Mister X

Being a writer, I'd caution you that merely having an idea for a film is not very tempting for a screenwriter working "on speculation," ("spec" screenplays are written with the hope of eventually being sold, rather than as an assignment or work-for-hire). Most writers have plenty of their own ideas that they are trying to develop into their own screenplays, and most of them want to be paid for their work. Screenwriters are looking for producers who will buy their screenplays or pay them for a writing assignment; and, if you provide little information about yourself beyond a hotmail address, you are quite liable to be rudely treated on some message boards. That having been said, you might want to check out the Done Deal Message Board, (under "Announcements, News, & Opportunities"). This message board may be unavailable, at times, between now and April 28th, due to the relocation of its server. If you are thinking of a short screenplay, you may want to check out Short Scripts, (where you could leave a "Scripts Wanted" notice).

Altho I know that my Kern Switar lenses, (16mm and 25mm), have 32mm front threads, I have not found any reference to the exact size of the front threads of my Kern Switar 75mm lens, (nor the identical thread for my Kern Pizar 50mm lens). They appear to be 42mm threads. Can anyone advise me of their exact size? Also, anyone with a Kern Vario-Switar lens may be interested in some auctions of PX1A batteries on eBay, by mdbattery. If you have an OE or POE lens, these are the batteries for your power zoom, (replacing the PC1A, mercury battery). These are available to the U.S. and Canada, with the Buy-It-Now option, at US$3.75 each. Being hard to find, in Canada, and at a cheap price, you may want to get a few while their supply lasts.

Lots of info on the Krasnogorsk-3 at NCS Products. If you can't stand the sniping at eBay, check out some of the camera websites that sell Bolex cameras and equipment. The prices may be higher, but you can often be assured of getting a quality product, (rather than something found in the attic or at a garage sale). Caveat emptor!

Unless your camera is upon an equatorial mount, (matching the apparent motion of the sky), exposures of more than fifteen seconds duration may show star trails. Most astrophotography is done with still cameras, and these images are often linked together to produce animated films. Using a good intervalometer, (such as one offered by NCS Products), equatorial mount, light meter, and filters to reduce light pollution and enhance the subject, I think that some amazing films could be produced on a movie camera. Apart from finding a site away from city haze, highways, and farmyard lights, you're going to really have to experiment a lot to find out what works best with your equipment and different film stocks. Check out: http://www.polarimage.fi/ http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6529/primer.html

If you are not too concerned about camera noise, there are lots of Bolex cameras available on eBay. If you just want to experiment, (and resell it, later), this might be a good choice. However, caveat emptor!

I'd think that it would be too blue. See why in the example for the 85 series filter. Why shoot it with tungsten? Why not use an 82 series filter to cool down with daylight film?

Open to U.S. and Canadian (except Quebec) residents. Thanks for the heads up on this one.

Greetings, Having looked long and hard at many options, I have become interested in Ultra 16 for a number of reasons. DV cameras, (even with anamorphic and native 16:9 chips), do not offer the resolution that 16mm film can provide. 35mm costs are simply beyond any low budget production, (except for Russian MOS cameras with their considerable difficulties in supplies and options). 16mm is the established format for low budget productions and standard television, but, it will not provide a widescreen image without severe cropping or the use of anamorphic lenses. Super 16 is an intermediate format, which either has to be blown up to 35mm, blown down to 16mm, or transferred to a digital intermediate. While I have seen many excellent feature films that were shot with Super 16, these productions had a budget that allowed for a 35mm blow up for theatrical distribution. What I often see Super 16 touted for is making your film production safe for widescreen television, but this can also be done with Ultra 16. I've decided to buy a 16mm camera and convert it to Ultra 16. I can shoot single or double perf film, as I would for a regular 16mm camera. I should not need to modify anything more than the film gate and viewfinder of the camera. The film can be processed, cut, and printed like any other 16mm film, (without an intermediate step). Yet, I'll have that extra image on the original negative, if it is needed for a widescreen format. I'll have much better resolution and far more shooting options than most prosumer DV cameras, I'm not playing about with expensive anamorphic lenses and their distortions, and I don't need to blow up or blow down to an established format with Super 16. As I see it, I can shoot 16mm for very low budget production, but, (for the relatively small conversion cost to Ultra 16, compared to anamorphic lenses or a conversion to Super 16), I can provide a widescreen image, when it will be needed. Presently, my principal concerns in converting to Ultra 16 are in finding what lenses are safe for this filming gate, (undoubtedly, far more are safe for Ultra 16 than for Super 16), and in finding labs that can handle the Ultra 16 format, (for when I do need to go to a digital intermediate). Any advice on these matters would be most helpful and welcome.