steve waschka

The previous image was shot thru thermal lamination paper. Its darkeness prob was just the lens setting at the time on the capture camera. But It has "double the grain"... film grain plus "ground glass" grain. This is reflected on gesso. The extra grain you can see as the darker flecks. Cant see the texture when looking at the board in plain light. But theres something firing the light back hotter.

Have tried nano particle materials like digicon filters and ultracon filters. Theyd be great if they were window sized not 4x4". Wonder what that would cost... Went back to reflected and used gesso panel. Can still see texture in the captured image and there is none to the naked naked eye. I yield. its over. And my video cameras' latitude is just sad. Id have to cut film and capture at different exposure settings just to get highlights vs shadow. I guess any house would have to do that. Until I did this testing I never worried about it. And I like the idea of being able to manipulate the latitude first hand while making the capture files. If I have to. Id rather video just have the latitude.

Project so far: not going real well. Ground glass type surfaces mess with the contrast level too much. Video cameras not great at handling highlights which makes for a real mess when working with negatives. The lens systems to get the aerial system to work require too much glass to do 8mm. 16mm is ok but the to get the hotspotting within check you have to use led and lots of diffusion. So far im within a stop and a half from center to corners. With simple diffusion and led it was 6 stops or more! Got a few more things to try before I abandon. This is all live rolling projector to rolling video camera. There are frame sync issues but they are not a big deal. I am using cameras with variable controls for filming screen flicker so that stuff is minimal. Next will be single frame advance to single frame capture. However the if contrast and hotspotting can not be controlled in the above... I doubt I can do a good job with this either. It may be just best left to the lab.

Perry: Ive seen that book. Cool content. I appreciate you taking time to help. I got it to work tonight. I had equipment stacked on things and shimmed. Nightmare. Not a simple task to get the projector gate to size properly to present thru the projection lens to the camera. And it seems it has to be at fairly close range. And im having to double power the taking lens and use a diopter to get focused at the right distance. But I properly filled the camera frame tonight. The projector will need a good diffuser after the bulb. And I need to figure out a better lens configuration as right now i'm probably trading the focusing screen grain issue for the CA from this taking lens rig. And of course I will need to fab a bench to lock the whole rig onto to be able to repeat the process efficiently. But it works. Its not the magicalness that it seems when you read about it. But it does work.

7222 home rack and tray processed which I dont do anymore. Just too much work and we gotta keep the labs in business. There is fall-off as the projector did not have a diffuser in it at the time. Oh and its 4:3 cropped to 16:9 vid capture in-camera

Perry: I studied this last night. Same thought process. "No flippin way this works" And it didn't. All i saw was the projector lens blasting light at the camera. I read that the JK printers are "aerial" so I said there has to be something to this. But they appear to me to be moving macro slide copiers. You think maybe i throw opal glass in front of the lamp and cut the power? I dont know. You guys saw an image? Maybe my light path isnt straight. Ill bet that has to be dead nuts on.

A lot of my stuff is small & self funded so I cant afford the mins for great capture labs on those projects. I can project frame by frame onto a stills camera sensor with an analyser. And i get it that any stills camera does a better job of that than video capture anyways... But there are many times I want to just capture on the fly with a broadcast camera and I am looking for the holy grail in focusing screen material to project onto. I am projecting to a size a about 10" to reduce evidence of surface texture. Im open for crazy things youve tried that worked. Right now I am using thermal lamination material. I have no idea what the grain count is but I can still see it. And I have yet to fig out how to get my Xantus to tune it out. So Im still on the hunt. Maybe need to point out that this is completely an "in-line" or "thru material" method. Throwing on a screen and recording reflected has never tricked me into thinking it was anything but just that. But ill try something like that if you think i missed something.

And back to Davids point about moving grain... I shoot sports. Soccer predominantly. It seems I am often happier with full size sensor still shots than I am 35mm scanned. Now im usually pushing the light limits, using fast film and needing high shutter speeds. But the point is thats the worst performing aspect of film so it exaggerates the point to be more obvious. The OPPOSITE holds true for motion for me. So it has to have something to do with the fact that the grain structure is moving. A line is broken by grain only for 1/24. And then its all in another place. And the edges are sharp without the grain. So the average seems to be a homologous of broken sharpness that the brain avgs out. So moving 35 looks way better than still 35. And i have NO idea how you quantify that. BUT I would be very careful how we vote with our dollars. Kodak seems to be ok right now but it is a hard world for them to survive in.

I think it may be important to add that it also depends on the gauge of the film stock you are using. The grain size does not change from gauge to gauge of the same formulation. Yet the size of the same shot will. Ie a cu of an object that falls on a 35mm will cover less area when falling on 16mm. So you can get away with a bit less scanner for 16mm than you would choose based on a linear graph of resolution required for 35. Couple that with the larger grain size and distribution in older stocks used for small gauge and its no wonder 8mm has gone away. Which is sad because i much prefer the visual texture of the film stock to that of a handheld video camera i can carry around. Give me vision 3 for my bolex H8 and id be way happier than using a little electronic whizbang. Its not like we do that stuff every day. It didnt really cost that much. We really blew it voting with our dollars consumers! In the outdoor industry its what has happened to flyfishing and traditional archery. Its a bit of work so we dont do it.

aapo: RE: changing the mount: i'll research that some more for that lens. RE: Projector adapters. Done it for a few years. Speed focusing cant be done for sports without a having too much depth of field. By hand that is. Ive seen that guys deal that reads the gear of the spher and moves the gear of the adapter. Its a "one of" and appears too fragile for my working environment. DIY is prob: follow focus with hard stops. But you need 3. Focus right side of lens, Adapter left side of lens, and Zoom left side of lens. That gets you the same direction of travel for focusing the two units [the schneider is backwards] and zoom far enough away you shouldnt mistake it. But now your locked to a tripod. Its a last resort option

Stephen: re: 4:3 sensor... My personal use workflow is sd video. [d600 d600ws bodies]. I can't warrant swapping it to HD considering the amount of use it gets and the quality it can produce with the processors I own. re: anamorphic effect with rear element... Thats good to know about the rear elements as I have seen lens techs who can add such a module to the rear of a lens. But they are not cheap. Nor is the work. And its the kind of work that I dont believe there is a refund for poor performance results. Saba: Ive seen that lens. And i've seen screen grabs from it. It's interesting. But its usually Soviet bayonet or PL. That's my next issue. I can find a lot of B4 / PL converters for putting an eng lens on a cinema camera. But not the other way around. They're on the correct sides of the FFD chart. But there must be an issue with rear element diameter or protrusion.

I am looking into investing in a true anamorphic glass for a B4 mount body. I shoot live action so a zoom is a must. I cant afford a new Optimo or the like. What is the most prevalent mount on older anamorphic zooms? And have you guys seen adapters to get it on a B4 mount? I have a nikon F converter. Thought a PL to nikon would exist but it looks like the ffd is too close. I guess it being that close I could get a custom mount fabricated for the lens. But you can start to see where this is going. I really dont want to experiment a whole lot with this. And that converter, as nice as it is, has glass in it. Id like to get it out of the image path for this purpose. Thanks.

I think the number of clients savvy enough to ask for s16 is slim. I think the point more is about your love of the format. If it helps you generate more inspired and effective work... I'm not sure you can put a price on that.

Thanks David. Yeah its a 3ccd and its a Sony. Its 3200. I spent some time with the crispening, aperture and level dependence and reduced the noise quite a bit in some static shots. Im going to shoot some field tests and see how it looks in practice. I think its ok where im at now. Course I thought that before I became "aware". I used to black balance every use. Then I read a sony doc that said the internal battery has to drain to loose that data. But I prob do black balance every 10 shoots. It seems to fluctuate with settings and im not sure if even the service manuals explain all the interdependencies in those systems.

black clothing test: ir pollution not present.

I looked for a thread that goes over this but i didnt see one. So we tune our video cameras to get the look we want. I used to use paint chips. Ive been using the Kamermann app for just under a year which allows me to tune my iphone 4 screen then i pull the lens place the phone against the lock ring and hit the wb switch. granted you need a presaved screen for lenses and conditions but ive done that. And i can tune it for a range of outputs i think it will get viewed upon. And i get some pretty cool looks. BUT and this is a big one. A bit back I was running some footage through my processor and i saw shadow noise. "WT#!" "how longs that been there?" turns out the answer is since is since i started using the app. So im pushing the amps in the camera too much i guess. So i need to do a true white balance and use cc filters? And if im gonna buy new ones of those to fit my mattes, Im gonna do the dark clothing test and see if i need an ir cut while im at it. I dont really like these ideas. Stupid matte boxes are heavy enough already. Whats your guys experience?

squealing noise: is inside, inside, and then inside the little motor bearing areas. I fixed my last one over a year ago. I do remember that once you take the brush housing off the back and the gear train off the front of the little motor itself... the wound core is still inside more baffles that i dare not remove. Many many times i oiled further out on the assembly thinking " i got it this time".....nope. Finally just completely over it I packed the little motors front internal gearing with high quality clear machine grease. Just kept pushing it in. Noise never came back. Motor didnt blow up. If I remember correctly the noise was not fixed by anything I did in the back of the brush assembly And once you break that seal you have to carefully readjust the timing of the brushes or the motors will fight eachother during use.

Brian youve helped me with info along the way with this sd vid gear and I appreciate it. I started out just wanting a single camera to shoot the interview portions of my films. Now I shoot tons of sd footage. The ability of this gear and how it all worked together was and is amazing. It spoils you. I simply cant afford a 2k workflow that does what this can do. I suspect the equivalent 2k workflow to my sd would cost $500k if you had to buy it all new. And the affordable options just dont do enough better than my gear to make me want to tolerate all the cut corners. I consider myself a professional photographer and a hobbyist camera engineer. And I will roll up my sleeves and do a lot of service and tweeking to the cameras. If I worked along a true camera engineer for a day I think I would be in absolute awe. Cool stuff. Thanks for all your input!

There you go. I cant tell you how many times i got a neat piece of gear along with another purchase. And the two were completely unrelated. I used to think people may not have been truthful about their knowledge of the equipment or it wasnt actually theirs. But I eventually realized they just havent used it in so long they cant remember what was what.

Dom that figures. My 16s right now are m5s. I have messed with the rx 16s but its been so long now... I almost bought a couple last month. I was convinced I had the same experience with them as I did the 8. I tell you what.. I always used 35mm format lenses on adapters. If youre only really using the center of the lens, is it possible it changes the effect of the prism?

I just checked an rx8 i left setup with a non-rx berthiot zoom. Its setup with the same spacer ive used for other non rx lenses and its about 3mm. To make sure I havent changed my tolerance for whats in-focus over the years, I just checked it on a siemens star at all focal lengths at full open. Its really pretty dang sharp. 2 weeks ago i ran across some footage i shot with that rig and was enjoying it thinking it looked nice. So i wont debate the science or anybody elses experience. Im just saying heres an example in working status.

Sorry... my explanation reads like my 4 year old banged it out on a kindle. I meant to convey that a bolex with an adjustable shutter may not provide enough light for some single frame, long exposure situations. Forcing you to time it via a stopwatch. That may not be precision enough so maybe the accessory shutter would solve that issue as well. But all those accessory tubes in your pic scream macro photography.

Yeah i havent needed it yet. Im getting ready to sell my 2x converter lenses, fujinon and canon. If i can. Not sure who buys this stuff but me anymore. The ones i have are a bit soft, even without the converter in the path. I picked up one of those big Fujinon 1.6 to go on the front. Cant just throw a switch but the image is nicer with minimal light loss. Ive got a plain canon b4 zoom that out performs the 2x lenses. So I'll keep it and im planning my attack to use primes. Not the Zeiss B4 stuff. Cant afford em. I have a nice Nikon-B4 adapter but its has an internal element that protrudes fwd of the lens flange so it accepts only telephoto. BUT if i step up to longer ffd via a ring adapter to say med format, which i already shoot, im back in business. So im going to test shoot with some of that and see how it looks. Testing with a Nikkor 300mm was soberingly sweet compared to the converter lenses. Cant wait for surf season. That footage will look a bit better with that lens.

I think if it looks sharp in the viewfinder and your viewfinder is properly adjusted then yes its sharp at the film plane. BUT bolexs are all old. Things get out of alignment with time. So if you want to be certain you need to check at the film gate. I would acquire one of the bolex prism critical focus checkers that attach to the film gate. It looks like a mini periscope / microscope. You take the pressure plate out and this thing snaps in via a magnet and allows a view of what is coming through the film gate. Get as close to what you figure is operating sharp thru the critical focus checker. Adust your viwfinder to match and you should be good to make some test exposures. I would then do some test exposures and scrutinize them magnified to see if what you are getting really is truly sharp. Do this at infinity all the way close and a few steps in between. Measure your distances with a tape and notate so you can compare to the distance scale on the lens barrel. If all looks good, and your confident in your settings, you're ready to start filming. Backfocus is focusing behind or in front of what the lens was zero calibrated to throw as far as a film plane image. Nearly all lenses are NOT adjustable for backfocus. So you have to shim them. Glass such as viewfinder prisms require an adjustment to that backfocus to accommodate for the light going thru the glass before hitting the film plane. In this case you would need to increase the flange focal distance to accommodate for the viewfinder prism. So thats why you read a 3mm spacer works for a lens that was not designed to use the rx viewfinders. I cant verify that 3mm is perfect. But that seems like it might be right. Switar RX lenses have this all built into them. They optically correct for the backfocus change of the prism and recapture any scattered beams to produce a nice image with a proper distance scale on the barrel. Do not forget that you are talking about a viewfinder PRISM. Not and optically clear pane of glass. I have no idea what kind of refraction is going on thru that thing. But i do know from experience if you use the methods i stated above to set your rig up, you will at least be in control of the situation. If you dont have any issues with the test images you may not have any issues with your final film. BUT some things like highlight edges may show some issues youre not happy with. Of course thats true of any lens. No matter who made it or how its set. Its ALL about testing before you shoot. Youre just adding more variables into the mix to worry about than just using a matched lens to begin with.

i drove down to miami to look at this camera: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eclair-NPR-16mm-Cine-Camera-magazines-cases-accessories-Clean-/251049380069?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item3a73b588e5 This guy has EVERYTHING! He gave me a tour of his facility. I mean EVERYTHING!!!!! If they dont have it they can make it in their shop. I saw a vistavision projector being built. Stupid amounts of Mitchell cameras and parts. He bought out Fries. They have another facility in Atlanta which he said has over twice the amount of gear. He has maybe .0005% of his stock on ebay. So many lenses and parts. You could ask them for a purple elephant with white dots and he'll send some guy into storage and come back with it. If youve ever gone to get ice cream and they had so many flavors you decide to go get a burger instead. This is the equivalent.