Jump to content

Karl Lee

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Karl Lee

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4630 profile views
  1. Hi everyone. I have an SR3 and a Canon 11.5 - 138 S16 PL mount lens. Out of curiosity, do there exist any digital cinema cameras, past or present, on which a S16 lens would provide sufficient coverage for the sensor at all focal lengths? I'm guessing that 4K is definitely out of the question, and that even 1080p might be iffy, but I thought I'd as least ask. I'm just curious if, in addition to shooting S16, I might be able to use my Canon lens for any digital cinema applications as well, provided that I pair it with the right camera. Thanks!
  2. Hi everyone. I'd like to get a follow focus for the Canon 11.5 - 138 S16 lens that I use with my SR3, however I see that there are a few different standards for gear sizes (MOD 0.8, MOD 0.6, and so on), and that even within these standards, there are various tooth counts (MOD 0.8 w/ 35 tooth count, MOD 0.8 w/ 42 tooth count, etc.). Is there any way for me to figure out which "MOD" standard and tooth count would be compatible with my lens? I'm not sure if the gear rings on my lens are factory originals, or if they were added by the original owner (my lens was originally a rental which I purchased from Otto Nemenz). I've included a photo of my lens for reference. From the photo, would anyone be able to make an educated guess as to which follow focus gear I would need for the lens? Thanks to anyone who might be able to help!
  3. This has turned out to be an interesting discussion, and thanks to everyone who has replied to my original thread. I did notice in the screenshot that there appears to be a bit of vignetting around the corners of the slate, so that's why I thought that perhaps there was some sort of optical path integrated into the camera that allowed the internal slate to be filmed. And, if the illumination of the marker (or some other visual cue) and bloop sync tone were synchronized, then I'd assume that the marker must have been filmed during production as either a standard slate or tail slate. Also, could someone explain the difference between ANSI, NISO, and DIN markers? On the surface, the marker just looks like an incrementing counter, so I'm curious about what the difference was between these different types of slates / markers. Thanks!
  4. Hi everyone. I wanted to see if anyone might be able to help explain a slate / marker that I noticed while watching an episode of The Monkees TV series from the 1960s. Yes, I actually became an avid fan of the show in the late 1980s when I was in first or second grade and the show was airing daily on a local channel. Anyway, this particular episode includes a few outtakes at the end of the show prior to the end credits, and between takes there's a momentary shot of what appears to be some sort of slate or marker, accompanied by an audio cue that's essentially just a buzzing sound (or maybe it's overmodulated tone). As expected, the number increments with each new take. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what type of slate this was? I'm curious if this was actually some sort of slate that was filmed during production (perhaps even integrated into the camera), or if it was inserted at some point in post or during the audio synchronization process. Thanks to anyone who might be able to help!
  5. This might be old news, but while I was checking out the S8 section of Kodak's website and reading about their new S8 camera, I noticed that they plan to start offering an all-in-one film/processing/scanning package for S8, presumably to coincide with the release of their new S8 camera. From the website... Easier than Ever Shooting Analogue has never been so easy. When you purchase film you will be buying the film, processing and digital transfer. The lab will send you your developed film back and email you a password to retrieve your digital scans from the cloud so you can edit and share in any way you choose. There's no pricing information yet, but it will certainly be interesting to see how this pans out. Kodak seems to be marketing the new S8 camera under their consumer division, so I'm curious if these will actually be decent quality scans/transfers, or transfers that might be impressive enough for the average consumer but not so much to someone with a more discriminating eye for film transfers. Hopefully the former will be the case. Also, I'm curious if Kodak is establishing their own facility to handle the processing and transfers, or if this is something that will be outsourced. I've read that Kodak will be opening a new film lab in NYC sometime later this year, so perhaps these services will coincide with the opening of their new lab. I've been shooting 16mm for the last couple of years since I bought my SR3, but I shot tons of S8 before I stepped up to 16mm. This might be an excuse to pull the old 7008PRO out of retirement and try shooting some S8 again!
  6. No offense taken, Bill. I can certainly see your perspective regarding the deeper DOF and overall crispness of some scenes, and I'm always interested to hear feedback from others. My lens is a Canon 11.5 - 138. I bought it used, and I'm not quite sure when Canon made this particular lens, but it's specified as a S16 lens, so my guess is probably late '90s or early 2000s. It's not nearly as expensive as a Cooke or Zeiss, but I didn't want to put too much money into a much more expensive lens since this is more less a hobby for me...and I already put enough into buying the SR3! Even so, I've been quite pleased with the lens, considering that I was able to stay under $2500 for a pre-owned PL mount zoom. On a side note, in an earlier post Gregg indirectly mentioned something about the possibility of UV (presumably since it was a sunny day) resulting in less contrast. Under what circumstances would the use of a UV filter be recommended? I don't have any UV filters at the moment, although I was thinking of picking up one at some point to use as an optical flat in my matte box for lens protection if I'm not using any other filters.
  7. Bill, I was using a ND9 when I was shooting 250D in Chicago, and no filter when I was shooting 50D in Toronto and Ottawa. I checked my notes, and with a couple of exceptions, I filmed most of the shots in Toronto and Ottawa at a T5.6 / 8 split (50D / no filter). In Chicago, I filmed most of the shots in direct sunlight at T11, while most shots with mixed sun / shadows were filmed at a T5.6 / 8 split or T8 (250D with ND9). That said, perhaps the narrower apertures and resulting deeper DOF are contributing to your observations. Also, many shots were filmed with my lens at its widest (11.5 mm), so that combined with the narrower aperture did result in a deeper DOF. Generally speaking, when filming exteriors as I did in my uploaded videos, are narrower apertures like T8 or T11 used frequently, or do most cinematographers prefer filtering down to maybe a T2.8 or T4, even on a sunny day to achieve a shallower DOF? There are many variables and I'm sure it all depends on the situation and desired look, but maybe next time I'll give it a try. Focus will be a little more critical, but I wouldn't mind experimenting with a shallower DOF. You hear about trying to make video look like film all the time, but I guess trying to make film look like film can sometimes be an issue as well!
  8. Thanks for the notes and replies. As some of you have already mentioned, I think some of the quality and grain is definitely lost in the YouTube compression. I actually tried exporting a variety of different formats from Premiere and and uploading them to YouTube, but I found that even the higher resolution files ultimately succumb to YouTube's transcoding and compression. Bill, to my eyes grain is much more evident in the original ProRes clip I received from FotoKem, but moreso in the 250D than the 50D which is what I would have expected. As I mentioned, I think the YouTube compression has killed some of the grain detail. Out of curiosity, when you mentioned that it looks a bit too "crisp", are you referring to the lack of grain, or is there something else about the filming and/or transfer that might be making it a little too crisp in your opinion? I don't know exactly which equipment FotoKem used for the transfer, so I'm not sure if it was technically a telecine or scan transfer. The end product, as I requested, was a ProRes 4444 clip, so I don't have discrete, individual frames from a scan. Even so, if you're curious I could try uploading a few snippets of my transfers to Dropbox and make them available for download. I think ProRes is pretty much out of the question on account of its size, but I could experiment with a few different formats. Yes, my project was just processing and transfer for 800' of S16, and they were very accommodating and happy to help.
  9. Well, I'm a little late (ok...really late!), but I just wanted to give a shout out to FotoKem for a really nice S16 processing and transfer job they did for me late last year. I finally got around to uploading a few samples of my filming in Chicago, Toronto, and Ottawa which I thought I'd share, since I know many of us are curious about how others' transfers have turned out. I'm really happy with the transfer, and I think FotoKem's work added a nice, crisp look to my otherwise rudimentary camera work.
  10. On the SR3, just above the pitch adjustment on the dumb side of the camera, there's a mounting bracket for the IVS video tap. Does anyone know if this bracket is some kind of standard ARRI mount, and if so, what it's called? My SR3 package came with an IVS video tap, but since I rarely use the tap I usually just keep it detached from the camera to cut down on weight. With the IVS removed, the mounting bracket would be very convenient for attaching an accessory or two, but I can't seem to find any information about this bracket. I checked, and it's a little wider than a standard hot shoe mount, so unfortunately I can't use any of the readily available hot shoe mounts or adapters. I could probably rig up something on my own, but I thought I'd check here first. Thanks!
  11. Not to take this thread off course, but out of curiosity, is there a reason that the IA logo is often, if not always, the only union logo commonly included in the end credits of union productions? Granted, I'd imagine that the IA usually represents a majority of off-camera labor involved in union films, but you'd think that some of the other unions (like the Teamsters, DGA, SAG, AFM, etc.) frequently involved in production or post would want equal representation with their logos in the end credits.
  12. Thanks for all of the replies. If nothing else, I'm a little relieved to know that the light leaks were likely a result of viewfinder flare and my own error, and not a leaky camera or mag! In the past, I haven't always worn a hat or visor when filming, but I'll definitely keep that in mind from now on, especially when filming outdoors. More importantly, I'll definitely be more careful to not remove my eye from the viewfinder when filming, since I now know from experience what can and will happen if too much light enters the viewfinder when filming. In this case, I think it was largely due to the fact that I was fumbling with the LED sync box in my other hand, but I'm already working on a new sync LED system that will affix to the inside of the French flag on my matte box. The idea is that I'll be able to flip down the French flag prior to filming, start rolling and immediately (well, when the camera is at speed) mark a sync point with the small LED assembly mounted on the underside of the French flag, then flip up the French flag and begin filming. I'm hoping this kind of configuration will work much better than having to fumble with a separate sync box, especially when I'm solo shooting run-and-gun, which is what I'm doing most of the time. To answer Mark's question, the SR3 eyecup doesn't have auto-closing iris / shutter...at least not the eyecup I have, but I don't think I've seen an SR3 eyecup with an auto-closing iris. It does have a lever that can be used to manually close and open the shutter, but it doesn't close automatically.
  13. Hi everyone. I shot some 16mm over the summer and recently had it transferred, and I noticed a few momentary spots of what appear to be light fogging on the transfer. Initially I was concerned that it might be due to a light leak in the mag, but the more I thought about it, a persistent light leak probably wouldn't result in momentary flashes of fogging. That's when it occurred to me that the flashes appear near the beginning or at the end of shots and at times when I may have momentarily removed my eye from the viewfinder, so I'm wondering if what I'm seeing is actually viewfinder flare. I've shot a fair amount of 16mm with my SR3 and haven't noticed this fogging before, but then I realize that many factors can contribute to viewfinder flare, and it could be that on the day I was filming, the angle and intensity of the sun and position of my viewfinder were just right to cause the flare. I've uploaded a short clip of the transfer showing two instances of the suspected flare. The first occurrence is pretty bad, the second isn't so bad but is nonetheless noticeable. So, is what I'm seeing in these clips actually viewfinder flare, or could it be something else? Thanks for any advice!
  14. I just noticed that someone mentioned Filmworkers Dallas in another recent thread. Although Filmworkers still offers transfer services, unfortunately they recently closed their film lab and no longer offer processing services. I used Filmworkers for a small 16mm processing and transfer project earlier this year (for which they did an excellent job, by the way) and contacted them again about a month ago to inquire about processing and transfer for another project, and that's when I learned that they have suspended their film lab operations. Sadly, the options for motion picture processing are continuing to dwindle, but it's all the more reason to be thankful for and appreciate the labs that still offer processing services and allow us to continue shooting film!
  15. Just thought I'd take a moment to put in a good word for Filmworkers in Dallas, a lab and transfer house that doesn't come up in discussion too often here. Today I received a completed processing and transfer order I sent out to Filmworkers last week. I had 800' of S16 processed and a telecine transfer to ProRes 4444 (they do also offer scanning services). I believe they used a Spirit DataCine for the transfer, and it looks awesome...I couldn't be happier with the end product. As for turnaround, they received my order late in the afternoon on a Wednesday and sent it out the following Tuesday, which was actually faster than I expected. I'm guessing that film work isn't the largest part of their business, and typically they don't do a lab run every day, but kudos to them for continuing to offer processing and transfer services. As for pricing, they do offer very reasonable discounted rates for non-commercial / independent processing and transfer projects. If you'd like more information or a quote specific to your project, I'd suggest contacting Kimberly Estrada (kimberlye@filmworkers.com) at Filmworkers. She's a producer and was the primary contact for my project, and she was very good about keeping me updated and confirming receipt of my film, the progress of my order, and providing tracking information when the completed order was returned to me. As I mentioned, Filmworkers hasn't come up too often in discussion here in the message boards, perhaps because people aren't even aware that they're still operating a lab in Dallas. Judging from their online portfolio, it looks like they handle a number of big name projects (film and digital), but as I found, they're still accomodating to a 16mm enthusiast like me with a small project. That said, definitely keep them in mind for your processing and transfer projects...highly recommended!
  • Create New...