Jump to content

Ed Davor

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ed Davor

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Digital Image Technician
  1. tungsten, or HMI? Thanks
  2. Hi, I'm sure someone will spot this right away, and save me some time searching the internet for a match. So, does anyone recognize this light? It looks like a 5k to me, but which brand is it, and is it HMI or tungsten. Thanks
  3. And what about that Night of the Ad Eaters show where they screen countless ads on the big screen? I've never been to one, so I don't know how were they projected in the past. Any experiences?
  4. Thanks both of you for your answers. What I'd like to hear is more examples like Satsuki mentioned, where an advert was printed to 35mm (and obviously not recorded to film from SD source). Any other memories and experiences? I remember reading some articles where it is mentioned that an ad has been scanned from film, post-produced in digital (special effects, titles etc.), and recorded out back to film, then telecined for TV. A cinema presentation wasn't mentioned, but can one assume that since they went through the effort of recording it back to film that it was done for cinema releases?
  5. Hi! In my movie going "career" I haven't had a chance to see them, or maybe I don't remember them... but was advertising in cinema ever as big as it was on TV, or was it always a byproduct of TV advertising? I assume that back in the days when TV adverts were distributed to TV studios in form of 16mm and 35mm film reels, showing ads in cinema would have been as simple as cutting in trailers. But what about more modern times, when ads were edited, graded and mastered on video tapes? I'm thinking 90's and 2000's. A couple of hypothetical scenarios come to mind: parallel grading, editing and optical work for making 35mm prints, or DI work and film-out (in the 2000s I guess). But did such things ever happen, or did cinema adverts die out at that point? Thanks
  6. Antonio, I'm not sure what seems to be the problem here? Is there some kind of ban on importing chemicals in Mexico? http://www.kullphoto.com/fujihuntchemicals.htm I think this is from US. I'm sure if you google you'll find other places in US where you can find Fuji chemicals. Also try ebay, but make sure they are unopened. But, really, what's your problem with Tetenal? It works just fine, and it's more simple to do.
  7. Hi, Right now there's the Tetenal kit and the Fuji Hunt kit. Tetenal is a 3-bath system, and Fuji Hunt is the full E6 process. There should be no noticable difference as long as the chemicals are fresh. Tetenal might be a bit contrastier, just a bit, but that's difficult to judge without proper testing.
  8. Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread. Some very interesting bits of information came out here. I do my own E6 processing at home manually in a tank. The tolerances for the temperature of the first developer are 0.5+/- degrees Celsius, which is very strick when all you have is warm tap water and a lab thermometer, but I manage to stay within limits. I've never tested with a gray card and color checker chart to see just how sensitive it is. But there are supposed to be color shifts when you change temp in E6. By the time it gets to bleaching the tolerances are much looser.
  9. So, does that mean that side-by-side, 5247 had higher contrast/gamma in the linear portion of the curve?
  10. I'm not suggesting 5293 was worse than 5294. I've seen bad examples of 5294 too. What I was speculating on was, as you said it yourself, that there was a trend to underexpose 5293 beyond its limits. Though what looks "neutral", "clean" etc. is certainly subjective in cinematography. Anyway, I wish to go back to something you mentioned earlier about certain labs "cooking" the film a bit more. You mean pushing it slightly (without it being a requested "push process")? This is really interesting. Would you name any names from your personal experience in terms of the differences between labs? As for the higher temperature ECN2 process. Are you suggesting that the very nature of early ECN2 had some drawbacks compared to late ECN in terms of image quality?
  11. Thanks David for the detailed answer. You are right about the differing opinions. I found a couple of cinematographers quoted as saying that they feel 94 is grain free. For example Russell Boy said he found 94 to be: "very fast, very grain-free, with a nice contrast range." On the other hand, I cannot number the times I've heard people complain how grainy it is. And Aliens bluray transfer confirms it (and it's a pretty good transfer, they didn't seem to use much noise reduction, so it has a lot of detail too). I've searched for a couple of more examples of 5293, and I have yet to find one example where the colors look "clean". It's all brownish mush on the skintones in the shadows, almost monochromatic shadows. Perhaps this is due to the fact that a lot of them shot 5293 at EI 500 and even 1000. One cinematographer claimed that 1000 is it's true rating, and that Kodak would eventually re-rate it at a "conservative" rating of 640. P.S. Does anyone have any idea, what was used for Body Double (1984)?
  12. Going through some articles in old editions of American Cinematographer (available through Questia subscription), I tried to find the filmstocks used for some 80s movies, and what I was surprised was to find that Fright Night was all done on 5294. I haven't seen Fright Night in theater, but the difference between this film and for example Ghostbusters, on blu-ray is a bit confusing to me. Ghostbusters looks kind of contrasty, consistently so, in both Blu-ray editions (one from, what I guess was an old IP, and the other a 4k scan of the OCN), so you can't blaim the transfer. The color rendition is pretty poor in shadows and pastel tones. And the whole thing is very grainy. Aliens and Terminator share a similar look (though the production uses a lot less color). On the other hand Fright Night looks less harsh, smoother. I was under the impression that it was done on 5247 for that reason, but I was wrong. Another similar stock 5293, looks very harsh in terms of contrast and either it has a bad case of color crossover in shadows, or I'm seeing a really bad dupe on the Gremlins Blu-ray. So can someone try and explain, why, for example Ghostbusters and Fright Night look so different? One thing mentioned about Fright Night was that the stock was rated at 200 EI. Could that account for the difference in color rendition? P.S. Both Ghostbusters and Fright Night Blu-rays were sourced out of a 4k scan (presumably from OCN in both cases). Here are some examples from Ghostbusters: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ghostbusters-Blu-ray/105617/#Screenshots a a couple of examples of 5293 from Gremlins. This looks exceptionally problematic to my eyes in terms of contrast and color fidelity. But maybe it's just an old dupe.
  13. Hi, Is there such a thing as a cheap portable way of viewing 35mm film in motion? I have some 35mm materials at home, which served as memorabilia only, but it would be neat to run it and look at it in motion, with or without sound. Silent is fine. I think there are relatively cheap portable projectors, but they are out of question due to limited space. Is there something with a lens eye piece or a groundglass, but not as bulky as a moviola? And as cheap as possible of course. Thanks
  14. As far as I can gather from reading that chapter, and this is only my understanding of it, is that the point of breaking down the roll is to get the scenes and takes in numerical order, especially if there are multiple cameras, then it seems this way of doing it gives you a daily in which all the angles of a single take are exhausted before the reel moves on to the next scene and take. But it does seem to be a lot of work compared to the simpler way of just sincing it and projecting it. As for the beep tone. I digged around some more in order to find more about it. This is what I've been able to find mentioned in a couple of books: there is a button on the Nagra which generates this tone, and the recordist would, in some cases press it two times to signify the end of the take, so at the end there would be two beeps. And as for the start of the take, you are right, the camera actually triggers it. I've found a description of this in an old Arri 35BL manual. The lamp would flash a couple of frames of film and one of the pins of the sync cable (in case the syncing was done by a cable and not by radio) would give a triggering signal to the Nagra's reference tone oscillator, so the beep would be automatic and synced with the flash frames at the start of the take. Otherwise the cable would transmit the 50/60 Hz continuous pilot tone. But the same interface was used for the start mark also. I always thought that the flash frames were only due to the fact that it takes some time for the camera to achieve the proper speed, thus overexposing a couple of frames. And while this does seem to be the case, the flash seems to have been augmented with the lamp. Did Panaflex (the older ones, gold, platinum...) use the same trick with the lamp?
  15. I think I managed to find the answer about the alignment tone. It isn't cut into the soundtrack. It's generated by the tape machine itself when you start it. The beep sound heard in all of these "outtakes", is most commonly from a Nagra tape machine.
  • Create New...