Frank Wylie

There is "optimal" exposure and just exposure, so yes, you can shoot with available light and it looks as if they did just that in a few shots. One of the shots looked like they had a warm gelled portable light providing some fill to keep from totally loosing facial detail. Vision 500 would probably be a good stock, but get to know a good colorist for your grading session! I have shot film where there was no real key light, but there was illumination somewhere in the frame that the actor can walk in and out of pools of light and was amazed at the latitude of even a slower film stock. It all depends on the look you are going for...

Point taken about the third layer, but spectacular Silent Films with amazing dynamic range did not need a third layer and the emulsions on lab stocks are very close to camera original emulsions of the Silent Era.

I always thought the Pathe Webo, tricked out with all the accessories, was a very stylish camera. Sad to hear they are not generally a good performer.

Heck, go crazy and process it in XTOL (replenished, it can be done) in a normal processor OR build a hand rack like in the Silent Era. All fun thoughts with about ZERO possibilities of happening; at least on my part. But, it's fun to speculate...

If you really want a unique look, shoot some 2366/7366 Intermediate Finegrain Stock and process it as a negative. Of course it has the equivalent ISO/ASA sensitivity of about 6 to 12, depending on your developer/gamma combo, but it's ortho and (duh) very fine grained. It's certainly high-noon or thereabouts film stock, but the look is quite interesting. I think a 2K foot 35mm roll is about $500 US now.... Oh, and if you are ambitious, you can develop it yourself under a OC Yellow Safelight... (cue derision and hoots)

I built a 3K 35mm scanner in 2008 to restore 6 Alice Guy Blache Films for the 2009 Whitney Museum retrospective. Used an Oxberry Optical Printer Projector head and a mono/panchro camera sequenced with custom software that scanned each frame RGB to TIFF files via sequential LED exposures at 1.5 seconds per frame. Down-rez to 2K, Clean up, stabilization and CC were done in After Effects (2K was the "ultimate standard" at the time). It damn near killed me and a divorce resulted from my 18 hour a day, 7 days a week 10 month schedule. I still have the bones of that system in my basement as a reminder to be careful of what you wish for...

Looks cold in the shot. Could be massive static discharges...

A friend sent me this link on a gentleman in Europe who is currently striping mag onto 8 and 16mm film, post processing; https://www.filmkorn.org/magnet-striping-in-perfection/?lang=en I have no experience or knowledge of the results... (Edit; I appear to have duplicated information from Roger Haney's post; apologies!)

Well bubba, I founded the listserv; that much is for sure. It was so long ago, I probably can't remember the exact date but it changed hands many times, so I really can't be sure who copied the original email and re-posted it. It was probably around 2001 or 2002 and a lot of the original listserv archives was lost in transition when the maintainers changed hands. EDIT: OK, a typo on my part. Here's the original header of the first post From Wylie Fri Dec 15 21:29:00 2000 To: the konvas discussion list Subject: Howdy 21 years ago this December.

I would suggest you contact "Olex Services Lenses" for information: https://sites.google.com/site/olexservicelenses/home

If you want 1080P MP4 files (when it works), then you are golden. From what I have seen online, customers don't seem to have much luck with it working for any extended period of time, and when it does, they are not happy with the output unless they think VHS is still the cat's meow...

Yes, it's a great site. Go back in the archives and see the very first posting of the listserv and you'll see I founded the listserv on Thursday, 22 May 2008 and it's passed to several others since. 13 years? Man time flies...

The Apollo Lunar Landing used a mechanical Video system roughly based on the RCA field sequential color system for live coverage as well as recorded information. The resolution was limited on purpose to lower bandwidth requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-sequential_color_system

I just assumed you were interested in doing it the classical way; in camera. If you are digitally compositing and not doing it in camera, shoot the action full frame and resize in AE. Why not have all the pixels to play with for maximum flexibility?

Guess I got this confused with the Adox announcement of restarting Super 8mm film. I don't have social media accounts, I ditched them several years ago, so I couldn't read the Instagram links. All in all, it's unexpected and great whatever formats get revived

It's a complex subject that dependis on how the painting was painted. You might have to scrim the live action with a very fine net to match the contrast between the painting and live action. Sometimes the color temp between the painting and the live action can be mismatched, so be prepared to have a good supply of CC gel filters that cover the live action aperture on the painting; you might have to warm it up or cool it down. Here's a pricey book that directly covers the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Art-Mark-Cotta-Vaz/dp/0811831361 Good luck.

I would hope they offer Regular 8mm as well; preferably Double Regular 8mm in 100 foot daylight spools, but we will see.

That's a possibility, Evan. Thanks for the suggestion.

Yes, I found those, but I inspect and evaluate tons of original nitrate negatives, dupe negatives, lavenders/finegrains and prints that have domestic and foreign versions, along with censor-cut prints so trying to make heads or tails of missing footage by gang synchronizer can get pretty challenging at times. It would be nice to be able to do offset footage subtractions when I find that dupe negative that has 5 or 6 sound sync marks punched in the leaders; it happens more often than you would imagine. Seems every lab just HAD to make their own sync mark, or edge notches or timing cue tabs... Some of these elements look like they went through a lawnmower sometimes... Here's a fun one (pix attached): how about a negative with metal staples in the perfs to trigger light valve changes? Want to run that one through your Scanity? I was hoping for a lazy solution, but looks like I'll have to keep doing it the old fashioned way...

It's crazy, but no one has written an app like the old electronic film calculators you could find from Birns & Sawyer. You know, the ones you could add and subtract film footages without having first to convert everything to frames and then back to feet/frames? Anyone have one laying about they would part with for a reasonable sum? Barring that, anyone know of an app for an iPhone that would do the same?

Looks like an Elmack Spider or Cricket Dolly with an operator jib arm; hard to tell.

The Auricon could be obtained with either a Variable Area or a Variable density track recording option. The Maurer could be outfitted with a Tobis Klangfilm-like multiple trace Variable Area track. It's a black art, making those galvos. Not many people who walk the face of this Earth can service them or build them.

"Making Kodak Film" by Robert Shanebrook, 2nd Edition: http://www.makingkodakfilm.com/ Worth the cost...

Technicolor Movies : The History of Dye Transfer Printing by Richard W. Haines Using extensive research and interviews with many of the surviving Technicolor technicians, the history of dye printing and the events leading to its demise are fully covered. (The Beijing Film Laboratory is the only facility currently using the process.) Included are diagrams of how the process worked and an extensive listing of U.S. feature films printed with it. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/technicolor-movies-the-history-of-dye-transfer-printing_richard-w-haines/1580854/item/42471286/?gclid=CjwKCAjwx6WDBhBQEiwA_dP8rdgKyRnGKVTCHdjrtc-KYbVMASGcw1oxWF49qbLvnMaoBjVdUZ0HaxoCsTkQAvD_BwE#idiq=42471286&edition=58111917 DAWN OF TECHNICOLOR: 1915 1935 By James Layton & David Pierce - Hardcover *NEW* https://www.ebay.com/itm/184739959673?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28

That's why DCPs use JPEG2000; wavelet encoding rather than Discrete Cosine Transforms (DCT block encoding). The problem is, you can encode however you like, but once it leaves your hands, it will be re-encoded and displayed probably using a DCT type encoding to make the signal small enough to transmit over the Net or on a portable medium. This is no different than making a perfect 35mm print and shipping it to Uncle Joe's cinema; cobbled together with bailing wire and spit. We are at the mercy of the exhibitor and the limits of their/our exhibition equipment.