IBL

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060107/technical There is the technical specs for Andrei Rublyov. They called it a Convas camera instead of a Konvas.

It is a GREAT 35mm motion picture camera for the price but is far from a silent camera. 2 words... "Andrei Rublyov" by Andrei Tarkovsky shot on Konvas. That is one the best looking films ever made.

Another film with a lot of camera movement is IRREVERSIBLE. Then when the camera is static for 15 minutes during a particular scene you wish to Gawd that it moved. Great camerawork if you can stomache that movie. Actually great flick. The director also used a sound effect at the start of film that was recorded using sonic sound waves that riot police use to disperse crowds. Lunatic.

If you want to see camera movement that detracts from the scene because the camera attracts too much attention to itself then watch "Resident Evil". It also has bad edits. I think when cameras attract attention to themselves by bad movement it totally reduces the immersion effect and detracts the audience from the scene. Usually this is a speed problem. The camera moves slightly too fast for the content. On the other hand like Jason said watch Tarkovsky. The guy is king of the camera movement department and even though he is shooting on Soviet equipment with small bugets he manages to pull off some great stuff. I think slower movements are much more preferable to sharper quicker movements unless hand held. Hand held seems to be able to handle quicker and sharper movements than shots that are supported. However it all depends on the scene but check out a few of the above films. BTW - Did anyone notice that in Star Wars EP 2 Lucas did some zooms in the battle sequence. There is one great zoom shot into the interior of a space craft during the final battle. There are a few more too. Those zooms where great.

I was actually going to do this George but I opted out in the end. I still have the Canon Super 8mm here and the images are nice. Have you seen the zombie movie - The Dead Next Door. That was shot on Super 8mm.

Okay I have learned a few things here. However I will say this much. I have worked most formats. Used film now and again. Used video now and again. I am very much pro film. Some of you do not think that because I am pushing the DVX here, but I am doing that for a reason. I want to see how many people here are thinking, yeah, I am thinking that too. I just wanted to see if anyone here would say realistically - Yep, I would choose the DVX, hands down, to do my next feature rather than the 16mm that I used before because heck my film didn't even get a cinema release and I didn't get an option for a DVD release but I did get option for television. I just wanted to see realistically how many people would turn away from 16mm on the bases that the work they have done to date did not justify shooting on 16mm or 35mm when the DVX would have been sufficient to do the job that they wanted to do. The reaction I have seen here so far is mostly what I have expected. Die-Hard film fans, but that is exactly why I came here. I wanted to see how many of the Die-Hards have been swayed in the slightest by it. Sure there are those who will do film because it is the industry standard. That is understandable. But what gets me so far is that hardly anyone here has said - Yep, this is my next move on the bases of what I have learned from experience. This format will allow me to do things that I could not do before and still feeds the kids at the same time. In short what is point to the DVX then? Many of you say that this it is just a gimmik to make people think they are film makers. However this is still one hell of a "little" camera and I can not for the life of me understand why not one single serious cinematographer here has said - "This is the camera that will redefine how I shoot my next picture." I personally think from what I have seen, the tests I have done, that this camera will get those who wanted to make "GOOD" films on 16mm and 35mm noticed as opposed to those who wanted to make some sort of film on 16mm and 35mm to establish that they can handle the industry standard format. I can still not believe that the DVX has not swayed anyone from changing from 16mm to this camera for their next shoot. You see if someone came up to me and said they wanted to make a Indy film with their friends I would not say - shoot 16mm. I would say - Get the DVX. However you guys think 16mm is the way to go, yet just looking at what 16mm have made directors in the past 5 years and what DV has done... hmmm.. I say the jury is still out on this side. And this is coming from someone who can shot 35mm (Konvas 2M) for his picture 2morrow but knows that the DVX gives him more control over the image manipulation in the editing room at a more economic price. I also know how hard it is to edit 35mm for print. Anything facier than a cut and bam $$$$. Same for 16mm. This is why I am thinking - how come the 16mm people here would not use the DVX when they could really add pep to this movie post-production for next to nothing on the edit suite. Is there anybody out there who fits this bill at all??? :blink:

BTW - the chick is a yummy mummy too :D

http://www.icexpo.com/SoftScreenClips.html George have a look at the left hand side clips here...

http://www.pathefilm.freeserve.co.uk/95flm...5flmcatnova.htm Look at that. Is 9.5mm negative stock is still around.

Yes but equally we have seen junk 16mm and junk 35mm too. Let's keep it fair and balanced like Fox News :D

There is also another thing I want to add to this too. "Pi" is the kind of entry film that no one would complain about on their CV as a first Indy movie. "28 Days Later" is more than acceptable in terms of how it looks on the big screen or DVD. "28 Days Later" looked better than "Pi". If you can do a "Pi" that looks like "28 Days Later" then I am sure no one is going to compain if you turn up to the distributers with a film like that shot on DV but is now on a hard disk and is waiting to be scanned to 35mm. This is the route I personally feel that most Indy directors will now go if the funds are limited. Since 16mm was the old route before then I think there is logic here to assume that 16mm is not going to be as popular as it was with Indy film makers before, no?

Phil If I had the money I would do it on 65mm and have Lucas for digital correction in there too. I am talking realism here with a big Kapitol! R! :ph34r: Remember if someone can pull off "28 Days Later" on DV they have nothing to complain about except that they could have done it on a better format. To be frank I am certainly going to be able to do what I could not have done before with a major backer. Yes, after or later we can all go with the bigger and better systems but right now that is not even the same sport for me.. :( Also think about it this way. If I achieve with DV then the next jump is not 16mm. It is 35mm. 16mm or DV for a first feature on a low-budget? I think the masses will go with the new DV even if does forsake a little quality for economics. I also love the fact that I can do whatever I want to the DV in the digital realm and it still costs the same to print it onto 35mm. You can color correct everything, add effects, clean up the image, enhance it, add extra cine effects, titles, credits and it would all cost the same as just transfer from out-of-the-camera DV to 35mm.

I think you have to look at it in terms of how many new film makers are around. I am sure that there are more film makers on the scene now than say 10 years ago and in 10 years time there will be more too. You also got new channels popping up all the time and more music videos and what-not. 35mm will not die anytime soon because of the amount of projectors out there but I would question the validity of 16mm in the years to come. To be honest with the way things are going at the moment in the digital world I would not envisage 16mm being used much at all in 10 years time simply because 35mm will probably drop a little in price as HD cinecamcorders becomes better and more popular. I think 35mm will become the standard where 16mm projects would have done well before. Remember Kodak have also gone into the digital market with DVD production especially. They certainly have not got all their eggs in one basket and that does speak volumes.

Yes the fade out on the actual print can be 2 things. 1) That scene actually fades out. 2) This is done on the print for a smoother transition to the next scene. However it is not on all prints or reels. Only some have this. I could be wrong here but I think this has to do with the following scene and if there is a big difference in brightness or contrast then the cut might be more harsh on the eye without a little fade between the cuts. I know the fade you mean. It looks like a fade going down but not quite right? Like the last 10 frames or something. About the change from reel to reel. This is usually just two projectors with different parts that get replaced as time goes by. However I also know for a fact that reels get printed by different companies and the quality does change a bit between them sometimes. 1,3,5 done in ROME and 2,4,6 done in PARIS or something like that. However I have also seen bulbs that have lost some of their luminance do this too and when new bulbs are installed the difference goes away. This is actually one of the problems with film. It is not always that faithful because of the various reproduction processes for screenings. Also some stock is terrible when compared to others in terms of quality. The cinematographer might have done the best possible 35mm shoot in his career but if the distributors cut corners by using lesser quality stock it shows in the final produce and the cinematographer will only see a good reproduction of his work at the films Premiere (This is usually a print done directly from the best copy) or on the DVD release. This is one area where digital film can actually boost the cinematographers work. If things go fully digital then there is no reason why all projectionists should not be able to throw the exact same image if the digital projectors adhere to the same standards. I have worked with dozens of projectors of different types and the difference in quality from each is astounding at times. In fact it can be quite frightening when you understand that EVERYTHING - A $50,000,000.00 production is in the projectionists hands and if the quality of the print is crap then it really does not do 35mm justice at all. If the projectors are not well maintained then certainly the image will suffer. I am not sure about the cues on the reels. I have heard them done at several different stages in the prints production. I am not sure if there is any one standard there. Notice they also look different sometimes.

Here is 308 65mm productions... http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?OFM:65%20mm

George that pretty much sums up the kind of pros and cons I have. I was going to shoot on a Konvas and the real reason for going 35mm was because it was an industry standard and like you said would get that recognition. However in the long term I thought: But this is my first feature, why not see if the content works, if I can do a good film and it is not all just in my head with years of much more experience needed. Then I thought because of budget constraints, if I shoot DV and submit this to a distributer in its finished format on DV they might say one of a couple things. (1)Your feature sucks! Go away! (2)Okay great stuff. Not worth throwing another budget at for the cinemas but will do okay on DVD. (3)Okay we go with a blowup to 35mm which we pay for and do a cinema release too. (4)A 35mm "remake" with a better budget. Here is more cash and a better production team. Go remake it on 35mm. Good luck on your 35mm project. I hope it works it as you wanted it too.

I have projected thousands of hours of footage, made up films and broken down more than I can remember and I am a certified projectionist by the way. Okay your question about the quality change in reels is probably like I said. Reel 1, 4, 6 are printed by a different printer to reels 2, 5, 7 etc and then packaged together elsewhere. The difference is in the printers quality and that is what can cause the films to look different. Tower switching can also do this too if they projectors have different components. Have you noticed a film break (not a reel change but a damaged area that has been fixed) and then this change happens? If so then that is because the gate moves slightly and the image changes because of this (fraction of a mm can make all the difference in the quality. In reality the projectionist should always check focus after a reel change.) but if you are seeing changes in the actually quality of the film from reel to reel the answer is in two different printers doing the reels. The reels fade to black sometimes at the end (the foot) but not all of them. Sometimes they just stop dead and the projectionist cuts the last frame away. If they fade then they are usually marked afterwards as to where the cut should be made. In most cases this is just simply a fade out on that scene before the next one and this is where the distributors decided to stop that reel. Fade outs are a pain in the ass for projectionists by the way. We prefer to cut on an image we can clearly see but you can do it both ways. Sometimes they do add fades to the end of the reel just to make the transition easier to the next reel. Give me more details and I could probably help you with anything projection related.

Hey it sounds like you are becoming a "Director" already. :D Keep it up m8! It works! :P

I think he is one of the best Cinematographers I have ever seen. Tarkovsky is also great even though he is more of a director but you can get yo ass he knows his camera too. Any takers on these 2?

That is a tower system that probably has so many different components gone through it over the years that when it changes reel it is practically another projector throwing the image. Lens, Bulb, Bulb Housing and Mirror can all lead to the diversity you are seeing, however I would say that this is mostly a bulb issue and you can get it too with Platter systems. If the bulb is old the image quality can change dramatically from reel to reel. Also some reels are not printed in the order of 1 to 6. Sometimes one printing house is allocated reels 1,3,6 and another does 2 and 5 and there can be slight differences in the quality from each. The reason while the reels are turning black is because of poor projectionists not doing the reel changes in time or cutting the film right when assembly for the platter takes place. It should not happen and will not happen with good projectionists. The lab that prints the films makes those dots you see. They are put on the master print and copied.

Do you know Mitch when I look at your costings I can see right away why the DVX is going to be cheaper in the long run for me. The figure you quoted for the DV blowup also includes any and all effects done in post-production on DV right? and for 16mm that is going to be additional isn't it? As in titles, digital correcting, digital effects, color grading, credits and any form of image manipulation is going to cost you extra on 16mm isn't it? But in your DV figure it is all inclusive right?

Check out U-Matic. It might have been done on that. Tube cameras where also around that time.

Yeah but the issue of quality was it not Kubrick who said that film was the cheapest part of any Hollywood production? Also how many major Hollywood films are actually shot on 70mm. Some of the production photographs I see look like huge 70mm cameras at times and yet they always say it was a 35mm production.

And as another thought - didn't 16mm replace the old 9mm format? and didn't Super 35mm replace Vista-Vision cameras? Film formats also change too don't they...

I have no doubt that film will not die for quite some time because of 35mm cinema projection alone and Kodak still make Super 8mm for Super 8mm cameras. It was more or less a nod to the direction that digital is going and how less these other systems will be used as the digital age grows more and more. Lucas is an big time director and he thinks Digital is the way. Spielberg thinks not. Yes I guess it is mostly about what you feel you can do with your limitations and what you want to see but can people here safely say that their kids will use 16mm with the way things are moving? I think the evolution of DV stuff this part year or two has blown me away. I would never have thought this say - four or five years ago. Okay I actually sold a project recently and my royalties start next month. With that I have enough to wait for several more royality checks and pick up the A-Minima or buy a complete DVX kit with anamorphics, Matte box and a DvRigPro with one royalty payment. I am leaning in the DVX direction at the moment just based on what I got and what is around me. BTW - I will have to BUY because my project is going to span a few years (Two to Three me thinks). Anybody here used the DvRigPro BTW? Is it good and worth the price tag?