Mitchell Perkins
-
Posts
33 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mitchell Perkins
-
-
I'd like to share my new idea. All you need is an iPhone with a case you can attach to your rod system to have a workable video tap for a Super 8mm film camera.
Enjoy it,
MOY
If you look closely at my avatar you will see a "pinhole" surveillance camera attached to the matte box on the Nikon R10. You might have to stare at the avatar for a couple of hours [recommended]. Okay maybe not, but the pic was taken some 10 years ago.
What I'm saying is that an iphone would be way better - big ol colour picture and you can zoom it to match the S8 cam frame.
Nice!
Mitch
-
"Digital dreams are forever, Mitch. It makes sense because it's feels true and you know it does. It's the physical that doesn't last, our bodies, cars, building etc..We see physical "decay" all around us, don't we?"
But film exists in my mind as a whirring purple hamburger, whereas digital seems to be a cat wandering off in the distance. I know this makes sense because I can feel something in my shoe.
"What I find ridiculous is that your entire arguement hinges on the idea that the digital film hardware is and for the foreseeable future unstable and varied in manufactuing and therefore the data itself will automatically be corrupted or lost because it exists right now. Haha, that's naive."
It is a well-known fact that anything that exists right now will automatically be corrupted or lost, probably within the next five minutes. What we need is a format that doesn't exist. Now!
"Any "bugs" will eventually be worked out and you will be eating crow. It's a far more promising technology than motion picture film ever was."
I met an old lady who ate crow once. She said it tasted like chicken....and bugs don't need to work out, that's naive!
"Rome ne s'est pas faite en un jour."
Vous ete un mouton seule.
-
"Who cares if they're been 20 or a hundred or a thousand million format changes in the last five years- it doesn't mean anything."
It means you have to buy new gear. Who shoots movies and doesn't care about money?
"Nothing has been lost, digital dreams are forever."
MiniDV-captured home movies belonging to people I know have been lost due to dropout, for starters...(!)
"Now, how many 35mm films have been lost, especially early cinema?"
Only one that matters - "Mahoney's Last Stand".
Mitch
-
I would guess that he probably can shoot more footage which allows him to try things he might not normally try.
However, I think HD backlit wide shots, especially when the actors have dark hair, looks lame most of the time, especially when viewed on a real TV set, a CRT.
HD gets a huge boost from the additional brightness pumped into HD sets.
More footage....that's why Citizen Kane was such crapola - they weren't able to shoot More Footage. Also the actors coulda used Longer Takes probably.
Just kidding Alessandro you are likely right. But then, is he allowed to shoot more footage right up to the same $$ they were spending on film stock? If so they switched for artistic reasons and not to save money. Now that would be interesting.
For me HD fails in outdoor scenes a lot, certain extreme lighting situations indoors sometimes....but then I'm only really happy watching stuff from the 70's....shot in the US....on Eastman.
Mitch
-
Hey thanks Matthew.
Anybody know what Chris Manley means by "a little more creativity" as relates to the subject? For the life of me I cannot get the full interview link to work. Maybe I have to join and sign in...that ain't happening - too many passwords already.
Anyway I have honestly *never* heard any DP allude to HD allowing for more creativity. CGI?
Mitch
-
IMDb "full technical details" is confusing on this, for me anyway. For the life of me I cannot find anything online about the switch from 35mm to HD, if it happened...
Anybody got a link or info?
Thanks,
Mitch
-
And so you see, Peter, just how much things have changed on set.
-
"I'm not aiming for technical perfection, more of an impressionistic effect."
I love it when it's like that!
"But I don't want everything completely blown or blocked up either."
Maybe you want batteries in, and just make sure there's no flame in shot when you want faces/bodies.
You could even use the fluctuating aperture for extra impressionistic effect.
"And hoping that the latitude of the negative film stock will make up for mistakes."
Yes. Yes it will.
Mitch
-
There's no depth of field to speak of in Super8 anyway, so I wouldn't worry about stopping down to get some. I've shot dozens of weddings on the S8 negs professionally. Based on your pics of the indoor location you'd better crank that thing wide open, 500T or 200T, or you will be disappointed.
For weddings I used a Nikon Superzoom8 with part of the panel cut away to allow for finger-drag on the main gear - with camera set at 12fps and dragged down to about 6fps or so, I got usable faces indoors with 500T. 18fps would have left the faces dark.
Since it's a wedding and not a narrative piece, you want faces! faces! faces! and everything else be damned.
Let the dress and the windows and the table cloth blow out, but if you have dark eye sockets it will look bad.
Mitch
-
Wide open at all times indoors, unless the windows are huge and it's like daylight in there.
And yes keep your [shooter's] back to the light....[!!!!!!]
Outdoors, f11 in the sun, 5.6 in the shade [or shaded faces].....wide open if it's dark outside.
This is rough but hey it's the negs and you can focus on the bride!
Congratulations!
Mitch
-
I've tried holding the camera up to the light and running it 'dry' without meter battery...and the meter indicator needle is resting at the f1.8 end
Battery power works against an aperture sprung to rest at f1.8
They wouldn't use anything more involved for a simple camera
Some are sprung to rest at the other end, not yours though
Take the batteries out. The aperture will start shutting down if there's enough fire in the frame
OTOH the flame itself will blow out with 500T...
Mitch
-
Mitch,
I didn't quite get what that meant about Southland. Can you explain that a bit?
Thanks,
Gregg.
I mean the show often looks so good I feel like it couldn't be improved upon. But it does fail now and then in certain light/scenes where film would not, and the shows I see that are film-captured look even better....**in my opinion**.
Mitch
-
At least the term 'democratized' has been democratised.
Its' always been available to anyone who wants to use it, with a "z"....heh
-
"Suddenly, one day some little fat girl in Ohio is gonna be the new Mozart…and make a beautiful film with her father’s little camera-corder, and for once this whole professionalism about movies will be destroyed, forever, and it will really become an art form.” - Francis Ford Coppola
Only thing is we're still waiting for that to happen, and I could be wrong but I think that quote is from the set of Apocalypse Now....(!)
You can't really democratize talent or inspiration I guess...
WRT to professionals on set I imagine any time saved not changing mags is used for more takes...or temper-tantrums if the budget is really big. Hopefully a professional will jump in and help you out.
I'll just take this opportunity to say I kinda thought film was good and replaced watching Southland, they do it so well!
But then I watch something film-captured and it always looks way way better. To me anyway.
Mitch
-
"If you have a DIY telecine you can put a turquoise filter in the light path to deal w/the orange mask, then flip in your NLE. The Moviestuff Retro8 uses its camera's firmware for this, which is probably better. ..tho not as cheap as a bit of gel."
I guess they tried gels but it was cutting too much light since the unit uses a fast shutter.
According to Roger, they didn't go the filter route for precisely the reason you have given.
Thinking more on the wetgate, I wonder how the film-transport will respond to Iso-slicked film. Obviously it's not an issue with sprockets. Maybe some solution less slippery than Iso?
But OTOH, some minor dust and base scratches are only an issue if you are doing narrative with the Super8 negs - art films and home movies, not so much....IMHO
Mitch
-
Firmware is free. Costs nothing. Gels cost money.
"How much for a 1"X1" square of your finest turquoise gel, good sir?"
.....swatch-book
-
Small detail: Regular 8 is 1.36 (0.177"/0.130"). Super 8 is 1.44 (0.228"/0.158").
Awesome, thanks!
-
Does this affect what is viewed in the viewfinder at all? I assume it doesn't because the image is split before reaching the gate area. If that assumption is correct, then that would mean one isn't seeing the extra amount that the film is recording, which if correct, is not a good thing.
The extra area is masked by the VF mask. On Nizos you can get at the VF mask pretty easy to widen it. Remove and dissassemble the diopter at back of camera - the mask is a thin metal plate.
One quickly gets used to knowing how much extra image is there - a quick pan a bit to the right when framing can help. You can put someone off to the right a bit more than you normally would in a two-shot.....but yeah, overall it's not a good thing.
These days I'm all jazzed over 4:3 anyway....or 1.36 in Super8.
Mitch
-
“… with no sprockets, no advance claw, no capstan, no pinch roller, no belts, and no gears…”What is the secret ? How does it work ?
I think they use sensors to.....sense the perfs. But yeah, that still leaves the question of how it advances at all...
If you have a DIY telecine you can put a turquoise filter in the light path to deal w/the orange mask, then flip in your NLE. The Moviestuff Retro8 uses its camera's firmware for this, which is probably better. ..tho not as cheap as a bit of gel.
Make sure to bring the neg in washed out, or milky, so you can control contrast. It helps if the camera used has a white balance function - if you can get pure whites, you'll have pure blacks.
The big thing with negs is they scratch so easily and attract dust so efficiently (!) I use a "wetgate" - black velvet moistened with 99% Isopropyl. Does the trick. Roger of Movistuff informs me they do not have a wetgate on there yet, but there are threaded utlility holes for mounting a wetgate unit of your own design. Since the design will amount to a clip to hold some fabric, I believe that was good thinking on their part, to leave it to the client - every little thing you don't add, keeps the cost down.
Mitch
-
@ James, +1 to everything you said. My thoughts exactly.
It makes me laugh to see some of the vitriol aimed at film by newbies. For some reason they seem threatened, even though it's film that's "on its way out".
Mitch
-
Perhaps a little off topic but related - there's a film called Mahoney's Last Stand, shot here in Ontario Canada around 1972, that disappeared for about 30 years, just resurfaced on youtube, but the transfer is terrible. I managed to source a VHS dub from TV broadcast circa 1984 or thereabouts, and I'm about 2/3rds of the way through it, replicating each cut, and CCing it. There is an overall green/red cast to the VHS, and whoever timed the film print fell asleep a few times, resulting in shots that are simply chromium green. The DP, Harry Makin, has told me to make the film my own, so to speak, so that's what I'm doing, but using McCabe And Mrs. Miller as a guide, since both films had the negative flashed.
Library Archives Canada has informed me they are still searching for a print or elements, but they are also keeping my contact info should their search prove fruitless. Let's hope not - the VHS version is perfectly watchable, but a film print would be amazing!....and I'm not a film archivist....
Just a little tale about what can happen to a movie....some guy with no involvement in the project, fiddling with it 40 years later....because no one else cares! Anyway I'll be uploading the final result to youtube soon-ish, so I'll let y'all know when that happens.
As for knowing anything about how your project and will look and/or sound after you are gone, that's a delusion regardless of capture medium. Sheesh! All you can do is put your best effort into crafting the thing, and hope someone somwhere in the future cares enough to preserve it.
Mitch
-
Thanks. I was very pleased to get the full frontal in there. :) But seriously, the actress and i discussed it and for the character and her story, it's needed. That's why we chose Super8. There was a version with full frontal on the actor, but anyone I showed it to either yelled "Penis!" or was clearly yanked out of the film because of it.
The music volume was highly debated. I'm still not happy with it.
Yep, there's no scene where the actor is examining his body, debating the merits thereof....and it would be distracting simply by virtue of being so rare heh.
I felt the music would have been funnier, almost cute, if that makes sense, if it had been lower in volume - it would be something you notice almost subconsciously....anyway nice work.
Mitch
-
Well it works better on different cameras. The results l get with my Canon 1014 xls are very good and there is improved resolution when you get an HD scan. The extra space l get makes a a difference.
Also works better at some focal lengths than others. As one zooms in, the array inside the lens moves back, revealing the curvature of the lens housing at the front [vignetting]. The bigger the front element the better - Nikon R10 produced clean widescreen images in the wide angle [7mm?]. There's a Canon camera they made, not sure the designation, with a huuuuge front lens element - that one would be perfect for SuperDuper8.
SuperDuper8 is best if you own the telecine - use the clean shots, zoom in for the vignetted ones, import to 16:9 project, fit each shot as required.
My next Super8 feature is going to be 4:3, or maybe 1.66[?] cuz I'm all jazzed about that these days - awesome framing options! Once again though you need to bring it into a 16:9 project and fit it top to bottom, so you don't get window-boxed on youtube or wherever...
BTW, I chose the name SuperDuper 8 because it sounded silly, in an industry rife with dour seriousness....but Max8 is a better name heh.
Mitch
-
When shooting 500t I found it to be extremely important to use a tripod and when exposing, zoom all the way in on whatever it was in the frame I wanted to be properly exposed. I took my reading there and manually set for 1/2 a stop over.
My short film Miscommunications was shot almost entirely on Kodak Vision3 500t. The exteriors were shot on a single roll of Ektachrome 100D.
By the way, one of the seven rolls of 500t was from Pro8m and naturally, that was the only roll that came out like poop. I despise Pro8.
Very humourous film you made there! Congrats on getting full frontal nudity on a Super 8 project! Only one quibble - I felt the music was waaay too loud, others may disagree....
I always add 25% sharpen on the NLE to S8 destined for the web - what with all the added compression it doesn't make it look video-y-fake-sharp, and it makes it....sharper. I did it to Sleep Always, the link to which is posted here in general discussion, so you can decide for yourself....
Mitch
Video Tap for a Super 8 Camera
in Super-8
Posted
We have "request policy" on this computer and I didn't think to allow the clips the first time I saw your post, Moises. I was way off and I see you are not just mounting a parallax view tap, but looking through the camera's viewfinder.
That is so wicked! Great idea! I will certainly use it and thank you!
Mitch