Jonathan Benny

Really? People actually get excited about shooting HD?

 

It seems that most people use HD because they have to, not because they want to.

Forgetting for a moment about resolution - the question about "excitement" of shooting on a particular format:

I think any initial excitement about shooting on any format (HD, 35) quickly gives way to whether or not what is being done in front of the camera is exciting.

On my last feature which was on 35, one of my camera assistants was extremely excited about his next project which was going to be his first on HD.

AJB

but I was wondering if there is a particular technique, procedure or way of doing a proper telecine work for commercials and/or videos. I.e. like first work on the contrast and then alter the colors or vice versa

Or first work on the primary colors and then move to the secondary ones. Etc.

I mean the do?s and don?ts for the telecine

A properly balanced color chart will put in the right direction any footage that comes after it (if the look is built into the negative and assuming you're not doing heavy color/contrast fx work on the image).

Once this is done, we can look at the footage and see how much we need to nudge it either way to achieve that look we are going for. Its important to be very clear about what mood you are trying to achieve and in what context - I've always found this to be far better than getting into issues related to how to achieve the effects technically. A good colorist knows the gear and will be creative in how to get the look you are going for.

Nothing beats a good discussion with the colorist/grader before the work starts.

AJB

Is it worth shooting something like this on 16mm film? I mean, all the reasons why one would want to shoot 16mm do not apply to this film. Since there is no visible background, since it's so visually simple, it seems to me that there is no need for worrying about filmic depth of field, latitude, and such things.

 

Would Super 8 do an adequate job here? Perhaps miniDV or HDV?

 

Cheers,

P.

Film captures faces in a way that is very special. That is why if all you have is someone in front of a black background the best option might in fact be film. Particularly if you are going to be doing closeups.

Reasons for shooting on film go beyond the technicalities of whether or not you have a simple or busy frame. What is the mood you are going for and what format will help bring you there? Film may give you a tonal quality that helps sell your character's condition in a way the digital formats cannot and vice-versa. Super 8 is a wonderful format that can instantly place the audience in a certain emotional state - even if they are just looking at someone against a black background.

If this film is important to you, don't think in terms of what is adequate for the job. Make a decision based on what is important to you as a storyteller. It might be worth shooting in on 35.

AJB

kpv rajkumar - 85 is the name of the filter you would use on the camera to convert tungsten film to 5600K daylight. It is the same colour as Full CTO and has the same stop loss so i think you're just confusing the names a little bit.

Hope this helps,

85 gel exists (rosco) and it is different from Full CTO (rosco) in specs. Hold them up side by side to a light and see if they look exactly the same.

AJB

1. I heard an expert guy say: ''X-rays have been known to damage unexposed film''.

 

2. I bought a roll of vintage Super 8 film and it came in a package with '' Unexposed film DO NOT X-RAY''

written on it.

Matthew,

Certain carry-on x-ray machines will affect unprocessed (exposed or unexposed) film depending on the speed of the film and the strength of the x-ray machine.

Most of the time, when I have travelled internationally with still film, for example, the x-ray security person tells me that anything under 800asa is fine, then someone else will say 1600asa etc.

The problem is that these x-ray machines can often be variable in their intensity. I personally would not take any important exposed unprocessed motion picture film through a carry-on x-ray machine (particularly faster stocks) unless I absolutely had to do it and there was no other option. Even a very slight fogging will show up in motion. And you never really know on a given day what intensity the carry-on x-ray might be at. The majority of the tourist public will not notice the minute amount of fogging (if any) that is done to their film and the technology used in the 1-hour processing labs can easily correct for any minor problems. Slight fogging on motion picture film is not as easily handled because it is often not uniform throughout the roll or throughout the frame.

AJB

I am in the process of preparing to shoot a period Piece (19th century Canada, i.e. horse drawn carriages, bonnets and so forth.) I have never shot a period piece before so I am looking for advice. as of right now I am thinking of shooting 5218, perhaps with bleach bypass, and warm soft light. Also I am considering using a pro-mist to defuse a bit, and get a softer look. Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

SCW

Try some tests with Fuji's F400 using contrasty lighting motivated from "natural" sources - IE windows for DAY and lanterns for NIGHT. A very low con stock but when you work against it with little or no fill, it yeilds results that might interest you from a standpoint of saturation and softness for Interiors.

AJB

David

 

By anti-semiticism I do mean the use of Zionism as a negative word and not attacks on Israels policies .

FREE countries are open to attacks on policy, in fact SHOULD be attacked ( with words ) thats freedom.

 

Thank you David for pointing out what wrong with using the word Zionism in this way.

Guys,

Its "anti-semitism" not "anti-semiticism".

AJB

Can you see difference on the screen? Is the grain realy so bigger what you can see a difference? How to test to know that?

The difference really starts to manifest on the big screen and depends on the types of shots you are looking at (and what you are looking for on the image).

On a blowup, wider shots that have subjects further away tend to suffer a great deal in small format blowups. The difference between a regular 16 wide shot and a super 16 wideshot might be more noticeable than the closeups. But either way, with the regular 16, you will see a lot more grain "dancing" around trying to resolve detail in the image.

AJB

I find it very odd that someone is so happy to have his options of formats reduced by a camera manufacturer who does not plan to support what is not only the most common format (4 perf), but also the highest quality one (anamorphic) and even seem to consider this a step forward for some obscure reason.

I don't see the options being reduced by the camera. I see the camera itself as being another option providing just as many creative possabilities as anamorphic shooting. And it makes perfect sense to me why such a camera would exist, why there is a market for it, and why it is a progressive concept in today's filmmaking world.

Then again, there's always the Cameflex.

AJB

Merci Thomas,

I'm in France for 2 months this summer and will contact Aaton to see if I can discuss the camera and/or see it in person. I have to check my schedule, but I might possibly be quite close to Grenoble at one point.

So far I'm loving the concept and I see it as definitely a step forward consistant with what is happening in the film industry around us.

Thanks and regards,

AJB

Okay.

 

I give you an "as accurate as I could" transalation of the interview of JP Beauviala when he talks about eventual modifications on the Penelope.

Interviewer (Benjamin B) - We didn't talk much [during this interview] about the 3 perf thing, I know it's your hobby-horse regarding the future of the film cinema...

 

Jean pierre Beauviala - The answer of Aäton is clear : Penelope will perform only 2 or 3 perf even if it means making some modifications for the chinese and a few others addicted fellows to 4 perf.

 

But just keep in mind that the spirit of Aäton is proposing. And the Penelope is still an advanced prototype...

 

So, Jonathan, Aäton is in Grenoble (East-South of France), 3 hours by train from Paris, they are very freindly and open mind people. If you want to see and talk about the camera, you won't make them more happier ! They helped me on my last short film (shot in super 35 mm ...4 perf, damned labs) but I'll tell you more about that story later. It's time to sleep for me, now.

 

Thomas.

Two words: OPTICAL VIEWFINDER.

I second that. Particularly when I'm directing and shooting at the same time, I find optical viewfinders to be a much better tool for taking in what is happening within the frame.

AJB

Oh really? This is not the case of an either/or situation. Since offering a 4 perf movement does not exclude also offering a 3 perf and 2 perf movement I fail to see your logic here. As far as I'm concerned not offering a 4 perf movement limits the use of the camera, which does not make much sense from a business point of view.

<g> Yes, really.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

Aaton, like many companies around the world, has elected to target a specific product to a specific market within a particular industry. This happens all the time in car manufacturing, computers, food and service industries etc. Clearly they have figured that the market within the motion picture industry that currently utilizes super 16/35 will be interested in such a product and can support it. Even if were to make the camera more versatile, offering 4-perf to this group makes little sense if it increases the price of the product to them and/or if they (apparently) are not living in China.

Perhaps Aaton should make a camera that can instantly shoot 65mm (horizontal/vertical), anamorphic 35, super 35, regular 35, 2,3,4 perf, super 16, regular 16, super 8 and 9.5mm<g> and has every possible mount. Would that satisfy you?

My point is that a camera that is dedicated to 2 and 3 perf shooting should not be discarded as a silly concept. There should be enough demand out there as things continue to evolve as they do. And also that discussion about aaton dropping 4-perf in Penelope shouldn't be viewed as silly since there has only been a vague reference to 4-perf models possibly being targeted to the "Chinese market" (and that hasn't even been confirmed as of yet).

There is a definite (and unfortunate) possability that one day anamorphic 4-perf shooting will be rendered close to obsolete as a result of developing technology in film cameras and post-production. Not silly at all. Quite a valid discussion, actually.

JB

There may be other factors, from either a technical or pricing standpoint, as far as 4-perf not being available on this particular camera.

Another possible factor: I haven't heard if this camera will have a 1000' mag (unlikely, given aaton's record with 1000' mags). 2 and 3 perf shooting is an attractive combination with a system that might only utilize 400' mags.

JB

I believe it was Thomas who mentioned that there would be a 4 perf movement available, as a favor to the Chinese market (perhaps he can chime in here).

Yes, it would be good to get some clarification on this.

But totally independently whether there will a 4 perf movement available or not, the idea of creating a modern 35mm camera that does not support 4 perf is not a good one. Such a camera cannot be used with anamorphic or even academy. Furthermore it forces you to do either an optical (3perf to 4perf) or a digital conversion if you want to have a print of your film. So people who shoot 1.85 are penalized as well, since even simple contact printing from 4perf to 4perf (which is the easiest way to print and which every single lab in the world is set up for) is not possible.

I think it makes perfect sense. With DIs being the present and the future, this camera will most likely be cutting-edge. With the amount of productions/tv product being shot on super 16 and super 35 already, it is not suprising that a camera manufacturer would consider targeting their product specifically to those who use the formats as Aaton does regularly.

JB

One thing I do not understand is the function of that little wheel on the back side of the view finder if I turn it the viewfinder gets darker.

On my model, it switches between a clear tv-safe action within a 1.33 frame and just a 1.33 frame without the safe-action.

What needs to be done for lubrication

I've never lubricated it. There's a big yellow sticker near the movement that says "Aucune Lubrification". I do imagine, though, that it needs be lubricated at one point (!) and so thats probably something I'll also have to think about before starting it up again with a new battery.

and do you ever cleen the gate?

The pressure plate comes right out by swivelling the lock-lever on the inside upward. You pull the pressure plate out completely exposing the gate which is screwed into place and that I've never removed.

I fear that taking out the lens too often could hurt the little rubber couplings for the servos.

The lens can be taken on and off at will. Although, I agree that at this point, finding servicing will be a challenge and therefore it might be good to just keep it on. There is a wide-angle lens available - but I've never been able to find it.

And the Tuchel without a cable that is inserted into the battery part is that for chrystal?

Yes, Thats for crystal sync.

The pro100 is in most respects the same camera as the pro50. Let me know how it goes.

JB

Either one of us is getting their math wrong. The lens should be 1.33:1 not 1.42:1.

1.42 x 1.66 = ~2.36

I guess they are they talking about doing a 1.42 squeeze over a 1.66 area on the super 35 neg.

???

JB

Well you answered your own question here. It would be silly not to offer a 4 perf movement, since otherwise they'd take themselves out of anamorphic shooting. It makes much more business sense to make the camera as versatile as possible.

No, no, no. I was referring to your suggestion that "this whole talk of giving up anamorphic is just plain silly. As has been noted, there will be a 4perf movement available.".

Since Aaton had mentioned that they were dropping the format with Penelope, discussion on the matter makes perfect sense. And I'm still interested to know where you got the info that the camera will be offering 4-perf which, in effect, would not make the camera "silly" to you after all! So, where did you read/hear this?

Even if Penenope offers only 3 and 2 perf movement, it would not be a dealbreaker for me and I don't think it would make the camera silly. No camera can be the perfect camera, and althoug the addition of the 4-perf movement would make the camera more versatile, it isn't really what I'm looking for in a system that can only handle 400 foot mags (I don't think they're going to make 1000 footers for this camera). They are targetting a market that is not going to be shooting anamorphic 4-perf or doing 4-perf contact pipeline. That is still a very significant market that is going to grow even larger as more and more people move to DIs as their pipeline route.

JB

How is it silly? So far, what little there has been written about the camera, including statements from Aaton reps seem to indicate that the 4-perf movement will not be a part of the system. Where did you read/hear about the 4-perf movement being available in Penelope? 4-perf would certainly make the camera the ultimate in versatility...

JB

I'm afraid this whole talk of giving up anamorphic is just plain silly. As has been noted, there will be a 4perf movement available.

I own a Bolex 16 Pro 100. I've had it for about ten years. I don't use it much anymore and did not run a lot of film through it. But its designed like a tank (excuse the cliche).

The threading mechanism of this camera is quite unique. You only have to load on side of the coaxial and have the film tabbed out at the front. Then when your ready to load, you just latch the mag on the camera, turn the threading knob and the camera threads itself and winds the film on the other side of the coaxial mag on its own. It is easy to open the takeup side of the mage to make sure that the film has "catched".

Viewfinder is a challenge as the image does not remain in the upright position.

Mine has a 144 degree shutter. The lens is in great shape as it is protected by a housing that allows for an amazing servo system.

The challenge I've had with this camera is the battery system - very bulky and old. I've recently thought of somehow adapting it to a battery belt system and running film through it again.

Have fun with it. It was a camera far ahead of its time.

JB

Thanks, I certainly will,

Hi Mike I think I will have to take you up on your offer to scan or copy the pages in your book about the Bolex Pro the newer available edition does not contain those pages any more. can you scan the pages and send them by email or would you copy them and send them on paper or fax them. In any case I would like to reimburse your spending time and money and would send you $20.- if that could help

 

Kind regards

 

Gregor Scheer

VineStreetWorks

7 Vine Street

Staten Island, NY 10301

 

gregor@vinestreetworks.com

www.vinestreetworks.com

 

718 524 0221

fax 917 591 5149

This is an exciting camera.

I'm in France for two months this summer and am going to try to see if I can somehow get a look at it.

I think that "giving up" the 4-perf movement is a bold choice but its not a dealbreaker for me.

JB

The giallo cycle of the early 1970's used this format almost exclusively. Serio Martino, Luciano Ercoli, the list goes on and on. I'm not sure if Argento used it. I'd love nothing more than to own a 2-perf 35mm camera, even MOS. Spherical lenses with 2.66 aspect ratio....Awesome! :wub:

Guys,

Techniscope was a format meant for 2.35 extraction, not 2.66.

To obtain a 2.66 extraction one would have to re-center the lens and use the "sound track" area of the negative (something that techniscope originally did not do).

Super 35mm 2.35 uses the sound track area, is usually 3 or 4 perf, and has around 20% more negative area for a 2.35 extraction than techniscope.

Having said all that, I agree with you: it would be great to actually own a 2-perf camera! A great format that will hopefully make a comeback.

JB

Hmm. I stand corrected on this, although I was under the impression that "modern" implementations of 2 perf use a full-aperture center (i.e., a S35 center) and thus contain "essentially" the same image area. I'll have to check into that, but in any case, the image area is not "vastly" different, certainly not like, say, 2 perf vs. anamorphic. Or 1.77 vs. 1.85, for that matter.

Super 35mm shot for anamorphic projection (2.40) contains almost 20% more negative area than techniscope. More than the difference between 1.85 and 1.77.

The difference manifests in a blowup and is not insignificant.

I am still quite excited though, to get my hands on Aaton's new camera and perhaps make my next film using the format.

Regards,

JB

Anything shot in S35 for anamorphic release is using exactly the same image area a 2 perf 2.35.

Incorrect: Super 35 2.35 for anamorphic release uses more image area on the negative than 2-perf 2.35 techniscope did/does. Techniscope did not use the "soundtrack" area. Super 35mm 2.35 is centered and uses a larger area on the negative which includes the "soundtrack" area. If you were to stack two Super 35mm 2.35 frames on top of one another you would have more than 4-perfs worth of negative. Stacking two techniscope frames gives you exactly 4-perfs worth of negative.

On a side note:

Any news on Aaton's Penelope 2-perf / 3-perf camera? I find this to be an exciting prospect. I am considering the format for my next film but sync-cameras are tough to find in North America.

JB

The reality is that most successful people in the motion picture business are able to adapt to new technologies while still working with the older technologies. Most of the assistants I work with are always eager to get their hands on the latest camera gear - film AND digital: they are constantly keeping up with whats going on.

As someone who loves shooting on film, I personally wouldn't say that Digital has taken over - but it is most certainly gaining momentum that could, and probably will, lead to it "taking over". And thats not something to be happy or sad about - its just something we need to be prepared for.

Just one view,

JB

There are people who make their livelihoods from motion picture film, many of them my close personal friends. Are you REALLY elated that, were digital to take over, they'd be out on the streets? Huh?

1. Submission: DVD, VHS

2. Screening: 35mm, BetaSP (many European Festivals), Digibeta,

But almost all festivals specify their preferred submission format on the entry forms.

JB

What are the most universally accepted formats for:

 

1. Festival submission

2. Festival screening

 

I realize there may be multiple answers for both, but I just wanted to know what people generally send in/screen. Thanks.

As someone who travels to France many times a year, I can say that anyone who is even mildly exposed to French music-culture will know who Lynda Lemay and Isabelle Boulay are.

As for films from Quebec: Check out Decline of the American Empire. Its been a while - but it still holds up as a classic in my opinion.

JB

Audiris...

I dont know what to tell you, I have friends in France of Belgium and they definitely know them... Most of them didn't even know they were from Quebec...

 

Santo....

Yeah.. I mean.. I'm not saying movies made in Quebec are all jewels.... I mean.. most of em are crap and you've got all the rights in the world to dislike em.. I'm just saying this one is definitely worth mentioning on this forum.

 

I REALLY dont want to get into the whole Quebec VS rest of canada debate... like.. thats just not my cup of tea... Im not from Quebec or any other province for that matter.

 

If u hear about the release of this film in a theatre near you, you should definitely check it out...

Ben