Joerg Polzfusz

Fuji released color negative films in 16mm in 1971 (or maybe even before - the online translation of this page doesn’t work well: https://web.archive.org/web/19981201190852/https://www.fujifilm.co.jp/history/f1970.html ) B&W negative films for 16mm have been mentioned much earlier in Fuji‘s history.

„Recently“? https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/chronology-of-film lists color negative films available for 16mm in 1968. And b&w negative has been available for 16mm long before that.

But e.g. ORWO Color NK18 was introduced in 1964 or 1966 and also available in 16mm. So Kodak most likely wasn’t the first company to release color negative stocks in 16mm.

When you ignore some European no-/low-budget movies, then this is the only feature length film I can think of that has been entirely shot on color reversal and got released in cinemas:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0046008/technical?ref_=tt_spec_sm

And the richer „whatever“ for reversal filmstocks is a myth as it totally depends on the type of film (just to name the „families“: Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Agfachrome, Fujichrome, Orwochrome,…). E.g. the current Kodak Ektachrome 100D is very saturated compared to Agfa Moviechrome 40 and has a completely different look than Kodak Ektachrome 160G.

For the majority of people, using reversal filmstocks is simply the easiest and cheapest way to get a single film that can be projected. (In the past, at least Kodak, Fuji and Agfa produced special filmstocks to duplicate reversals. And several labs offered a service to duplicate reversal films (S8, 16mm, slides,…). So, being limited to having a „single copy“ when shooting reversal is a thing of the last 20 years.)

Upppssss, looks like I have completely missed your question. ?

That "transition" took place in the 1930s. I guess that the majority of us wasn’t even born at that time. E.g.:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_Allah_(1936_film)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Are_Better_Diplomats
 

Hi! Nice idea and realization. The only thing that I didn’t like was the music (as it’s irritating when the dancers are dancing to a different rhythm and as I don’t like that style of music). ?

Changing the shutter speed helps to remove this effect (frame rate is more or less fixed in this special case). Thanks!

It looks like these LEDs are flickering at the mains’ 50Hz. It seems that only a very simple rectifier is integrated. ?

At least, the problem only occurs in the kitchen where we had use cheaper „no name“ LEDs to replace the halogen lamps (40W G9). That’s because -in that shop- the other Chinese LEDs with „known brandnames“ would have been to bulky or would have only been equivalent to 30W.

All other rooms are also equipped with LEDs, but from LEDvance, Philips or Samsung. And they don’t seem to cause any problems at my „usual frame rates“. ? The strange thing is that none of the LEDs state their „flicker-frequency“ on the box. ?

I wonder if I will run into the same problem in other places, e.g. when shooting the Christmas activities in my relatives‘ households. ?

Hi!

Do you also have problems with flickering LED lights? Some of them don’t seem to cause any flicker, while others flicker like hell (depending on the frame rate - the linked video was shot in „slo mo“ with an iPhone - most likely at 120fps).

Do you know how to avoid this?

Jörg

Hi!

I have found several good articles in filmmaking magazines on this topic, e.g. in the CineMagic issue 5 that is also available on archive.org. But so far, I have only found a single book: „Breitwand-Film im Heim“ (aka „Schmalfilm-Truhe 15/16“). It doesn’t only focus on the technical aspect of mounting the anamorphic lens onto the camera/projector. Instead, it explains all related aspects. For example, it also explains the special problems of the correct framing. I have attached an example from a chapter where the books discusses the aspect of planning a scene, comparing the panning, that you would normally do when shooting this scene in 4:3, with a static camera shooting the same scene in widescreen.

Is there another book or article in English or German that you could recommend that is suited for amateurs and that focuses on the „aesthetic aspects“ like „proper, non boring framing“?

Jörg

Hi!

Istvan Vasarhelyi (or most likely more correct Istvàn Vàsàrhelyi) was/is at least an Hungarian author of film-related books dealing with topics like „how to create a cartoon/silhouette animation/…“. One aspect of his career made me curious: His books have not only been published in Hungary (late 1960s, early 1970s), but he also appears as co-author/contributor/illustrator in various German books released in Eastern Germany, Western Germany and Switzerland. And on top, his style of drawing cartoon characters looks "familiar" to me. (Even though I would have said that his characters are from cartoons made in the former ČSSR.)

So, why/how did he became "famous" enough to also contribute to books in the German language? Was he a famous Hungarian cartoonist back in 60s/70s? Did he do this professionally (without being mentioned on e.g. IMDB)? Or was he "only" a very skilled amateur (who maybe even represented Hungary in the UNICA competitions)?

(I've already asked this question in other places, but I never received an answer.)

Jörg 

Hi!

it really looks like an older model (SD/PAL from approximately 2000). If I remember correctly, then the first „HD“ model was called „flashscan HD“. Maybe you can ask the manufacturer?

https://mwa-nova.com/website-2252/products-2094

Jörg

It might have also been an ordinary filter like this one:

https://www.ebay.de/itm/234761606827

When the film is unmasked, could you simply soup it in E6 and use it as color reversal?

Children! It's Advent! Can't you stop verbally fighting now?

Do you have a „cherry pit pillow“ or another waterless alternative to a „hot-water bottle“? You can put your batteries into an isolated bag together with such a warm pillow and then only put them into the camera when needed.

I would not recommend putting such a heat source into your camera’s bag. That’s because this will most likely cause condensation on your camera‘ lens and body as soon as it gets into contact with cold air.

http://www.dagiebrundert.de/EEntwickelservice.html

A smaller shutter angle means that the exposure duration is shorter. So, you’ll need more light. Hence, you’ll have to open the iris more wide (with the usual impact on the depth of field). But on the other hand, you’ll also have less motion blur.

The relatively small maximum shutter angle is most likely a result of the camera’s 54fps.

Why do you want to know this at all? The look is more than just some lenses.

When you are only shooting video, then you should be fine. (Maybe two exceptions: What about a circular polarizer to prevent reflections? And what about gradient filters (ND and/or colored)?)

When also shooting film, you are missing all the „usual suspects“ (Wratten 80a and Wratten 85 for color; yellow, orange, red, green and blue for b&w).

As they mention „ORWO“, it’s most likely that „new“ Chinese color negative filmstock that is going to be sold by some British businessman that now owns the right to use the brand „ORWO“.

I’ve added some scribble in red to demonstrate the difference between wide angle and telephoto. (The original image is from https://www.thijsschouten.com/diverse-artikelen/spiegelreflexcamera-voor-beginners/ and shows a still camera. But the logic is the same for a movie camera.)

Hi!

wide angle = no way! ?

Try to mount an older smartphone with just a single camera to the viewfinder, e.g. an iPhone 4S or iPhone 7. These smartphones only have a wide angle lens (equivalent to approximately 25mm in 35mm still photography) that is small enough to match the dimensions of a Super8-camera’s viewfinder. The result is an image that at least 2/3 black. Even with the 5x digital zoom of the iPhone 7, nearly half of the image is still black. That’s because the wide angle (even with digital zoom) makes the phone’s camera record the inside of the viewfinder and of the „light path“ (no clue how this is called properly in English - it’s the „channel“ that „leads“ the image from the mirror/prism to the viewfinder and „protects“ it from additional light from the outside) instead of recording the image that’s visible in the viewfinder (and the surrounding additional information like the exposure/film running indicators).

So a tele-centric lens seems to be a must.

Unfortunately some lens manufacturers tend to list the „real mm“ while other list the „equivalent mm in 35mm still photography“. This makes it hard to compare the lenses. Not to mention that the „required mm“ depends on the diameter of the viewfinder, on the diameter of the sensor and on the distance between sensor and viewfinder (= the dimensions of the videocamera’s lens).

Hi!

Welcome to fabulous world of real film shooting!

a) Shoot a test-film! Even if the camera was working fine when leaving the factory approximately 50 years ago, it might have developed some problems by now. 
b) As a newby, avoid manual exposure for shooting a serious project without doing some tests before. There are several pitfalls. E.g. you’ll have to understand the lightloss caused internally by the camera (beam splitter, filter, …).

c) When comparing the values from the camera’s internal lightmeter with the readings from an external lightmeter, then keep in mind that the S8-cameras‘ manuals never tell you how you what area of the image is used and how many sensors the camera has. And you will have to compensate for the lightloss (see b).

d) I have exposed the E100D correctly with automatic exposure in several different cameras without any problems. Nevertheless, this might depend on your camera (age, defects, design, features, …). And of course, you’ll have to know its limitations (e.g. the usually „strange“ reactions to flickering light sources like e.g. a fire).

e) You’ll have to understand the concept of the different types of color film and the required filtering:

Daylight balanced films (like the E100D) don’t require any filters when used in daylight. They only need a filter when used in artificial light (a blue one like e.g. a Wratten 80A).

Tungsten balanced films are balanced for artificial light (halogen, …) and hence don’t require any filters when used in artificial light. When used in daylight (alias sunlight), they need an orange filter (normally a Wratten 85 or equivalent).

Most Super8-cameras have a Wratten85 (or equivalent) with a complex mechanism to detect situations where it has to be automatically removed. (Sometimes this mechanism does not work properly anymore due to the age of the camera. And some cheaper cameras are completely lacking the mechanism.) There are only two reasons not to use this internal filter:

1) Mechanism broken

2) filter dirty, deteriorating or damaged

BTW: be careful when using LEDs: some of them are emitting light with the same „color temperature“ as the sun. So they are producing „daylight“ despite being an artificial light source. 

Hi!

I guess that your posting might be better suited for the „please critique my work“-section. But anyway:

Nicely edited to match the music, nice shots etc.. So, there’s nothing wrong about it. But on the other hand, there’s also nothing special about it. And IMHO the choice of the CS-format probably wasn’t the best idea as it just added wasted space to left and right in many of the shots.

What I also didn’t get: what’s your contribution to that video? Did you direct the shots or operated the camera/lights/…? Did you only/also do the „final cut“? Or have you only/also been the creator of the animations? Or have you been one of the actors/musicians? „Cinematographer“ could be anything or nothing these days.

Just my two cents

Jörg

At the moment, Hollywood has got three major problems:

a) The unstable worldwide situation: In the past, you would have been able to calculate with a worldwide release. Now, you cannot predict anything anymore (inflation, war in Europe, some governments still trying to fight Covid-19 with putting whole towns under quarantine,…)

b) Cinema isn’t on the top of the food chain in the entertainment industry anymore. So, in order not to make losses, the studios focus on boring mainstream stuff, sequels, prequels, spin-offs, … . This is killing a lot of creativity.

c) „Wokeness“ and other useless „political correctness“ stuff: For example, instead of doing another Western, the studios decided to replace the I-words with Smurfs and North-America of the past with a sci-fi-setting on a different planet. … and even more creativity got killed.

The result of this are movies like the latest avatar - low budget and designed to also work fine on small screens & another sequel/spin-off & politically correct.

But that’s only the present situation in Hollywood and will not help you predicting the future.

A future that one is yearning for is something like the French „Nouvelle Vague“ - creative, independent movies shot outside of studios by small crews - with a budget that is so small that they would even make profit when only being released „regionally“. Of course, this will only work without stars getting bazillions of dollars for each movie and without studios that also have to finance their „overhead“ (CEOs, marketing department, …). So maybe you should watch „A Bout de Suffle“ and some documentaries about Godard‘s way of working? Then take a look at the last ten minutes of the latest Hollywood productions (aka credits) and think about  how many people really have to work on a great movie. You might also watch „The Baldlands“ and the way the film got financed: