Jump to content

Carl Looper

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    1440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Carl Looper

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Digital Image Technician
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Jeremy, I've acquired the same camera and am having the same conundrum regarding the motor. Would you be willing to share your solution? I'm interested in driving the 1:1 shaft with a custom built motor, but the shaft resists forward rotation and any backward rotation force I apply winds up the spring motor. I'm assuming there must be a way of disengaging the spring motor mechanism but I can't see any obvious way of doing that. Any clues you have would be greatly appreciated.
  2. In the older Ektachrome they diverged at dmax, but that may not necessarily be the case for the newer Ektachrome. The curves may very well be correctly drawn. If they are not correctly drawn that would be a very different issue from the typo identified (log10 units vs camera stops) as it would require someone deliberately drawing those incorrect curves.
  3. Correction. In my last post I said: Since unwanted transmissions through impure dyes decrease with an increase in dye density, you could increase the density of the impure dyes with respect to what you might otherwise do were the dyes pure - or what amounts to doing the same thing: decrease the density of the purer dyes with respect to the impurest one. It should read: Since unwanted transmissions through impure dyes increase with an increase in dye density, you want to decrease the density of the impure dyes with respect to what you might otherwise do were the dyes pure - o
  4. I believe the difference in the RGB sensitivity is to compensate for dye impurity. Reversal film can't use the orange mask method used by colour neg, but it can compensate for dye impurities through control of RGB sensitivity. Since unwanted transmissions through impure dyes decrease with an increase in dye density, you could increase the density of the impure dyes with respect to what you might otherwise do were the dyes pure - or what amounts to doing the same thing: decrease the density of the purer dyes with respect to the impurest one. Cyan is the worst offender, and yellow the least, wit
  5. The curve provides a map between the amount of light exposing the film (horizontal axis) and the corresponding density of the processed film (vertical axis). We can say from the graph that the new Ektachrome has a dynamic range of about 9 stops. The density range of the processed film is 10.7 stops (3.22 in log10 units). The density range is larger than the exposure range to accommodate for darkness adaption in a cinema environment.
  6. The published characteristic curve for Ektachrome 7294 must have a typo. According to the published curve, the film has an input range of only 2-3 camera stops! That can't be right. Previous releases of Ektachrome have had an input range of about 8 stops. However, if we otherwise assume the input scale on the current publication is in log10 units (the "camera stops" title being a typo), the input range would then be 8 stops, (ie. consistent with previous Ektachrome). Previous curves for Ektachrome have had a larger difference in densities at the shoulder. Can we trust the current published cu
  7. Yes, that's the implication being drawn. Not that I'm entirely satisfied with the analogy as photography, be it digital or analog, will differ from painting far more than they will differ from each other.
  8. With the invention of photography in the 1800s, the market for particular types of paintings (such as landscape and portraiture) moved across into photography. For a little while there was a sense in which "painting was dead" but it was only a particular type of painting that had died: that type of painting which had been dreaming of photography, anticipating it, mimicking it, faking it, in advance of it's invention. A different type of painting would wake up from it's centuries old dream of photography, to pursue alternative visions of what could be done in paint - and that which photography
  9. In the previous post I suggested that connecting the terminals 1 and 8, opens the shutter, and disconnecting them closes the shutter, however it might be the case (it's been a while since I've done this) that you need to make a connection followed by a disconnection to open the shutter, and then make another connection followed by a disconnection, to close the shutter. Testing with some ad-hoc probes will establish what is required. C
  10. Depending on what you're after you might find it interesting to make your own control unit for the Leicina, allowing (for example) laptop control of the camera. This can be done using an Arduino as an intermediary between camera and laptop. Or one might use a Raspberry Pi. In any case, for control of exposure time, terminals 1 and 8, in the following diagram, do the trick. You connect these terminals to open the shutter, and then disconnect them to close the shutter. You can test this out using ad hoc probes plugged into terminals 1 and 8 on the camera port. Having satisfied yourself t
  11. A flashback need not be from the point of view of anyone. It's not as if the past can only exist as someone's personal recollection of it. If we are free (as we are) to move the camera around in space, and adopt points of view that do not belong to anyone in the story, we're also free to move around in time in the same way. To see more than what the characters can see. Or see less. In both space and time. The film itself becomes it's own character with it's own reasons for being at a particular place and time. I recall a great film (but can't recall the name or the director) in which two l
  12. Am looking forward to seeing the new print. It's playing at our local cinema in 70mm. Have seen this film so many times over the decades. It was one of the first films I ever saw, which might account for my obsession. But then Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was also one of the first films I ever saw and have had no compunction whatsoever to revisit that film at all. C
  13. Yes, I'd agree that by "film look" Yedlin is referencing normally processed 35mm colour neg. But on the digital side he's arguing against any notion of normal processing, ie. arguing that there is no such thing as a "normal" process, or if there were argued such a thing, he would argue against such a conception, and on that basis he would use a particular process (ie. his particular algorithms and workflow) to obtain the particular look he is pursuing - namely the look of "normally" processed film. This can be read in the following exchange between Carvahal and Yedlin, regarding the test (
  14. The only real problem with Yedlin's test is the assumption that the question being asked, in a film/digital debate, is a question regarding which medium to use. In the case of filmmakers who already use film, (or already use digital), or already use both, the question can be entirely different. For example, if using digital, one might ask "what kind of result can I get that I can't get using film", or reciprocally, if using film: "what kind of result can I get using film that I can't get using digital". In other words one might very well be looking for a way to differentiate between the tw
×
×
  • Create New...