Daniel Porto

5 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

As much as I know you won’t reach 24 fps with that Hulcher, maybe 12. You’re out in the woods with it, cinematography-wise. Certainly fun to watch the dog movement. I’m outta game here.

They can go to 50fps but yes that would require a faster motor. Currently if it worked it would go to 20fps. I may end up getting a faster motor anyway if the current electronics are shot. Just gotta spin those internal gears haha it's a basic camera and just uses a regular 12dc brushless motor like at a electronics store 😛

4 hours ago, Gautam Valluri said:

The only colour intermediate film Kodak offers is the 5242 and can be developed to a negative or a postive. I think it has an ISO/ASA of 1.

So you just casually drop "this 70mm camera" and not tell us more?

Hulcher 70 123 - 15perf 🙂 got it off eBay 🙂 good condition just getting it to run now 🙂 originally sold to NASA in 1990

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

No, there is no magic that turns negative into positive. You'll have to shoot reversal (I don't know anyone processing 35mm E6) or you'll have to shoot negative and strike a print from the negative. The negative to print process is a contact print, the two elements touch each other and has a colored light which exposes the film. Most real labs can do this work, but it's expensive, especially if you want a shot by shot color grade, which is important if you're shooting different stocks and different stops. If you keep the stop the same throughout and insure there are no massive shifts in DR, you could get away with a single light print from the negative to project. Also remember, most cameras today shoot S35mm, which is not projectable. So you will need to shoot "normal" 35mm which for 2x anamorphic is standard, but for 4 perf, everyone shoots S35 today for digital scan and digital finish. This isn't a big deal, but you'll need to make sure if you're going to print, to shoot 4 perf "normal" 35mm.

Thanks for your replies everyone! Ill shoot negative and create positive from that!!!! if this ends up going ahead and I can get this 70mm camera working ill shoot that 🙂
By the way if i shot on intermediate color print film and developed it normally apart from the color differences compared to regular negative would you still get a NEGATIVE image essentially? 

Hey guys im getting back into film and my knowledge of the whole processing process is not in my base of knowledge but if anyone can give advice as to what would be the best set of processes to do to shoot and create a positive print (in the end). Ideally I wanna save money but one question apart from reversal stock is there any other way to shoot and use the same film to process and create a positive print for exhibition? Or does it involve some process to copy the image from the negative to create a film print positive for exhibition (what would this exact process be called?) 

Thanks Guys and Gals!

10 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

The sharpness of IMAX comes from using a larger negative, it’s not the focal length and camera distance that creates the extra resolution of IMAX.

yes but at the end of the day film has the same resolution in that the each grain is evenly dispersed over the entire image the same for 35mm and 65mm. its resolution is constant. at the end of the day whatever math you use to get there i guess im just saying im gonna shoot imax sized digital sensor majority, 35mm sized sensor for prime and some zoom shots where less weight is required and then finally with 16mm sized sensor for when i really need to be low weight taking advantage of the lighter super16 glass. ?

thats all really im trying to say i guess which is that im a camera nerd and very particular about what i like in that respect, lighting acting and everything else i tend to work with whatever is supplied by the universe ? ? whats your general 'rules' when it comes to creating an image David?

6 minutes ago, M Joel W said:

 

Zoom ins and push ins are not interchangeable. And this imo at least is a key part of a filmmaker's vocabulary. 

 

Yes i agree.

and yes its all personal preference. that why we have so many different lenses and so many different camera systems. i mean i still like shooting 16mm or 2K on the right project but to me for a 'better' image i will predominately prefer shooting IMAX and this doesn't even need to have any merit meaning that my belief that it is better could in fact be false and im trusting my gut too much ?

a zoom isn't a comparison of format its one long image... im not saying that lenses look sharper when you zoom in with a lens. but i am saying that 70mm to 35mm comparison 70mm is sharper and i believe this is because of being able to get closer and still capture a whole image with a longer lens to boot. this is why 70mm IMAX just looks magical. anyway at the end of the day i hope someone makes a 15perf 70mm sized digital sensor and lenses... RED and Arri seem to be the most likely innovators in this way i believe ?

56 minutes ago, M Joel W said:

Move in closer or zoom in closer?

Field of view is a function of film back size and focal length – camera position is an independent variable from both and will alter perspective, not field of view.

Ask yourself, what if the sun is in the background of your frame? Will moving the camera forward alter the size of the sun? Probably not much: only zooming in (changing the focal length) or altering the film back size will change the sun's size appreciably, unless you move in millions of miles....

That said, a large format camera at an equivalent field of view (longer focal length) will generally have a sharper image, but whether sharper is "better" is a question of aesthetic preference imo more than objective superiority.

Technically, it's a simpler question – sharper (large format) is technically "better." Aesthetically, imo it's more complicated. My favorite DPs (Kaminski in particular) favor a softer look, my favorite digital cameras (Alexa) have a softer look than Red or Venice, my favorite lenses (Cooke, C Series, etc.) are softer than Master Primes or T Series. So for me sharper is not "better." But that's just me.

I think you're conflating field of view with perspective and assuming everyone's preference is for technical perfection. Which might be rubbing people the wrong way.

I don't even totally disagree – I like the large format cinematography in the Master and Lawrence of Arabia a lot. But that's also because I like the cinematography in both films in general. Format is the last piece of that equation. And I also like the cinematography in Black Swan and the Celebration for that matter and don't think a larger format would serve either film well....

yes 'better' depends on your taste but what do you think about my long lens theory? i think its true im watching my projector on my couch all good, go up to the wall and i can see all the pixels ?

11 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:

Ah... yeah. 

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but that's like asking how to design a car and how to run a factory to build them!

A film recorder is not made like an appliance, nor does it operate like one.  You will need full knowledge of digital color science, film lab color science, close coordination with a color film lab (onsite being the very best) and a small fortune to purchase and maintain it.

It is far more economical to just have your filmout done by a lab that has the experience, unless you are very wealthy and have tons of time and brainpower to throw at the problem.

I don't like to discourage people, and I understand your motivation,  but take this sincere bit of advice that this one is really, really difficult and probably beyond practical DIY means...

 

 

 

dont worry i hear ya! I dream sometimes a little too much but thats not enough in my opinion ? yeah im currently getting a quote from fotokem! leave it to the experts i guess Im more creative than technical anyway ?

10 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

That essay shows a total misunderstanding of optics, the fact that you need longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view of shorter focal length on a smaller format AT THE SAME DISTANCE does not mean you are focusing closer or getting tighter with more detail or any of that.

i disagree david. put both cameras at the exact same position. 35mm camera with a 50mm, 70mm IMAX camera with a 141mm. Same field of view, same perspective, different depth of field. Now chuck a 50mm lens non the 70mm IMAX camera and then you need to move in closer to get the same field of view of the 35mm camera - the image looks sharper, better and clearer then having the 50mm on the 35mm camera... what are your thoughts david?

Hi,

Am i wrong or does a the longer a lens the wider the image projection circle? for instance on my komodo a 17-85mm barrels at 17 but 85 seems ok.... I am asking really because Im imaging a future digital camera that is like IMAX sized sensor with longer lenses to cover the obviously large image plane ?

thanks

24 minutes ago, Jay Young said:

I agree we should not argue film vs digital, but rather we should look at the end presentation. After all, I don’t care which camera body one chooses, laying in my bed, watching a show before sleep time. 

One thing that I always laughed at is that when we shot film we were trying to make it look 'perfect' and when we shot digital we were trying to 'rough it up' a bit.... counter-intuitive really ?

looking to potentially provide film out services here in melb aus given it doesnt send me broke. not finding much information online but maybe im blind... arri has their laser 2 for sale. can ayone point me in the right direction to A find a film printer and B how to do it thanks ?

Beyond VV:
The future of digital cinema

Firstly forgive my English I haven’t been to school since 2007.

How does it look? That’s the important question, that is the question that tells why we choose one image over another. For over a hundred years film negative has been the king of image quality but with digital cinema getting better and better over the years by all intents and purposes film capture by and large is on the decline. Less productions are shooting on film and less theatres are projecting film. But when it comes to the crunch digital produces a ‘better’ image than film can capture… All but with one exception: IMAX 15perf/70mm.

This document will explain why I think this is the case.
The photo on the previous page was taken from the pfhx.com website created by Phil Holland. This photo illustrates the difference between 35mm 4 perf and 70mm 15 perf. As you can see the field of view of the image plane of 70mm is drastically bigger than 35mm. I remember seeing my first 70mm print when I went to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX Melbourne screen (worlds 3rd largest screen)… it was magical, I sat 3 rows from the front and the image look so crisp and vibrant and sharp and almost 3D without the dual camera. It was simply breathtaking. So why does the image of 70mm look so much better than 35mm?

Bigger is better. There is no physical free lunch. A 50mm lens on a 35mm positive print is equivalent to the frame size of a 141mm lens on a 70mm positive.
Well Duh! So why is IMAX ‘better’ than 35mm. It is because of the longer lens! The 70mm negative has a larger FOV which in tern requires a longer lens more than used on 35mm. So yes you need a longer lens to get a similar capture on 70mm then what you would use on 35mm so what!?!?!

Take a look at object around you and study it. Look for details and even try and read the small writing on say a can of cola. Now go closer and closer. You are getting closer and closer and essentially getting tighter and tighter and more detail resolves and you can see the intricacies of the object. It’s really as simple as that. A longer lens on the wider digital sensor or film plane just resolves and shows more detail.

Currently VV seems to be the industry standard all except the Alexa65 which you can’t purchase anyway. I would argue that we should keep expanding our sensor sizes to at least the equivalent of IMAX 15perf 70mm. Better Images for everyone. And I’m sure there is some engineer right now chipping away at this very goal.

Written By Jed McKenna
randomnessjed@gmail.com

On 4/13/2021 at 1:08 PM, Boris bruno said:

Great what lens and battery source 

Hi,

I shot all the filters I could find at a rental house here in melbourne a while back... grads, soft effects, nets, various colours and even a grease filter. There are lots anyway, view the tests for your reference here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eG7mhX_pjqn-OBXKnsTdnIXivpMNorK6

regards

Daniel

30 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

B/W negative processing at home is actully very economic. It just takes lots of time and you need to handle the chemical waste.

The Lomo tanks are pretty easy to load when you are used to them. The angle of feeding the film is very important and you need to be able to check the layers by feel to detects possible errors. I can make a tutorial sometime if you want ?

the biggest issue when b/w home processing is to get the film dry. I am planning to do a continuous feed dryer for this because getting more than about 50feet of film dry at a time is pretty challenging without getting lots of dust to it

Oh yeah good question. What do you do with all the waste?

Thanks everyone. Yes I was refering to ECN-2 processing for Kodak Negative Film (I have about 7 rolls). But Tyler I think your right if I decide to process this film I will send it a Lab overseas as NegLab in sydney hasn't been responding to emails.. But that being said Ill try shoot and process 100ft bulk rolls of ILFORD stock, just for a bit of fun. Im not looking for a 'perfect' image and scratches and other 'mistakes' will only add to the look I am trying to achieve. Going to use a handcrank camera aswell ?

Thanks

11 minutes ago, Michael Rodin said:

Are we talking about debveloping Kodak Vision film cut into 36-exposure rolls for shooting stills or processing film footage at home? The latter just isn't possible without a machine. 

Processing film footage at home. I might have to go down the path of shooting 100ft bulk rolls of ILFORD black and white stock - which seems to be easier to process at home.

Hi,

There is no lab in Australia anymore but I have some negative film I would like to shoot with. does anyone know of a comprehensive guide in how to process this film? Thanks Daniel

Dont know if this has been mentioned yet but Kodak have said they are releasing a new Vision 3 stock - it was posted as a comment on the Panavision Facebook page under the one where Panavision talk about still remaining to maintain film cameras

Any source for short ends here?

 

Dan

There is... Steadi Systems and they are located in SYD

http://www.steadisystems.com/

However if you are interested I have various full 400' cans and short ends for 500T, 250D and 50D and will sell cheaper then what steadi systems will offer. I am located in Melb... how much are you looking for?

Regards

DANIEL

I have seen many DP's (one being Nigel Bluck - I wish I asked him at the time!) use 2 or 3 ND Grads in the one shot - with a mix of both soft and hard grads and the grad lines resting in different positions.

Can someone please explain why some DOP's shoot like this? Obviously it is to control the brightness of certain parts of the image but is the thinking to make certain parts of an image stand out ever so slightly?

Today I received the only Blu-Ray version of the movie -- released in Germany! But luckily it is region-free and plays fine here. Looks great, much nicer than the DVD. I got it off of Amazon.co.uk.

That's great! I've noticed that with a couple of the low budget films shot here in Australia, you can only buy the Blu-ray version in Europe and not in Australia...

I loved this movie by the way. When I first watched it, it was the first movie that made me cry in a long time

I did a shootout with 35mm, Super 16, RED MX, Alexa, a 1D and the F3. We're just in the middle of doing the film outs but the F3 was the worst performer in my opinion. I would say though we had an engineering prototype so it's possible a little unfair, but the codec is VERY limiting, along with the apparent DR of the camera. As I say, I personally haven't used a Sony camera by choice for a long time....I'll keep checking in on their progress, but they aren't really making cinema cameras that I want to use.

 

jb

I would love to hear your thoughts on this shootout... I assume you will be posting online?