GeorgeSelinsky

I remember once some guy shot 16mm Primetime and had it printed onto regular printstock, which is "not recommended" by EKC. The look was very similar to the VNF-1 Ektachrome reversal from what I recall, grain was similar too. The grain got sort of greenish though in the shadow areas, which looked unnatural. I suppose in theory you could cross process this sort of color mask free color negative film in a color reversal bath (with proper rem-jet removal) and get a normal positive image, probably a very low contrast one. - G.

When it comes to the older filmstocks, reversal films were, I believe, per ASA, sharper than their negative counterparts. This is definitely the case with black and white, Double X is more grainy than TriX on paper, and also on the screen. When it came to still photography the key issue was keeping what you had intended versus letting someone else take over and manipulate it for you. But I've also heard a lot of discussion that reversal color film was less granular and more sharp than its negative counterpart - although I've never shot a test to compare. Since it's impossible to fairly compare the grain of a slide to a print (two different presentation mediums) one would have to get a transparency made from the negative, or a Cibachrome print off of the slide to really tell. With color cine film in the past two decades, the color reversal emulsions were older in design than the color negative ones, so the inverse was effectively true: you used negative to get the best grain and sharpness. The currently discontinued VNF-1 process Ektachromes didn't have T-grains and other such niceties that the color neg EXR stocks, and later the color neg Vision stocks had, so filmmakers were basically forced to go negative (which, btw, is ultimately more efficient in most cases). It would be interesting to shoot a test of the Kodak 5285 versus the 100 Tungsten Vision 2 and check the results. However, it's worthy pointing out that projecting the original of 5285 and a PRINT from the color negative is not really fair, you'd have to make a dupe off of the Ektachrome in order to really see how it stands up (and with the lack of a direct reversal color dupe film, you'd have to go interneg which is another extra step). Ultimately you have to conduct tests under the system that you will be using. That is the most productive way to test. That said, shooting reversal has an additional advantage, you don't need to make an interpositive and can go directly to an internegative. This was the case for filmmakers that used to shoot on that ultra fine grain but SUPER SLOW Ektachrome Commercial (Asa 25 in Tungsten - you read that right) which had a specially lowered gamma - you couldn't project the original as it was too low contrast and warm looking. They could blow up to a 35mm internegative and then go straight to contact prints. A system like this for small format filmmakers and even for 35mm filmmakers could be somewhat more efficient, until full fledged 2K/4K digital intermediates drastically come down in price. I can see, for example, Kodak coming out with a 400 speed Ektachrome that can be processed in a low contrast E-6 bath (just like the modifiable VNF-1 bath) for low budget filmmakers that don't want to pay the extra price for an extra intermediate element. Right now I'm sitting here faced with a $12,500 pricetag for getting an interpositive and a $12,500 internegative done, when I could have just gone straight to a $12,500 internegative, get my video transfer off of that, and my prints off of that as well. - G.

Well, the closest you can get to the 35mm version of an instamatic is the Bell and Howell Eyemo. Those can go for under $1000. But the camera is non-reflex, the lenses are old, the camera is clunky (although quite portable), it uses a mere 1 minute load of film (though magazines are available, but they're a nuisance), and it has a windup spring that runs a little over 20 seconds per winding. The Russian Konvas is the next step up, which goes for around 1-2K and is reflex with more decent glass, has an electric motor and 200 (and some models, 400') mags. Cameras like the Konvas and the Arri IIa/b/c are good enough to do some serious work with, but that's if you intend to dub the sound later or don't need to record sync at all. I'm shooting a feature with my IIc right now (runs about 5-7 grand). - G.

Yes, but they can also take you to small claims court which doesn't cost much in any fees really (as you can represent yourself), it's more of an expense of time. There are some people out there who have no life and get their kick out of doing these things. - G.

I was taught to always ask in advance of doing anything, because when people are already in the shot, they can extort money from you and so on. You're automatically in a weaker bargaining position. - G.

I guess the best thing that's worked for me is asking very nicely and gently, saying "Would you mind if your image was in this film? It's about...." and then "Could you just sign this release, it's a formality that I need to legally use your image..." - G.

I don't want to get further involved in this at all, and this is not targeting anyone specifically on this forum, but in this instance Matt has a good point. I happen not to associate myself with either republicans or democrats, but I do occasionally see a double standard not just on the forum but in the entertainment business. We must strive to be more fair and accomodating of all points of view, as well as be more fair equilateraly about what sort of rhetoric is or is not okay. Peace to all, keep the silver coated acetate running (oops, I should have also said rust, I mean, magentic oxide coated tape :)) - G.

David's a man I respect very much, and had the pleasure of meeting. He's an intelligent craftsman who is very good at what he does and very generous with his advice (which he takes his time to offer). That said, I don't think it was right to start this thread from such an emotional tone, that Dave would leave this board to us "conservatives" - especially if this was an argument AGAINST political debate on this forum. I myself apologize for getting hooked into the political side of the debate on Van Gough. We are human beings however, we have emotions, and certain discussions (like in the Off Topic section, I'll repeat that again, OFF TOPIC section) are going to touch upon people's personal ideology. Where you're going to draw the line is really tough to do. I can't imagine that during the elections that people on film sets weren't occasionally engauged in arguments. It's normal, people are passionate about something that might mean a lot to them, and they want to speak about it sometimes. When 9-11 happened, it was nice to see so many colleagues inquiring about how the New York team (i.e. Mitch Gross) were doing. Is that poltiics? Could easily be seen as such... One of the great things about this forum is that we all become friends. When you write to someone a lot and exchange ideas, have certain things in common, it happens :) A side result of that is that we desire to take things on a further level. Either you say "no, keep it strictly professional", or "at your own discretion - but no personal abuse". - G.

Well, there are certain issues that people make awareness campaigns out of, i.e. wearing certain ribbons, holding vigils, etc. These things are important because the next time a filmmaker or writer recieves a death threat, authorities might be more pressured to act - nobody wants their career ruined by a protest of high profile artists. Van Gough was obviously NOT a Christian fundamentalist, as you can see by his comments. He was most likely an atheist. Yet the big faces in our entertainment industry didn't seem to catch on to what this murder actually symbolizes. I honestly think that the reason this has not gotten more public attention is because many of these high profile people are chicken to do any open protest campaigns, wear ribbons, etc. Everyone knows the zeal with which these crazy fundamentalists kill, and nobody wants to be caught amidst another Beslan. They feel by not raising the issue, it won't rustle any feathers and it will go away. They won't touch upon these subjects in their scripts for the same reason. We thus have a situation called "self censorship" Yet even in a heavily mob controlled town in Italy, people had the courage to hang out white sheets to protest a mob murder of a politician (name escapes me at the moment). Sadly I haven't seen or heard of any Ben Afflecks wearing any ribbons or making any public statements of outrage. There ARE people out there who have access to media channels and can afford to create an awareness campaign. It shouldn't be up to people like me, at the bottom of the ladder. These artists who've made their way to the top are all the more likely to become targets in the future themselves - and yes, Hollywood has recieved its share of death threats before. If we raise awareness, we will make people even more aware of the dangers of such violent censorship and encourage authorities to take a more active role in preventing such things from happening in the future. - G.

Very true. As a person of Russian descent I can tell you that many American liberals sympathised with Stalin and his regime. They turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians and other peoples of the USSR who were sitting in concentration camps. Some didn't know, but some did but didn't want anyone else to know, so they knowingly lied. There are many cases of repression that certain so called liberals overlook and ignore. I've seen and heard it much too often, and it makes me very upset. I can't get over the way everyone is so upset over Bush's war in Iraq but thinks that Clinton's bombing of civilian targets in Serbia and Montenegro (resulting in a casualty of 3000 people) was completely justifiable (all while completely ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo, Kraijna, and other regions of Bosnia by Islamic and Catholic paramilitaries). If it didn't make TV then it never happened I guess... Personally I don't agree with Van Gough's ideology, as a matter of fact I find some of his statements deplorable. But what is sad is the reason why he died and who he died from. As artists we're all, to a degree, in the same boat, and we have to be conscious of what is going on around us. That particularly concerns alarming trends such as these. We have to do everything possible to make sure the world knows that this trend is unacceptable. - G.

I think one of the major pains associated with S16 that U16 gets rid of is the optical recentering. That sorta saves a step, you can just file the gate down and so long as the lens covers it you're okay. Telecine shouldn't have a problem (they can go all the way out to the perforations if necessary), but optical printing might be a pain in the butt (although they can also pan out to the perfs, I believe). Personally I'm much more excited about techniscope 2 perf than Super or Ultra 16, but that hasn't caught on it seems :( - G.

AVI files can be anything, compressed with different compressors (i.e. Indeo, M-JPEG, DivX) or uncompressed. Uncompressed is obviously the highest quality you can get, but where is it coming from? If the facility can create uncompressed digital video directly from the transfer machine (they don't go to an intermediate tape format) then it's the best way to go - but I doubt that they can do it that way (I haven't heard of uncompressed transfers direct from the telecine to disk, not yet anyway). It's most likely they're going to run it to digibeta and then digitize that onto disk, but that's going to be expensive. Transfer to mini DV would be cheaper, quality would be a bit lower but could be okay for you. - G.

This is a great tragedy and should be a cause of alarm, outrage, and protest amidst all makers of film, studio and independent. If our society tolerates such acts of violence against any artist who offends someone else's point of view, we are sending a message to the lunatics of this world that their intimidation is a viable response. We are, in effect, allowing the most cruel and despicable form of censorship to take place - censor not only the idea, but the arist for eternity, punishing him or her with the death sentence! Not only the writer, not only the filmmaker can be endangered, but also those many people who take part in realizing this vision, who play a crucial role in putting across the message with their own creativity. I salute all filmmakers and their teams who have the bravery to make strong films, films that enrage repressive fanatics and militants throughout the world. I pray that every government security agency in their battle for a safer society ensures the safety of those artistic soldiers who are fighting the war on terror and repression with their cameras. - G.

I remember hearing about this scotchguard that you could get applied to your prints in order to prevent any scratches from occuring. Does anyone have any knowlege of this process and whether or not its worth the bother and cost? I called about 10 years ago and whoever was still doing it at the time. - G.

At the prices that facilities want for a DI, which is a process that in many cases looks less sharp and filmlike than the direct print (at least in my opinion), the direct print still seems a very attractive option. Of course I'm hoping that shortly prices for DI's will fall while quality goes up, which it will (I don't know how shortly this will be, though!)

I'm not advocating either way for Super or Ultra 16, but wouldn't it be interesting to combine BOTH formats in a way? Make the gate even wider so this way you'd end up with an even larger negative area? Would be cool I think. - G.

God, what people are up to these days just to get a different look! I bet you anything we're not so far away before we see "Neg baking" pop up as the most FAQ on the forum, bypassing ENR and cross processing. Anyone care to write the first negative cookbook? We can even develop it into a crazy canabalistic ritual perhaps where all the outtakes have to be cooked and eaten by those responsible for the mistake. I doubt Kubrick would have enjoyed that ritual... :P

The K-3 is semi auto. Some have modified it to full automatic which makes it an NFA camera and therefore illegal to own without a class III license. Don't buy into the pre-1981 auto sear myth either, it's considered "parts to make" an automatic camera and can land you 10 years into prison. The K-3 can also be modified to do a three shot burst like the M-16, check on the web. The K-3, like the M-16, does have a tendency to jam so be sure you keep it clean. It doesn't accept bayonette mount, that would make it an assault camera and prevent it from being imported. The lens is sharp and accurate, you can print a nice 1 inch group at 100 yards handheld as long as you keep the barrel clean. I use Kodak ammunition, it seems to work best with it as it has that nice non-corrisive rem jet backing. It's amazing how similar cameras and guns are :D All serious now, I think you could probably apply some tape or something to keep the iris plunger in place when you use certain still camera lenses on the K-3.

I am in great sympathy, I also have had passions like that. Always thought an Apple IIe was a fun thing to play with. Also keep joking in my head about shooting a regular 8mm feature film on Kodachrome 25 (although it's not around anymore I sadly hear). - G.

If you bought short ends at say 0.12/ft, got it processed for 0.13/ft, and transferred one light at 0.075 per ft, you'd end up with just under $5K for a 5:1 shooting ratio for stock alone, which is a pretty low ratio (I'd say just BARELY acceptable). If you got to borrow a camera you'd just barely get it in the can for $6K, and probably a little over. I agree, 35mm for a short is a waste of money. 16mm is an option I'd consider because you'll get to make a nice film print versus going video projection (although the sound man/sound designer/composer will hate you for it). - G.

The one thing you should learn about it is that it is most likely not worth the bother. The quality of 16mm optical sucks. I'd suggest that you record your sound double system, the Auricon can do that I think, I believe it runs in sync although I'm not 100% sure (some models don't I believe). Unless of course you have a particular like of the quality. - G.

If I was allowed to spend it on anything, I'd simply put that money into making a feature, period, whatever that would take. If I had to spend it all on camera gear alone.... The first thing I'd do is go into a rental house and spend at least a week shooting tests with various cameras and lens combinations. Then I'd find what I like the best and go to purchase it. I'd rather have several less expensive cameras than one expensive one, probably would be fine with one set of prime lenses and a few zooms, an assortment of filters, get a steadicam vest, a nice crab dolly, and of course a van to drive it around in. I wouldn't invest in major lighting equipent or grip gear, just some basic stuff that a small crew could handle. I'm pretty much a meat and potatoes guy, so long as the image quality is good and secondly, the ergonomics are good, that's what I primarily care about. Stuff like ramping shutters and all this timecode stuff I'm not so excited about. It's nice to play with and it makes some people's life easier but totally unnecessary for making a feature film. It's really about having a reliable camera and good glass to record the images with, and whatever does that job makes me a happy man.

I'd personally sooner invest in a camera than a set of high quality glass. You can spend under a thousand bucks and get a set of Cooke Ser II/III lenses that are okay (not that I'm very happy with them but they certainly do the job and deliver 35mm images on the screen). To get something that is two steps better you gotta pay about twenty times the price. Lenses are awfully fragile, sort of like filters. Someone drops it and you can loose it. I remember one DP who screwed up a multicoat Zeiss lens on a shoot by rubbing mud into it, the repair cost $700 to replace the front coating. I certainly wouldn't want that to happen to my glass. As far as future proof, probably as future proof as cameras I'd say, not much more or less. It seems like the desire to have the latest and greatest camera is often accompanied by the desire to have the latest and greatest lens. As a matter of fact it does seem silly to spend the money on a good hot rod camera and not bother getting nice sharp glass for it, being that the rate for glass is a bit lower overall than the camera rate. If I was ordering a package from a rental house I'd certainly look at it that way - I'd actually sooner work with an older camera and have newer glass on it than the other way around. If I slap the newest Zeiss lens on my Arri IIc (though I don't know if they come in the old standard Arri mount...) I'm going to get better images than if I rent a 535 and slap my old Cookes on it. Argh, movie equipment is so expensive to buy. If you're going to get something, I'd get something older and cheaper that works well and that can be used as a backup instead of a modern piece of gear that costs so much and is assuming a risk. I can take my Arri or even Eyemo with its old lenses out anytime I want to film, that's what I love about them. I can work with a crew of one if I need to, and since I direct also, I like to have that option. But if you're a working DP I don't think that's really necessary - I like it when other guys worry about the camera rental and the filmstock :lol: - G.

From Clive Tobin's site http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/ Cameras That Are an Accident Waiting to Happen. This includes virtually all of the super-8 cameras made by Kodak. The only exception is the original M-2 of 1965, which has long-lived Nylon or Delrin gears and may run forever. The M-4 also has good gears but it used a cleverly hidden mercury cell for the light meter, which by now has most likely sprung a leak and literally eaten away all of the copper light meter wiring and galvanometer. Even if not, mercury cells have all been banned so you will not find a replacement. The M-12 and up, all of the XL cameras, and all of the Ektasound cameras have I believe a fatal flaw in the form of a motor gear made out of some kind of experimental rubbery plastic. It has by now turned to cheese-like strength and appearance, and is likely to fall apart in the middle of your first roll, if it has not already self-destructed and crumbled to powder.

To add, I do think it would be interesting to have a page on the internet where you can share do it yourself motion picture gadgets. Like a movie processing tank for instance. I started my own movie processing page at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky Thusfar nobody has posted any plans, I guess digital is taking over :lol: My favorite wish list item would be a home transfer device for 16mm (and it would be nice to have a 35mm version, too), so I could do dailies at home. That is probably the one thing that I would find potentially marketable too, because the prices that transfer houses charge are high and we don't always need that quality. I was thinking, what you might be able to do that would be marketable in Super 8 is to find some of the old Kodak Super 8 cameras that are no good anymore because they used this dumpy "cheese gear" as Clive Tobin calls them. You could probably buy them awfully cheap and rebuild those to have a new motor inside of it, maybe even find a way of blimping it. But don't let me talk you into this, I'm notoriously evil about doing that to myself sometimes <_< - G.