Frank Wylie

Yeah, that doesn't look kosher to me. Unless there are custom markers the camera maker placed in the test signal ( and to be fair, there could be), I would say those dots indicate a noise problem.

I wouldn't try to adjust it without a calibrated reference signal. I was suggesting you just look for noise in the basic waveform. You might see it in the timing trace outside of the RGB in parade. There should be minimal noise in the blacks at "normal" gain levels. Frankly, I would suspect your outboard converter before I suspected your camera.

Does the camera have an internal color bar generator? You could throw up bars and look at the waveform and compare it to a proper waveform, however I am unsure if Scopebox has the needed variable gain adjustments that allow the waveform to be expanded to see the trace at 10X. The trace should be fairly smooth; any spikes or excessive jittering, especially in the timing signals, could be something out of spec enough to interfere with image processing. Noise spikes big enough to be interpreted as a "1" can throw off sync on sequencing clocks and throw your pixel order out of phase on a line read-out. A raised noise floor can bias the signal enough to trigger false positives on super bright pixels and screw up your image processing. You could check with the local TV station's Chief Engineer and ask him to have a look at the output on a good Tektronix HD scope in exchange for a trip to Burger King! He/She should be able to point out any noise or ringing in the signal, but be sure to try it straight from the camera and THEN through the Miranda Box. You might have a bad component, or even cable, in the imaging chain.

Maybe if you threw that HD-SDI output up on a scope, you might see a problem in signal output. It might have some (now) non standard signal component or show some electronics fault that is giving you the "heebie-jeebies" via external capture.

Mike, Glad you got it sorted out! Frank

I am not an expert by any means, but have you systematically investigated this issue? Try resetting the camera to default settings with NO changes on image processing enhancement and at a ISO/ASA that is well within the native range of the sensor (probably around 100). Choose a scene where this issue tends to be exacerbated and, keeping good notes and with slates, shoot short segments as you change settings. Examine the shots and see if you can tell where the noise comes into the image. Also, try it with a HDCAM tape and remove the converter and recorder. Check to see if the outboard converter/recorder could be acting as an antenna for ingress of stray electromagnetic impulses from nearby powerlines and such. Put your cell phone in the car; get it away from the camera. That could be a source of electronic noise. Edit: "this camera was well over 100 grand at one point, it should not be doing this". Just because something cost a lot in the past, doesn't mean it didn't suffer from the problem all along. Check with former owners/shooters; it might not be an unusual artifact, regardless of past price...

To echo Brian's comment, and this is a HUGE generalization, they didn't look all dupey and blown-out originally. What people now characterize as the "silent film look" is dependent upon a number of technical flaws; some introduced in duplication, some in the original distribution of the film: 1. Scratches, dirt, speeds that appear incorrect, high or low contrast, etc. are typically artifacts of copying the only extant material AFTER it has been beat to death in general release. You can easily reproduce these aspects by, Shooting at 18 fps and playing back at 24fps. Take your print, roll it out in a hallway loosely, sprinkle dirt and nails over it, walk back and forth over it and then rewind it through your hand with gentle pressure on the film in a cleaning cloth; You will get scratches, but you don't want too many. Where the print is creased, take a warm clothes iron and "smooth" it back to flatness between two sheets of heavy craft paper. Chop out random sections of a few frames each. Don't over do this; just occasionally or it will look very fake. If you are shooting a negative, only do the above to a print; with reversal, you have to be much more careful. Density pulses and contrast build-up are harder to re-create. Contrast build-up can be accomplished by (all assuming b&w film) ; Negative: Shoot with a heavy green filter on pan stock, print very light and push the hell out of the print. Set your printer lights at 6 to 8 trims BELOW typical good exposure and process the film at the highest gamma available. Tests will have to be done to ensure a "good" result. OR Overexpose your stock by a 1 or 2 stops, process normal and print light; avoid hitting dmax in your shadows. Reversal: Shoot with heavy green filter and rate such to overexpose by 1/2 stop (yeah, that's a real hard thing to do, but...) The best option for density pulses is to hand-process on a rack, agitating the hell out of the film. The portions of the film that pass over the rack bars will become more dense and impart the typical density pulses you see in a badly duped film of the 1910's through 20's. I didn't have a lot of time to type this out, but you get the drift; it takes a lot to abuse film to make it look so bad. That should be an indicator of just how GOOD the original silent films looked when new.

Flat mirrors into large sliks in frames, but tracking the sun is harder than it seems and if you have wind, you have large sails to contend with.

With modern Vision Negative Stocks, it's not so hateful to just crop it in post. If you can barney a Konvas to make it quiet (and its been done), you can barney this one too, just don't forget a good optical flat. Noise focuses out through the lens system too and you'll have to have the flat to achieve acceptable noise levels. In a pinch, on a really quiet set, throw a few more jackets on the camera! There is no shame in low budget film making...

As a teen in 1976, I worked 3 months laying concrete in 100 F degree weather to buy a Minolta SRT MCII for $350. $170 was more than you think...

You can pick up a Russian Konvas body on Ebay for not much; shipping is often as much as a well-used body. Otherwise, motion picture cameras are not like cars or other salvaged consumer goods. Most damaged cameras are rebuilt or sold to repair shops to be stripped for parts. You *MIGHT* get lucky and find a local person who has an old Eyemo or DeVry Lunchbox camera laying around unused. Try scouring the local flea markets, camera shops and so on. Put the word out in your community. You might be surprised.

Webster, Thanks for the additional shots! Strangely enough, it could be both. I once knew a man who as a machinist at The Battelle Institute in Columbus Ohio and he built 1/8 scale locomotives, restored silent era and sound 35mm projectors and built enormous, wagon-based carnival organs (like a caliope) that used punched cards to produce music. However, he built prototypes of military equipment ( he never disclosed what) in his day job.

Say, that idea of a bore examination camera is a good one! Makes sense! If you are using it for a naval gun, you wouldn't need close focus capabilities!

Just an observation; that's no "homebrew", but is at least laboratory or Military-grade construction. It would be very cool to know what it was used to test! I am wracking my brain, but cannot come up with any plausible use scenario for this device.

Ah... forget it. Covered in another contributor's post. Must read more carefully...

Does your camera have a gel filter slot open on top of the camera? I know the old ACL did and could fog film if it was left out. Not sure if it was retained on the ACL 2... Verne and Sylvia Carlson in "The Professional Cameraman's Handbook" (pg 317, 1st edition on the ACL), "CAUTION; Filter holder must be inserted into camera to avoid fogging film - whether or not gelatine filter is used." Also: "Always insert holder with chamfered side forward..."

Which model Eclair?

Reseat all controller cards. Check fuses. Probably a fuse...

Sorry to keep posting, but it occurs to me that the CINEMATOGRAPHER of the films might be of more interest than the listed director, so this list for your reference: "Gold Diggers of 1933" Sol Politio http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/polito.htm "M" (1951) Ernest Laszlo http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/laszlo.htm "Craig's Wife" (1936) Lucien Ballard http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/ballard.htm "The Hitch-Hiker" (1953) Nicholas Musuraca http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/musuraca.htm "In Caliente" (1935) George Barnes and Sol Polito http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/barnes.htm and http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/polito.htm "The Road Back" (1937) John J. Mescall and George Robinson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Mescall and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Robinson "Hotel Imperial" (1939) William C. Mellor http://www.cinematographers.nl/GreatDoPh/mellor.htm

Added: Film Forum NYC, NY https://filmforum.org/ 10/1/18 "Hotel Imperial" (1927) D. Mauritz Stiller Please understand that all of these are prints timed from either the camera original negative or the best available archival film element. These are NOT digitally restored films, but are straightforward prints from film elements that can be 30 to 90 years old so they are not perfect, but are a pure film experience. Of course, our entire lab staff is to be credited for the work, not just myself, so keep that in mind if you have an kind words for our work!

The button in the center of the readout dial should be pushed to release the needle for a reading and released to lock it in place. Perhaps the button has become corroded or dirty and has locked the needle. Seem I remember it can be turned to lock it in place to "save" the reading as well. Try gently pressing down and rotating the sliver button to see if the needle is released.

Depends on the scanning vendor, but it shouldn't be a problem. There are a few on this site; ask them!

Don't use the plastic leader; it will go vinegar much, much faster than acetate stock.

There are no magic bullets; shoot tests with various stocks, try different exposure settings, get a good transfer and a good colorist (or become one).

Here's a few titles I have been able to determine will be screening: (No Play Dates determined) (1940) D. Garson Kanin MY FAVORITE WIFE in Locarno Switzerland (Festival in Locarno starts 8/1),Cine Francaise (September), possibly Kino Rex in Berne (October), August: Heights Theater Columbia Heights, Minnesota http://www.heightstheater.com/ 8/2/18 "Gold Diggers of 1933" (1933) D. Busby Berkeley and Mervyn LeRoy Film Forum NYC, NY https://filmforum.org/ 9/27/18 "M" (1951 remake) D. Joseph Losey September: Arsenal; Berlin, Germany https://www.arsenal-berlin.de/home.html 9/17/ 18 "Craig's Wife" (1936) D. Dorthy Arzner 9/22/18 "M" (1951 remake) D. Joseph Losey October: Melbourne Cinematheque Melbourne, Australia http://www.melbournecinematheque.org/category/present-year/on-dangerous-ground-ida-lupino-trailblazer/ 10/10/18 "The Hitch-Hiker" (1953) D. Ida Lupino Festival Internacional de Cine de Morelia, October 20-28, 2018 Morelia, Mexico https://moreliafilmfest.com/en/ (TBD) "In Caliente" (1935) D. Edward Chodorov Filmpodium Nüschelerstrasse 11, 8001 Zürich, Kinokasse https://www.filmpodium.ch/ (TBD) "M" (1951 remake) D. Joseph Losey November: Kansallienen Audiovisuaalinen Instituutti Helsinki, Finland https://kavi.fi/ (TBD) “The Road Back” (1937, Restored Long Version) D. James Whale