Jump to content

Erik Hammen

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

1808 profile views
  1. I see! It can be tricky using that system, you never can be sure about drift. Looks great, though. Pro8 put up a video, a long time ago now, as a sync sound test for their logmar camera. Just a young woman talking, in color. It looked magical. I wish it was still available. (the camera AND the video)
  2. Pretty cool! I wonder what their setup was.
  3. Hi everyone! Now that many stocks of regular 8mm film are available from places like Film Photography Project and Spectra, I'm thinking about 8mm vs. Super 8 in general. Granting a slightly larger image size for super 8, it seems like R8 has a lot of advantages: 3. it strikes me that many r8 cameras are very sturdy and, the ones running on clockwork mechanisms seem a lot more reliable than many of the super 8 motorized models, which eventually wear out for one electronic reason or another. 2. shooting at 16fps is a great way to save money and as long as you're not doing sync sound, what's the difference? You also get another stop out of it, correct? You could shoot at 16fps on super 8 but it seems like when you drift away from the 18fps standard it puts a strain on the motor and/or isn't reliable? I love super 8 - LOVE IT - but what do you all think about the Regular 8 argument? work mechanisms seem a lot more reliable than many of the super 8 motorized models, which eventually wear out for one electronic reason or another. 4. I've heard previously that the stability of the image on (many) of the r8 cameras makes the image size issue even. 5. I've had some super 8 carts jam in my cameras; the old motors couldn't handle the new, thicker film. I love super 8 - LOVE IT - but what do you all think about the Regular 8 argument?
  4. Hi folks -- I'm relatively new still with DSLR video shooting (coming from film). I've noticed that movies shot digitally can sometimes have areas in the image that seem "dead" in spots, usually colorfields, like a blue skylook, in which that area of the image looks more like a computer that's seized up and stopped playing than simply part of an otherwise "moving image". I've seen this in films shot on low-end DSLRs, but also on big budget films, where I assume they are using state of the art cameras. Anecdotally, I've seen it more on black and white films than color, and I've seen it both in the theater and on small screens. I'm assuming that this is an element of how the microprocessors save space: if something isn't moving in a way it detects (like a sky) the processor will not refresh the image for as long as it can to save processing speed/space. Or something to that effect. Also it's usually in well lit shots, so I'm guessing the absence of video "grain" contributes to the problem. But... does this ring any bells, and is there something one can DO about this phenomenon? I've seen it in some of my work, (Panasonic G7) and I hate it. It seems to me that adding some kind of grain plugin is crummy solution, but maybe I need to get used to that idea. Thanks for your time! EH
  5. Hey Steve -- great idea and great timing! Funny, I'd been thinking about using a DSLR a lot when I was shooting a super 16 project a few years ago, before I owned one, but as soon as I got one for a new project last year I guess I compartmentalized it in my head as one kind of media instead of just another tool... One of the problems (for me at least) of coming to camera from the art dept instead of tech dept. Anyway, thanks much for the note!! Erik
  6. Hey, great tips, thanks Martin! I keep thinking how cool it'd be if someone would invent an iphone app that would use the iphone camera for pre-visualization -- enter film stock, frame rate, shutter speed, and the phone would meter it and show the approx. results. It wouldn't really show the latitude of the film stock, but it'd be handy for eyeballing existing light and location scouting for sure.
  7. Well, I'm stuck with 500t only for this project - so I guess it's gonna be a ND filter unless it's really cloudy out. But I'm glad it'll work out either way -- thanks again for your help! E
  8. Hi guys, thanks for the responses! It's a Eumig 125 XL S. Glad to hear it'll work because I'm shooting mostly at night. Any guidelines for a sunny/daytime shooting with this camera? there's a backlight button that I think drops me down a stop. Super 8 wikia claims it has a manual exposure option but I sure don't see one, though Thanks!! EH
  9. Hi folks, rewording a previous question -- I've got a camera that does not have manual exposure. How will it respond to 500 T? Is there a way to get the autoexposure to recognize the correct exposure and/or compensate? I've previously only used TriX with this camera, with no problems. thanks much!! EH
  10. Hi folks -- I'm working on a nighttime project next month and hoping to use my snazzy Eumig 125XL because of its very fast lens. I've previously only shot reversal outdoors in the daytime with the camera, this'll be my first time trying the T500 on super 8 at night in dark conditions. My main question is this: the camera has an autoexposure system, no manual option, and the camera of course predates 500T -- so -- is there something I need to do/know to make sure it opens up as much as possible when necessary? There's a button to add "+1 gain" which I think I'll always use, but otherwise, it seems to me that aside from backlight issues, the camera should just detect low light and peg it. Any advice on this? Thanks!! G
  11. Thanks folks! I have definitely moved away from the AF100 now and am very seriously considering the Pana GH4 DSLR as my top choice -- it has the same Cine settings that I liked in AF100, but without the problems, and it seems to get stellar ratings so that might be the way I go. I was trying to avoid the DSLR form factors, but I don't know that I can afford a different route and get what I want for images. I've actually thought a lot about the black magic products but they *require* grading, which makes me nervous (and battery life is apparently not great) and the Sony is out of my my price range if I want to get a lens, so its a moot point. I even looked at the "digital bolex", but aside from hating the name and try-hard form factor, it's way too costly and again requires grading, which to me is a deal breaker.
  12. Hi everyone! I've been looking seriously at the Panasonic AF100 as a first digital cine camera purchase. Previously I've only worked with celluloid film. I like the AF100's soft, filmic-looking images, and frankly, because they are currently priced between $1000-$2000 including lenses, which I can probably afford but just barely. The thing is, I'm worried about the AF100's reportedly limited ability to handle highlights and blowouts. I love my highlights and blow outs! I want to be able to shoot indoors using bright light a window as my primary (only) source and let the damn window blow out. I also want to be able to shoot outside on a bright summer city street, and to appreciate that brightness rather than worry about artifacts. However, I'd also rather not have it handle highlights in a airbrushy-looking way like something created in AfterEffects, which is why I continue to gravitate to the AF100. A lot of the folks on this forum are techincal types, so I'm hoping you can help allay my fears about the AF100's ability to handle bright conditions, and/or suggest a better camera for my price range that also may have that "filmic" look. Thanks very much! Erik Hammen FWIW, here's something I shot recently (super 16) http://beachtownmovie.blogspot.com
  13. I tend to agree, Pav -- but is there anything inherently wrong with slowing down the footage in NLE editing? I don't think it should degrade the image... The main thing I'm worried about is that there will be more sync drift once we're off 24fps than I can handle. The film doesn't have a lot of dialogue, but some elements of it are very naturalistic. I guess testing is the best route. Expensive, is the only problem, at my level.
  14. Hi Brian, from what I gather, the motion is only an issue if the camera moves a lot. What do you mean by "won't look too good"?
  15. Hi folks -- I'm shooting a Super 16 film this summer with an Aaton XTR, which only runs sync speed at 24fps. However, how much drift is there really at 18 fps? It seems to me that if every shot is slated properly, I could shoot at 18 fps and slow it down to 24 fps run speed on Final Cut Studio and be spot on to sync with the audio timecode most of the time, unless the camera really, really drifts. The advantages would be 1 - I use 1/4 less film. 1 - I gain a stop Disadvantages are obvious -- sync is off by enough that I go insane trying to resolve it. What do you think? thanks Erik
  • Create New...