Zac Fettig

You were right, Freya. Digital IMAX (IDF) uses a 2k projector, through at least 2012. They do have 4k projectors too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Digital_IMAX

If you've got a spot meter, I'd meter off his face, then overexpose a third of a stop.

The lightmeter should adjust to the film cartridge that's loaded into the bay. So 100 should adjust the lens' aperture 1 stop wider than 200, for the same light.

Is there a lot of variation in the sky? I believe (but I'm not sure) that Canon used an average meter in their super 8 cameras. So, it could be that the sky is all roughly the same exposure, on average.

An indoor test would be useful. Does it change when you're pointing at a ceiling light, instead of bare ceiling?

It certainly will vignette on a Super 16 size sensor.

I'm sorry zac, but a t and f stop are two entirely different things. F stops have nothing to do with the quantity of light hitting the film but only with a ratio of sizes. While it effects the amount of light let through it is not a measurement of such light as a transmission (t) stop is factory calibrated or not

I'm pretty sure that they are basically the same, and not entirely different at all! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#T-stop

A T-stop is a F-stop adjusted, at the factory or afterwards (calibration) to compensate for the actual transmittance (hence "Transmission" stop) of the lens of a calibrated, white light sample. An F-stop assumes 100% transmittance, and that is the rub; some light is always lost to heat. A typical cine/camera lens will have a transmittance in the 70-85% range, with the remainder lost to heat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmittance

A f-stop is a ratio of the focal length of the lens to the diameter of the aperture. A T-stop is an F-stop that has been calibrated at the factory, to adjust for absorption in the glass and variation in the blades of the aperture, since an aperture is not perfectly circular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Both measure the amount of light falling on the sensor. An f-stop is a theoretical value (what it should be), and a t-stop is a laboratory calibrated value (what it actually is).

Phil is right. You haven't actually lost a dime. In fact, you probably benefit more than you think.

Maybe a punch for syncing audio?

The easiest to work with is a Canon Scoopic. It threads itself, and has a built in light meter. Self contained. As easy as it gets in 16mm. If you want to start out, that's what I'd recommend.

The easiest solution is to buy fast glass. Voightlander makes a series of f0.95 lenses for micro 4/3 cameras. But each will cost around $1000.

If you look around, you might be able to find old Nikon or Pentax still camera primes in the f1.2 to f1.4 range. Adapters are fairly cheap. But you're going to have to work on focusing, and remember, you won't be able to squeeze the best performance out of the lens wide open.

The cheaper solution will probably be LED panels with extra batteries. Only good close up though.

Shooting events (weddings and such) is a huge money sink. In the US, most wedding photographers/videographers I know have hit really bad times. Each season, they have to upgrade equipment to the latest and greatest, or they don't get any work. Pay has been going down steadily for 15 years. It's been a race to the bottom.

The original is in the same group as Terminator (awesome 80's action films with subtle messages)... in fact, the original theatrical trailer for Robocop (the original) used the music from Terminator.

Contact Kodak. They used to make 35mm cine stocks available on 35mm rolls for cinematographers; so they can run tests (according to Andrew Laszlo's "Every Frame a Rembrandt"). Probably not a catalog item. They might not do it anymore. But I'd call them up (or email) and ask them.

If not, you need a film winder, a darkroom (or a darkbag in a pinch) and a bunch of spoolable cores. B&H carries all of those.

Have you tried any other B&W neg still films? I'd give T-Max 100 a shot. You should be able to squeeze out a similar look on that.

but it's heavy 2kg (4.4 lbs) all day on the back, no?

I wouldn't think so. But you know what you can carry better than we do.

For a documentary, probably the Arri-Zeiss Zoom 11-110 S16mm PL Mount.

If you're buying/renting; it's cheaper.

It's a little faster, which is helpful shooting indoors.

It's already setup for s16, so cropping isn't an issue. It is wider than the s35 lens. Wider lenses are lifesavers indoors.

There is one other option. A Bell & Howell Filmo 70 DR or DL (the late model ones; the early ones only take double perf). It's better built than the 240; It's built like a tank, and many of them were used to record combat footage in WW2/Korea/Vietnam. It's bigger brother, the 35mm Eyemo, was popular as a crash cam for years. It's also spring wound, with an option to motor drive it. The lenses are c-mount, although it is not a reflex camera.

And they go cheap these days. But you will need a separate light meter.

I see. It looks great! Shooting with a DOF adapter would solve the vignetting issue, but the picture quality would go down; even worse than stretching the picture.

Looks great! Was the lens just placed in front of the camera, without a mount?

Sorry, I'd thought the 2.5K had the same sensor size as the 4K (Super 35). The sensor is only 18.1mm diagonal. So it'll likely vignette at the wide range (below 30mm maybe?).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAMEFLEX-to-M4-3-Micro-4-3-43-G1-/320928782733

No idea if they're good or not.

This above link assumes you got one in M4/3. AFAIK, there is no Cameflex to EOS adapter out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth-of-field_adapter

If you want to go that route, it'll work regardless of mounts, but badly.

In theory you could use a spinning ground glass adapter (P&S Technic or Letus, etc.), but why? Why not just use a lens designed for 35mm?

It looks nice. I use a Sekonic L-758DR, and I love it. Their products are well made. This certainly looks more user friendly than mine. Also, wallet friendly.

The biggest drawback to this one is the lack of a spotmeter. I use mine A LOT when I'm on set. But, that's why the big brother costs as much as it does.

Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f4 [V],

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM [EOS],

Canon 5200mm f14 [FD],

Carl Zeiss 50mm f0.7 Planar [bNC],

Nikon 6mm f2.8 [F]

Everyone must have at least 2 of each of those lenses or they're not a serious photographer/filmmaker... just kidding!

It's a tough question. You have a lot of choices, and they all have plusses and minuses. Honestly, you're a lot better off shooting with what you've got, and focus on practicing. The Voigtlander mentioned above is a fantastic lens. If you're more interested in cinematography, you might do better with a PL-Micro 4/3 adapter and some super 16 lenses. Read as much as you can, and buy lenses piece by piece. I like old Pentax screwmount lenses for still photography and Cooke cine lenses. But that's just my preference.

The FFD of both mounts is the same. The bore is the same. The only real difference is the broached stainless steel mount on the B. It would probably work. But it's probably less work to just get an extra S/B. They can't be all that expensive.

 

I also don’t recommend that you try to power lights with an inverter through the lighter socket.

Good point! Although usually (hopefully?), the fuse will trip before that. Otherwise, something is gonna melt!

Not if the inverter is drawing 800W. The engine is gonna need about 200-300 of those watts just to keep the ignition going (unless it's a diesel). So you'd be drawing 800W off a system that's only outputting maybe 300. It'll draw down the battery fairly quickly, and car batteries don't work well once they've been drawn down.

Typically an inverter will have two ratings. One for continuous (leave it on) and one for intermittent (short term, but risk burning it out).

The other big downside to an inverter is that the big ones (>150W) can sometimes cook your car's electrical system. Which gets real expensive in a hurry!

No problem for the info.

Is it 800 watts intermittent or continuous? If continuous, you'll be fine. If it's intermittent, it won't be big enough.

I'd also like to point out that an alternator is only likely to produce about 50A at 12V (or 600 W). So it'll run down the battery, even if the car is running. A battery charger and a couple of deep cycle marine batteries might be a better approach.

I'd think it's probably too small. If you can, use fluorescents instead of the work light. They'll draw a lot less power. Or rent/buy a generator. A 4000W generator will be more than adequate.