Jump to content

Guy Bennett

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  1. The readings from your camera and light meter are going to differ, independant of whatever techniques you might use to take a light reading, because of the light absorbed by the lens elements and the viewfinder, and the longer the focal length, the more light absorbed. My camera (a Nizo 801m) shows anywhere from 1/2 stop to 3-3 1/2 stops difference at shortest and longest focal lengths, when compared to readings in the same light from my light meter (a Gossen Lunapro Digital). The difference between them is described as the difference between f-stops and t-stops.
  2. Maybe I'm missing something here but wouldn't you be the greatest beneficiary by testing yourself the specific materials you're interested in with the very gear and lab you would use to shoot and process it? I'm not trying to be snide (apologies if it comes across that way), at one point I had a similar question myself. A while ago I was wondering about using a particular film stock (Tri X) with a camera I had just bought (a Nizo 801m). I wasn't sure that the camera would read the film speed correctly and thus feared that the film would be over/under exposed. So I posted my question on a forum and got a lot of conflicting responses which left me perplexed. In the end I just went out and shot a roll, had it processed, and saw that my camera had no problem with Tri X. I guess the lesson was: no matter what anybody else's experiences are, you won't really know what your own experience will be until you've had it.
  3. Why not actually shoot some of both stocks yourself, and try processing some 64T as negative, and see if the results are acceptable to you?
  4. Hmm... In my area, there are 2-3 camera stores/film labs that stock 1.35v Wein Cells, and since they're available on-line, you'd think this would pretty much be a non-issue...
  5. I'm currently in Europe and have seen a number of films here this summer that were shot on Super 8 and blown up to 16. They retained the Super 8 look, which I personally find beautiful,* but when projected as 16mm prints gave, as you would expect, a bigger, brighter image than the Super 8 films that were shown in the same programs. The process of blowing the footage up also allowed for some interesting manipulations (the use of different film stocks, varying of film speeds, etc.), that add to the creative possibilites of the Super 8 format. I am pretty sure that the filmmakers did the blow ups themselves. Over here there are a couple of independent labs (L'Abominable, just outside of Paris, and No.w.here in London) that offer filmmakers the training and access to equipment necessary to process and edit their own film on professional gear, make copies of their work, or blow Super 8 footage up to 16mm. Does anyone know of anything like this in the U.S.? *I agree with Douglas' point about Super 8 sharpness, and the unique aesthetics of Super 8 as a film format.
  6. Why not use the proper 1.35v batteries + no exposure compensation?
  7. I'm sorry Sam, I misread your earlier post!
  8. Non-mercury replacement PX625 1.35v batteries (i.e. Wein Cells) are available for between $5-8 USD from: - Du-All Camera - Freestyle Photo - myoldcamera.com - Super 8 Stuff - Wittner and probably from a number of other places as well. It has become my personal mission to repeat this information each time the question comes up in those fora I regularly read, which it does about two times a week...
  9. That makes me wonder if Brakhage ever worked in Super 8. Does anyone know if indeed he did?
  10. Perhaps that's why Bresson describes it as "notes" on Cinematography... Are you sure it was shot in Super 8 and not in standard 8? I thought it was the latter.
  11. IMO the Bresson book is quite interesting. As someone has pointed out, it's not about cinematography, technically speaking. It's more a book by an artist about film.
  12. I don't know the Hunter-Blair edition, so cannot say to what extent the materials are the same. What I can say is that this edition runs some 600 pages, and includes the complete text of his diary (1970-1986), as well as a number of reproductions of drawings, photographs, and ms diary pages. There have also been a number of additions to the first French translation of the diary, published by the Cahiers du Cinéma in 1994. Regarding the additions, here's a rough translation of the opening lines of the preface by Tarkovsky's son: "This book is the latest revized and augmented edition (after the Italian edition) of my father's diary. It has been enriched, following its first French translation, with many pages and notes found in both the Florence and Moscow archives of the Andrei Tarkovsky International Institute. It can be considered, with its additions and corrections, as the definitive version." I should add that it was published in 2004, not in 2006, as I had imagined. I'm not sure what book by Brakhage you're refering to, but if you want to get a sense of his writing, check out Essential Brakhage: Selected Writings on Film-Making. It's a compilation of writings from throughout his career.
  13. Folks, The last several posts have nothing to do with the subject of this thread (Super 8 books). Could we get back to it? Perhaps there could be a separate thread for those wishing to discuss Santo. Or better yet, maybe people could just talk about filmmaking.
  14. There's also a substantial recent monograph on the films of Kenneth Anger, if you care for his work, and a couple of interesting books of essays by Brakhage. For Tarkovsky fans, his diary has just been published in French by the Cahiers du cinéma.
  • Create New...