Jay Young

I'm going to resurrect this thread to say, The Arri-cine-xenon/Schneider 25mm DOES interface with the mirror. It my even touch the ground glass carrier but I can't actually see what's going on in there. The standard Angie 10x15 zoom is FRONT focus, but I don't know any zooms that focus a different way. These rack focus by moving the element opposed to the body held stationary by the mount. I tried to look at pictures of other CP primes (not CP.2 primes which confound my search results!) and I assume they focus the same way however maybe they are set farther forward so that infinity does not interfere with the mirror? It also seems to me that there is a lot of unnecessary space between the front element and the filter mount on these Arri-xenons - like someone at Arri decided to put 100 step up rings to accommodate a standard filter size. Well I say HA! to them because I can use internal filters! Anyhow, is it possible/worth rehousing these lenses? Or should I just sell it all and get an Arri SR2.... I rather like my CP tho.

To quote Roger Deakins: And maybe it'll be ok? They shot Downton Abbey with the D-21 then switched to the Alexa and S4 Cookes. I THOUGHT it was film until the third season! Of course, I was watching it on Amazon/Netflix on my 24" computer screen. That said, I'm sure we all wish the next crop of big features were all shooting 65mm.

So, ProRes support on Premiere is wonky at best. You recorded ProRes, as I understand (I don't usually use ProRes so your mileage may vary), ProRes is only decoded in 32-bits on Windows as QuickTime is only available as a 32-bit program. Now that we have this framework, I can understand what's happening. Your files are being truncated at 4-gigabytes as that is the filesize limitation on a 32-bit system. 64-bit ProRes decode is available for (Mac OS X 10.8 or higher only). As far as my reading this morning, I have not been able to find a better explanation. I don't believe you'll be able to do anything about the file size limit on a Windows machine while using the ProRes format. DNxHD might be able to work around this problem. And of course DPX would get around this issue completely (which is what I use).

As far as I know, and as a long time Premiere user, there is no way to accurately sync separate audio and video elements OFF of the timeline unless both elements contain timecode and you can tell the computer to align each element by timecode - however this may not even be possible in Premiere. What Adrian is talking about doesn't actually SYNC the audio to the marker, but will LINK the two separate elements together which is perhaps what you wanted. You may get a faster answer by trying /r/premiere Edit: Very interested to see your project when finished!

You could call Cinelab, Rob is pretty regular on this forum. Might not be much different. If it's 8/16mm, you can always take it to Costco - $19.95 special + $0.13/ft after the first 150 feet. I'm sure the results are amazingly terrible. Seriously tho, "Home video scan" of your film should cost you less but the results will be less than awesome. And, while I agree that $0.70 per foot is a bit high, maybe someone else can give you a better rate? You could also try FotoKem, but I don't know if they will even do reversal - I'm sure they do.

Bridge of Spies, and The Last Witch Hunter are on my list of films to see very soon - as is the new del Toro film Crimson Peak. I have yet to see Tomorrowland, as it's off the cinema, (maybe at the dollar movies) but I'd love to see it no matter how terrible. With all these terrible films coming out, what does the audience actually WANT to see?

I'm on board, and would love to help. Taking a look at your website now. This sounds like an awesome opportunity. Just yesterday I was reading a post about how a student was "forced to use a Canon Scoopic and hated every minute, never wishing more to get back to digital shooting", but they did not go into detail about what exactly they hated. I couldn't believe for someone wanting that "Film look" they hated film! HA!

It will be fine. I just processed some 20 year old Kodak 500t that was stored in horrid conditions and it was... acceptable. The image will require some work in post.

So I have some effects that I was making on 16mm, just really animations and visual loops - And to preface, I understand I could likely do all this in After Effects and project it digitally but what's the fun in creating organic effects if one is not going to shoot on film. Anyhow, I have a few 16mm projectors available, but I'm just not understanding how this Genlock thing works. I'm also pretty sure the 1200w lamp in my larger 16mm projector is brighter than anything I can get digital at a reasonable price. I might have an Arri SR3 available, but the other cameras I have do not have adjustable shutters, hence the title. What is the possibility of shooting a 16mm projected image at 24 frames per second with a 144 degree shutter? One of my older machines has the ability to project at 16.7 (unsure actually) frames per second if that will make a difference. I think the thing I am worried about is the two shutters being in sync and filming "nothing". I can't recall if one of the projectors has a three blade shutter or if they all have 2-blade type. Thoughts?

I'm curious as how to get ENC2 process from a lab with only 8 feet of film. If one were to buy the new "cinefilm" for 35mm still camera, or even take some 5219 and load it in a still camera, is there a lab that would process such a small amount?

Totally off topic, but I've been recently wondering (for the last 10 years) why producers are no longer willing to spend money on practical effects, but ARE willing to spend a good percentage of the budget on things you CANT see, in the digital world. To that end, even some lighting can be changed in post. I was just watching Star Trek - The old series, and noticed on Netflix they have "enhanced" a lot of the effects with computer digital replacements and 3D models. I hate this. It's personally an aesthetic choice for me, and I'm sure there is someone out there who loves it... probably a producer.

It also goes to show just how far we have to go in terms of pulling that information already recorded into the digital realm. We're getting quite good at it, but still... I think it can be much better.

Oh man, I was hoping he had a 400' roll. What's your shooting ratio? Even at 3:1 you have at least three scenes and if each scene is 10 seconds x 3 takes x 3... 100' is cutting it close!

I've seen some really nice stuff that I guess faked? the 35/70 shallow depth of field. I have even written to a few cinematographers asking how they achieved such a look on 16mm and they always answer something akin to "it just worked I guess..." - Granted most of these persons are younger than 40, and may not actually know what film is; this is another interesting thing to think about, young persons making film on celluloid film negative learning the process which a lot of us already know so well.

I thought John Carter was fantastic. It could have been better, sure, but so could a lot of things. John Carter, like Jupiter Rising at least HAD a decent story - what the screenwriters did to the stories is another thing entirely. I haven't been able to see Tomorrowland, and missed it in cinema here. I haven't seen PAN, but I would likely rather just watch HOOK. It always seems to me, again such as in the case of Prince Caspian that the screenwriters make a script that has some dialogue in it, they shoot the picture, then turn all the footage over to the digital effects house where the producers then send barrels full of $100 bills with a little note asking for as much over the top digital effects as possible because American audience will only go to the cinema for explosions and no one cares about story. Personally I wasn't impressed with The Martian, but it seems everyone else was. I'm glad they were able to use a GoPro camera to achieve the effect they wanted to but it doesn't seem all that amazing to me. Interstellar is still a far better film. Perhaps that's not entirely true. Did PAN have an interesting story? Were there explosions? Why do they keep remaking the Fantastic 4? Why do they keep splitting books into three films? Why did the Scorch Trials suck? Well other than they decided to completely re-write most of the plot. Speaking of Box Office hits - you know what I thought was fantastic.... Mr. Shamalan's The Visit. Didn't see too many visual digital effects in that.

Yep, right you are. Sorry, I was just guessing based on the mentioned amperage.

You'll want to have them on two different circuits. Just plug one in the kitchen, and another in a different room with a long lead, should be fine.

I would like to weigh in on this, as a student of the past 30 years school systems. After having to dig my way out, and teach myself what I know by reading actual books and studying the work of others; I now think I have some small understanding of what the issues regarding these students asking questions are: It appears that after so many years of teachers "teaching to a test", that students think the proper way to acquire original information is to ask someone - as they have literally been handed all the information they need from school day one. So how does one combat the dismissal of abstract thought? First year university students seem also to not have any ability to function in social situations, much less the self driven academic world of the university classroom as they have never been taught this stuff. Of course, these are just my thoughts from observing middle and high school students from the last 15 years. Did any of that make sense? It's early, more coffee please.

I did register for this project, but they said it would be many weeks as they are on backorder, so I might have fired off a few angry tweets about how "instant" is different than "backorder". The thing does look interesting, but I can't see how its any different than something I could create myself. Seems like they are touting the ability to create 2k crawling text as if no one else can... I'm a bit fuzzy on this aspect. Perhaps when they come out of private beta we'll know more. I still prefer to do my own titles.

Getting back on track, Was there ever an official anamorphic 16mm version? The anamorphic process has about 1000 different names for the exact same process (sometimes even the exact same lens!), but according to all the information I've been able to read, there was never a trade name for the same process in 16mm. And speaking of, is the CinemaScope trademark still held by Fox? It would be awesome to be able to use that logo on my upcoming 16mm anamorphic project.

I thought he never made the picture because War and Peace and Waterloo were released very close to his time frame for shooting.

What is your budget? How long is the shoot? If its one day, a 1K parcan with 5600k globe runs something like $60 but I'm sure you can find it cheaper from different rental houses. I see listed prices for a 1K fresnel at about $48 per week, that plus some CTB gel will get you in the ballpark. 4'4 kino's seem like there about three times that per week cost. I say all that if you want to recreate the sun. If you want to use the sun as a key, you can always judiciously use bounce material / reflectors, and supplement with the kinos.

Sound mixing refers to taking all of the audio elements, or stems, and mixing them together to create a final track for the film. In your case, if you only have dialogue, or sound effects, there may be no need to mix the separately recorded tracks together. In some films, dialogue, music, and other sound effects are mixed so that whatever sound needs to be prominent has a space. Normalizing audio levels can be a part of the mixing process, but usually these things are recorded at sufficient volume as to not need the normalization process. The other thing a decent mix session would do is make all of your sound recordings relative, and work with the film in a cohesive way. Perhaps you have some sounds that are very soft and other that are very loud. These can be used to great effect, placed in the right circumstance, but along with other sounds of medium volume, an audio engineer might be able to achieve even greater effect. Why do you only have a single audio track?

Ah, sorry - I misread the OP. Most people that I speak with aren't using anamorphic primes so I just assume anymore that someone shooting 16mm anamorphic is using a dual lens system. I always used 1.33, but I enjoyed reading your explanation!

It looks awesome. Yes, the unsqueezed image is wider than 'scope' 2.40:1 - You always need to decide whether you believe that the 16mm frame is 1.37 or 1.33, and you seem to have decided on the first. Depending on your framing during filming, yes you can have more room to re-frame things in post. The image quality is as good as you can make it look. The problem is going to come form having to focus two different lenses at the same time. I find myself in need of diopters so I don't have to place the camera 25 feet away from the action! You'll have to do some tests regarding how close you can focus. You have not seen any decent film with 16mm anamorphic? What kind of look are you going for? Here are some examples: (I don't know how to embed vimeo videos, sorry.) Shot on EXPIRED film, Bolex with adapter - you can see some of the issues with focusing two lenses... https://player.vimeo.com/video/81461470 Here is a color version of the same type of thing - Expired film - note the scratches seem to have been added in post. https://player.vimeo.com/video/29438811 Here is an excellent example of the type of quality one might get out of this medium: Note, I don't care very much for the color grade of this particular example. https://player.vimeo.com/video/7452115 Finally, one of the best samples of this type of photography: Fuji 160T which may or may not have been expired but well taken care of, a nice scan (may be 2k?) and excellent production quality, which I find makes good photography even better: https://player.vimeo.com/video/74296275