Jump to content

Joerg Polzfusz

Basic Member
  • Posts

    417
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joerg Polzfusz

  1. Thanks for that link! But isn’t it strange that there’s no test material for S8 optical sound?! And I have not seen any test material for anamorphic S8, R8 and 16mm?! I wonder whether there have been test films for 9.5mm as well (maybe at SMPE times)?
  2. Double-X was introduced in 1959 and the reversal version of Tri-X in 1955: https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/chronology-of-film/
  3. „The only black and white 16mm stocks I've found in London are either Double or Orwo Un54.“ Also selling TriX: https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/kodak-16-mm-film.html Also selling TriX and Fomapan R100: https://www.on8mil.com/product-category/8mm-film-packages/16mm-film/ Also selling TriX: https://www.gaugefilm.co.uk/16mm-shop.html
  4. Home movies: As you can see on this „lightmeter“ of a camera produced somewhen between 1945 and 1955 in the USA, the average color reversal film had 10 ASA, while the average B&W reversal had 40 ASA. (In fact, I would assume that the average B&W would have been 25 ASA.) That’s why most home movies of that time had very little visible grain. Steadiness of the image: you can assume that the majority of the camera owners knew how to hold a camera steady (and how to use a monopod or tripod). The main reason why films of that era are assumed to be „shaky“ is because of film damages (after being projected several times per year over decades) and shrinking filmstocks. But when new, they should have been very steady. Sharpness: The majority of the camera owners knew how to properly focus. However, a large number of cameras only had fixfocus primes. (You can emulate this by permanently setting your lens to 6m.) Exposure: The majority of the cameras didn’t have any autoexposure. Hence, you needed an external lightmeter or a table like the one on the Revere. When starting the scene, the exposure was most likely spot on. But when moving the camera (e.g. panning), there was no easy way to adjust the iris accordingly. Lens flares: At least 50% of the cameras had cheap lenses (=uncoated lenses). No zoom: In the 1940s, there had been no zoom lenses. The closest thing an amateur could afford was a camera with a lens turret for three different prime lenses. Good luck!
  5. Hi! Newsreels: 35mm and 16mm (most likely in this order) Homemovies: 9.5mm, Double8 and 16mm (most likely in this order) Filmstocks in the 1940s in London? During WWII or after WWII? During WWII: most likely only Ilford and Kodak, maybe some DuPont, 3M or Gaf After WWII: same as above plus most likely also Agfa West and Agfa East (=Orwo), Ferrania, Gevaert, Pathé, maybe even Fuji
  6. The biggest question is: Will RED stay a separate company that is only owned by Nikon (to prevent further lawsuits)? Or is Nikon going to force RED to produce more prosumer products (action cameras, something similar to the blackmagic pocket, …)? Or will Nikon force RED to sell their future products under the Nikon brand (so that they can rival e.g. Canon‘s C300)?
  7. Super8 at 4K (as ruined by YouTube compression): Super8 at 6.5K (but scaled down to 4K for YouTube): Now compare the image size of Super8 with 35mm…
  8. Here, you can find a few details about the used lenses etc.: https://www.studiodaily.com/2012/02/the-artists-cinematographer-speaks/
  9. They’ve shot „The Artist“ on Vision3. The desaturation was done in post. The prints are in B&W (on color print stock): https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1655442/technical/?ref_=tt_spec_sm
  10. Thanks, my mistake, sorry - even according to the German forum, Les Bosher is still alive. But I missed this information as it was posted a week later in a very long thread.
  11. Hi! According to some German forums, Les Bosher died several years ago. But I don’t know whether this is true as his webpage is still up.
  12. Hi @Tyler Purcell, I was referring to John‘s quote as it reminded me of Ignacio’s tests done with a Wolverine MM Pro: Do you notice how the frame moves up and down (and also left and right)? So the scanner could be another cause for a bad result.
  13. Was this scanned on a Winait aka Wolverine aka Somikon aka reflecta aka Kodak aka dozens of other names? Then it’s definitely the scanner‘s fault.
  14. Contains a scene where the camera moves from outside the car onto the back seat - starting at approximately 26 seconds.
  15. This is also done in „Two Tars“ (1928). But the Hal Roach Studios have been cheating a little bit by using a convertible with opened hood. ?
  16. I would assume that some assistant simply moved a glass with some grease on it up or down… -> see attached image: Initially, you can see everything in focus, as you start with the blue part in front of the lens. Then the glass got moved up, with everything except for yellow parts being out of focus because of the grease… (Other than this, I would guess that it’s a composition of a scene shot in front of a blue/green screen with a blurry scene.)
  17. Another link: https://www.keh.com/shop/repair
  18. Google also popped up this link: http://www.spectracine.com/repair.html
  19. Hi! As the flower will be something like 2m away from the drone’s camera, while the background is something like 50m away, you will not be able to shoot this „in camera“ when you both have to be sharp. (Depth of field etc.) As flowers tend to shake/quiver/„whatever is the best English term“ very fast when getting transported, I would try to shoot the flower in front of a green screen at 120fps. This should turn any quiver into a „smooth movement“ when combined with the aerial shots. (Not to mention that both will be in focus when needed.) You could simply use an hair dryer or a ventilator to simulate any wind. Is it possible to simply embrace the fact that you cannot get it done properly by having an artist drawing some cartoon style flower for the aerial sequences and then have the cartoon flower getting morphed into the real one later?
  20. Looks like the dot in „safety film“ indicates the production plant and not the year (not to mention that the dot is hidden by a perforation hole on my above photo): http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f1/t011524.html More links to information about Kodak‘s edge codes: http://www.filmforever.org/Edgecodes.pdf https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/Guide-to-Identifying-Year-of-Manufacture-for-KODAK-Motion-Picture-Films.pdf
  21. Kodak SP (also Super8 as I don’t have any Regular8 anymore)
  22. This is most likely some Agfa-stock (and yes, it‘s Super8)…
  23. Hi! There are some smaller companies that used reversal stocks for some of their prints, e.g. Mundus Film in Germany in Super8. Some of them might have used the same stock as used by amateurs. However, the majority of prints was done on special print-stock - at least 95%. You can find some information regarding edge codes under these two links: https://www.filmpreservation.org/userfiles/image/PDFs/fpg_10.pdf https://www.filmkorn.org/deciphering-edge-marks/?lang=en But there‘s generally only little information about Regular8-, Super8- or 9.5mm-prints on the net that I’m aware of. There’s much more information for 16mm, e.g.: http://www.paulivester.com/films/filmstock/guide.htm Sometimes, the information about 16mm print stocks also applies to smaller formats But there are always exceptions… . Good luck! BTW: When the prints are in color and from before WWII, you might find some information here: https://filmcolors.org/timeline-of-historical-film-colors/
  24. Hi! Remark: I’m just an amateur! But as nobody else is answering, assuming that you are working with a video camera: a) These days, you can pick a color and a range in your video editor. This way, it doesn’t matter anymore whether the green screen is light, medium or dark green. For amateur purposes, it can even be red or blue or whatever. The only reason to stick to the usual light green is that it usually doesn’t occur in the actors‘ eyes, hairs, clothes, … . To ensure that the screen is recorded in the „proper color“, use the same lighting (or at least the same temperature) for both fore- and background. b) Ensure that the background is evenly lit. E.g. when the upper left corner is slightly darker then the rest, this can lead to problems in post. Whether you need shadow boxes for this, depends on your gear and location. c) At least with my Panasonic camera, it’s mandatory that both fore- and background (=actors and screen) are bright. And both have to be equally bright. Otherwise the camera is recording too much noise, which can lead to the screen not getting properly removable in post. d) Ensure that the actors don’t cast a shadow on the screen. Otherwise you’ll have to increase the range of green tones that belong to the screen to a level that is removing the eyes etc., too. e) Ensure that the actors don’t get lit from the back (=from the lights for the screen). Otherwise they might get something like a halo around them. (Shadow boxes? Maybe!) That’s it! Have fun! (I cannot comment on the light - I don’t like fluorescent as it can cause flicker and usually results in some color cast in the video. LED and tungsten are both fine for me - unless you have got some very cheap household LEDs that cause a flicker in the video - especially when using slo-mo-framerates. How many basketball-slo-mo-scenes with my kids have been ruined by the gym having cheap LEDs that start to result in flicker beyond 100fps.)
×
×
  • Create New...