GeorgeSelinsky

I remember I had more than one director on the student shorts I shot request the dolly zoom. It's fairly popular in student films, 'cause student filmmakers always gotta do those few crazy shots you know :rolleyes: - G.

I'LL PRAY THAT NEW FILMMAKERS READING YOUR POSTS DON'T TAKE YOUR ADVICE WHICH IS BASED ON FICTION Which is the only reason I even bother to reply. Who ever you are Mr. Ultra Def, I've given game to your topics but I see this as a waste of time. My friendly advice to you is to stop posting here and simply go out and shoot your HD masterpieces (or rather, wait for that $30,000 package to become affordable for you). You're obviously happy with it so much, it works for you, so use it. I'd be glad to see you posting samples of your work for us to see how crafty you are. But don't go on a preaching rampage here. We've heard your argument to death, it's recorded in Google history, now leave it alone - otherwise you're suggesting to us that you have no real work and this is your primary means of entertainment. Your knowlege of film and filmmaking seems awfully minimal and seems to have no backing in experience, i.e. using "wow and flutter" to discuss Super 8 images. We can see you talk the talk but it's fairly obvious to all here that you don't walk the walk. Enough said. - G.

Your distributor will at that time pick up the tab. Oh sure they will. I don't understand where this conventional piece of wisdom came about, but that's not a rule like many people say it is. Even if they'll "pick up the tab", that often comes at a high cost to you because the distributor is taking an additional financial risk towards your film. You have more leverage and bargaining power if all your elements are in place, or at the very least you have a cut negative, versus waiting for them to say "Oh sure, you have such a great movie we're going to set you all up and give you the best deal..." By the way, it's interesting that your girlfriend is so into this stuff that she also comes here and posts... - G.

In a matter of months you will be able to buy a $30K production and postproduction system that will be 1080/24p and will allow the biggest theater screen presentation. My Nizo Super 8 camera is also capable of " the biggest theater screen presentation.", but as Slick Willy once put it, "that depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is..." The fact remains the same, every time something "drops in price" and becomes more accessible to indie filmmakers, there is always the next greatest thing up on the ladder that costs considerably more and that the professionals are going to adopt, and therefore set a new benchmark to compete against. So either way, the dream many digital filmmakers have of one day being able to have a completely level playing field with the high end pro gear is really naive. The moment indie filmmakers will be able to afford 1080 24p cameras, there will be something with twice the resolution and a greater dynamic range that will be the new benchmark - so your 1080 24p images will already be blah in comparison. Manufacturers aren't stupid, they're not going to sell a $100,000 camera for $20,000 if they know they can get away with selling it for $100,000 for a few years still. The reason these prices heavily drop usually is because the next greatest thing is on the way, and when that new product emerges they will price it accordingly - in other words, high - and the older techology/standard will become more affordable. The idea here is that George Lucas and you will never be shooting the same digital camera. He's always got the money for the latest and greatest - and you don't. Either way I wouldn't be caught dead investing in any serious video gear right now. Film has been around for over 100 years and the modern slate of filmstocks really rock. Independent filmmakers can now shoot a film without worrying as much about light as they once had to (I pity those indie filmmakers who back in the 70's tried to shoot on Ektachrome Commercial with its 25 asa rating). I'm editing my 35mm feature right now on the same computer I'm using to write this, with a cheap DV camcorder as my source deck. I can handhold my camera, I can take it into places with little or no lighting, I can do almost anything that a digital camera can do with it. What more can an indie filmmaker ask? To me its obvious - the marriage of the digital and film is still the best formula for success. Digital is great for handling the media (editing for instance) and doing special effects, film is optimal for capturing the images and for projecting them on a large screen. That will change one day, but if Kodak continues to move along with newer emulsions that kick ass, and if the digital techology still doesn't mature to equal even the earlier filmstocks in lines per MM and dynamic range, we will be shooting film, indies and pro's alike, for years to come still. - G.

Strange, I thought all Bolexes, old and newer, run single perf. - G.

But with the 35 short end deal I get it for $270 ;) and I get 35mm resolution and grain. In my experience 16mm short ends are almost always grainier (I guess whoever shoots it usually stores the stuff badly), and even if you could get the short ends in abundance with 16mm it's usually a better idea to go new. Anyway, bottom line is "Pro 8mm" is expensive as all hell. - G.

I might as well add to what Mitch said, that I can also do the same for less using short ends of 35mm at $0.11/ft - processing and one lite to mini DV included with tapestock :D

Agreed. I didn't flinch when I bought my Arri made in the 70's that it would still be of productive use not only for the next two years but quite a while afterwards. The Canon L-2 that I got back new in 1995 with such excitement is now pretty much useless. - G.

When I did some calculations I figured that you could get three rows out of a perforated 35mm strip. I guess either I'm wrong or he wasn't able to get it to cut very well. Good for him anyway! - G.

RVNP is a very fast version of VNF-1, which can develop your reversal film in 7 minutes plus drying time, versus the 14 minutes plus drying of VNF-1. I imagine the images must be a little grainier and contrastier as a result, but I never tried it before (I gather this was the process that TV stations ran). - G.

Actually, for straight to tape and TV stuff I'd be more likely to go with Super 16. The new Vision2 500 is so terrific, I just saw a film shot in Super 16 with that filmstock blown up to 35 and I have to say it's really impressive. I'd still probably use the 200 speed in most cases, so you'd need about a stop more's worth of light, but the portability in gear and less frequent reloads would be a plus you might find beneficial for certain kinds of work. I should also add that I'm using non-sync, noisy cameras to film. If you want blimped 35mm cameras that's going to be an expensive investment if you want to buy the gear. For the same price I paid for my MOS 35mm camera you can get a blimped sync CP 16 or an Eclair NPR (I don't know if you can get them in modified Super 16 format at that price, though). I'm also shooting on short ends, which is not exactly standard procedure but it saves a hell of a lot of $$$ versus buying the stuff new. It seems now that Super 16 has a bit of a future ahead of it still, despite what I thought a while back. The new generation of filmstocks coupled with good glass is definitely a terrific combo. - G.

I am not doing a 16mm project now but I have one question that has bugged me for a long time. Everywhere I read I always hear that zero cut is, like, totally standard operating procedure for 16 -> 35 work. My understanding in reading the theory behind this is that some 16mm splicers aren't perfectly adjusted, and because of this there's a risk of having a jump at the splice in the optical printer. This begs the question - why not just use a perfectly aligned, tested 16mm hot splicer? Either that or I have misread something, and the truth is that optical printers are all going to jump at a splice regardless how perfect it is... - G.

I absolutely agree 110%. That has been a main argument of mine. The problem that I see is that the prices of E-6 35mm MP raw stock have been through the roof (I mean, we're talking a 70% increase in price per foot). It didn't quite make logical sense. I understand that EKC doesn't want still photographers buying the stuff and spooling it down for cheap, but that's not a serious threat in my opinion. I know there are some issues with the film's backing that becomes an obstacle with motion picture use, but hopefully this can be resolved efficiently. What concerns pressure for a profit, I've always dreamed that some engineer with some time on their hands could make an affordable 35mm to Super 8 reperforator, and come up with a good reloadable cartridge system. That would work wonders. Combine that with a small batch Super 8 processor and a home transfer device and the world of still 35mm stock is open to you, at a very good price per foot all around. So long as they make it in 100' rolls, it can be done. I think for a niche market something like this might work. After all, this isn't targeted towards the grannies with Brownies. - G.

But long before the VNF-1 Ektachrome was introduced, amateurs by and large stopped using Super 8. Back in the late 1980's practically everyone was shooting VHS, VHS-C, or video 8mm. Once in a blue moon I'd see someone with a Kodak sound Super 8 camera or something else, but very, very rarely (and like I mentioned above, this would usually be a person who simply didn't know about video and shot so little that they were fine using what they already had for many years - I know because I often took the time to ask). Already back then, people were looking at me with my Super 8 camera and saying "ever hear of video?" To add, I never saw anyone with a B&H filmo shooting 16mm home movies on Kodachrome 25/40 at all. Only years later, like in the late 90's, Kodak began marketing Super 8 in the professional department - which to me was at least ten years too late. Before that many people didn't even know that Super 8 still existed, and we're talking film students and teachers at NYU, as well as other working pro's - not just people off the street. The point is not to raise Super 8 to the level of Super 16 or 35mm, because it is more of a novelty format than a classic production medium, but to be aware of who uses it and where to best sell it. If it's still profitable to make, it is wise to sell it in a maximally profitable manner. Recategorizing a product shouldn't cost millions of bucks. By the late 80's it was pretty obvious to me that most of those who used the format were experimental filmmakers and people like myself, who wanted to learn how to shoot and make films. At that time I think EKC was simply resigned to the format's extinction and was waiting for the inevitable. Had this not happened I think that the format would be in considerably better shape than it is today, it would not only be more popular but it would be more serviced by professional facilities, and the cost of shooting it would be less overall.

Nobody's talking about a million dollar advertizing campaign. The changes I've mentioned would only require a modification of entries in their catalog. If that costs a million bucks then I really should get into offset printing :D What I dislike is when I see a lack of efficiency. For the longest time Kodachrome wasn't listed in any professional product catalog, yet Kodak made it and someone somewhere kept buying it. I used to read Kodak's literature like a hawk, would be sitting in my tenth grade class with Kodak's black "films for the cinematographer" brochure and study film characteristics (my math teacher took it away once). I never knew, until years later when a girl walked into our film class at NYU with Kodachrome 25 from EKC in NY, that Kodak still made Kodachrome in 16mm. My teacher, who has been shooting film since the 50's, was also shocked (he used to shoot Kodachrome commercial a lot). Is it any surprise then that there has been a drop in demand and that Kodachrome processing costs a mint and a half? I certainly don't think so. Same thing concerns Super 8. it was practically ignored in all professional MP Kodak literature for the longest time. Even though there were attempts like the VP-1 and the ES-8 processing machine, once these were dropped Super 8 seemed to fall back into the consumer department's literature, which was primarily read by grannies that hadn't heard of video yet, or crazy kids like myself who heard of the format and desparately wrote to Kodak for more information. As a matter of fact, when I got the letter from Kodak it never said anything about the existance of Plus X or Tri X in Super 8 either, only Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Before the internet, this was becoming a dark science. - G.

Please take out advertizements all over the internet with this important piece of knowlege. Yeah, it's expensive, it's not as easy to thread a magazine as it is to pop in a tape, there are other inconveniences like critical focus that we're all well aware of. But damn, I certainly spend less time lighting 35mm than any other format, even 16mm when you consider that you're almost always using a slower filmstock in 16. That is really a relief to me and the way I like to work. I have an interesting situation where I have a consumer DV camera running side by side with my 35mm footage (I use the video camera to get the reference sound for dubbing). Given the same lighting the DV totally looks way too contrasty, the 35mm looks just the way I want it to. To bring down that contrast I'd have to either fly in fill cards, or diffuse the source, and find JUST the right amount of diffusion so that I still have definable shadows, or play with both. That's like 2 to 3 times the work for a DV image. Granted the professional DV cameras have a better range and a better lens, but it's not THAT a big of a difference. If anyone wants to save TIME on the set with the choice of format, 35mm is the best way to do it I think. I think even when you add the reloads, the increased weight of the camera, and the focus rehearsals, it's still faster. - G.

In 16mm I shot with the Bolexes (a few models, my personal is the non-reflex S-4 model which is probably the best non reflex one), I've also shot with an Arri S, CP-16, Arri SR I and II. Forgot, maybe something else too. In 35mm it's been the MOS cameras, the Arri IIc which you see me with in the picture, the Eyemo, the Russian Konvas. Concerning video I'm usually bad at memorizing the model numbers but I've shot with a few ENG style DVCams a few times, then in Mini DV on the pro end, the Canon XL-1 (which I like), and a few others. I cut my teeth in Hi-8 on the Canon A-1 and later, L-2 which I own, and I've also used some ENG style Hi-8's. Then in Super 8 I've shot with my Nizo S-40 (the best camera I've ever used I think, simple and fun), a sound GAF Super 8 camera, forgot I must have shot some others too. Then in Regular 8 the Kodak brownies (a few of those) and the Bell and Howell one (which is a lot like a mini Eyemo that you can hold in your palm). I'm sure I'm forgetting some other stuff. I don't like the idea of using many different cameras. There's one saying I like, "Beware of the man who owns only one rifle. Chances are he knows how to use it very well". - G.

Those prices are marked up bigtime. Kodachrome retails for about $11.00 a cartridge direct from Kodak. Someone over there is making a nice profit off of them, especially the Vision stock. - G.

I don't want to argue this to death but the point I was making was that for a "shoot and run scenario", which is what a lot of low budget films do, it's somewhat less stressful to use less expensive gear. You try stealing subway footage with a $65,000 package and have something go wrong, either the transit cops take you in and confiscate your gear, or you're trying to change a lens and then the train jumps, causing you to drop or screw up the lens, or some junk dripping from the ceiling of the station pours onto your gear (I remember one DP had mud hit the face of a Zeiss zoom, cost was $700 to replace the front coating) or God forbid someone sees your gear and does a hit and run robbery, etc. Obviously if you have a permit and two AC's, then you're okay. Again, it's all about having an MOS package to suppliment a main production camera, in most cases. It's a great feeling to know that if you want to film something, you can just pick up a camera and go. Can you imagine telling a still photographer that he or she has to go and check out their Nikon at a rental place if they had a quick idea for a picture, or telling an artist that he has to go and rent a pencil to do a quick sketch? I'm not saying everyone should be shooting their entire feature with a IIc using old Cookes like I am (although some great masterpieces of cinema were shot that way, so it's not exactly an unacceptable method). - G.

Sometimes I wonder if these people will ever learn either on the set or watching the dailies, or both. Probably not. This is really the whole video culture coming in, with personal camera packages being standard. - G.

Sync motors go for a very high amount of money sometimes. I just saw a sync motor that runs for $7K. It is excellent in that it can be controlled to very tight tolerances. But in reality, what is involved in making a motor so controllable? Do manufacturers like TCS custom make their own motors from the magnets up, or do they simply use an available motor and hook up electronics that track the speed and regulate the voltage to slow or speed the motor? Are there any kind of internal "breaks" that slow the motor down? I'm just curious how this works. - G.

Well, to put it a bit more accurately it's a group of people who decide basing their decisions on the current market trend. Sometimes I wonder how sound their judgement is. I still think that some discontinued films dropped in popularity because of the way they were marketed. I recall sometimes having a problem even FINDING some filmstocks in Kodak catalogs. I also used to see descriptions that were not realistic. For example, Kodak still lists VNF-1 films as perfect for documentary use, when in fact I don't recall hearing or seeing any Ektachrome based docs in ages. Nobody in the marketing department decided to give it a spin for the cross processing or "classic documentary/newsreel" look, for example. I guess so long as enough high speed car crashes were being filmed per month it was good enough. I also can't see how the death of 4-X was justified. B&W people are now shooting more Ilford because of the HP-5. It didn't help that 4-X was marketed with big letters saying "warning, this is a very grainy film". Grainy it was, but what do you expect with a 500 asa filmstock? Ilford never marketed their stuff that way. I'm not even going to touch Super 8, which I think was clumsily handled in the marketing department during the video era, and only now finally is it picking up in a good direction (like the Kodak Super 8 site). Video really seemed to demoralize people in the film department and Kodak was busier trying to enter the VHS camcorder business. That ended up not being profitable, I don't remember the last time I saw a Kodak camcorder - while I still see Super 8 sells. Anyway, my 2 c's for all its worth. - G.

Well, there's a difference between being sad and getting a heart attack :unsure: Even with the IIc at $100 a day, it still wouldn't work for me. After 50 check ins/check outs the package is mine for life. Can't argue with that. Then there's all that time and gas money I saved... Now a BL-4 package at $350 a day (or even at $500 a day) is a different story. It will take you a LOT more check ins/outs to own that baby. I think in reality many filmmakers want to shoot on a regular block schedule, but in practice this doesn't happen very often on low budget shoots (especially VERY low budget shoots). While I still agree that the sync packages are best left to the rental house in the vast majority of cases (although I'd probably buy a BL 1 if I had to shoot sync over 80 days in my current environment, as described above), the MOS package is a real plus to have, especially for director DP's. You can't really go wrong for that money, as long as you have a working piece of equipment. - G.

Agreed. At the same time, you'd be more reluctant to take a $20,000 camera out on a shoot and run scenario than a $5000 camera. I've done risky shots (like filmed off of a ship and out a window) which I really wouldn't risk with a more expensive package unless I had people there taking care of the camera fulltime. I've also done things like pull my lenses just slightly out of their mounts in order to get a macro effect. Good luck if you jounce the camera by accident or tilt it low enough, forgetting that your lens is loose - and goodbye charlie. Of course, I'm not saying that you shouldn't get more expensive gear if it's reasonably affordable, but that there are advantages to having a cheap package sitting around, you definitely can get mileage out of it. - G.

I saw an ad for a Cine 60 blimp for the Arri IIc, from an old ad dating to the late 60's or early 70's (from Filmcrew magazine, where they had a collage of old ads). I saw a camera operator hand holding the camera with this big black blimp. I have only once seen this blimp on ebay and it was being sold for parts only (some guy tried to mod it unsuccesfully). This is obviously not the classic S120 blimp that weighs like a tank. Can anyone comment on this particular model? It has a black handle on top of it that looks like it's part of the mag, and the blimp is made of a synthetic like material. Thanks, - George.