Christian Appelt

Actually, you can find some vintage amateur printers for 16mm b&w home printing on eBay from time to time. A company named Uhler made them at least until the 1960s, the last one went for 25$ or something in that range. Will do a better job than any homemade machine. It is also possible to do contact printing with certain cameras if you have a bipack mag or wind the films together on a core or reel. I wouldn't take the trouble because film printing needs cleanliness and precision, except maybe for certain types of experimental films. If you insist on building your own machine, start with a good camera or projector mechnism so you will at least have a decent film path. There was an old AC article called "Bipack with a Bolex", maybe you will find it at a library.

Yes, you're right about the diversity of cinematic styles. Recently I found a number of 1970s local newspapers and read most of the cinema ads. I had no realised what variety of styles and genres was on the screens back then, from American major studio films and smaller films (like TWO-LANE BLACKTOP) to Eurotrash, spaghetti westerns, Japanese monster & scifi movies, and even some black&white films from the 1960s that were not arthouse films. Today, it seems to be strictly art vs. mainstream, only exotic food and fast food served except for those few films which William Goldman called "the exception to the rule", films that cannot be neatly put into a drawer labeled "Art" or "Entertainment". As for cinematography, I would say that never so many and subtle tools of cinematography were available - but so little use is being made of them in terms of telling a story in the most simple and impressive way.

How about a Foton 37-140 zoom lens with the large front anamorphic element Foton-A? I don't know whether there is a problem with putting this one on a Kinor, but the front element is quite good (and will give you the old-style anamorphic look with heavy "breathing" at focus changes...). Foton-A + Zoom on eBay 1 Foton-A + Zoom on eBay 2 At f4.3 it is also faster than the rear-anamorphosized zoom lenses.

I feel like David about 1960s cinematography, but the same goes for 1970s cinematography. I always try to see older movies in vintage prints and in the cinema, which is possible if you have a film museum or cinematheque near you. Not only because these films were made to be seen in a theatre, but also because you learn more from it than from watching restored, digitally fine-tuned and optimized DVD editions. Many 1970s films are - to me - hardly watchable on a big screen because many DPs and directors tended to degrade their image so far. To them it was style, to me as a spectator sitting before even a medium sized screen, it's nothing but suffering and eye strain. Recently I saw M*A*S*H in a vintage 1970s print (very slight fading), and about a fourth of all shots in the film should have been left on the editing room floor. It may look fine on DVD and TV, but with all the zooming, panning, muddy telephoto shots and bad focus pulling, this is to me a perfect example of how not to photograph a movie. Usually I never leave the theatre, no matter how bad the film may be, but THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH made me so sick with its stupid zooming and panning that added nothig to storytelling that I had to go. It's true, there were really innovative films using low light levels, like FRENCH CONNECTION, but the style matched the story and atmosphere. With other films in similiar settings, especially in anamorphic format, a bit more lighting would have resulted in better image quality and less artifacts. THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE TWO THREE (a favourite film of mine) is one of these - I saw it on the big screen recently, and it looks even worse than today's worst S-35/D.I./hyperspeed mass prints. Yes, there was a lot of innovation in cinematography, but the low light approach became a cliché in itself. 1960s photography may look very artificial in many cases today, but at least it was not so damn self-conscious as much of post-1960s work. Even with the blandest 10K lighting, as David commented, I still can see the sets and the actors doing their work, which is more than I could say for todays fast-editing-low-depth-of-field-do-a-tracking-the-audience-may-fall-asleep school of filmmaking. :) David, a question on SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN: Do the stock shots around the Vatican (especially at the end) stick out on DVD as much as they did on the big screen? Last year, the German Film Museum screened a vintage 70mm blowup print of SHOES, and I was surprised that they had the guts to intercut rather traditional studio lighting with the audience stuff. - Some shots remain in my mind, like Anthony Quinn walking through the narrow streets incognito, the scene in front of the drugstore had an almost three dimensional look in the 70mm print.

Max Jacoby wrote: They were all added in the post. ;)

David, would you say that the larger area of 3-perf 1.85 will make a notable difference compared to standard 1.85 area when the D.I. is done at 2K resolution only? I would imagine a slight improvement in grain (with high speed stocks), but is there an advantage in resolution after going through the 2K process?

I need to identify the models of these two cameras shown on historic photos from the mid-1940s: I recognize an Eyemo, but do not know the exact model. From another photo print I know that they used this model with a 400ft. external magazine for location shooting. The larger camera looks like a Mitchell to me, judging from the shape of the motor, but maybe you can recognize more to name the model and configuration. Sorry for the low resolution, that's all I have right now. I'd really appreciate your help! :) Sorry, having trouble with the image hosting, trying again:

Matthew, the thing you refer to as Technicolor look has more to do with lighting style than with the actual film stock. Look at some movies that have the style you want to emulate and experiment with lighting. One has to remember that classic Technicolor films were more stylized in set design and costume colors to achieve a certain aesthetic goal. Trying to manipulate film stock does not make sense unless you really know the basic craft of film photography and lighting. Look at the way classic films are lit and experiment yourself - there's no special magic in Technicolor or any other system of reproduction - it's the way the people made use of it back then

I bought a lot of film equipment overseas, from the U.S., South Africa, New Zealand and Japan and never had any trouble. Just luck maybe, but it always pays to look at feedback and dates of eBay registration. The only negative experience was with a guy from Latvia, but even he delivered an item in excellent condition as promised - just with the wrong lens mount. He obviously didn't know it and was reluctant to pay back the money - but he did, after some cursing and name calling. But sometimes an offer is too good to be true, like some low priced Round Front Lomo Anamorphics. I was tempted a few times - and relieved when I heard that it was a scam with stolen pictures. :rolleyes:

David, I certainly hope someone at Panavision or Vantage Film will listen to you! B) I still say that both Iscorama (1.5x) and the Kowa 8Z/16H are (2x) are high quality lenses that will give good results with 16mm. Whether someone wants to take the additional trouble and accept the inherent limitations (double focussing, limited range of focal lengths) is not for me to decide - people have done stranger things to get a certain effect or look (just read the "Film Stocks and Processing" forum section for a while... Remember the TechniScope-Forward-Reverse-Double-Exposure-Format-thread? :)

Some links on 1.5x lenses: Optex 16:9 anamorphics Panasonic Adapter (AbelCine) Oywheesound.com Anamorphic lenses and Compression Ratios Cpt. Jacks Isco Page Widescreen Centre: Iscorama 54 Anamorphic Lenses Compared

I don't agree with that. I have shot a lot of slides with the Iscorama 1.5x adapter (the large version, not the projection attachment) and it can produce a very sharp image. Of course it makes work slower because of the double focusing. The Iscoramas has been used for years by photographers doing slide show travelogues, and some presentations on large screen looked very impressive. Haven't tried the newer 1.33x adapters for shooting 16:9 video, do you consider them so low in quality? It is important to use a high quality spherical lens because any anamorphic converter will enlarge the problems of the basic lens. I learned that when using SLR lenses, some older lenses were good enough for spherical use, but if you shot anamorphic with them, their weaknesses would become very visible in projection. Just wanted to mention the alternative to simple cropping the Super 16, the question whether it makes sense has to be answered by the cinematographer involved. It depends on the light situation and what type of film stock is to be used. If the use high speed film is necessary, I would try to get the maximum negative area when the image has to fill a huge 2.35 screen, and anamorphic may be helpful. If, on the other hand, the film has mostly daylight exteriors or can be lit to get a decent light level, I agree that cropping may be the better solution.

Hi Evan, it has been many years that I used a Pathé Webo camera, so I have not all answers... FILM LOAD You do not need a mag or cassette. The camera will take 100ft./30m daylight spools. When handling these spools, make sure you do not bend the spool flanges outside, otherwise you can get fogging. When you take the lower spool (with exposed film) from the camera, do it in the shadow (no total darkness required, but when you're out in the sun, get into the shadow, put the paper strip loop that comes with the film around the spool and put it into its plastic box again. FILM DRIVE Do not (NEVER) let the camera run without film load at maximum speed. Rewind the spring drive after every shot, even if it was only a few second long, to make sure you do not run out of power. SHOOTING Remember that this is a vintage lens design. If you want crisp pictures, you have to stop down at least two stops from maximum lens aperture. Use the Pathé matte box if you can get it. The Webo is an amateur camera, not a professional tool. They are also quite delicate mechanically, so I absolutely recommend shooting a roll of negative or reversal and project or telecine it (no matter what. If you want the footage to look like vintage amateur films, use low-speed film, not above 100ASA. Clean the film gate after each roll, DO NOT USE pressurized air (e.g. DustOut and similar products). Maybe someone has more on the viewfinder, I have no memory of it.

Super-16 blown up to 35mm spherical widescreen makes use of the total negative area (when projected at 1:1,66, some cropping will happen at 1:1.85). When you shoot Super-16 for 2.35/2.40 anamorphic release prints, you lose top and bottom area of the neg, PLUS the cropped neg is enlarged even more because the 2.35 screen image is larger than spherical wide screen. The only way to use the full neg area AND have a 2.35 release print is to use an anamorphic converter in front of your camera (they are available in both 1.33x and 1.5 and may or may not be usable with your equipment with or without technical modification ;) ) Then you have a slightly squeezed neg image making use of the full Super-16 area. Keep it squeezed through the HD process until it is reformatted (to 2x squeeze) before film recording.

I think it's a bit unfair to judge TEMPLE OF DOOM too hard. Since then we have seen a zillion of adventure movies of that kind with comic book characters, stupid scripts and video-game like effects. I remember seeing TEMPLE back then, in a 70mm mag sound print and in a huge old-style movie palace, and I felt like after a ride on a super-sized rollercoaster when I walked out of the theatre. 21 years later, I saw TEMPLE again (even in 70mm) and remained quite indifferent while watching it. Did the film change - certainly not! It was made for an audience from 14-20 years of age (I was 17 back then), and there had been few adventure films with that amount of spectacular visual effects. Today, while I do not blame TEMPLE for being a mere rollercoaster ride, which it was supposed to, I prefer RAIDERS because it has a more naive approach in storytelling and better cinematography. And over the years I have seen most of the great epic films from which Spielberg&Lucas borrowed for the Indy films, so the imitation cannot hold the same fascination any more.

About 10 years ago, I spoke to a DP who used a Nikon F-3 camera with a thing called MF-4 250-Exposure Magazine Back (bulk film back). He had short lengths of his productzion negative spooled into this mag and shot lighting tests with his Nikon F-3. His film lab processed this short roll without any problems and he could discuss every shot with the guy who did the grading in advance (it was a studio picture with standing sets) and change some lighting setups for best effect. Not a lightweight tool, that's for sure... ;) from Film Back options for Nikon The smaller item is for 250 exposures, the larger one for 750 shots!

Super 16 / R 16 films that impressed me: LEAVING LAS VEGAS (1995, D: Mike Figgis) CONTE D'ÉTÈ (France 1996, D: Eric Rohmer) SHE'S GOTTA HAVE IT (1986, D: Spike Lee)

Tim, I see your point. But that's what you remember from THUNDERBALL, all the nice colorful atomic bombs, mini subs and people in diving suits - and of course the beautiful Disco Volante ship. Hm, you're perfectly right, my brain saved only the second unit stuff... ;) YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is indeed much better - no wonder, it's the work of Freddie Young! NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (DP Douglas Slocombe) is a very strange film, I remember the release prints looking very muddy and brownish. Must have had to do with the sloppy 1980s dupe/release printing, because a few weeks ago, I spotted it on TV in a new transfer and it didn't look as bad as I remembered it.

I have seen THUNDERBALL in 1970s Eastman release prints, 1965 Technicolor IB prints and in an 1990s studio print - not to mention a very good PAL TV transfer 8didn't see the DVD). In my opinion THUNDERBALL is an example of perfect 1960s anamorphic cinematography, vivid colors, extreme sharpness and good use of wide angle anamorphic lenses. What exactly is it that you find shabby about that film? :blink:

My IIA has that movement. - I will look up some vintag Arri ads that describe the altrations. For now, here's a list of models from CinemaTecnic.com on Arriflex 35 The description of models is what I remember, except for the IIA - the alteration of 180 degree shutter and movement was done at the same time.

Hal, what difference is there between the IIA/B and IIC movements? I remember reading in an old German cinematography that the pulldown mechanism did not change between 1953 when the Arriflex II was replaced by model IIA (with a 180-degree-shutter and a new excenter-driven movement which prolonged horizontal claw retraction phase for better steadiness). The only thing to make sure is that you don't buy an Arriflex II (without letter designation) because the older movement gives no good registration and it has only 150 degrees opening IIRC - but they seem to be quite rare anyway.

Leo Anthony Vale wrote Sure, it must have been a personal tragedy for her, but to be honest, Kubrick did the right thing. That actress, Sabina Bethmann, did a number of films in Germany, and she neither had the beauty of Jean Simmons nor was an enlightened player. Casting her was definitely Kirk Douglas mistake, and Kubrick corrected it for good. Douglas admits in his autobiography that hiring Simmons was in contradiction to his "language plan" that all Romans should be played by British and all slaves by Americans... :)

I saw the film yesterday, and on a 60 ft. screen, it looked pretty horrible. I noticed the digital artifacts and the "smearing", but what bothered by most was the general lack of sharpness and resolution. Virtually EVERY long shot without detail, only close ups looking in focus. I suspect that the problems of Technicolor's DI were made worse by dupe printing for international release, but to me, watching such a long film in pseudo-video resolution and with what David described as compressed TV look was really a pain in the a**. Personally, I hate this shallow DOF approach, especially in closeups (of handwriting and printed text, even 3-strip-Technicolor films had more depth). It's not all a matter of style and taste, for example in the shot with the hat on the left side of the screen, characters appear from the background and move up to the camera. To me, this is just plain bad storytelling because the viewer's eyes try to focus upon the blurry clouds of grain (or digital artifacts...) on the right. Or take the exterior shot close to the end of the movie when a flesh-toned cloud of fuzzy grain fills the right section of the screen. Does anybody expect us to be surprised when focus is pulled and the fuzz becomes Matt Damon? Great actors, but I'd like to see their reaction. When the camera favors an actor talking, this doesn't mean the other actor remains immobile, he is listening and reacting, and as a spectator, I want to see him - which is impossible because the filmmakers in their creative freedom have decided to render him out of focus. Won't bother me on TV or DVD, but on a huge screen, it hurts my eyes and make it a lesser movie. (Not that every film has to have deep focus - but some filmmakers really should brush up their vocabulary and look at some Kubrick movies. In BARRY LYNDON, which has scenes with extremely small DOF, there is NEVER a single second where you try to focus on something that's out of focus. That's what I call respecting the audience.) The good thing about this film is that it reminded me of DeNiro's first film A BRONX TALE which is a great movie and has great cinematography too - I think I'll go and buy the DVD right now.

I'd like to add that any "commercial vs. artistic" approach in comparing filmmakers like Kubrick and Fincher is nonsense. Kubrick certainly was frustrated by the lack of success of his first films, and he tried very hard to make THE KILLING a commercial success. The similiarity in story, casting and atmosphere between THE KILLING and ASPHALT JUNGLE is striking, which doesn't make THE KILLING an inferior film. I believe Kubrick was quite aware of star's power, after all, he could have found a very good but unknown actor for THE SHINING, but he chose Jack Nicholson. Most people are not aware of it when they see BARRY LYNDON today, but in 1975 Ryan O'Neal was a top male star both in the US and abroad. There is not really a contradiction in making commercial films with an artistic vision. BUT first, Kubrick had to win the status that allowed him to choose and realize his projects the way he did and to get the names that made them "bankable". To get back to the original question: I never wanted to become like Kubrick or any other director, but every time I see one of his films, I feel I learn something new or am reminded of something important. It makes no sense to imitate someone's style, you have to find your own style that comes out of your view of the world an artistic matters. Even Ridley Scott who cleverly "borrowed" from BARRY LYNDON in THE DUELLISTS did not stop imitating Kubrick, he went on to experiment with different means of expression.

This thread made me want to see BARRY LYNDON again - for me and everybody with a working Starfleet type transporter unit :) it will be shown at the cinema of Deutsches Filmmuseum (German Film Museum) Schaumainkai 41 Frankfurt, Germany Saturday, March 3 6.00 p.m. and Katherina Kubrick Hobbs, daughter of S.K. will be present at the show. The Stanley Kubrick exhibition (with the Zeiss 0.7 lens, the Mitchell BNC and a lot of cine tech stuff) will be shown next at Kulturhaus Sihlcity Zurich, Switzerland April 26 to September 2, 2007 Stanley Kubrick @ Zürich