Steve Wallace

From the Meatmen? I have that record, what happens when you play it backwards?

I think this is the most important question. I would argue, viewed on TV, ipod, Web streaming, or Video Installations it is possible. For Theatrical exhibition, I would say it is not likely going to look like a 35mm print. But then again, "as good" is relative.

If you mount the Anamorphic in a lens hood or a step up, how are you going to keep the vertical/horiontal axis even when you focus? Rails and a little plate? The above stills look great by the way. Including your previous short, you are always able execute a very distinct moody santo photography.

How much would a S16 conversion be? S16 w/ the 400' mag would make a great B camera on any 16mm / HD production. If versitility is your goal, this is what I would look into. Updating to Rex5 seems like your only getting the job half done.

Sounds about right, I have always compensated 2/3 for the reflex viewer / prism.

By better, I meant you have more information to work with. I probably should have phrased it different. Of course there is nothing wrong with transfering properly exposed reversal film. In fact, some would suggest that you will get "richer" results doing this than transfering negative and then manipulating in post. But like you say, there is no margin for error, so dead-on exposure is a must. :)

Steve, In addition to what David said above (and I'm sure he knows this :) ). If your negative is too dense in the telecine stage, they usually have to add additional gain to get a usable picture. So it is better to telecine flat, and manipulate the contrasts through post production, then to transfer a contrasty image.

Perhaps it actually is dried up water spots, caused by severe condensation?

You and IMDB are right, I just checked the Dracula: PoD DVD. Shot in techniscope, technicolor.

I've seen similar stills. Also, IIRC I remember an interview with Eastwood saying, the huge lights are why he squinted so much. Although, in another interview, he said it was because those little cigars tasted so gross. :)

.Your right, that is a great example. Both Pirates and Kill Bill were both shot on 5245 Super 35 > DI > Anamorphic print. Do you know if Kill Bill used any post processing techniques? Or was it all achieved in the DI stage? Do you have a link for these exhibitions? I would love to see these on the big screen again. Last time, I saw A Fist Full of Dollars, it looked like someone had unspooled the reel and run over it with a tractor, then when they rewound it back onto the spool, instead of running it through a cleaner, they ran it through sand paper! ;)

Given the original post, I just wouldn't want to end up with an image that more resembles the externals from Pirates of the Caribbean then the Spaghetti Westerns in question.

I see wht you are getting at. If you use the internal 85, you think the camera will meter as though the film is 100 asa. If that is what you mean, than I think you are correct. That is why I suggested using an external filter. After all, the Nautica does not meter TTL. Also, I noticed I said use daylight mode. Obviously I meant don't use daylight mode. You wouldn't want to use the internal 85 and stick an external 85 on as well. Sorry if I confused the issue... Just have it on artificial light mode, and use an external 85 screw on filter. This will give you an exposure 1/3 over. Many agree it is a good way to tighten grain.

It reads the new Tri-X (7266 asa 200/160)fine, so I would imagine Vision2 200T should be fine too. If you do end up shooting exteriors with V2 200T, I would recommend filtering externally.

The reason I brought up uncoated lenses was the because the original post wanted a desaturated look. Not because I believe the films have it. I agree the the first two pictures are hyper saturated. Now that I looked it up, I don't know why I thought Filmo's shipped with Baltar lenses. I meant the Taylor Hobson lenses that they shipped with should be used. Sorry about the confusion there. But you bring up a great point regarding the wide shot close ups on faces. However, with Super 16 and a 10mm lens a lot will be needed to be done in post to achive a similar texture. Still I think the Leone movies had more contrasty / coarse images, juxtaposed between extreme long shots and super close ups.

With all due respect, the size and characteristics of the Techniscope frame are actually much closer to that of a Super 35mm 2.35/1 frame than a similar aspect ratio cut from Super 16mm, both in terms of grain and the look and depth of field that's unique to a 35mm lens. Using low speed stock, coupled with an optical blow up, as opposed to the usual D.I., would probablly yield the closest results. I believe those movies were shot mainly with Angenieux zooms, which would also be a factor. I don't know if any prime lenses were used, but if so, I'd like to know which. The physical characteristics do come closer to the Super 35 than Super 16. However, these new filmstocks / lens combinations retain way more lpm and resolve more latitude . Supposedly the new VISION2 50D is the sharpest film stock out there...This won't retain the coarse look of the Dollars films in my opinion. I do agree optical would be a better way to go in John example. To achive this look I would suggest somthing different yet. Either use a faster negative filmstock to achive a coarse grain / and or slightly underexpose. And I would take John's advice one step further. I think super 16 with a center extraction will retain too modern a look. I would suggest using a camera like the B&H Filmo with some of those Baltar pre war lenses (or whatever their called) to reduce contrast and to mute the colors. After that, in post I would crush the blacks, and blow out the highlights. And finally, crop for 2.35. Techniscope is after all an Academy frame that has been cut in half. Besides, my suggestion would force you to loop your audio because of all the camera noise. Thus, giving an even more authentic Speghetti Western look and feel. hope it works out...

Yes, take off the wide angle, put the PMA lever down, and zoom out (down) Yes, a it's a green light in the bottom left corner if memory serves. Yes, and Yes. [really it is for use "only" when you want an extra stop of light, bright backgrounds is a good example] Yes it works fine. Just make sure you have enough light. This camera sounds faulty, listen to Mark. Either fix it, get it fixed, or get rid of it. I wouldn't run anymore film thought it untils the optics are worked out.

Short answer, if you have plenty of light, basically the entire frame wil be pretty much in focus. I know that is a bad answer in a technical forum, so I'll answer your questions from the manual. @ 9mm focal legth minimum sharpness in bright sun .5 meter, under clowds 1 meter, underexposed 1.5 meters @ 30mm focal legth minimum sharpness in bright sun 2.2 meter, under clowds 4.6 meter, underexposed 6.6 meters Yes, @ 5.3mm focal legth minimum sharpness in bright sun is .17 meter, under clowds 31 meter, underexposed .85 meters Up for normal filming (9mm - 30mm), down for Macro ( 15.9 cm / 6.25 in ). Also, when in macro make sure he zooom is all the way down. Down, and the zoom should be down. Giving you a focal legth of 5.3mm. I wouldn't, you may experience focusing issues. You can tell if the lever is the worng position. The viewfinder is all blurry. Obviously, you can't tell if you are inside the minimum sharpness spec though,

Criteron's response to putting out Michael Bay movies was, it was to fulfill the blockbuster genre. Criterion is committed to putting out significant releases in all genres. Also, from the get go, Bay worked closely with Criterion so they would have lots of extras for the DVD release. Don't get me wrong, I thought the same thing as you guys when I saw Bay on the list..

Wouldn't the resulting footage be 60 frames over the course of 1/2 a second, somewhat distorting time? Maybe not the best practice for scientific condition, but fine for narratives? Or am I missing something. Keep in mind I haven't shot with the cinealta

I believe that is the CS-mount (primarily a CCTV mount), that he will have to look out for? I do remember hearing not all CS-Mounts are properly labeled as such. And that they contain the C-mount label, being that they are primarily marketed for CCTV.

I'm not sure about the R7 part (maybe revision 7, not unlike the Mark 2 when you see MKII), but I have used this lens with a converted Bolex Rex 5 camera. This is very wide, if I had to guess, I had 170 degree field of view on the 16mm frame. Obviously, you won't have that much view in the smaller super 8 frame. I've thought of using this lens with the Beaulieu 4008 myself. It is fixed focus, so the only focus issues you should have will be related to opening up the aperture too much. I shot at f 8 - 11 and everyting was in focus. Also, I think the images were pretty sharp. But then again, I had pletty of light. I was shooting The old V200T (with the bolex gell 85 filter) which looked acceptable, and 7245D which looked great even without a polarizer. Hope this helps.

I believe it is a Julienne cut (aka matchstick cut). Not to be confused with jump cut.

I love the way B/W stocks look with the 85 filter. A little more dramatic than a yellow, but yet not too strong.

That was my argument. I thought the "1 stop + exposure' was 1/3rd over exposed.