GeorgeSelinsky

Again, like I said in my very initial posting about Super 8, I am not for creating special low con STOCKS from scratch, just a low con E-6 PROCESS, that is take an E-6 film and develop it so it has the low contrast that ECO did. This way you can send your Ektachrome to a lab with the markings "Normal Con" or "Low Con". Preflashing isn't an easy option for Super 8. - G.

Yes, and then you pass that phase and move up to 35mm, when you learn what focus is all about :lol: - G.

There was for VNF-1 an LC first developer, it had two differing ingredients from the stock DR-100 formula called DR-101: 2.1 g of Sodium Bromide and 0.019 g of Potassium Iodide versus the stock 1.3 g and 0.013 g respectively. There was also an LC color developer DR-151, it had 4.3 g of Citrazianic acid versus 1.5 g, plus an additional ingredient - 2 g of Sodium Thiocyanate. The first developer for the LC process ran 1 degree cooler and needed a replenishment rate of 850 mL versus the normal 1700 mL per 100 ft 16mm. THe color developer, according to my chart here, runs at the same rate as the normal process. - G.

No, that's exactly what I meant, developing a low contrast E-6 process like VNF-1's LC variant. I guess that's up to the labs then... - G.

Yeah, I frankly have no idea how the heck you light a space larger than a bedroom with that kind of light. Everyone and everything would be melting, and forget about plugging in. Well, I guess there was a time when color film was ASA 8 and they still hadn't invented quartz halogen bulbs. - G.

I also think that 7245 would have been a good offer in Super 8, for some reason the 200 asa and 500 asa stocks are offered but NOT the slower stocks. I'm actually interested in a low con E-6 process, so maybe the Ekta 100D if introduced can be optionally processed with low con so it will transfer/scan/print better. Maybe that way we can have more offerings of Ektachrome throughout the speed range, and consumers can choose - process to projection gamma or lower gamma? I think it would benefit all Super 8 users. I also think that 16mm users might decide to try using this process to go directly from a 16mm low con reversal to interneg (as with the old ECO stock) for blowup to 35mm. I know that digital intermediate is supposed to be the new "correct" way of doing things but it's still going to be a long time before you can get away with a quality DI blowup for a price competitive to the optical method. - G.

I think you may either be referring to ECN-2, which is the modern process for color negative film, or VNF-1 which is the process for Ektachrome reversal films. ECN-2 is the normal process, you're supposed to run your Vision color neg through ECN-2. If you run color negative film through VNF-1, you'll have an immediate problem because the film has a rem-jet backing that needs to be removed before development. If you want to learn more about movie processing, check out my movie processing webpage at http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky - G.

1-2 asa, very practical asa - perhaps when you have a nuclear explosion to film! :D Just curious, is this the speed with the double 85's? - G.

Yeah, but unlike with 35mm, in 16mm there is only one perf shape. There is some kind of 16mm "reduced tolerance perforation" but that is very close to the standard 16 perf, and I don't know if that's used for printer/intermediate stocks.

I think an interesting option for Kodak to consider with Super 8 is to introduce a new E-6 film, but create an alternate low contrast E-6 process (just like the altered VNF-1 with the LC color developer) which would give the option of developing the film to an ECO-like contrast. This would then enable people to get better results in Super 8 telecine, while retaining the option of processing Super 8 to a full projection contrast image. Frankly this route makes better sense with Super 8 than having the color negative stocks available (save maybe for the 500 asa). I'd rather see a fuller slate of Super 8 E-6 reversal stocks with the option of going low con in processing than having the color negative vision stocks in S8. Colorists shouldn't have such a problem readjusting to it, and it's easier to have one Super 8 E-6 machine with two options, versus an E-6 Super 8 machine and an ECN-2 Super 8 machine, with two entirely different mixes that must be maintained for each (although many labs that process S8 also do ECN-2 for 16/35, though not all) Another advantage, if anyone wants to blow up from Super 8 optically to whatever format, they forgo the cost of the interpositive. - G.

You mean a digital intermediate (laser recorder, not "laser print"). Just so you know, it's cheaper to originate on and contact print to 35mm film than to do a digital intermediate, regardless what format you're using for capture. They don't offer film in those mags anymore, and probably won't again. I heard they dropped that project. - G.

That's known as staggering. You start A camera and then B camera starts a bit later. Not optimal because the camera operator is destracted during the stagger. I was intending to shoot a two camera show. But I'd use more expensive cameras obviously, not the Instamatic variety.

I'm frankly interested in the new Ektachrome 100D, my only fear is that stock and processing costs will be very high (esp. the latter). However, many enthusiasts will enjoy the ability to home process using E-6 chem kits. As I'm budgeting a TV show I even considered the idea of using Ekta 100D, if I could get good processing incl. pushes, have a good turnaround time with the telecine incl. layback to PAL and get reliable cameras for a 2 camera show I would consider it seriously over the DVX. The 2:30 running time per cart is pretty damn limiting though, staggering the loads might be a possibility.

Hmmm, 4.5% speed difference for a 22 minute sitcom is 1 minute, that's pretty signficant. There would have to be some altered version then for Euro and for US. This problem would exist even if I shot on film, I gather, I think the standard practice in Europe is to transfer at 25. I guess all your US films have a shorter running time than here. I did hear, though, that there is a PAL pulldown for 24 -> 25. The PAL origination idea is inviting, although it's more costly to rent PAL DVX100A's and I'd probably have to get a PAL monitor for editing (and be able to get a backup in case one dies). - G.

Hello all, I have been budgeting a show meant for TV broadcast in PAL and NTSC countries. It doesn't have the budget to go 16, so DVX100A in 24P mode sounds like a good idea for me. Does the NTSC->PAL conversion from Panasonic's 24P go smoothly? I'm assuming it must go better than 60i->50i. Can it be done with broadcast quality on a desktop computer system or is this one of those "gotta take it to a facility with an expensive gadget" thing? Thanks for advice, - G.

I would have shot Tech Pan in 35mm and processed it myself, only the problem is that Kodak axed it a few years ago. Super slow films are usually the first to go. - G.

Security can stop certain things, but it can't stop others. For instance, if someone is out to sabotage you (i.e. the Teamsters see you're getting by without a contract and you haven't cleared through their local) they can make noises to screw up your sound, i.e. honk horns, set off fireworks, or even get into an adjacent building (somehow) and start playing with the lights to screw up your shot, flatten your truck tires, even threaten your drivers. Illegal? Some of those things are, some of them are in a gray area. Besides, something may be illegal but it's a matter of whether or not it's enforced, if you get my drift... I hear the Teamsters have relaxed these days (esp. after there was a huge drama out in Hawaii several years ago), but everyone's still cautious enough to call up the locals and plead their case. If your production has a truck, you wanna put in that call.

About six months ago they started making MiniDisc recorders that record entirely uncompressed WAV files. I've actually seriously considered investing in one. - G.

That's actually a good question. I myself have never quite figured that out. I'd certainly put them at least in the Special Thanks list, or maybe with the extras in "Also Featured" (even though they're not :D ) You have no obligation to consult with them, I mean what are they going to do - say "No, you have to include me or I'm suing!"? Just say "I really loved your performance, but the scene was running too long and I had to cut it because of that. I'm so sorry, and I'll give you a tape of your footage. I've given you credit in the Special Thanks (or wherever) and I'll gladly give you a reference if you need one." I'd certainly invite them to the final screening. They may not come but they'll appreciate the gesture. - G.

Hi all, This is NOT cinematography related or, technically, film related so much as it is internet TV related, but this is a subject I've really become interested in: http://www.peercast.org http://www.icecast.org This concept of P2P internet broadcasting (with free GPL software) based on what I read from a Wired article on Bit torrent technology is already being seen as the birth of future TV networks over the internet. No more huge servers serving every stream individually, everyone shares the bandwidth. There is already talk of TV networks thinking about this as a future. I also found this interesting web project, Digital Bicycle Of course, there is a blessing and a curse, the curse being that feature films (not ad supported) can end up being broadcast on these networks w/o paying for licensing. - G.

Check out this discussion: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=2959 scroll down to read my post w pics

Well, it can be done but not at cost to the recompression artifacts that this would introduce! The NTSC/PAL color gamut bound DV codec and the raw 24/32 bit data you scan on the scanner are two different animals. The best solution is to take a clear piece of 35mm orange negative, double it up, put it on the lens of a still 35mm SLR like a filter and aim the camera at a white or grey card (make sure the light source is balanced correctly, i.e. use a 5000K flash if it's the usual Kodacolor neg). Try several exposures. Then get that neg processed (no prints necessary of course), and you should theoretically get the polar opposite color. You then use that negative as the filter. The first layer of the orange negative is to cancel the mask of the film in the camera, and the second will push it further to the opposite color. Should work in theory, just gotta try some exposures and oh yes, use the same brand of film. - G.

Man, that would be an experience I wish I had! It's unfortunate they didn't seem to bother doing a dolby mix. The last song, Gimme Shelter, was really bad in optical mono, it just totally killed such a powerful and strong ending (and might I add, it's probably my favorite version of the song they ever did live - Mick Taylor and Keith were just amazing). - G.

That's very kind of you Karl, I actually have some frozen still in my freezer for now. It will be just enough I think. Thanks for the thought, - G.

I don't think it was that soft (okay, softer maybe than EXR), and I don't think it was that mediocre. I mean, what is mediocre? You're always going to have crappy exposure latitude even with a modern E-6 reversal, that's not mediocrity, that's just the nature of the type of film you're using. The grain was of course a serious issue, which is why I wasn't crazy about those stocks at first. But then I got to enjoy the texture of the grain more (more than color neg grain). The color reproduction is also different than the standard ECN-2 we're all used to seeing everywhere. Why do people skip bleach their film (something which I personally find to look worse than VNF by a far shot)? They want a different look. I certainly am not saying that VNF would be my standard choice for shooting film, and yes, this is a SPECIFIC look that I'm after. One reason being I'm trying to invoke the look of that era, as you mentioned. I want to make that mental association with an older look. That said, if I had a choice between a high quality SDTV camera and VNF Ektachrome, I would take VNF Ektachrome in most cases esp. if we're talking blowup (where you can go straight to IN). I saw the similar looking ME-4 Ektachrome blown up for "Gimme Shelter" (available light in many shots) and man, that smacks a DV to film transfer down like nothing. Maybe it was grainy and contrasty, but I felt like I was at that concert when I was sitting in the movie theater. The only thing that prevented me from being totally immersed was the optical soundtrack (even though the sound at live rock concerts isn't always top rate, esp. then). - G.