Steve Wallace

It's common for rental houses will allow you to check out the equipment on the premisis, as stated above. It may be hard to find 100' daylight spools of 7279 2perf. If you are shooting super16 keep it all single perf on a core. (unless you were suggesting 2perf for the arri or bolex you mentioned above, but even then they should take single perf fine, unless its like a rex3 or earlier bolex)

Can you afford to re-shoot the entire project? If the answer is no, I would recomend shooting a test. Like David says above, you have to be able to afford 100', just to see if you nail the look your going for. Seventies lenses are going to be elss contrasty. The Angenieux 12-120 (in c / eclair / old arri mounts) is a good choice. It is not very contrasty, nor is a super sharp. I may be one of the worst lenses they made (that I'm aware of). But I gues it depends on your camera,

I thought the same thing. The DVD for ITMFL, while beautiful in it's own right, was not a good represenation of the theatrical print. 320t was the most muted new Kodak stock at the time of shooting (IIRC). The DVD had way to much punch, especially in the reds. However the French special eddition release of 2046 was a good likeness.

Wishing you best luck with your procedures. My thoughts are with you and your family/friends.

Hmmmm, I projected my footage myself and noticed the same jumpyness. I am just wondering if it is the camera or the carts. It did not happen on all the footage. And if I'm not mistaken it happened towords the begining of the roles. (but the splices are clean). Can this be a transport or shutter issue (like not being perfactly in synch, please note there is no open shutter light effects though)? Or just a couple bad carts?

No, I mean how do you know if there it trouble when advancing by hand? If it doesn't move smoothly? The camera was a Nautica, so I can't really hear the film advance. It is somewhat self blimped, all I can hear is the motor. I just think it is strange the person had the same problem as me, with the same filmstock. I'm wondering if it was a bad batch of cartridges. I shot the footage a few months ago. and it was purchased just before that. I have used the camera before with Tri-x, and never had this kind of problem. In fact the footage before came out great. Because there is no pressure-plate / gate assembly, could the camera even cause this to happen?

Interesting, I've never done this before. But then again, I've never had this problem before either. It is exactly as descibed above. And the same stock (tri-x). And i've shot quite a bit of super 8, (I'm teadub, on the filmshooting forum). How do you know if you film is not advancing properly? It sticks intermitantly?

But what is the trick to taking up the loop in the super 8 cart?

What is trick to taking up the loop with a super 8 cart? Do you wind or backwind the cart a couple times? Please explain further, I just got some footage back with the same problem. It was tri-x, and I have shot other batches and they were all fine. Camera was a Nautica, 24fps. It was a friends wedding, and 4 out of 6 carts did this. Lame huh,... I stablized it in Apple Shake, but it still looks like the footage jumps out of focus for a brief second, where as the footage used to jump in the "gate" and go out of focus before stablization.

It seemed fine. I would have let it run a tad bit longer though.

I was under the impression most of the famous New Wave pictures were shot 35mm, using either the Eclair Camflex, or the Arri II. I've seen photos of Godard and Truffaut that confirm this as well... Now there are a couple hundred New Wave pictures that are not so famous, and I can't comment on those

On my last super 8 short, it was probably 60/20/20 (Sachtler tripod/Manfrotto monopod/handheld)

I use a Sachtler tripod, they are worth every penny if you want good results. However, for super 8 it may be a bit of an over kill. Also, a bit on the lower end I have used the Manfrotto line of tripods and monopods. Which should be plenty good for super 8. Fluid head deffinately helps, to make your pans smoother and dare I say more, "professional". I would stay away from cheap equipment, I used it in the past (years ago) and had people ask if the footage was hand held there was so much camera shake.

I'd also highly recommend, "Two or Three Things I know About Her". I don't think it is available on DVD in the US, but I have the PAL DVD. More reflexivity, and narrations with the audience, formalism etc...

I wouldn't recommend pushing or pulling, when there is a better stock to achieve the same goal. If you are shooting '17 at 3 stop over, you are rating it at something like 25ASA. To tighten grain, you want to use slower stocks. If you like the V2 family, use '01 or '12 (as David mentioned above). If you want it a little punchier go for '45 (if you can still get it?). With these, you will have a tighter grain structure, with normal color rendition. Unless you want a washed out look (like dgoulder said), I would recommend against the 3 stop over exposure.

Upon returning from Mexico, the customs people at the Aeropuerto de San Jose del Cabo (outside Cabo san Lucas) would not do a hand inspection. I tried to tell them about regulations, but the were not resonsive, In the end everything was fine though. I had alot of super 8 (tri-x, e64t, and kodachrome), also I had Fuji still film, 800 ASA and that was even okay. Best advise is, get them to hand inspect in the states, and expect to scan it upon return. With only one set of scans hopefully you'll be okay. I think the kicker is when you get it scanned multiple times, in multiple ports of entry. oh yeah, always hand carry. the x-rays for checked luggage are quite a bit stronger than the ones used for carry ons.

I would recommend getting a Eumig Nautica as a second camera. That way you can get underwater footage, and splice that in with the more formal shots on a-camera.

That's a great suggestion. Many more offer this than the ability to dial in ASA. My Gaf805 has exposure compensation, so I would imagine others from Gaf / Chinon would too.

Here is vague overview of process Scorsese used in the Aviator. Some will argue it really doesn't look like Technicolor (and I'm inclined to agree), but nonetheless they did pull off a great look for the film reminisant of the old Technicolor films. http://www.aviatorvfx.com/?cmd=frontendOverview&id=color

Also, if you are on the beach, do not shoot into the Sun in auto mode. Try and keep the sun behind you at all times. The Sun's reflection off the sand / water will trick the electronic eye, and you will end up with muddy images.

Tim, I have been trolling the forum since dec '03, I've been a member since dec '04 and I've never has a problem. I have used all versions of Safari on OS X 10.0x, Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger. I also use an RSS feed aggrigator, and that works well too.

After all, he was a model for Calvin Klein before Buffalo '66 came out. Someone must have found him attractive, right?

Have you spent much time in LA on NY? Are you aware of white trash chic? Have you followed fashion photography over the last 10 - 15 years? Have you been to art installations or galleries of this sort? If yes, than I think his look should be more than self-evident. In no, than it is obvious that he is comming from a branch of media you are not aware of (which there is nothing wrong with BTW). To me, he looks like a LA/NY hipster, and to say he is of average talent is rediculous to me. He is extremely talented, and someone who hits the radar while still actually taking risks. Do I agree with him all the time, No. Do I think everything he does is a success, No. Do I think the way he goes about doing things is always correct, no. Do I admire his aesthetic and think that he represents what is great about art. Yes. Although, Matt you are more than welcome to your opinion. And I'm not trying to change it. I just think your comments should be put into a real world context.

I agree totally, and it was his least violent film to date... I think he is smart, and a gifted filmmaker. I believe his films should be read as political, due to their critique on violence (especially in the media), even if he didn't intend it in this way. Also, to a lesser extent I think all of his movies are comedies, because of the absurdity. Almost existensial. Philip, Part of the throwback to the 70's in America Cinema was the blending of genres. The fact that you think they are funny at times, distubing at times, and introspective at times, means that you DO get it. I agree with the previous poster, you are just trying to look to deeply into the psychology. It could be an Americano-cinephile thing too.

HA! I thought you were talking about a real album (which I have on LP). See : http://www.tgrec.com/bands/band.php?id=80 (early Hardcore from Touch & Go)