Bernhard Zitz

I recently got a Kodak K 100 turret. It's in good shape, but sounds pretty dried up, some lube wouldn't harm. Anyone serviced a K 100 before? There are two screw-covers on the side, what are they for? Underneath you see inside where you see the edges of gear wheels. I wonder what the shutter angle is. What speed I get in single frame mode in relation to the selected speed, I guess in one frame the camera won't speed up completely. Cheers, Benu

http://www.jr-worldwi.de/photo/index.html?...omparisons.html click on polarizer on the lower left. at the bottom of the page you'll find some interesting examples of combined pola-filters...

Under hundred is impossible. Consider that if the camera doesn't have xlr plugs and phantompower you need an mic with onboard battery and probably a xlr to minjack cable/adaptor. Be aware that cables cost money too. Consider also regular cardio, hypercardio or supercardio condenser mics. For indoor they're good as well and for outdoor; even if you get more ambientsound, for beginners it's easier to boom with a mic that has a wider polar pattern. couldn't find any mics there, just windshields that look like rycote but cost a fraction of it...

Open Clip in cinema tools, conform to 24 fps. Change sequence settings in fcp to 24fps. import and drag the conformed clip (video only) to the time-line of your 24fps-sequence, that's it cheers, Bernhard

Heyhey, you also could ask if it's to early to switch. I started film-school at the age of 25, before that I studied different stuff at university but never had the patience till a graduate. Now I have a film-school degree and it's pretty hard to earn a living in a town without film industry. Having a Phd in sciences isn't a bad thing, even if you want to do films later. If you're already pursuing your studies in science, why don't do it to the end? A descent university-degree might help you admittance to a renowned film-school or help you to get a scholarship or simply proof that you're a smart guy who is able to work. If making moving pictures and working on film-sets is your passion, but you're hesitating, I'd do it as a hobby or summer-job during your PhD and then decide what you want. Just 2cents from my modest experience (I'm not a DP), a job in the lightning-department might be a good starting point for a future DP, after all it's much more about light and shadows than about loading and focus-pulling. cheers, Bernhard

It depends your budget. If you don't have enough cash get a Rode. I own a NTG-1 it's rather ok for the price, but not more. It seems like they did a good job on the NTG-3, but one always has to listen. If money is no concern I'd hear in to higher end stuff. The MKH-60 is pretty much THE standard today and has approved its reliability over the years. It sounds very natural, has a lot of output and very low noise. The 416 is still a good choice, even if it sounds a bit unnatural it renders the human voice in good way, but is a bit noisy. In the last years most of the considerable manufactures brought out some alternatives. You already mentioned the Neumann, there's the Schoeps CMIT 5U, the DPA 4017 and the Sanken CS-1 and CS-3. Of these later ones I only heard the CS-1 and was pretty impressed. cheers, Bernhard

Thanks Sam, looks like a solution. Here I found the user guide for wraptor http://www.quvis.com/?Action=Support Common 2k D-cinema resolutions: 2048x1080 (full container), 2048x858(Scope), 1998x1080(Flat), 1998x836(Scope on Flat) and 1558x858 (Flat on Scope) I guess pixels are square and for regular 1.85 it's 1998x1080 ? cheers, Bernhard

Hi, is it possible to diy files (image plus sound) that can be played on a d-cinema server with 2k projector etc? Can I create such files on a regular PC or Mac with available software? If yes, how? I guess it has to be JPEG2000, but in what shell? And the sound? Can such a server read quicktime? cheers, Bernhard

A regular vocal-mic has already a windscreen (the round basket-thing on top). If you ad some foam, these mics become rather stormproof, but you have to hold'em close to your sound source.

Most S8 cameras have aerial focusing, most 35mm cameras have a ground glass. With an aerial viewfinder, accurate focusing is nearly impossible, specially on the long side of the lens. Your eye is focusing as well, so even if the camera is out of focus your eye will focus till you see sharp. Maybe it's better to focus after the distance marks on the lens, but they have to be tested first. And it won't be much "point'n shoot" anymore.

What ever focal length you need or have, there is a limit before vignetting on the wide side. In S8 you can go as wide as 10mm (the cinegon on the leicina special), in Regular 16mm the limit is 20mm, but you get barrel distortion with both. the super8man has good info about step rings etc... http://home.pacbell.net/mnyberg/super8mm/super8_39.html

I wouldn't attach it direct to the zoom lens. It's a hassle because it will turn as soon as you focus the camera lens, then if you focus the 8z the cameralens will turn and get out of focus. The weight of the 8Z plus the lenght of the Schneider won't do any good to the weak c-mount of the camera. The rear thread is non standard. I searched in several shops etc. for a step ring but there was nothing. A solution would be to glue a standard ring on it I use the 8z with a rod system. So it isn't connected mechanically to the cameralens and both can be focused hassle free. By the way, prime lenses work best for this set up.

to come back to this part of the question. Once your sky is white it's hard to darken it in post and get nice contrast in the clouds. It looks much better done in-camera. Using a 85 in B/W gives only a very subtle effect, a red filter will do the trick better. The darker it is (lower pass) the stronger the effect. For maximum contrast sky you can add polarisation over the red. Thus it can be hard to get a reasonable f-stop. Bernhard

I used plenty Tri-X with a leicina special, I still was able to engage or disengage the filter manually, no idea how it does on a R10. For contrast and dark sky a red filter gives good results. For b/w with Tri-X in daylight I always have a dark red filter on. Somehow the internal lightmeter seems to be more sensible for red light or the film is less, I have to overexpose quiet a bit to get best results. Cheers, Bernhard

Yep, and most adaptations are crap. After all the bad examples, some companies and producers haven't realized that not every great book makes a great movie. Cinema copies it's self since a long time. I recently watched some hollywood output of the 30ies and 40ies. A box office orientated flick is still pretty much the same today. Some handsome actors, action, special effects and at least one cheesy love story in the sub plot. Strong genre films like swashbucklers, westerns etc. where already important in the silent era, then got copied again in the 30ies and lather again and again. For some reason cinema kept a very classic way of story telling, there hasn't much changed since the greek theater. It's funny that a more or less new art form follows such old schemes and rules. Most of todays stage plays and books are much more progressive than most movies. Already the need to tell a story seems conservative. In the first days of cinema it is has been been sufficient to film people coming out of a factory or a train arriving at a station etc... there wasn't yet the need for a story. Quickly movies were (ab)used to tell stories. If today one makes a movie without a classical story, he's lucky when it's screened in an art gallery or specialized festival, by no way you'll see it in a regular movie theater. It seems that cinema is an regressive art form. Maybe youtube and similar will save us all. Yes, commercial cinema might have passed it's zenith, at least in making courageous and progressive movies. But then why things or eras always have to be evaluated in a competitive way. There was good stuff, there is good stuff and there will be good stuff, maybe you just have to search a little harder. cheers, Bernhard ps: I love blockbusters as I like very experimental stuff