dan kessler

The cutting idea might work, or it might disappoint. You seem to be thinking more in terms of special effects, rather than visual effects. Don't know your budget or capabilities, but there's always the CG route. Sparks and electrical fx are definitely part of its repertoire. Almost nothing you can't do, and you will have absolute control.

Sorry to hear this. Wasn't my experience when I dealt with them some years ago. Bought a lot of stuff from them, visited their facility, knew the guys, always treated me right.

Wasn't a lot of their debt the result of merger and acquisition mania? Many a company ended up loaded to the gills with debt after deals that made the dealmakers fat. Sort of typifies the present condition of the entire world, and no, the story does not have a happy ending.

I would try keeping the actor on the ground surface, but I think angling the camera would work, both for the wall and ceiling effects. Pay close attention to your lighting and camera angles and continuity. You'll have to piece it all together in the comp, but with careful planning, it just might work.

Is your monster a human actor or a CG character? If it's CG, you don't need greenscreen at all. Just use your plates as reference, build a CG set from the measurements you took to provide surfaces for your character, then animate on top of them. If it's human, seems to me you have some problems. Are you going to build a greenscreen set to match the plate? Even if you do, how is your human actor going to climb up to the ceiling? Shots where people appear to climb the walls are usually done on big "hamster wheel" rigs.

Tape splicers are intended mainly for cutting and splicing workprints, while cement splicers are for conforming negative. Not saying you can't cement splice a print; it just isn't typical. By the same token, you would probably not want to tape splice a negative. The tape overlaps into the frame area and would show up in the duplicates. Also, you need to be careful about running tape splices through anything other than a projector or a flatbed editor. They could jam in gates not designed for the added thickness. And, yeah, the Hollywood and Ciro tape splicers were (are) standards. The portable cement splicers you usually see have heating elements to cure the cement and are a little more complicated to use than tape.

Sure, cameras can have all sorts of problems, but Robert Lewis did a comparative examination of orwo and kodak film stocks and quickly discovered a pitch difference. If, for example, he were comparing 16mm short pitch to long pitch, the difference would only accumulate to about 1/16 of an inch over 30 inches of film, or 100 frames. If he was seeing more than that, then something was definitely out of spec at the orwo factory. (assuming, of course, that the kodak film was IN spec)

I also have a number of old fresnels, various manufacturers, some with rust. My plans are to do just enough and no more. Not sure it pays to invest too much in them. Try contacting Mole Richardson for parts. (www.mole.com) You might also contact a company called Pyramid Films. (www.usedmovielighting.com) They manufacture new lights and refurbish used lights. They will be able to advise you, I'm sure.

Wow, if that's the case, then Orwo does have a serious q/c problem. Pitch variation that extreme would account for all the problems people are having. The more precise the camera, the worse the problem. First guess is they're running camera stock through printer stock punches, and still labeling it camera pitch. In 16mm, camera pitch is .2994; printer pitch is .3000 It's that or one or more die sets are out of spec, but either way, they are churning out intermittant batches of defective film.

I have an anamorphic attachment like this, too. It's called "totalvision" I think, but it was definitely made in France When I bought it several years ago, I took it to Paul Duclos, who cleaned it up and seemed impressed with its performance. That made me feel pretty good about it.

Pilotone alone would not provide a reliable start mark. You still need to slate each take somehow, using clapsticks, bleep tones and lights, or something. Even if the camera has crystal control, it still needs to come up to speed before you can establish sync. Remember, too, that pilotone depends on a cable connection between camera and sound recorder. Consider how that might affect your run-and-gun style.

Exactly. Pilotone is only useful if you're recording sound on a Nagra or an equivalent tape recorder. Digital recorders are already constant speed, very precisely controlled by the internal clock. Crystal-controlled or microprocessor-controlled motors on cameras give them the necessary precision to maintain "cable-less" sync.

Chris, once upon a time, before Nagras ever existed, this was done routinely. Camera and mag recorder need to be equipped with synchronous motors and fed from the same AC power source. As long as that is done, film and tape will be in sync.

Well, I guess that's what these guys are attempting to do right now, not someday. "Off-the-shelf" parts already include the sensor and associated chip sets. Even so, the amount of engineering required to put it all together into a reliable, working camera is substantial, as evidenced by the scope of this group effort. For a solitary hobbyist to tackle at this level, the obstacles seem overwhelming. If one day it evolves into a kit of some sort, well that's different. All the heavy lifting is already done. Like yourself, though, I'm quite intrigued by it. Still, you have to watch out, because efforts like these can become careers in themselves. A long time ago I embarked down a similar path, wanting to build a 35mm motion picture camera. It necessitated becoming a machinist first, which led to a career for awhile in the machine tool industry, before I actually ended up with a camera that could contribute to my ambitions as a filmmaker.

Look, I threw out some ballpark figures to try to illustrate that you can definitely reach a point where running 35mm short ends through a camera that you own will beat paying lofty rental fees, whether digital or otherwise. The longer the clock runs, the greater the advantage accrues to the one who doesn't have to pay for the time. And, hey, the same thing applies if you own your own digital camera, and if you pay little enough for it, your break-even point arrives even sooner.

Okay, Phil, Chris, I wasn't expecting this, either, but here are a few back-of-the-napkin calculations. Most features are shot on an Alexa or Red or similar. For a Red or Alexa camera alone, I see rates of around $1600/day. If we're talking about a feature-length project requiring at least a few weeks to shoot, just the camera rental alone is already in the neighborhood of $25,000. Digital post will push that number much higher. You can get 35mm short ends at around .10/ft. Let's say the finished length is 9000 ft. Give yourself a 5:1 shooting ratio, or 45,000 ft. total, for a cost of $4500. .15/ft to develop, around $7000 total, .25/ft to print your good takes (9000 ft), $3000 total or you can telecine the footage and edit on your existing computer set-up Total film cost approx. $15,000 You can buy a used Arri 2c or even a BL these days for a couple grand, which you will own and take as much time as you want to shoot your project. Our indie filmmaker can be resourceful and pick up other used gear in similar fashion. Even before post, we're still doing better than our Alexa-based project. Do all projects pencil out this way? No, but all I said was that it CAN be cheaper.

Chris, for an indie with a limited budget, equipment rental and post-production for state of the art 4k digital is VERY expensive. You CAN get 35mm film gear, buy short ends and recans and cut on film for less money. Not talking about HD or lower quality that you edit on your home computer, cause that is NOT comparable to 35mm. Not talking about large budget or Hollywood, either. Try reading what I wrote, and don't tell me it ain't so, cause I know for sure that it is. You show your occupation as 'student.' I have a great many more years of experience in this industry that you do.

In retrospect, that statement from Coppola was perhaps a little too off-handed. It never was just about the camera. It is far more about what happens in front of it and behind it, both of which still demand "professionalism." One of the dreams about digital was that it would give indies the access they couldn't get with film, yet I find it ironic that today it can be cheaper for an indie to shoot 35mm film (short ends and recans) than to shoot comparable digital.

If you want to live in New York or Philadelphia, that's fine. If you want to go to school to learn visual effects, that's something else again. You won't necessarily be able to do both at the same time. First of all, going to "VFX school" pretty much means any university with a decent computer graphics program, where you come out with a degree in computer science. There are also schools that teach computer animation. What kind of job do you want afterward, and where?

two places I know of that sell used grip equipment in L.A. - Used Movie Lighting c/o Pyramid Films 7838 Clybourn Street Sun Valley, CA 91352 (818) 768-5924 usedmovielighting.com WOODEN NICKEL LIGHTING INC. 6920 TUJUNGA AVE. NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91605 818-761-9662 woodennickellighting.com

In no way am I questioning your experience or your recommendation not to trust the charts, but do you really mean what you just said? I don't think you want to set focus at the low end of the hyperfocal range, but inside it.

No personal experience with Orwo film, but very interested in this thread. Looking through the link-referenced material and at Orwo's published specs, I frankly don't see any deviations from standard pitch. Any more info on this?

Also try film-tech.com It's all about everything projection.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Mainstays of high-end 3d are Maya and Houdini. Lots and lots to learn, and like Mel pointed out, it's not just about the software. The fantastic level of realism in this piece owes a lot to the renderer. I don't know what it was, but you should find out, since you said your goal is to produce this type of work.

While I don't know the specifics of this machine, I suspect it isn't much more than a rotary prism flat-bed editor/viewer with a video tap. You won't have the optics, image stabilization or illumination controls of an actual telecine.