Brian Rose

All, I just got a tobin milliframe unit to do some high and low speed photography with my Eclair. I was wondering if you all knew what the celing for film speed is for the Eclair? I had heard it was 75fps, and I wasn't planning on pushing it past 64 FSP. Any ideas? Thanks! Brian R.

You should have heard him when I asked this: "Isn't digital less disciplined? With film, you only get one shot to get it right, so naturally you plan it out, take you time, and make sure it is what you want. With digital, all you do is point and shoot, and at the end of the day, you can delete the stuff you don't like." Man, he went off. Touched a raw nerve I expect!

Today, I endured two hours of a professor showing off his photo work, and all that stuff. Towards the end, he goes off on how much easier everything is with digital, and he proudly proclaimed that Kodak will stop making film in five years. I think film has a little more life than that! Brian R.

I've got an opportunity to buy around 8000 feet of film at approx. .20 cents a foot, which I intend to use for a documentary feature. The film is a mix, mostly 50D Vision and 500T Vision 2, some inbetween. It is, according to the seller, 8-18 months old, but has been in cold storage per Kodak's instructions all that time. He has sold a lot of high end equipment and deals in this sort of stuff, so I'm inclined to believe him. This film I am making is a student project, so it is not ABSOLUTELY essential that the final image be pristine, but overall, do you think this sounds like a good deal? Best, Brian Rose

I have one movie that I think fully justifies closeups: The Passion of Joan of Arc. If that film is wrong, than I don't wanna be right. Best, Brian Rose, ASC (Wannabee)

All, I recently bought some recans from Film Emporium on. They are 200 ft loads on special daylight reels for the Aaton Minima. Initially, I was planning on transferring the film to 100 ft. daylight spools, but I noticed that the reels they're on now seem to fit fine in my 400ft magazine for my Eclair NPR. Anyone see any reason why this wouldn't work? Best, Brian R.

All, I'm going to get my Beaulieu 5008 MS serviced, and I've looked around a lot, at Du-all, IJM Incorporated, Bernie O'Doherty. I've talked with them all, and each says they are the best, while accusing the others of "lying, or "doing sloppy work." I don't know who to trust. Who have you worked all worked with? Who does good work? Who has the best rates? Who has the best turn around time? Any info would be great. Thanks! Brian Rose

I just got some test footage back from a new camera I bought, a Bealieu 5008 MS, and I noticed the oddest blurring. The image was more or less intact, but for some objects in the distance, I could see horizontal ghosting...essentially, things like trees and distant buildings were doubled, with one, fainter image on top of the other. I thought it might be a registration issue, yet I noticed that this effect was less pronounced, or even absent entirely with objects in the foreground. Only the more distant subjects exhibited this doubling of the image. Could this be a lens or filter issue? I shot using an external daylight filter, mounted in a detachable frame holder. Once I am able, I'll post some frame grabs. Until then, any advice would be most appreciated! Best, Brian Rose

Hello All, I am in the planning stages for a documentary/investigative film. It would revolve around a drunk driving case that occurred in the my area, and the subsequent trial. I would really like to shoot 16mm. Now, this story has already concluded, which gives me a degree of planning, so I don't end up shooting 200 hours like Barbara Kopple did with "Harlan County, USA." Instead, the film would involve interviews, footage of documents, amd some recreations, akin to "The Thin Blue Line." Of course, even interviews can take up a lot of footage, and so I'm wondering if 16mm would be realistic. Is there any kind of rule of thumb when it comes to planning for how much footage to allot with a documentary project? At this moment in time, I have $10,000 as a baseline, since that is how much I can afford at the moment. Factoring in costs of stock, and processing/telecine, this would enable me to shoot 18,000 ft of film, or approx. 8 hours. In my experience making fiction films, I typically have shot at a 4:1 ratio, which in this case ought to be enough for a 1.5 to 2 hour feature. Of course, documentary is NOT narrative filmmaking, so is this right? Basically, any advice you all might have with regards to shooting a documentary on film would be great. Thanks! Brian Rose

All, I've seen that several labs offer a service by which film can be transferred to a mini hard drive, allowing the user to upload his/her footage directly to NLE, as opposed to a BetaSP, or MiniDV or the likes. I've heard much about the improved quality and convenience of such a service, but what are the drawbacks? Are there certain system requirements, or would it work on, say, a Mac G5? Is the added cost worth it for the quality. Any info would be great. I'd love to learn more about it. Thanks! Brian Rose

Hmmmm, this is a puzzler. Oh well, it could be worse. The camera is still great (its not that big a deal if I cannot shoot slightly wider super 8), and I got a fantastic price on the camera (so it wasn't like I was paying extra for the SD8). I would like it to be said that I don't want anyone to think I am in any way disatisfied, or upset. I don't want it to be assumed that I was scammed, or the person who sold me this camera was being less than forthright. The gentleman whom I bought this camera from was nothing but polite and courteous, and is a frequenter of this board. Perhaps there was some kind of mixup or mistake, but I could have ended up a lot worse off. It could have been a piece of junk, or an empty box. The camera is in fantastic shape, the meter works beautifully, and the battery was recelled (its a Beauleau 5008 MS). So, I'm not gonna quibble over some thing like the film gate size. So, if the seller of my camera reads this thread, I want them to know that I am still completely satisfied with the camera. I'm not one to b*#ch over a small thing, especially when it does not affect performance, and was not something I paid extra for. Its a superb camera, and if I did it over, I'd buy it again in a heartbeat. This thread was simply one for information. Admittedly, I'm still learning (self-taught), and I just wanted to gain more understanding of the situation. Thanks everyone. Brian Rose

Thanks for the info, but I'm still perplexed--maybe I should have reworded my original message. The gate of my new camera HAS been widened, and it is not my projector that is the matter, because I compared the actuall film under magnification alongside another roll I had shot, and the two were the same. I understand the mechanics of SD8, but not the processing of the film. I was not sure if perhaps lab equipment is designed for regular Super 8. My thinking was, perhaps the film went through on a roller that uses that edge of film, and thus, was not processed as it should have? Or have I got the process wrong? Brian R.

I appreciate your feedback, and perhaps I was not specific, but I already looked at the film gate, and my camera has definitely been modified. It is wider than my other camera's gate, which tells me that it is indeed SD8. Thanks Brian R.

I've got a technical question for you all regarding Super Duper 8. Recently, I bought a camera that had been modified to shoot SD8, and I shot some test film, Ektachrome 64T. However, when I got the film back, it was standard super 8! I know the problem is not the film gate, since it is DEFINITELY wider than the gate another camera I own. Additionally, the cropped image was not due to my projector, since I compared the actual film frame side by side with another reel I had shot, and detected no difference. So, my question is, did something go wrong during processing, i.e. should I have specified that it was SD8? I'm not too familiar with the mechanics of processing film, but it occurred to me that maybe the film was processed on a machine that was designed for S8, and as a result, it was set up for 4x3 aspect, and cut off the remaining film area. Wheewww! Anyways, have you ever heard of something like this happening? Should I be sending my super 8 to a certain lab whether in the US, or Canada? I used Dwayne?s Photo, out of Kansas, since they are one of the few labs still using the E6 process for Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Thanks! Brian Rose

The lens you have is meant to correct for light loss due to the Bolex's prism viewing system. A certain amount of light (I believe it is a half stop--others correct me if I'm wrong) is directed to the eyepiece for viewing, instead of passing directlyl to the film. As a result, with most c-mount lenses, you must compensate for this loss by opening the aperture an extra half stop to a stop on top of what your exposure meter tells you. Some lenses, like your switar however, were designed specifically for the Reflex, and already compensate for the light loss due to the reflex viewing system, thus negating the need to overexpose. What that does mean, on the other hand, is that if you use a lens intended for a Bolex Reflex on a camera like an Eclair that uses a mirror viewing system, you will have to underexpose by a half stop or so, to compensate for the additional light that would have been directed to the film, were it a Bolex. So, although your image ought not to have any sharpness issues, the film may be slightly underexposed, depending on the type of film stock you used. Understand? Best, Brian Rose

All, I was watching Lawrence of Arabia on DVD last evening. I've seen it several times, and last night, I got to thinking how much I really want to view it in 70mm on the big screen. I've seen that in the recent past, some theaters have screened it, notably at the AFI Silver Springs, or as part of R. Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival. But, I haven't heard of any new screenings. Does anyone know if/when someone will screen this movie again, as it was originally intended? Thanks! Brian Rose

Hey all, I just bought a Yvar 150mm telephoto lens for my Bolex, and it is great, except the focus ring is a little tight for my taste. When I turn it, it tends to stick through friciton, as though the lubricant was worn away. Anyone know how I could loosen it up? More lubricant? How? Thanks! Brian Rose

I use cinelab for all my processing and telecine, and I can say that their transfers are excellent. Even a one-light no frills transfer is of exceptional quality. The price is good too. Go with them! Best, Brian Rose

I realize that regular servicing is necessary for ensuring quality and longevity, but are there some things I can do for my camera that do not require sending it away? What can I do for my Eclair NPR that would help stretch my dollar? Like the equivalent of changing the oil in my car? Best, Brian Rose

"Depends on what you are and how you are approaching these things and how serious you take super 8" You make an excellent point. Let me put it this way: I have previous experience with Super 8, but I want a better camera to use for an upcoming class on Super 8. I expect most of my classmates to be unfamiliar with film in general. My goal is to blow their films out of the water. I want to produce the sharpest, steadiest picture, with the most amount of control over quality. So, you would then suggest the Beaulieau, I take it? Which model would you recommend? It is my understanding that these cameras have some battery issues...

I know this is an age old topic, but I'm looking at getting a nice super 8 camera. Everything I've read thus far is divided between the Canon 1014 XLS and the Beaulieu line. Which would you recommend? What kind of Beaulieu? I'm not too familiar with the various makes and their pros and cons. Thanks! Brian Rose

If I can give one tip, it would be this: avoid "camera inside refrigerator shots" like the plague. Of course, there is no rule against this, but I've seen lord knows how many student films that use this technique. It's amateurish, trite, and frankly, lazy. Yes Tarantino can get away with putting his camera in the trunk of cars, but he is Tarantino. Just don't do it. Best, Brian Rose

All, One of my favorite films is The Passion of Joan of Arc, and I am fascinated the soft black vignette that is present in nearly every shot of the film. It looks so unique, and pulsates as though alive. I am wondering, how would one achieve this? It is even possible to recreate this in camera, or is the effect merely an unavoidalbe a byproduct of the cine-technology of the time? Or is it something done in the lab during processing? Or, is it just something that happens to nitrate prints with age (the best print of the aforementioned film, and the one from which I have included a screengrab, had been stored in a closet). Would appreciate any info! Best, Brian Rose

It looks like 99 percent I will be going to SIU Carbondale. (I say that because I am still waiting on hearing from FSU--I'm probably waitlisted, but if I get accepted, that might change things, but unlikely) SIU is a great, small program known for their documentary work, and their emphasis on building skills in cinematography/DP work. Their most famous alum is probably Steve James, who went on to make a little documentary called "Hoop Dreams." As for the fellowship, I cannot say for certain what all factored in to getting my fellowship, although they did tell me they were very impressed that I was self taught. It certainly helped that I had a demo reel featuring my work in 16mm. Most kids my age haven't moved beyond miniDV handheld, y'know?

If you haven't read some of my posts below, here's my situation: I'll be attending film school in the fall to get my MFA (I've gotten a fellowship, which means free school the next three years--pretty sweet, eh?). Anyways, I own my own equipment and I was thinking about getting a super16 conversion. I figure it could give my projects that extra bit of quality. The school I'll be attending still works in reg. 16mm, which could also give my projects an edge over the other students. However, is super 16 really worth the price at this point for me, or should I instead devote that money to film, other equipment and project costs? What do you all think? Best, Brian Rose