Michael Kubaszak

Richard is 100% absolutely correct. Try getting on stuff too. Or since you own a camera or have to access to one, offer to shoot for people who know less or not much more than you. Also, putting yourself in the writer. director, shooter, editor, producer, art depart. etc will probably kill you. There is a reason most times there is one person fulfilling each job, they are all very important and require a lot of knowledge, time and energy.

This is the Packers vs the Giants. I think I may have misread Karl's post saying to put a core in when he said not to put a core in. Either way, you don't need a core. Now, both of you go to your corners, you may have to work together someday. I remember back in the mid 80's when I was working at Otto Nemenz a lot of AC's were accidentally pulling off the SR16 cores and sending them to the labs. In a few years, you guys will never want to load another mag as long as you live.

I'm from Chicago so it's not Packers VS. Giants, and I will never work with him because he's never seen a RED one in person and couldn't thread a 435 to save his life. I also would not be caught dead in new york.

Or maybe I don't understand your Fargo-like silly slang :unsure:

 

Maybe I'm a hell-of-a-lot older than 15 and have loaded hundreds of thousands of feet of 16mm, but never done 35.

 

Remember that "assume" is spelled ASS-u-me.

If you've never loaded 35 than you are bush-league.

Or maybe I don't know what a collapsible core is.

 

As an aside, sarcasm really doesn't transfer well over the internet. . .

Well since you list your job as a loader you should know what a collapsible core is. Or maybe your just a jack off 15 year old.

Unravelling an unprocessed 1,000-foot 35mm mag onto the floor, which Kodak euphemistically called "telescoping" or something is a BIG MESS which will introduce dirt, scratches, synch marks, and other damage to the film.

 

Don't "tempt fate" and Murphy's Law; leave the core alone! :blink:

Apparently you didn't read the part where it was a collapsible core.

My understanding is that the lab removes(knocks out) "your" core at the beginning of the process. So they don't really need it. I would think that if you are using an SR3 or another camera that commonly uses collapsible cores that they would assume or at least have a good idea that there wouldn't be a core in there.

Chris and Tom are right on the money.

I leave it out, it's in a can, can't really get out of shape that much.

they filter out infrared light. there is no use for them on film. they are used primarily on the RED.

gordon willis

vittorio stotaro

roger deakins

harris savides

frederick elmes

As a variation on a topic that has come up lately, I was wondering something. As 16mm double-perf film now requires a pretty big minimum from Kodak, and as double-perf print and intermediate stock is so cheap by comparison, is the pitch difference between the two really that big a problem in a camera?

 

I'm aware that blue sensitivity, halation, low ASA are all factors when using print stocks as originals. But since projectors can easily interchange the different print and camera pitches without jumping up and down, why can't the camera itself?

 

16mm projectors don't fight over the pitch difference between lab prints and reversal originals, so why does the camera?

 

Double perf 7302 acetate is amazingly cheap, and with a low minimum. For $300 you can get 4,000 feet of film. As an alternative to special-ordering double perf in an 18 roll quantity, are lab stocks worth the experimentation involved?

shoot on 7302, it's fun. 6 ASA though.

FYI, I shot my last film on Vision 1 16 stock that was kept in a fridge and it still held up, grainy and alittle age fogged but was good.

I dunno man. I know that MAYBE (sarcastic voice) this is due to our poop economy...but part of me (the cynical, negative part) can't help seeing this as a sign of things to come. Which makes me sad.

 

On the other hand, I think that people will do what they need to do, to keep their art alive. Artists can sometimes be irrational, after all. Karl, go find me a freakin' camel and a needle...then we'll talk!

 

I'm starting to think there WILL be smaller companies who decide, in 10-20 years, to devote their time, energy, and money to keeping film alive. They'll have a machine shop to reproduce the camera parts that aren't being made anymore, and people to put them together...they'll have an archiving department...I think something like this NEEDS to happen in this industry, if only to preserve our history. All the energy right now is being focused on preparing for a digital future, but how do we future-proof the work we make now (I mean, I have sound design files from school that I can't open because they were compressed in Pro Tools with outdated codecs...and that was only 4 years ago), and how do we save our past so that the people who ARE curious and interested, can see it?

 

Anecdote time! :D

 

This past winter when I was visiting my parents in Massachusetts, my dad had rescued a 16mm projector and some home movies from the Needham dump, which is a part of the suburbs where everything you own is essentially disposable and as soon as the next big one comes out, you toss out what you have. So my dad just grabs the stuff he sees, that's still good. (Yes, it runs in the family) Some of it is amazing, like this projector, and some of it is weird, like creepy-looking plastic dinosaurs which arrived in my Christmas stocking. (...you had to be there) At any rate, the projector works. So we hung a sheet up in the living room and in typical Wengenroth style, spent the rest of the evening watching other peoples' home movies. And, yeah. It was really strange. I kept wondering what had happened to these people and if they'd ever transferred any of this stuff, or if they just threw it out. I thought about YouTube and how easy it is now, to broadcast your life...and how even 5 years ago, it was just not something you did. And here's this footage from the late 60's that someone just dumped off in a plastic bag, with this projector that just needed a little oiling and it was fine.

 

Unfortunately, the higher up the chain you go, the comfier the chair, the bigger the salary, the nicer the suit, and the more likely those people are to just say, "Oh, look at that. No one's buying film anymore. Bye guys!" Even I know that's the reality, and I'm definitely sentimental when it comes to film. On the other hand, for every corporation calling the shots on what's next, there will always be people around who just so happen to have the drive, time, and money, to work outside of this, and create something worth looking at, or listening to. It won't be what it was. It already isn't. But it'll be SOMETHING.

 

Uh, at least I hope so.

You should look up Brent Watanabe's Thrift Store tapes.

ND the windows

I think it's bullshit that that happens. If you pay for 2000' you should get close to it. Not 600' feet, I'd say at max 150' off. You're paying for it. At that point, I'd rather have them charge me a few more cents a foot and get exactly what I pay for.

Film is made on coating machines by spraying the Emulsion on the plastic Base Sheets which are generally 5 feet wide by 5000 feet long (nearly a mile). I don't think it takes more than an hour to coat one Sheet (then rolled up into the Master Roll). It does require a specific Emulsion Formula for each Film involving the gelatin, Halide Crystal and Dye Coupler mixture for that Film and Speed, and then the specific Developer Dye for the developing process. This of course requires qualified competent people, and it has to be done in the dark! They also have to inspect the Sheet (in the dark) for defects with IR Light. A company wouldn't reveal their expenses, but I don't think the cost of a Master Roll is even $100,000. The more they produce the cheaper everything is. A Master Roll produces 215 Reels (1000 feet) of 35mm Film. I don't know what the going price is for a 1000' 35mm Reel, but multiply that by 215 to get the take Kodak makes on a Master Roll. It's not so much the expense of making Film, but it is fundamental to have skilled technicians. The R&D has already been done over the past 100 years.

35mm 1000 footers are about $650. So $140,085 is what they make off of a master sheet, by your figures.

from what you've posted previously and with your metric revelation; you got shorted 200'. And by film empo's prices; they roughly owe you $32. why haven't you called them yet??

But far more common, are cinematographers who haven't shot film and yet still haven't learned what all those functions are really doing in all those camera menus. And yes, those big menus can be pretty intimidating, and it's pretty darn hard to find someone who really understands them, and will teach others the knowledge that they consider a trade secret.

Three people in my graduating class of 30 shot film. I was the only to shoot color neg.

As far as I know, no place sells in seconds. They sell by the foot.

Really? I've not only seen people smile when they happen. I've certain people rap about them :-p

OK

if you call them let us know what they say.

which company did yo go through? i've done a lot of research on SE's and RC's, the only one i would trust is raw-stock.com

I think I might be sold on cinelicious for my short. Am going to call around monday morning.

Also I'm wondering if there is any way to get around insurance? Like putting down a $1000 deposit or something. I'm just a young 20's film geek that wants to try 35, I'm not strapping a $100,000 35mm Arri to the hood of my car and jumping it.

 

Thanks!

Kirk

fixed

Yes there is!!

... isn't there...?

Maybe that was build 21...

sorry...

that made my day!