Jump to content

Matthew B Clark

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Matthew B Clark last won the day on May 3 2014

Matthew B Clark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Matthew B Clark

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Chicago, IL
  • My Gear
    S16 Krasnogorsk 3

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks for explaining that workflow along with the decision-making aspects of it, David. That helps a lot to characterize the reasons why one would choose between the different strategies in a hybrid digital/analog workflow toward various different ends. It's obviously very expensive to 'experiment' with optical printing, interpositive prints, etc in a chemical workflow for any project, let alone people like me, who self-finance something. Obviously the advice is welcome, respected, and helps more than you might know. From what you mentioned, I am really curious about your take on the benefits of optical color-timing during that IP versus doing a really high quality scan up-front, editing the DI in the box, grade in the box and output to DCP directly. Also, is it unheard of and completely insane for me to try to cut my own negative? I feel like with all the digital tools we have now, it might be kind of interesting to see how much I can get away with....just to see.
  2. Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Gregg. I've thought of the 15-150 too -- which has a lot of what I'm after, yes....but is it gargantuan for a c-mount adapter? I could probably affix a lens support, but yeah, we are quickly escalating into the territory of 'tricked out Yugo's,' you're right. I originally felt the small 17.5-70 would slot in with weight and size just right without the need for a bigger rig. The EBM has that bayonet mount, and I would have it hanging off a C-mount Bolex adapter to boot. So yeah, it would require a full step up in rig support for that, new rails, tripod, lens support. Otherwise I'd probably do it. I like the range of it, as I prefer the long end of lenses pretty naturally. So yeah, in summation, both my rig and my tastes are working against me in the 'shot stability' department I guess. The 17.5-70 seemed like a n effort to naturally combat all that. Still getting me to 70mm on a S16mm frame. The Schneider primes look great. I've seen some comparisons of these to Zeiss primes (standard speeds I think), and I actually prefer them over the Zeiss. The Zeiss give me a really complicated reaction aesthetically -- they seem to be technically superior lenses, but they have that same ubiquitous appeal in their quality that say, top 40 radio songs do when they are recorded. I mean sure, if I were the last man on Earth, and no films existed, and I lay atop a mountain with two cases containing a set of Zeiss and a set of Schneider, I might well pick the Zeiss there, but since we live in a world where everyone wants a top 40 radio hit, I owe it to myself not to pick the thoughtless copycat jerk route. How good is that guy's movie going to be? Notice I said good, not shiny.
  3. Hello David ā€” Is pushing 200T by one or even two stops in processing totally unwise in such circumstances (given it was overexposed one stop already for density)? Iā€™m trying to think of how much saturation and contrast can be gotten back during a push. Or would that just blow out all the highlights completely? Trying to figure out the best way to manipulate tried and true techniques during processing etc, and wondering if printing an interpositive is necessary to get all that saturation and contrast if Iā€™m still going to use a DI. Did you also just scan that print back in then? And grade from that? Trying to get my head around the weird hybrid use of these technologies and balancing faithfulness to the original artistry and techniques with cost and other qualitative concerns etc. Mostly curious if pushing the stock here would have yielded similar contrast too.
  4. Hi Webster. Thanks for the reply -- It seems to be the only lightweight, high quality, relatively updated (for vintage Angenieux zooms anyway) zoom that covers a full 1-inch image circle for use with Super 16. Part of my attraction to zooms is ease of use and certain cinematic aspects for shots that require a creeping zoom look that I'll be doing, but the large part of it is due to the lower contrast look and higher quality bokeh of the zoom while still remaining sharp enough for use. I would use the Vario-Switar POE 16-100 for all the same reasons if it weren't for the crap bokeh it can break out into. Anyway, I'll be using a lot of hard light and diffusion, then pushing the processing to add contrast, so I think those techniques will offset the lower contrast of the glass and render the 'benevolent qualities' of this characterful lens. Take a look at what it does on a basic BMPCC for field of view comparison -- thats exactly why...
  5. Can anyone help me with sourcing an Angenieux 17.5-70 in C mount at a reasonable price? I've been hunting this particular lens for a long while in the background, but as I get set for a new project I feel like this lens will be really good for it, and have no leads. The other option would be to shoot with switars and my Kinoptik 5.7 on the Bolex EBM, but I don't like how 'pure' the switars appear sometimes. I like the aesthetics of the Angenieux look, and if I had to go with primes may opt for even an M42 adapter with bokeh blasters like Helios stills lenses etc. I wanted to ideally get by with use of my Switar POE 16-100 zoon for this, but I am pretty sure that two-blade iris is going to cause ridiculous bokeh I will likely hate in the edit. My only option to counter that would be using crazy nets to flare out the star shapes where it appears, which is part of the acceptability politics of this lens tango I am in I guess...
  6. You can also use this as an effect, if it suits the content. this was my first film project, and I made use of the mistakes. It was a little embarrassing for me after writing detailed treatment, flying a band out, lighting and dressing the 'set', first-time-quasi-directing random people and generally being way over my head by my own doing only to hear your 'trusty K3' start whizzing and whirring irregularly. "ummmm, smoke that again....please". Those shots gave me a sinking feeling, because I didn't know what the hell that was going on inside the camera, so I was just praying it wasn't an internal film explosion of coils. It wasn't. So I shrugged it off like a very good K3 owner would šŸ˜‰ When I got this footage back, I actually wanted to make an entire video out of just the couple minutes of these shots! The "cigarette in the flame" and the "wiping the skull's tears" shots. The limitations of the K3 can be used impressionistically I guess. That's the moral of the story, in a circular, weird way I guess. But it has to sort of relate to the theme or it would be stupid looking. Going forward, I would totally buy a 'screwed up K3' just to get this insane effect to be honest. Hindsight is sort of valuable.
  7. I will be funding and shooting a short film myself (15' length) on 200T using an EBM (super 16). I'm contemplatng picking up a zoom with more appealing bokeh like the Angenieux 17-68 or perhaps even a Schneider 18-90 zoom. Both have very different character and bokeh it seems, but BOTH are better in that department than my current Switar 16-100 POE. I don't mind a lens that soft vignettes or darkens or distorts lightly at the edges, as I think that will compliment my Kinoptik 5.7 and will reinforce the look of the film. But I wanted to know if this Switar POE 16-100 is a bad idea to shoot with as I would rather buy a new lens now than discover unusable and weird bokeh later when editing. I love the sharpness of the POE, but I can't help feeling like the Angenieux 17-68 will work better. Is it worth the gamble? Or am I worrying too much about how bad the POE will look here? Just need some seasoned input on this subject because I'm about to buy it....and I don't want to if the POE will work fine.
  8. Are you saying scan it in (say, simple HD ProRes 422 or other basic DI), edit in the box, then export your edit back to the lab for a film output....and scan that film out back in to add contrast? I'm also trying to get my head around a process that would allow for more of the feel of a photochemical finish, complete with the grimy charms and blemishes of antiquity (so be it) without the need for negative cutting (expensive....and likely not even available). I would love to know what sorts of workflows one can take trough the DI process for editing but still yield a contrasty, slightly old school photochemical look. Something that would allow me to shoot on S16 and obtain the same kinds of looks that harken back to an optical workflow David Mullen got with Love Witch, for instance. EDIT: and yes, I know the looks come from lighting, set design, lenses, etc. But I'm specifically addressing here the choice to embed some character into the printing process aspects....to add a tool to the tool chest if you will...
  9. Interesting points. But can we also have Technicolor? In all seriousness, I appreciate the depth of your writing in that response, Perry. Very well sums it up. Also, I really cant ever bash anyone for working toward the larger picture here....supporting the advances in these technologies that keep film viable in the first place. Now, is it sad that a near-perfected, already beautiful, perfectly functional industry of purely photochemical workflows has deteriorated? Well, yes. That makes even me, who has never worked with it, very sad. But, I am very happy that there are some systems being developed that keep film in the game (and actually above the game in many ways). So theres that. As for the every-day super 8 test...its still very much debatable. Ive had (curiously) most labs actually talk me down from the overscan in almost every case. Citing the negligible increase. However, the functionality of systems for the future is obviously a critical point. It isnt bad to calculate for that.
  10. I hear you loud and clear on that. But future-proofing something shot in Super 8 at 10K is....well....let's just say, maybe it reminds me a little of that weird 12-barrelled gun Leonardo DaVinci drew a sketch of. It's really nice in theory....don't think I'm ever going to equip any soldiers with it for very simple practical reasons. I mean speaking of diminishing returns, is it really in a labs' best interests to be investing their resources into 10K Super 8 technology? If we're moving into that sort of realm of cost-efficiency, then let's just bring back Technicolor, because that looked amazing.
  11. Do you mind if I ask why you could potentially need a 10K scan of Super 8 film? Here I am considering the value of 4K for grain resolution in Super 16mm. The lines of resolution in the film are so far below the resolution of the scan that it is almost an exercise of trying to cause the resolution of the grain to become the central focus of the scan.
  12. Is that a radical difference for some shots? Or negligible in all but extreme circumstances? I guess my most concerning point is about the differences in the way the two versions vignette...hard or soft vignetting....either way...if one vignettes less than the other on an H16 RX Bolex super 16 EBM....thats the one for me.
  13. That smiley face is a little crooked too, Dom. Just kidding...I appreciate your thoughts and info on these lenses. They are very good lenses that I think probably nauseate most of you because they certainly have been talked about to death. So when someone brings them up, I know its like here we go....cringe but all the same, I really appreciate it.
  14. Thank you, Dom! But I assume you meant 5-inches, not 5-feet, right?
  15. Also, Jean-Louis...does the macro version of 10mm have a radically different close focus distance than the normal 10mm? I am feeling like I dont even really concern myself with the preset version as much as the ability to close-focus in some cases. But if its a difference between an 8-inch minimum focus or something like that, and some extreme 1-inch focus, I can live with that sort of thing. Again, if one hard vignettes more than the other, that would certainly impact the choice.
×
×
  • Create New...