Will von Tagen

Thanks. Wow, I did not know it was shot digitally. Usually I can tell the difference.

Does anyone know what stock was used in the movie Superbad? And what was done to it? The color saturation is amazing. I have a feeling that the same stock and method was used in Adventureland (same director) because to colors were great in that too. I want a similar look for my next production and I'd like to be able to tell my DP better what I want on a technical level. Thanks!

Huh, I had heard 3 was a hyped up 2, but I didn't think it was the same for 2 and on down. Great, thanks! Would you stil anticipate the fog even after the proper storage?

A friend of mine is offering me some 7279, which he has kept in the deep freeze since he purchased it. Can this still be processed? Or does Vision call for different chemicals that are no longer used? Thanks a bunch

The website for custom upholstery doesn't seem to show the barney, nor does it give a price. Do you know about how much they go for?

Hi, I am thinking about buying my first 16mm. I have been shooting 8 for over a year and am ready to step it up. I am looking at an Arri s/b in particular. It has bery recently been services and a new motor added. I was just wondering what those of you who have shot with this camera think, primarily, how good is it for shooting with sound. I saw on the Arri site that gets pointed too on this forum, that a Barney bag is available. How much is that, and is it pretty effective? Basically, I just want to hear all opinions and experiences with the camer. Good, Bad, mediocre. Thank you very much!

Hi all. So I've been shooting super 8 for about a year and a half now, and I've decided to make the jump to 16. I've been reading a lot of the posts in this section on film and there are a couple of things I'm confused about. Principally, I have been reading a lot that when shooting 200t or 250 that you should load up with the ND's. What is this for? Can you not just close up the aperture? I hope I don't sound too ignorant, but 16 is turning out to be a whole different ball park. Also, a lot of people are suggesting a 2/3 stop over exposure, I understand the need to do this for finer grain, but would I also do that with the ND's on? I don't get why I would cut light ad then try to over expose. And when I do the 2/3 over, will I have to notify the lab and treat it like a push/pull type situation? Or do I just let it be processed as such and fix it during the telecine and in post within color (mac)? Thanks a bunch.

I had the same issue on my 1014. I actually built a manual 'shut of switch' into the battery compartment. It gave me quicker access to shutting off the camera rather than turning it off with the dial. I looked into getting it serviced and they estimated at least 2 hours or so of work, running close to $300 for the job. I ended up selling it on ebay for about $185 and bought a new one off Austrian Ebay for $265 including shipping. It is practically mint. If you are willing to shell out a lot for the repair, maybe it would be good to upgrade to crystal sync. I think pro 8 will refurbish the camera when they do the sync upgrade and then you are set for sound (I can't believe I'm endorsing Pro 8!). Just an Idea. If not, and you want to try replacing it, you can usually get a good deal through the difference. Good Luck.

I just finished filming my next 8mm short on Ektachrome. I was planning on sending it to Dwaynes since they only charge $10 a roll to process, but I want to be sure they will do a good job. Any one had any experiences, good or bad they'd like to share? I really appreciate it. Will

Very Nice! Your rig looks way cleaner than mine, haha. How much did that set you back? Im anxious to see your results. I about to go into production on a short with mine. I just ordered the film today and the shoot is in 2 weeks. Ill post some clips as I get them.

Thanks for the feed back. I actually shoot 8 because you can get a great look for fairly cheap, much cheaper than 16 I have found. The mount actually attaches right to a tripod, and since I wouldn't shoot 8 without a tripod any way, it really isn't too inconvenient. Glad you like it though! Will

http://www.pro8mm.com/pdf/framing_setup.pdf This page shows the framing options that Pro 8mm offers for their HD transfers. The very last one shows the ideal option for an anamorphic scan. In Final cut, you have the option to "distort" the frame, this is where you can stretch out the image to fill the full 16:9 frame. Then you adjust the aspect ratio within it to get the true 2.33:1 (or what ever it is you're shooting with). When played on a HD TV, it looks how any 2.33:1 movie would look on a 16:9 TV screen. Doing a DIY HD telecine with a camcorder goes the much the same way.

I just wanted to share with everyone the support mount and adapter I built to attach a Sankor 2.33:1 anamorphic lens (this was a surprise, I bought it thinking it was a 2x, but after testing it, i realized it was a 1.75x) to my canon 1014 AZ-E. I built it for under $20 using little parts picked out at a near by ACE Hardware store. I actually impressed myself with how well it came together, considering I went to the store with no real plans drawn up. Joining the camera to the Lens I attached a simple Polarized Filter (with the filter glass removed), attached that to a 58mm-67mm step up ring. The ring is then attached to a lens hood, which was screwed onto the Anamorphic lens. This allows me to adjust the focus ring without moving the Anamorpher. I was able to get the hood, step up ring and polarizer for about $7 by digging through the Misc. used accessories box at my local camera shop. *Lens alignment looks slightly crooked because I did a quick reassembly for the picture after doing some tests with a video camera earlier. I also want to voice my opinion on anamorphic filming is the way to go as opposed to Max 8. Not only is the aspect ratio more fun to work with, but you are actually using the entire area of the film as opposed to having nearly 1/4 of it cropped out. This yields in higher image quality, and you don't have to worry about staying "inside the lines" to avoid having a part of your work getting cut. You can still get the High Def. Scan if you choose, and instruct the telecine operator weather to have it morphed to 16:9 or leave it stretched with letter box on the sides. Either way, you will be un-morphing it in post to get the proper aspect ratio. You can also get great results doing a home HD telecine. True, there are a few disadvantages to shooting it anamorphed, but they are easily remedied. 1. True, you usually have to be zoomed in at least 20mm to avoid seeing the inside of the lens, but you can simply plan your shoots around this by allowing your self space to be far enough back that it wont matter. 2. A big issue is that with an Anamorphic lens you usually have to be at least a meter or so away from the subject to have it in clear focus. This is easily remedied by placing a Diopter in front of the Anamorph. I have been mere inches away from the subject and still have it in clean focus using a 4+ diopter (the down side is the extremely shallow DoF, but I think that is to be expected filming in close proximity). 3. Distortion of vertical lines. Just always be sure you have the camera mounted on a leveled tripod. Once that is done, the horizontal field will never change and you shouldn't run into any distortion. (if for some reason you do, you can simply correct this in post, in much the same way that you used to correct the aspect ratio. True, with the lens you cannot have any oblique angle shots, but I think it is worth the trade off. Sorry if I've just rambled off a bunch of stuff that you already might know, but I figured a few people could benefit off my trials and errors. All in all, I got the lens off ebay for $80 (including shipping), and I built the mount for roughly $27. As a result, I can now shoot widescreen 8mm, and I didn't have to fork over the $1500 or what ever it is that Pro 8mm charges to basically cheat you out of even more film area than they already do. (referring to the cropping and under-loaded cartridges.)

I must just be seeing everything on really poorly set up systems then. I saw a preview for WALL-E at circuit city and I honestly thought it was a preview for a computer game at first. And the Blu-ray sample of Iron Man I saw looked nothing like the film print I saw in theaters. I guess I'll have to find someone that has a properly calibrated system to get a more accurate opinion. I'm surprised though, that Best Buy and Circuit City wouldn't have properly set things up, since they are trying to sell the things.

So I saw my first Blu-ray movie (aside from the in store previews) and I have to say that I cannot stand it. It just looks terrible. The movie was Jurassic Park, one of my favorites. My question for blu-ray fans is this; why do you enjoy watching high grade movies that now look like they were shot with practically consumer grade video cameras? The motion looks weird, almost choppy, the cuts are so noticeable that i get distracted by it, and due to the fact that the image is so crisp that it looks like "behind the scenes-esc" footage, the acting even looks less believable. If I had mad a big hollywood production (and especially if I had shot on film), seeing my work on blu-ray would be a serious slap in the face. Who cares if you can see every wrinkle on someone's face, or the threads on their jacket. Why do you want it to look "true to life"? The whole point of movies is to escape reality. Any CGI Render looks like a cheap video game graphic. Basically, the image generated by blu-ray makes film look like a lousy PBS or Discovery Channel production. All in all, I would like to get other people's opinions. Why do you like blu-ray (if you do), and am I the only one who feels this way? I feel digital has a lot to offer, but the way we are starting to run-a-muck with it is destroying the art of film making. What are your thoughts?