Jump to content

Philip Kral

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Philip Kral

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  1. I've been in your shoes many times and i completely understand the feeling. Every once and awhile a lab "gets me' with a hidden cost that at a second glance - wasn't actually hidden. The minimum feet charge is always one of them (it also makes it frustrating when you really just want to do a test roll). Another that always used to get me is with another lab, they have an .08 per foot cleaning fee they automatically tack onto the processing before they scan it. It's enough of a jump to give you a shock, but you can't blame them - it's right there in the fine print! I've had similar communications hiccups with Cinelab where if something didn't seem clear, or if they didn't get my memo - they would indeed make assumptions. The one I remember is asking for a DPX sequence and getting a different codec altogether with a note citing "Not enough space". I remember being kind of irked that they didnt call or email: If it was important enough I would of sent another drive or even at least chosen my preference of file format! It was no big deal, it was still a damn good scan and Robert and his team do awesome work and always have but it does tend to give the shady feeling your describing. Especially when in a worse case scenario - A client could be a real jerk about it and demanded a new scan, and I'm sure some people do. I remember this was around the time Cinelab got the clientele from Pac Lab when they shut down. I know that includes a few film schools, so I wondered if there was a sudden surge of work that may have produced communication issues. But truth be told I always have these moments with labs, from Cinelab, Colorlab, Metro lab, Pro8mm, etc. They all have that "hidden cost factor" where you realize it's your own fault for not reading the fine print whether it be to charge you a fee for using your own hard drive, or to prep the film for scan, or a minumum amount of feet. That "shady feeling" for me is "why couldn't they just have added that to the per foot price to begin with" but again... that's not on them. As for the other issues. I'm under the impression that with the amount of work these labs get, sometimes they're more concerned with getting it back out the door. If the lab honestly screwed up, they've all been honest with me if it's on their end (to include cinelab) if you want to present a case. The latest lab I worked with (not cinelab) I had bring to their attention in two different occasions where they charged me completely different prices they agreed upon (one of which was regarding the minimum feet). But they've always corrected it, as naive as this may sound - I really don't think any of them are trying to scam anyone on purpose. Sorry for the book.
  2. Does anyone have any word on the new Ektachrome in 16mm? Kodak boasted its usage in Paul McCartney s recent music video but still no release.
  3. I agree with Nicholas. Even if you make a limited run, they're sure to sell out. This reminds me a lot of the Logmar S8 camera. The first few where 3500.00 dollars, which seemed expensive, but after seeing that Kodak's new camera at nearly the same price with less features- it may be the best deal. Maybe even best price still when the logmar jumped to the 5,000.00 price. The other thing your camera has going for it, is the mechanical viewfinder. If I'm going to spend a few thousand on a super8 camera, it's going to be the last camera I ever buy in that format. I have to know the thing's going to last. I've had enough digital screens die out on me to fear a camera where that's the only view finding option, I could probably find a way to re cell the batteries in the next 20 years, but that screen and the internal sensor? Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But your camera seems like a solid idea, limited run or not. To include the Y16. Speaking of which, I have an Optar Illumina in 25mm, I got the back end protruding 35mm but not 36mm. Yours appears to be in PL mount, mine is in Arri B if that makes a difference.
  4. For some reason I never enjoyed color reversal scanned. It never came out right to my eye. But projected, you just can't beat it! I just got word today that there are some beta testers out there playing with the stock already. It's good to know I no longer have to horde my leftover Ektachrome stock, or struggle to keep up who's cutting the next batch of Fuji slide film... or wait for ferrannia. The question now is will the stock bring in any new film makers to the format. Reversal film (particularly color) was a key part for drawing me in. On a technical level, it was a great way to learn proper exposure and technique without the additional cost of a digital transfer. On an emotional one, it was always special to get that film back and project it. With a lack of accessible projectors out there (or affordable working ones since every seller thinks they have a collectors item), I wonder If newer generations of filmmakers just "won't get it."
  5. It may need lubrication. When I got mine 10+ years ago, I had to replace the belts. I'm not sure why it would start and stop like that. If it's not a lubrication issue, then it may have something to do with the crystal. I hate to say it, but this may not be a problem you can fix yourself. I would call whitehouse AV, they know almost everything about cinema product cameras. I'd give him a call.
  6. I was always a fan of DS8 myself. I have the Elmo tri-filmatic . But as everyone has already mentioned: finding the film is almost non existent. I have but one last roll of Ektachrome and I don't suppose anyone is going to cut down anymore stock even with new Ektachrome around the corner.
  7. Last summer I pulled my ultra 16 modified CP16 out of storage to use as a "b" cam and a good chunk of the footage came back with what appears to be a light leak shown here: Does anyone have any idea where it's coming from? It's an old cp16 with the dogleg lens. I can't seem to figure out where the leak could of come from. The camera is put together pretty tight. I noticed it didn't show up all the time, it slowly reappears within zooms. I'm wondering since this was converted to ultra 16 that perhaps it's leaking out side the parameters of the shutter. But I've used this camera before and this is the first time i've seen this. My second guess is that the cp16-A has what is essentially a C mount thread hidden under the "cup" that the dogleg lens is attached too, this was a tad loose and I had to tighten it later. Is it possible light could have leaked from there? The light is leaking from the bottom left of my camera obviously but I'd be damned if I knew where it was. It almost feels like it's coming from the lens itself. I don't think it's leaking from the body or where the magazine attaches because the leak would look different. Usually I'd shine a light through something and looks for leaks but I'm getting nothing..... Any ideas?
  8. Strange question for those members who own and/ or work in motion picture film labs: How does the film get agitated during development? When one develops still film at home, you must "agitate" the film by either shaking, stirring or inverting the container containing the film and the developer. The process is supposed to be crucial to ensure the film is constantly being exposed to fresh developer. Naturally, the jumbo processing machines must use a different method. Does the processing machine used for movie film utilize some way of doing this? Or because the film strip is constantly moving through the developer, that itself provides constant re-exposure to fresh(er) developer?
  9. Bernie won't touch them anymore because he's worried about the tricky electronics. Visual products never got back to me, so I should give them a follow up call. I think they (visual products) said they would contact Whitehouse AV for parts, I should give them a call too just to touch all my bases. I think i already called Du-All and they said to try visual products. I got into contact with Les Bosher about the other option: lens mount adapters. They informed me that they can only make Arri-B, M42 and Nikon lens adapters for CP. However, when I try to order them, they never return my messages. I'm assuming they won't answer my PL question either. On a side note, I already have an M42 adapter. But mine seems to be a macro adapter, I was wondering if someone could cut it down to make it a "normal" lens adapter. The "smudges" are definitely on the mirror and not the viewfinder.
  10. The mirror was like that when I got the camera. Honestly, I usually just ignored it- I can focus all the same. Recently I used a friends Super16mm camera and I must admit, it was nice having a cleaner mirror- especially when using the video assist. It has some light scratching, but overall I think the mirror is either really filthy or the silvering is wearing down. There's this smudge that when you look through the viewfinder, looks like a streak when you slide your finder across a dirty windshield. I tried applying some cleaner over it, but nothing seems to happen, making me realize it's obviously much more then dirt that's the problem. Now that I think about it, perhaps the work that needs to be done is more then just a polish-but it needs work just the same. I'm in the NY area, but considering the job(s), I'm willing to send it out.
  11. Someone correct me if there was a more appropriate board to put this under, I have a Super 16mm converted GSMO with a video tap and a repaired/ upgraded circuit board. Lately I've been thinking of either upgrading it to a PL mount or at the very least having the reflex mirror polished/ cleaned. However, I seem to be having issues with finding anyone to do either. I realize it's a rare camera and hard to find- for example- spare parts... but I assumed either polishing a mirror or fitting in a mount housing would be generally a straight forward process (Albeit the hard labor with micro measurements obviously). One I could see an issue with, but both? Anyone have any ideas who may be able to perform this service?
  12. I've actually become a camera collecting fanatic. Thankfully this is asking just for cinema cameras. Digital GH4 This isn't my only digital camera, I have many others to include DV cams and and old T2i rebel. But this is my "latest" camera. The cropped sensor was better for my super16 lenses and honestly, this camera does all I need for my digital work-flow. I pull out an external recorder when needed. Yes, it doesn't really have RAW or a flat picture profile (They released an S-LOG upgrade, but it's not perfect- bands too much for my taste). Over the last year, I've really missed working with film and find it hard to invest anymore in digital cameras that i'm simply buying for freelance work (After clients want the "next big thing", that camera rots, never to be used.) From now on, I just rent for a project. Film Super8- I have too many to mention (When i was a kid in the 90's, you could get one for around 5-$10.00 a piece at a garage sale or flea market. If it had a feature my other cameras didn't have, I'd grab it.) But the ones I currently have on my shelf are the Canon 514XL (I've modified to MAX8) and a Minolta xl-400 that i'm currently testing it's interval meter. I also own a DS8 Elmo Tri-filmatic camera, currently loaded with the last of the 100D Ektachrome :) 16mm Beaulieu R16 (Ultra 16) This is actually the wind up model, wonderful replacement for my old B&H Filmo which I managed to destroy. Cp-16 (Ultra 16) My first sound sync camera, I use it as a "b cam" sometimes. GSMO (Super16) Love this camera, if only it where easier to find more support for it. Had it converted to a better circuit board and a video tap. ...and a 35mm Konvas. Just for fun, as they are dirt cheap for a 35mm cinema camera. :p
  13. Thank you! That explains a lot. I would have assumed pixel density would have been more important. I thought smaller pixels sharpen the image, to improve the signal to noise ratio, couldn't just more light be added (Especially without a bayer filter)?
  14. I was just curious, what makes the KAI-16070 a better sensor? It doesn't seem to have more mega-pixels, does it have a better pixel density? More latitude? Or it just appears to deliver a better performance in tests?
  15. I can vouch for Fotokem, I remember their prices being low and their quality for a one light print high. I didn't even see my tape splices. Funny, I've been thinking of making another print recently, there is nothing quite like the feeling of it- that is- the process of shooting, printing then projecting. Strangely, it doesn't feel the same for me as when I shoot and project a reversal color film.... go figure.
×
×
  • Create New...