steve waschka

There's a lot of gear to make camera operating work when you are on the set. But it can be oppressive to lug it all there. I was hoping maybe a share post would open up some collaborative ideas. I always liked Christopher Doyle's pillow brace solution for a makeshift steadicam My recent discovery was shooting soccer. I wanted a low "ankle height" perspective to accentuate the player's speed of movement and the power of the kick. So I sat the camera on a soccer ball. Was a bit fiddly at first but it got pretty intuitive fast. With a camera having an eng shoulder type pad it fit great. Pro level balls that have texture grip and are a fraction smaller than the slicker practice balls worked best. Shots looked great.

I just ordered this on bluray. I have only seen it streaming on Hulu and its pretty messy streaming. Anyone know the technical details on this film. I looked all over online and can't get much or any info. Specifically the aircraft footage. I really like the way they handled the grey color palette of the aircraft and just the overall feel being around fighter aircraft. Anybody know the stock, frame rates for the action, glass, filters any details that set it apart? I dont expect to be around that kind of subject matter but may want to emulate someday for something else. I really think they nailed this.

Agree. I'm still able to get away with SD for my modest projects. {I have really good SD gear]. So for me to do higher res shoots its more affordable [attainable] to run film as I can cash roll film costs and pull it out of a draw after the fact. Buying an alexa or red [and all the rest of the workflow to manage it] would require a massive business loan for me. Can't be done. I'm a manufacturer's agent first. I shoot to augment my services and their effectiveness.

If wittner cinetec and orwo can continue they will prob fill some voids. However I have to agree with Bill. When I read the switch to the Amira I almost put all my 16mm gear on ebay. Its got an expiration date on it I'm afraid. I dont know the what percentage of kodaks production was consumed by NFL films but I'll bet it stung when the reps took them out of the sales funnel. Somebodys comm check took a hit. Whats irritating is I just started to use the stuff again. But I'm not sure all the pros who actually can make a difference are going to come full circle on this one. Vinyl survived. I hope film does as well. But I won't be shocked if it doesn't. It's sad. We'll save an owl but let a film company tank. Course I think its a lot cheaper to save an owl.

Oh and the birns and sawyer or blue star chamois eye cups help.

im assuming since you have a super 16 bolex it has the most modern viewfinder. It may be dirty. The top of the prism, the periscope prism, The output of that to the viewfinder and the multiple groups in the viewfinder, if all dirty, stack up to a problem of both focus and brightness. Also you have to pull the lens and set the viewfinder focus to the ground glass first. Though I can remember having to get used to film viewfinders. There was a time if I wasnt on a beach with a towel over me, I was convinced I couldnt see out. Remember with any through the lens motion camera you have to view all your exposure choices dim or light. An SLR only closes the iris to shoot. So you have to push a button to preview your exposure. A lot of the switars had a neat feature that allowed you to throw a lever and open the iris to focus and push it back to shoot. Now adays I'd just be likely to forget to move it back and overexpose everything. You'll get used to it. If your viewfinders cleanliness is suspect and If your good with jewelers screwdrivers and precision lens cleaning and q-tip bending, I'd look into that viewfinder. But if your not confident Id stay out of there. Some cameras the adhesive to the prisms dries out and they are easy to remove. The others you better bend your qtips and leave them in place. You chip any of that stuff and you'll be ticked. Finally on the glass... I do the same. Ive got switars, and som berthiots, and angenieuxs, canontv16s, adpaters for 35mm pentax, canon, nikon, mamiya 645s. Its a bit of trial and error if you buy anything but reflex bolex lenses. My best observation for non-reflex is if the rear glass is larger with a bigger sweet spot the aberration thru the prism is lessened. But if your not willing to buy 2 or three non reflexes to get one that works well you prob should just save and buy switars. I dont have a POE zoom. Ill bet that would solve your problem. I had an M-5 with the latest Angenieux 12-120. That lens was awesome. Although I had essentially the same lens on an ARRI BL and it wasnt so awesome. So its never a given. Just keep shooting. Try not to wreck too much film or tick off the family. Good luck.

the scoopic footage has an interesting effect in it. after the first dolly across the dock there is some direct sunlight flaring the lens. When it flares, it substantially brings out the shadow detail in the trees across the water. I guess its essentially flashing the film. Just dont know that Ive seen it that dramatic before.

This clip has its own list of issues. However it was shot at 60i deinterlaced to 30p. The shutter speed was 1/120. It was shot using a standard def 4:3 sensor camera with an anamorphic lens so it was then widened in post to fit in a 720p frame. But its a frame rate shutter speed option for you. https://vimeo.com/61855396 And thats enough out of me on the topic. Hope it was helpful

Actually it looks like its a bit more convoluted then that. Did you possibly use an external program outside of your editor to compress for upload? Theres really only one pure frame in every succession of 5 in your clip consistently. Maybe you have a couple of programs overlaying a couple of pulldown effects. But, as everyone has said above, you cant overpan your taking speed. it will bur. But thats usually a pretty smooth smear of each frame. So youve got two kinds of blur. If you have a mac you can take the right arrow key in quicktime and just hold it down and that just keeps advancing frame by frame and you will see a strobing pattern. Thats the struggle between the taking rate and the output rate.

Patrick I had a minute and downloaded your video and replayed it one frame at a time. You have frame blending issues on this clip. It was captured at 24fps and the file is 29.97. When you do that, frames 4 and 5 in your case are trying to blend adjacent frames to take 24fps and fit it into 29.97 playback. Ie: you have frame 1, 2, 3 are clean, then 4 and 5 have ghosting. Then it repeats... 6,7,8 clean 9, 10 ghosting. If you want to output at 29.97 or 30 you should take at 30p to eliminate those frames. Or take at 60i and deinterlace to 30p in processing. If you want to deinterlace. Depending on how it was shot 60i may look fine. But it will look very "real" and not as "aristic" as a slower progressive frame rate like 24 or 30. Many modern tvs and BRPs i think can handle a 24fps file and do a good job at playback provided the user has properly configured the equipment to handle 24p. But most everything in the home is 60hz as default. So you will find that 24fps in many peoples homes will always have that blur. Ive tried to get around it. And asked for alternatives. But I dont believe there are any. So 24fps for the theater. 60/30 for the home.

I work in widescreen standard def. I have a Xantus loaded with Starfront. It converts to psf which gets me good video to match my 60i cameras to my 30p. However I notice a bit of leftover stepping or combing along the edges that I can knock down with the Dot Crawl filter. But every bit of reduction I do to fight those kind of artifacts eats some form of detail. So the less the better. I have an opportunity to pick up a Volare unit. Is the de-interlacing superior on that model? I dont need the up-res. And unless the Volare comes with the Starfront noise reduction programs I cannot give up my Xantus. I will have to run both. Anyone ever done work with both these units?

documenting a cattle drive

cons: camera, lens, filter matching broader lighting requirements substantially more footage split attention setup time actor intimidation cost of gear and manpower pros: can cutdown on time spent on scene more angles for viewer intrest. especially on interviews can capture unrepeatable events can coverup glitches in single takes

Just wanted to say it's always nice to get a window into a confident workflow.... I cut a pasted David and Satsuki's points into my own notes. Sometimes you do things and it seems like overkill. And if the people you are working with do not have set experience [mine rarely do] they can apply a subconscious pressure to you to oversimplify. Then you never have enough to work with on or off the set after the shoot. I have never properly prepared and kept my composure and not rcvd a compliment about the level of professionalism. But yet everytime that pressure to skip steps and over simply still exists.

Panning speed vs shutter speed. "People" will say that doubling your frame rate gives you an artistic look. But that is spawned from film cameras which not unlike a dslr use a mirror to send light to the viewfinder. Only its a disc. well half a disc. Hence why if your film is advancing at 24fps the "shutter" speed is 1/48 (roughly speaking... not all film cameras have 180deg mirrors). Anyway..... as time went by film cameras got adjustable shutters. But what ever settings you choose you should find a panning speed calc and input your variables and see what it spits out. Just remember you wouldnt try to shoot a still at 1/50 for action or without a tripod and expect a rock steady image. So you cant expect to get crisp shots swinging the camera around videoing. If you then still see issue it can be from how your software is setup. Lots of editing software packages handle frame rates in different manners. If your settings in vs settings out are less than favorable it usually manifests itself along the edges of moving objects. Usually because it is trying to insert or remove pulldown effects and that is usually done but interlacing or or deinterlacing during some form of frame blending or extrapolation

I figured out how to hit the limits of my macbook pro's refresh using adobe's strobe effect. Change the color to black and tweek the timing. Even a 180 degree camera style shutter simulation looks bad. You can see the offset refresh pattern in the screen. Forget about a two or three blade shutter. It just cant process it. Ive read the theater projectors made by Barco cache the image frame and run through a black frame in between image pulldown. It was single statement. Not a manual spec. And they didnt mention if it projects the same image twice to simulate a double shutter. I have experimented with adobe and this wouldnt be hard to generate projection files using image sequences then the projector scans through a black frame space every image frame. It could be done. They could be doing it. But my software stops at 60hz. And my macbook pro struggles with true 60hz content even at SD. Another problem lies in my software. The precision needed to generate the black space isnt there. You can type in .008366 as a value. But it will round it up to .01. Interestingly when you hold your mouse back over it it shows the .008366. But my Adobe itself maxes at 60hz files. It would be better if there were a frame space tweek. You could work with image sequences with that feature and replicate pretty much any projection scheme you want. Especially if newer software runs at faster playbacks than 60hz. But if the screens cant refresh fast enough then....... Even then i'm experimenting. Amass all this equipment and effort to accomplish and then to say "no that sucks... go back to the other way" good knowledge but that would be a let down. I dont want the theater experience to just be a big projection. I would be disappointed.

Anybody want to help me wrap my head around this...... I guess I'm trying to compartmentalize my efforts. For example: What are your thoughts on not having the black fractional frames you would have in a film projector? I know the two blade shutter was designed to not be noticed by the human eye. But I know we can perceive its presence. Are we missing it at home? I have read that some cinema projectors actually insert black space between frames. Is this true? Is it only between frames and not as a two blade would present a film? And then how can you take this into the home? Projection shutters are what like 25-33% of the open spaces so to have a screen process this work it would have to be really fast. Not possible? I think these are the kinds of things that get missed in the pitch to the average consumer by the marketeers trying to stay ahead of them. When inherently movie theaters may have a leg up on people buying 80" lcds at walmart for $800. How does cinema work? I really dont know. And if I dont know, the average household is just gonna buy the bluray. I believe digital projection is awesome for modern theater. And all of these shutter simulation and all the other magic I don't know abouf should be possible at that scale. But making a video on a laptop for a laptop appears to me to be futile to try to replicate a film experience. And im a believer in the single frame editing even on premiere pro. And yes it is a PIA. But maybe I wasnt listening when someone said making videos and editing on computer is cool. But it is not, nor will it ever be digital cinema. And Frame scanning your film for laptop is also cool. But then you are turning it into a laptop video. Again... not digital cinema. Who was it.... Greta Gerwig on "Side by Side" that said she sees people watch film on an iphone in the subway and says "Noooooooo". I just love the knowledge. And I try to incorporate anything I can to improve what I do. But some of this stuff is just not public knowledge. If it is I cant find it...

Just got back a test roll I purchased, and processed thru Dwayne's photo. I'm really happy. Used a Bolex H8. I think it would scan really nice. I think an hd resolution scan would be needed. A REALLY good SD scan might be ok. This stuff is sharp enough to show the Pan Cinor I used was not up to every task I asked of it. It looks great projected. I think if you ask, Dwayne's can supply 100ft of the double 8. I know its available overseas in 100d and 200d in 25ft and 100ft rolls. If youre thinking of using 8mm, get going on it before they decide production isnt worth it!

agree on the auto thread. Skip it if you can. Ruined more leader footage that ran into the gate and folded or images when it slipped midway. More surface area to scratch the image as well. Best loading projector i owned was an old keystone with flip up sprocket shields. Just recommend you relamp the old stuff if you go that way. 500w of incandescent will melt film like butter in a hot frying pan when your brain slips a gear and you dont go thru the proper stop procedure. And it will happen. Oh and there are better optics out there for 16. But there are also more crappy ones too.

I had super 16 rollers. If I find them I'll post back. The only way you can not use a take-up motor is if you take up to the in-body spool. Which I have done just to be able to keep different film in different mags as supplys for takes that are less than 100ft.

I know. But every once in a while you run into that confident guy who wraps his rig in a garbage bag. Was hoping there was a secret im missing....Now ill be ticked when i snag my $2000 bag on something....This is looking a lot like the gateway to the rolling shutter I think.

Anything like the ewa marine tv bags out there that are not $2,000? Just doesnt seem like it should be $2k for a bag. Its for shoots on the water ie fishing etc. Not really diving but being able to submerge briefly and to shoot in the bag, throw in canoe etc.

Sorry rereading it seemed a bit open of a question. This is what Id like to know: If you used a relay system to keep the overall system small... what do you think the equivalent focal length would be of the tv lens its replacing? Before you factor into account the focal length of the 35mm lens youre using on the other side of the adapter. Do you feel like your getting true wide angle shots with shallower depth of field? What was/is your favorite kit? If youre more comfortable doing so please email me: stevewaschka@earthlink.net

Im trying to wrap my head around a package that makes sense. And it just may not. But... obviously 2/3 cameras start to compress dof around 45mm or so. But any thing wider than that is no where near what a 35mm setup does for its equivalent wide angle dof. So I picked up a redrock m2 as an affordable experiment. Without a relay and messing with misc achromats that I have laying around it seems the possibility might be there. But also you could have to zoom in so far to block out all the vignetting and aberrations that its not really a wide angle shot anymore. For you guys who invested in real kits with relays.... Does it work? edit: Not saying the m2 doesnt work. Saying I havent yet invested in a proper kit of a relay or large expensive achromats. Also the M2 appears to be designed for the smaller handhold style camcorders.

Aerial image. Good grain. But the light source is CRITICAL. Power, Diffusion, must be flat and bright. The projecting lens can barrel the image if the image is not coming thru as a tight cone, center area of the element. Similar to issue with adding objective teleconverters if you've ever messed with that. But all three have no pop. Mostly due to issues getting exposure to work around everything else. I have a few new ideas to try.