steve waschka

I have a 12ft wide screen and an older Pioneer Elite Kuro projector. I have no need to go to the theater and see a film I have ACCESS to home. And by access, I mean bluray. I had and have dropped the super highspeed cable. Streaming content was subpar at best blown up. So if its a film I'm excited to see. I still have to goto a theater or wait for bluray. I think careful planning of distribution is the best defense for theaters. I think C.Nolan's early release of Interstellar on film print in theaters was smart. We as the craftsmen always say the content is the most important. And if the story is good I can watch it on a tablet and be engaged in a good story. And I promise you the avg consumer is not as critical about the final format as we are. An interesting other side of the coin: Since experiencing my system two of my family members have installed projection systems in their homes. Both of them have started to become aware of the decisions made by the production crews and how it affects what the product looks like in their home. Tough to learn that watching anything on your phone. edit..... oh and sound, tough to get good chest thumping sound in your home without pissing off he neighbors.

Sounds right... and I put the display usage as 75% for the 2x anamorphic and its 67% hence the 50% final value. Lower than I thought for a cool presentation. But a PIA to capture without true dedicated anamorphic lenses anyways.

It looks like ultra 16 is 11.66 x 6.30 mm. But thats a tiny bit too wide for 16:9. But still, after cropping in transfer your about 93% of possible 16:9 negative space. Puts it in second place to super 16. Only sacrifice I see is the lab has to be mindful of it transports as they could scratch the image area between the sprocket holes.

And I do not have exact dimensions for the ultra 16mm gate size. If you have that please post it so I can add that to the list. I anticipate that it will fall just under super 16.

This seems to be a common question among beginning filmmakers looking to buy or use available 16mm gear. I am just posting some results of the math I did recently to decide how to proceed filming my own project. Keep in mind the sacrifices and or decisions of presentation have varying degrees of importance to each filmmaker. This math is a very sterile look at what you can expect from the results. Although the sacrifices have very different visual appeals I only addressed them as if you are either linearly degrading the capture negative, or the display area. Assumptions of the equipment: Reg gate 16mm is avail for sale all over the web and can use or be cheaply adapted to use a massive cache of stills lenses. Many buy these and then ask questions. 2X anamorphics are about the same. 1.33 anamorphics are less avail and questionably useful unless they are the high end of the spectrum and adjustable. Native 16:9ish film cameras or super 16 are not overly available on the resale market and are fairly expensive. Most super 16 cameras use professional cinema mounts for lenses so the glass will cost more. This exploration assumes the final product will be displayed on either a 16:9 tv or a digital projector without use of optical anamorphic projection. The math: The default display is 16:9 so we give it a value of 100% whether its SD widescreen or HD we are assuming it stays the same whichever you choose. The ideal capture is 16:9 so we give it a value of 100% If you use both your are utilizing 100% of available negative and display and 100% of whats possible The commonly avail capture is reg 16 which is about 75% of 16:9 so thats its value. If you capture using this and display as is [4:3] you are using 75% of 75% of available display, and are using 56% of whats possible. Your Sacrifices: presentation with side bars but you are using the emulsion as is. If you use a reg 16mm gate and a 2X anamorphic you are still only utilizing 75% of possible negative as 4:3 is 75% of 16:9 or super 16. When you display and you keep all the anamorphic gathered width you are reducing your display height and the resulting display is 75% of whats available. Using this method gets you 50% total of whats possible. Sacrifices: presentation of the available display area. speed of camera setup [note if it were an anamorphic lensed projection system this becomes a final value of 75%] If you capture in reg 16mm and crop to 16:9 in transfer you are using 56% of the total available negative but displaying a full 16:9 so you get a final value of 56% Sacrifices: Film grain is enlarged, choices of film speeds have to be made more carefully. And finally if you use a reg 16mm gate and a 1.33 anamorphic you are using the full 4:3 negative are for 75% of whats available and displaying on full 16:9 for a final value of 75% sacrifices: negative size, speed of camera setup summary of results for digital / non anamorphic display: Shoot super 16: 100% Shoot reg 16 use 1.33 anamorphic adapter: 75% Shoot reg 16 crop in post display as 16:9: 56% Shoot reg 16 show as is: 56% Shoot reg 16 use 2x anamorphic adapter: 50% What I decided doesnt really matter. But, since photography I do use for work but it only augments what I do, I will obviously spend more than the student filmmaker. But, I will not spend what someone who uses it day in and day out would. So depending on which I could get a better deal on... Id want a super 16 [properly] converted camera that uses the glass I already have or can get easily. Or I would go with the 1.33 anamorphic rig. And my last choice [based on the math] is to crop reg 16 in transfer. Which I have no choice on some recent footage but to do just that. So if it turns out to be a happy result I'll have to value the tradeoffs. IE I need fast camera setups. The 1.33 anamorphics still need to be focused separately or you will have to use small apertures and loose shallow depth of field opportunities. Which is important to me. I hope this helps somebody look at this from another angle. I have revisited this many times through the years. It may not be precise math. And math may have little to do with your final decision. But it may illuminate from a different angle.

Because I own, along with several other cameras, broadcast editing controllers and support equipment, the following: bvw-d600ws, sdx900, bvw-75, dvw-a500, teranex xantus. And If I am finishing on dvd precompressing with starfront the results are quite good. And everytime I dump onto my black magic deck and start using my macbook pro the result is a glitchy product with less than professional looking transitions. I am not not in anyway suggesting that you guys get the same results with yours. I am going to work with Continental Film labs in Miami. I visited their facility and they were very helpful.

Looking to convert s16 to digital betacam.

Nice work. Great subject. I think anyone who is good at anything sometimes wonder how their craft will survive modern society. But the truth is it does have a lot to do with the interaction between the people and the camera. I have recently noticed a disappointment that I do not lug my stills gear around as much as I used to to family events. And people constantly hand me their phones to take shots because they say I know how to trick it into taking a good picture. I think this film reminds that its as much to do with the effort put forth as anything. I mean who lugs a camera like that around and processes on site. Just awesome.

Looks good dude. I forgot to keep looking for issues and was wondering where the chimp was going with the big stick after they kept flicking him in the ear while he was trying to sleep. So i'd say your method does a good job. Ive tried to do this myself using what I had laying around. Never could get it close enough to warrant spending anymore effort. Happy to see you got something that works.

if you havent done so already and you have a late model Bolex... pull the "leather" covering off the rectangular faceplate on the front of the base. Remove the two screws and use a fine edged knife blade to pop the metal cover off. The threaded hole on the right side as you are facing the camera is roughly center below the taking lens. Run a bolt through a 15mm rod bracket and attach here. Carefull of the depth of the bolt. Too far and youll break into the case of the camera. Also bolex made a factory rod mount for the late model square base. I used telescope ring mounts to attach such things as anamorphic lens adapters. But as stated above there is a rod adapter system that goes into the other turret positions. I think its use may be limited to the Bolex licensed anamorphot attachment though.

Cant believe I forgot about dips. Look into the hydro dips. We dip everything in the outdoor industry. Have to be dilligent about little holes and threads etc. but you can essentially print any image and dip product thru it. Fairly durable if done correctly. Kinda like a permanent precision wrap for you lenses. Dont know that anyones doing it on lenses. You may start a craze. Matrix type patterns are tricky to get around round object so id stay to organic print forms. Not sure i want to refer you to this work. But where do you live? If i have a vendor near you that might consider the work ill put you with them.

Anodize may be a bad choice. It shows thru or reads thru the finish any defects in the metals surface. Bad corrosion marks would have to be milled away. No gaurantee even discolorations left will show thru. Vendors camo anodize fly reels scope barrels etc to hide this and have less waste. I would recommend the finer feel rubberized paints if the surface can be ground smooth and stabilized. But even fine texture paints will not hide most damage done from corrosion. Any small manufacturer industrial area near you is likely to have someone capable of doing the metal work and finish. thats if you can break the lenses down yourself. If not you might need to sell to someone willing to take on the challenge and cut your losses.

you can take the dvd screen shot and dig quite a bit out of it with just apple preview.

This may be beneath the collective intellect of this group. But I would like to know if I should just give up on the idea. I would like to produce dvd's at the house from time to time in small numbers. I have an older dvd recorder but its compression artifacts have become intolerable to me. I have a medical machine but it has choked and stopped doing dvd.. only does vid files now. So I tried a few programs for the macbook pro. None worked smoothly. Anyone have something that works well they could recommend? I am running out of energy for the trial and error approach.

Skulls turned out like a story book. I love the feel of that film.

I know crystal skulls used specific filtration that I hunted down because of the "story book artwork" look they achieved. I havent looked at raiders in a long time. Dont know if they did the same thing. Possibly this is the "haze" you are speaking of? I still shoot SD for DVD's so I am biased that you can do a lot and hide a lot with it. But I am not looking for hazy. Just don't want edgy. They may have tweaked the final for bluray some as well. Sometimes I think they do overcook the detail a bit on some blurays.

Unless something is shot or presented really poorly this is how its supposed to be. Many will tell you if you noticed how I shot a scene... I failed. I have a 14ft diag screen and a Pioneer Kuro which projects an image I can sit 10ft away from [or less]. There is little reason for me to go to a theater for a digital experience. I recently went to a theater in a large city while away on business. It was a megaplex style theater and we had to sit halfway or so back. The screen looked tiny. I dont care what resolution it was.

William Eggleston did amazing work with the color dye print process. My favorite was "glass on airplane" from the Los Alamos collection. What's this process' status?: "In 1994, Eastman Kodak stopped making all materials for this process. The dyes used in the process are very spectrally pure compared to normal coupler-induced photographic dyes, with the exception of the Kodak cyan. The dyes have excellent light and dark fastness. The dye transfer process possesses a larger color gamut and tonal scale than any other process, including inkjet. Another important characteristic of dye transfer is that it allows the practitioner the highest degree of photographic control compared to any other photochemical color print process." wiki

I have the smaller Oconnor. Its vertical axis will get pretty light. And its got to be pretty close to locked to hold a wildlife lens well. Its horizontal axis is much beefier. I have an old set of wood sticks for it that are HEAVY. And, I dont like scratching them up. And I have newer lightweight ones. Don't care if they get scratched. I dont like the lighter ones. Much less stability. So I break down and setup the wood set almost everytime. When I could just pitch the new ones in the truck. So trade offs come into play.

I think sometimes you become "aware". You can accept. But, never go back to being ignorant of an issue. I am aware of what you are referring. I see it in digital theaters and on my projection system at home. I don't remember it in older film systems. Doesnt mean it wasnt there. I've experimented with what David is referring in digital shutters. I also setup an after effect that ran black space at fractions of a second to emulate a mechanical shutter. Prob is nothing I have can project a refresh rate at those speeds. But when I could get glimpses of the effect of the black space to work as it phased in and out... it did make me feel like I was reviewing 16mm on a projector. What I need to do is find an example that bugs me and shoot a similar scene in video 30fps and on film at 24 and 30. And playback on mac, dig proj and film proj. I have no footage that I know of of motion sports that do this on a film projector. But as David will tell you I also have a polarizer filtration test I've needed to do for over 2years now that I haven't done. I really think its a refresh rate / capture rate / shutter angle & type anomaly. I saw it last night in the theater. It kinda ruins the experience for me until the plot takes over and I forget about it.

I think the important thing to talk about regarding this release, is the market manipulation. I think it was an awesome move to release a few days early on film. Efforts like that may just buy film enough time for filmmakers to continue to perfect their craft. Which I believe is the part your talking about. Which is what I love about film. It is a craft. Similar to stills... choosing to make photo prints with an optical printer vs a ink jet. Choosing to do platinum printing vs gelatin silver. These are all choices that require effort passion and learning. I recently (past 5yrs) have been learning video. It is difficult as well. It is a choice. I would hate that we loose the choice of film. Maybe the future is fewer theaters offering film. But, more celebrated releases. Early releases. Better cared for projection equipment and prints. Maybe then it will reclaim its position as a high form of the filmmaking art. Not just a technology in question of obsolesce.

sorry... the adding a photo link is not intuitive to me here. the previous post is from the bvw-d600ws run thru the teranex. this is the sdx-900: https://www.flickr.com/photos/97274089@N05/14993643013/in/set-72157634142673033/ The noticeable viewing issue is the texture in the chair and the furniture light. The texture in the chair will get a moire effect on some lcd tvs. not on the macbook or projected. The furniture light will get harsh edge stepping on the macbook but not projected. Seems to be playback graphic processing issue.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/97274089@N05/15613795955/in/set-72157634142673033

Agree. I love film. How I use motion imaging to support what I do means I really dont get extra money to shoot. So now that I have a ton of ENG gear I shoot that. However it was a tricky trap. I bought my first used Sony BVW to shoot interviews and sports or scenes where I had to roll for long periods and may not use any of it. Film stock was eating me alive. But the path just to get to where I am now with ENG gear was a tremendous amount of self training, mounds of gear and lots of frustration. I have a lot of stills gear. Film is cheap to shoot in stills. Med format film smokes digital capture. Id rather shoot film. Motion film is not cheap. Basically for a simple shoot your talking 3x the film stock retail cost to have useable basic scans to edit. And it has a learning curve. I get why the newer generations of photographers like digital... its a comfort zone. And if they already have a 7d or the like for school theres prob little chance they will venture too far away. But my ENG gear is sooooo complicated and I dont use 30% of its capabilty. I even pull the motor drives off the lenses and make little friction stops to make the aperture ring mimic what I'm used to in film lenses. I pick up a film motion camera and love the simplicity. Love the viewfinders. Love the weight. Hate batteries. I will probably rig an anton bauer setup for my next film rig. I am thinking its time for a super 16 aaton. Walking around with that and a pocket audio recorder is bliss. Anybody want to trade one for 3 sony bvw's, field decks, monitor, edit deck, teranex xantus, 26pin cables etc etc etc? ....Didnt think so.

I still shoot standard def. But I constantly strive to make it look as current as possible. Just as soon as I think I have all the kinks worked out I see an issue. But I never see this stuff on my macbook unless its really bad. Case in point... I was reviewing some footage I shot this evening. My main camera is an SDX-900 and I record direct from the SDI to a hyperdeck shuttle at 30p. I was playing back footage using the hdmi out straight to an lcd tv from the shuttle and there it was. The stepped look of standard def on some highlight edges. I know Ive never seen that on the Macbook which is how I normally review the footage. So popped the drive into an adapter and played on the macbook. No stepped edge. I use quicktime pro 7. And I dont see anything I can turn off to better scrutinize the footage. Is it just a cheap TV? I mean it is a cheap TV. Ill have to check the file on my projection system. See if it shows the stepping on that footage. But does anyone know if the macbook has a built in line doubler, interpolator, etc. Dvds look awesome on it as well. I feel like apple stuck something in there to give them an edge.