Josh Gladstone

Lights on after the fixer unless you want it to look something like this (this was processed in caffenol, not D-76, but still intentionally flashed for just a second before fixing): Stop bath is fine, and some may disagree with me, but all it's really going to do is make your fixer last longer. Which is good. But fixer is pretty cheap and (I use kodafix) and I have a ton of it, plus I don't process a HUGE amount of film, so it's not a big deal for me to skip the stop bath. But of course that's just me and I'm pretty lazy. Do what makes you happy! I really recommend the photo-flo. It's super cheap and you literally use a few drops after you wash, just before you take it out of the water. It just helps to reduce water spots, but I mean if you look at my stuff, you can definitely still see water spots. I think you're probably going to get that to an extent with hang-drying regardless of how you treat it.

Here are some examples of my super 8 tri-x hand processed in D-76 and scanned with my DIY scanner: And here's some 16mm: I use a lomo tank, but here's my usual process: - D-76 with no dilution @ 20ºc for 6:30 or D-76 1:1 @ 20º for 9:15 - No stop bath. I just rinse out with water to get the developer out of the tank. - Fixer at room temperature for 5 or 10 minutes. You can't over fix, so sometimes I let it go longer. Especially if the fixer is old. - Wash in 10 changes of water (I use hardening fixer, so that might be overkill for you) - A few drops of photo-flo. - Hang to dry.

Yes! In fact, here's an example of an already exposed, found cartridge of Ektachrome 160 I hand-processed as a negative in D-76:

Yeah, that seems like an odd way of doing it, but I'm sure they had their reasons. Super interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Rad. Yeah, the same goes for uploading to Youtube as well. And youtube allows resolutions up to 4k, which gives even higher bitrates, if you feel like uprezzing (but that would increase your file sizes and upload times significantly). I've got a super16 eclair acl with arri b, pl, and cameflex mounts. Let me know if you ever want to get together and eclair it up around LA.

Mark, that was one of my favorite episodes of Columbo as a kid! He goes and talks to a projectionist, who teaches him all about reel changeovers and cigarette burns. I loved it.

Ha! I know those places! Looks like a good camera test to me! I especially liked the nighttime dark hallway shot with the illuminated room in the background. (Also, I noticed the walking dead. Very meta.)

@Robert: That's clever. I did always wonder how a lab could push some footage without pushing the whole batch. It all makes sense now!

Oops, I was only glancing at the full stops. Yes, all that everyone else said!

Correct about the stop differential. Each stop effectively doubles or halves the ASA.

Spectra offer pull processing on 16mm film, but they have a 400' minimum. You can put your film on "standby" which means they wait for 300' other feet of film before processing the whole batch, but I can't imagine they would offer pull processing on that, since you'd probably be waiting a long time for someone else who also needed their footage pulled 2 stops as well. So if you have 400'+ of footage, that's probably the way to go, but it sounds like you probably shot 100', in which case, give them a call? http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Lab.html

Hah. Wow. Love it. For half a mil, you can shoot 65mm if you're careful. I wonder how that budget would compare to shooting on an Alexa65.

I did indeed. Thank you very much!! That's really nice to hear. :)

Really cool.

I feel you. Sounds cool. Keep it up!

Is your SD workflow and usage of older equipment an artistic choice because you're going for a certain look or feeling, or is it because that's the equipment you have available to you / that's what you're familiar with? Just curious. Also, as an alternative to an NPR, you might want to check out an ACL. They're a lot smaller, and can be gotten for pretty cheap these days. I got really lucky and got a great package for $800 locally, and mine even has a b/w video tap and a crystal speed controller that lets me set the frame rate to anything I want up to 72fps (those were aftermarket add-ons from AZ Spectrum, and wont be on every ACL).

Yeah, these days effects films like those only have a handful of shots in the movie that aren't vfx shots, and the post-production schedule is very tight, so they really have get the effects done in a surprisingly short amount of time. So they use 2k workflows (and divide the work among many effects houses) for the sake of expediency and cost savings.

Sweet! Congrats!

Very interesting. Please post a photo of where the screws are located if you can. I've got an R10 too, and that will probably come in handy in the future. I'm not sure whether or the camera needs to be lubricated or not, but if it does, that could be the culprit? But someone more versed in R10 repair is going to have to chime in to give you a more definitive answer.

Just fyi, the corner to corner sharpness and the vignetting is from the choice of lens, not the camera itself. And the odd gyration is from image stabilization added after the transfer, and wouldn't be on the raw footage, or on the original film.

Just FYI, DaVinci Resolve is free if you want to play around with it. It's not the most user friendly program, but it's very useful. https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve Facebook, like 90% of media, phones, all tvs etc these days, display things natively in 16:9, which is what 1080p is. Which, conveniently, is exactly what super16 and ultra16 were used for up until the Red and Alexa took over. For example, Scrubs was shot on super16 I believe. Nowadays, it's just the Walking Dead shooting on super16. So anyhow, for posting on Facebook and Youtube, ultra16 is going to be perfect. The limitation you're going to run into is bit rate, as Facebook isn't really concerned with playing back the highest quality video possible. Youtube is better and allows higher resolutions and bit rates than Facebook, but even still their priority is serving tons of video to tons of people. So if you're ultimate goal is to make stuff for Youtube and Facebook and you don't really want to do anything more with it in the future, go with an HD or 2k scan to DNxHD (since you're using Premiere, that should be easier than ProRes). You'll be very very happy with that. Edit: I take it back, I believe Facebook natively plays back video in any aspect ratio, and won't resize as long as the largest dimension is less than 1280px. But still, most everything is 16:9

HD, 2k, and 4k are resolutions. HD and 2k are very close to each other in size. 4k is double the horizontal and vertical resolutions of 2k, so it's 4x the number of pixels. HD and 2k are more than enough for current display purposes, but whether or not you think those formats are future-proof or are enough good enough for your tastes is a matter of debate. Either way, since you say money is no object, it's always better to work with higher quality files than you want to finish with. ProRes, DV, and DNxHD are all codecs. DV is standard definition and not even very good at that, so that's out. ProRes and DNxHD can both be good. If you use AVID, you'll probably want to go with DNxHD, if you use a Mac/Final Cut Pro, go with ProRes. If it's a tossup, I'd say ProRes. Then within ProRes there are different variations. 422 is more compressed than 4444. 10-bit or 16-bit. 16-bit has more gradations of tone and color and is useful for color correction. DPX and TIFFs are still image formats, which means that they would deliver a sequence of still images to you. This would be the highest quality option, as each discrete image is completely uncompressed. You can then take the image sequence into DaVinci for color correction, or into a NLE for editing, or whathaveyou. TIFFs are great and uncompressed images. DPXs are also uncompressed, are pretty much the standard format used in the film industry, and when saved in LOG format, hold even more information. The drawback of LOG is that the image appears muddy and very low contrast until the proper color space corrections are put on it. But it does hold more information and is useful for color correction.

On a shoot with a camera crew, your camera assistant would be working with the script supervisor to keep track of the lengths of each take, to make sure that you're reloading at the right time and not rolling-out mid shot. Other than that, most cameras have a footage counter that shows you how much footage is left. And like everyone else has mentioned, you should be able to hear the difference. Especially with an MOS camera.

FWIW, here's some Super 8 em-26 Ektachrome I processed in D-76: Note that this cartridge was just inside a camera I'd purchased, so aside from the opening, all this footage was shot by someone else who knows when. Probably some time in the late 80s/early 90s.

There's truly no noticeable difference. You'd have to be an android to notice a difference. It's not an enormous post headache, but something you will have to deal with eventually, either before you start cutting, or when you export. Basically what will happen if you shoot at 24fps is that in the end, your picture will be played back 1% slower. Still the same number of frames that you captured, just shown a little slower. If you roll at 23.98fps though, then your film will play back at the same rate it was captured. But again, this stuff happens all the time in major motion pictures and nobody notices. For all intents and purposes it's imperceptible. Make any sense?