with Arriflex 16S
The individual clips list what lens was used, what film-stock, and what aperture they were shot at, and all of them were shot crystal sync at 24 fps.
They were all transferred here in Portland at a place called Downstream. Done on a Spirit Datacine, anamorphic, 16:9 from the 4:3 16mm negative, and transferred to DVCAM tape.
None of these clips needed to be edited, but had they been, it would have been done on a Mac with Final Cut Pro, and there would have been no more loss of quality as FCP would not compress or uncompress the 16:9 anamorphic images. It can work with them just like they are.
Don't know about editing on a PC. Might not be as good.
-Tim
Hi Tim,
Nice example. Which lens did you use on this shot?
Steve
-
...I think the problem is the lens. Looks like worn elements to me. Couldn't be the telecine if you used a Spirit and if the film stock is fresh you should get way more color out of it. Did you test any other lenses with this camera?
Steve
-
David!!
This is an outstanding experimental film idea!! I've never seen anyone seriously try to communicate radio waves on film. I've seen some attempts in animation (although I can't think of any examples).
I just watched Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana", 1970... He records heat waves on film. A "Fata Morgana" is the mirage that can be seen in the desert on really hot days ...
How about radio waves? Hand scratched emulsion with surgical tools?
Steve
questiona bout cp-16r
in 16mm
Posted
Very helpful responses - thank you.
I am only considering the late model half-moon 170 degree mirror shutter with the orientable view finder CP - not the bow tie CP. I did not know that there was a Nikon to CP mount adapter. That has a lot of appeal since I own, and have access to, many Nikon lenses. Is the Nikon to CP mount easy to find? Where might I find one?
I think I will have to go for the 30lbs + fluid head since the camera alone weighs 22lbs.
PL mount S16 lenses are prohibitively expensive to own so that defeats the purpose of having a CP16. If I'm going to rent PL mount glass, I might as well pick up the AatonXTR prod while I'm at it - Perhaps the CP modifications are not worth it unless one has a treasure chest of PL mount glass sitting around. (not me)
The loading problems sound a bit intimidating. 13 rollers?!?!. I sometimes process my own super 8 films so I am no stranger to fumbling around in the dark with a lot of spaghetti on my hands. My question to CP owners is can you tell if you operating with a misloaded mag? If you get the loops wrong, can you hear it? Does it jam? I have blown 100 foot daylight rolls in my FilmoDR from not getting the loops quite right and that costs me dearly, but loosing a 400ft roll... I shutter to think about it..
Steve