Jump to content

Josh Gladstone

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    330

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Josh Gladstone

  1. Josh Gladstone
    You feel like I know how to recognize an off diopter? Why try to recognize it, just make sure it's set properly. Set the lens to infinity, look at something in the far distance, and then make sure that's in focus. If it is, then it probably is a collimation issue.
  2. Josh Gladstone
    Looks like it should work nicely given enough light
  3. Josh Gladstone
    I just completely disagree. People watch more now than they have ever before, and that will probably only continue to increase. There is an enormous demand for content right now. And I'm not sure I agree that digital made everyone a movie maker, but even if it did, why would camera format make it hard to compete against them? That shouldn't have anything to do with it.
  4. Josh Gladstone
    I think Moore's law does apply. Here's a paper by Intel that's all about CMOS scaling and Moore's law. And here's another one called "Moore's Law: A CMOS Scaling Perspective", but that one's behind a paywall. But anyway, I get your point about maxing out the physical capacity of CMOS/CCD chips. But if you think we've reached some sort of technological end point, you're crazy. Sensors will get bigger or some new technology will be developed, and they will continue to get better and more sensitive. And memories will be different in 100 years. Instead of finding a shoebox of your parent's photos, you'll find an old hard drive of theirs filled with jpegs, or an abandoned flickr or social media account, or you'll find their old neuro-crystal memory-cube or whatever in their closet and that will be the thing. I think we're going to actually have the opposite problem than what you predict. It's not that we won't have these memories to go through, it's that we'll have too many! You'll probably end up going through thousands of your grandparent's selfies and food photos and whatnot, and it'll just be so overwhelming nobody will want to go through it.
  5. Josh Gladstone
    I disagree that digital is the end of cinema. It may not be quite there yet, but one or two more cycles of Moore's law and sensors will be bigger and more sensitive, storage will be cheaper, processors faster, projectors brighter and cleaner etc etc. You can't stop active R&D! However it's not film, it shouldn't try to be, and hopefully both formats will be available for making movies far into the future. Plus, keep in mind that better image sensor technology, cheaper storage, etc does mean better quality film scans! And I don't think theaters are going anywhere either. I mean, TV was supposed to be the death knell of the cinema, and I don't think Netflix et al are a bigger threat. They will co-exist.
  6. Josh Gladstone
    I'm with you, Carl. I want each frame to be like a still photo, and I want each photo to be saved at a very high resolution, just like with my still photography. I wouldn't scan stills at a lower resolution than 1600 or 3200 dpi just because people are going to look at them online. I don't think that's overkill, it's archiving. Why shouldn't the same apply to movies? Just because the frames are being played back at 24fps is no reason to accept a lower resolution as 'good enough'. Hard drive space is cheap, get the highest quality possible. That's just my opinion.
  7. Josh Gladstone
    Rad!
  8. Josh Gladstone
    Here's a little film with a bunch of stocks in it. Unfortunately, it's not labeled what is what, so probably not as helpful as it could be, but I think it's safe to assume the nighttime stuff is all 500T. And you can also see that either film stock will get you excellent results.
  9. Josh Gladstone
    Super interesting.
  10. Josh Gladstone
    What did Fotokem say?
  11. Josh Gladstone
    I honestly can't imagine anyone going back to compositing photochemically. Just like I can't see anyone going back to cutting mag audio. It's just not going to happen. Digital compositing (and digital audio for that matter) were huge advancements and were seen as major improvements to the process. There just wasn't the same desire to hold onto analogue technologies in these fields as there has been in cinematography. And even that desire seems to be fading. That's not to say that some artist or filmmaker wouldn't find your proposed machine useful, but as for compositing special effects for a major motion picture, I just don't see it happening.
  12. Josh Gladstone
    Thank you. That is helpful.
  13. Josh Gladstone
    A couple more things I've learned. I have filed out super 8 gates, and went all the way to the perf because some super 8 cameras capture a bit of image there and I thought it looked cool, as you can see here: If you choose to do that, some light can get through the perf and flare out in the capture camera, so make sure that your light source is sufficiently diffuse and even. Also, I didn't see this in super8 but when doing the 16mm gate I realized that some surfaces that may have been painted black or coated in some way become shiny exposed aluminum. This spilled light into one side the frame and gave me a permanent uneven exposure. So I just went over everything shiny with a black sharpie and that worked decently well, but paint would probably be better (Not on the surface of the film transport. Nothing that touches film. Just anything on the back side of the film transport that got exposed by filing). So just be aware of that.
  14. Josh Gladstone
    Well, for what it's worth, here's my experience with it: I just filed out the gate on my 16mm scanner to scan the full super16 area. It's not very difficult, just take a few hours (less time in super 8). All you need is a decent set of files. However, I can't really speak to how safe it is on your film quite yet. After first filing it out, I noticed that my film was getting long scratch lines up in the same spots, so that was clearly from something. I've since tried to smooth out the gate more, and I went through and cleaned all the other rollers and other surfaces, which quite honestly could also have been the culprit. I haven't run film through it enough yet to say whether it worked or not, so I can't really speak to how safe it is to do just yet. But I will let you know when I do. In the meantime here's some footage. You can see in the overscanned version that my filing job isn't the cleanest, but it gets the job done. And the added benefit of having a larger gate is that if hairs get caught, they're less likely to get in the picture area. 16x9 cropped: Overscanned:
  15. Josh Gladstone
    Wow. I don't really have anything very helpful to say, but that sounds like quite an audacious project! If I were you, my first calls would be to Fotokem and Kodak directly. Good luck!!!!
  16. Josh Gladstone
    Interesting that you've decided to shoot on 35mm. I've only got a super16 camera myself, but I'm around LA if you need any help. Best of luck!
  17. Josh Gladstone
    Well there you go, someone out there still flashes their film! Got any footage of that online? I'd love to see it.
  18. Josh Gladstone
    Wow, that really does look great
  19. Josh Gladstone
    I think fewer people opt for more 'experimental' photochemical techniques like preflashing, skip bleach etc because it's risky. You could end up accidentally ruining good footage, or you might just get inconsistent results. So a lot of people just try to emulate those looks during color correction because it's safer (if they're even shooting on film to begin with). That said, I'm sure there are still some people out there doing stuff like that. I would also venture to guess that some techniques like cross processing are still fairly common (relatively speaking). And a lot of people choose to shoot tungsten film using daylight sources. Some correct the blue out in color correction, while others do it on purpose because they like the way it looks.
  20. Josh Gladstone
    Yeah, I always did wonder why they never made any T-Max films for cinema.
  21. Josh Gladstone
    It reminds me of Morgan Camera on Sunset blvd in Hollywood. If you look in the windows, you can even see that the store is still fully stocked.
  22. Josh Gladstone
    Eclairs and SR3s are designed to be run at speed, so they do not have single frame capabilities. Your best bet for animation or time lapse in s16 would probably be a Bolex. It does animation out of the box and there are a variety of specialized motors available for it. Beaulieu R16s also shoot single frame animation. Here's a link with more info about 16mm intervalometers: http://www.intervalometers.com/
  23. Josh Gladstone
    Thanks Ruben! I just filed out part of the gate today, so hopefully I should be able to do super16 pretty soon too! I was actually thinking the other way around. I bet you could automate your process with a stepper motor and an arduino. Attach the motor to your takeup side, and have it automatically advance a certain number of steps until it's moved the film into position. I'm not sure how you could interface with the scanner, but there's probably some open source way to either trigger the scan or capture it straight. Then once the image is captured, advance to the next position. If you wanted to get fancy, you could even incorporate a laser and light sensor to count perfs / register the film somewhat close to where it needs to be (you could also program it to stop automatically when it reached the end of the film). Anyway, something to think about at least!
  24. Josh Gladstone
    Thanks for the compliments BIll and Steve! And boy, Ruben, that looks labor intensive! Here's my second scan, for those who may be interested. It's a Tri-X test film I shot over a year ago when I first got my Beaulieu R16. Processing by Spectra if I recall correctly. Now that I'm able to get HD transfers of my footage for $0, I'm looking forward to shooting lots of super 8 and 16mm this year! (All I have to do now is rebuild my super8 scanner!) Finally, if you like this kind of stuff, please subscribe to YouTube Channel and/or like my page on Facebook. Thanks everyone!!
  25. Josh Gladstone
    Latitude. That's pretty neat. Do you have the footage online anywhere?
×
×
  • Create New...