Nate Downes

Well, in this case sound is not a real issue (no sync sound) just me trying to test some bits through a 3 minute short. Nothing for commercial, just wanting to flex some muscles and actually use the equipment I have already. I am waking up, and am flexing my muscles, so to say.

I would have thought all the digiphiliacs would have been shocked that this has only happened ten years after a small but perfectly formed maverick by the name George Lucas declared that film was dead. Not bad. -_- :

And that was about ten years after an equally prescient statement by noted Canadian producer of Low Budget Children's TV shows, John Galt....

and 51 years after the original pronouncement......

You know, you could even project it all once (on a clean projector), video-tape it off the wall, and bounce-edit it with two VCRs or on a computer.

 

Using an actual editing table has no impact on the artistic integrity, or quality of your work. It doesnt' render the editor super-powers or increased enjoyment; editing is work. The only thing that you can do, using the original, is damage your only copy.

You know, rather than come up with arguements against a request, help out with that request? My reasons why I wish to be edited with film are just that, mine. I have made my choice, and I would appreciate it if you would respect that.

Slumdog is a mixed format, not a digital film. Some of it was digital, some was film, but all of it was absolutely brilliant.

that being said, I still thought Dark Knight was the stronger shot film, but that's me... 8)

You realize how expensive it is to edit with film, right?

 

To me, the process is comparable (unless you have a sweet deal from a lab, or own one yourself) to buying a new car, going out joy-riding, and totaling said car at the end of the night.

???

So, you are telling me that $4 worth of tape is more expensive than $150 for a telecine? I'd like to have what you're having.

Sure, if you're doing a feature, the cost advantage comes up, but for a 3 minute short shot on reversal, cmon.

That's not the relevant way to look at it:

 

I'm making up numbers here, but let's say their film sales were a billion and made money, but the other stuff was 25 billion and lost money.

 

Doesn't matter that film made money--the future of the business is in the other stuff, the products that will keep them alive and viable..

Depends. There are still Horse and Buggy firms around, along with Steam Engine manufacturers. While yes, both are smaller than their heydays, they continue to produce a solid profit for their shareholders.

I'm pondering getting off of my lazy posterior and shooting a short. Over the past year of effort I have realized, I am no good at editing. So, trying to find someone that still works the old method, if any of you still exist out there.

Wrong side of the pond else I'd hire you one of mine.

Ah, thanks for giving me a little info on the camera.

Let me get what you said straight tho...since they stopped making certain film stocks, I might not be able to use this camera to film with?

Because it doesn't have manual exposure?

 

Thats ok if so...I will just get a good camera to start with instead is so.

 

The link you sent me says auto/manual....im not sure if it means its both manual and auto or one of the two.

it has a manual override, which means you will be able to use any stock out there, but you will have to hand-meter it. You will likely spend more on your meter than your camera, but the meter will last you a lifetime.

Part of it is def super8, as I've seen them before. Just standard Vision 200T (not Vision2).

No idea of the model, but if the eyecup is going, so is the interior belt used to drive the shutter. I have a 1206SM which had the interior belt melt away on me. However, I replaced it with a rubber band, and all is good in the world. Camera is one of my two main now.

I got rid of the eyecup and never bothered to replace it.

It may look better but it'd probably still be frozen solid with rust. I can't imagine any of the parts that are supposed to move do so.

I've yet to find one that could not be made to work with some Marvel Mystery Oil.

Now THAT's a boat anchor.

Based on my own Filmo, it might be a boat anchor, but it takes great pictures

Pray it's not original film. That boy came out when they still had nitrate film. Can we say BOOM?

I am curious as well. While I could do the Miami, and do own a 35mm setup providing you don't mind the bulk of a hand-crank, maryland is a bit out of my area....

OK, go tape measure the actor before the take - you are shooting a tight close-up on a long lens at T/2.8, no depth of field to help you, and they are at 5' 7" and they lean at some point to 5' 3"...

 

... then look at the markings on most still camera lenses and see if you can find enough space between the distance markings to pull accurately from 5' 7" to 5' 3".

**Shivves at the horror of that thought.... then pets his Cooke lens set**

I'm partly color-blind, my natural vision is pretty similar to the results one would get from such a glass.

Needless to say, I don't use one.

And here I am shooting 100T with 1000W.....

You should be fine shooting at night with those lights if you limit your lighting scope. No football fields.

I was very dissappointment when I got back my film unprocessed from Kodak. CVS helped me sent out the film.

Which kind of film was it? They do send E6 based Super8 out to Dwaynes I believe.

I am for a heavy old Mitchell, 65 mm low-speed colour negative, processing in Madrid, Spain, carbon-arc lamps, 70 mm contact dailies, sound dailies on 35 full coat, so that everybody involved might have his share of excitement from early in the morning to open ends, and don't forget the projectionists who will love your prints. It's All About Love. What's the title of the thing, anyway ?

No way dude, use a Cinerama for that real in-your-face detail!

"Incidentally, HD broadcast is interlaced, not progressive. "

 

Actually it depends on the broadcaster. Some broadcast digital in 720 and others in 1080i. ABC is an example of a network that broadcasts in 720p while CBS uses 1080i. Most first and second generation digital sets make everything 720p anyway through a process called scaling so it matters little. You can't really see the difference at home regardless of whether it's 1080 or 720.

Well, I was thinking in the 1080 he mentioned above and concede the point.

Incidentally, there is no 1080p broadcast standard I am aware of.

If you cannot, I happen to have an example of that broken piece that you might be able to use to reconnect it.

PMW EX1 from sony is naively 1080p. Probably the most cost effective. Plus with it's larger chips it seems to have slightly better low light capabilities and will suffer less, in theory, from the lens adapter.

I've used the EX1 with the lens adaptor, and found the native Fujinon lens is too flat to take as much advantage from the adaptor as other cameras. Incidentally, he was discussing for broadcast work, not movie making, so the lens adaptor would not be part of the issue in his case I'd imagine.

After briefly researching into the cameras you have listed it seems they predominately shoot at 1080 interlaced rather than progressive. From my understanding on the subject, it is always better to shoot progressive, especially as the video will be used for the bands internet site and other promotional websites as well as being broadcasted. If possible i would like to avoid de-interlacing the footage in post.

 

Could you recommend a camera that will allow us to shoot progressive but under the same criteria I have mentioned before i.e. cost effective, requires minimal crew (only 1st ac and second ac) and reliable. It would also be helpful if we could use straight 35 lens' and not have to use and adapter.

 

Many thanks for your help as I am currently getting to grips with shooting digital.

All three cameras do have progressive modes. As mentioned above, the EX1 is likely the most powerful of the three. It's main drawback is in the editing process, which is non-standard and has given some people issues.

Incidentally, HD broadcast is interlaced, not progressive.