Jump to content

Jay Young

Premium Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    594

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jay Young

  1. Jay Young
    I would call, on the phone, Cinelab. Maybe you've not had great results with them, but I find actually phone conversations to be excellent. And, since they don't have an email published, it's faster to call. The owner? posts on this forum regularly. I know they develop Super8, and can do 2K scene to scene scans if you wish. I've had nothing but great response from them.
  2. Jay Young
    Sorry, I simply meant to use a key light with red gel.
  3. Jay Young
    It seems like you've answered your own questions: So maybe find a practical that will provide some fill, use the LED's and gels to get your color contrast - maybe red key one of the people, and bring lots of cheap reflectors. I have not used the iPhone to shoot anything, but I find those types of cameras hard to light for. If you can gain control over the camera in software, I would choose an aperture that allows for the amount of light you have (lets say f/4 or whatever), and use a light meter to set up the stage, and allow the shadows fall off into black. I assume because of your want of chiaroscuro, you'll have the LED's more hard lit than defused. Shooting the conversation is all up to you for setup. Are you going to do over the shoulder? Are you going to shoot coverage/reactions... is this a one take... there are still a lot of questions you could think about. Just some suggestions. The thing I would be worried about is digital gain on the iPhone...
  4. Jay Young
    How bright is it to work in these conditions, with all those 2 and 1k's? Does that amount of light affect performance of people? Maybe I'm overly sensitive to bright lights.
  5. Jay Young
    Looks fantastic David! Hope you had a great time.
  6. Jay Young
    I actually had this idea a few weeks ago. I likely need to get a more substantial projector, but the one I have works fine. I think the more artsy crowd would deninitely come out and see a film, especially if there was a local brewery product attached. Getting locals to make experimental films would probably also be a relitivly easy prospect.
  7. Jay Young
    I'd be interested to see the results of this! Please post a frame grab or video link when finished.
  8. Jay Young
    I was going to suggest an Arricam which can be had for that price. But you want digital and that's out of my realm. Canon eos 5DS seems like it will next you about half the resolution as the black magic. Canon reports 1920x1080 max. Black magic will do 4000 x whatever. It will also record in Mpeg2 or h.264 only. No raw video output on the Canon.
  9. Jay Young
    I don't know about your area, but I would prefer to shoot on 16mm because the camera prices are affordable. Yes, I could rent a 35mm setup, but then after a while I could have outright purchased a decent arri 35 setup. Renting 16mm is no cheaper, and people put idiotic prices on all sorts of "rare" cinema gear. I wish I had a Mitchell 35 or 16mm camera. However, I have never seen one for less than $7000. If I was going to spend $7000 on a camera, I would purchase on of the modern Arri packages. Of course, I don't want to get into discussing and arguing over the price of gear, we could do that for ages. The price of "rare one of a kind" lenses alone make me laugh. I know these things are expensive when new, but they are not new. A 50 year old piece of not well taken care of gear should not fetch "collector status pristien" money. But people are stupid. If I had a huge budge and kind producer friend to bankroll my projects, I'd be willing to entertain the idea of rental gear. But since I don't I have to think of things like future projects, and long term investments. So I've a few CP-16r's and I'm looking to purchase a few Canon Scoopics because they can accept the same film magazines. Mitchell mags are fairly affordable these days. Would I rather have a pin registered camera? Yes. Is anyone buying CP-16's ? no. But I'd rather use what I have then sell it and not be able to get somethng better. But, the CP produces a finely registered frame, and so do the scoopics for that matter. I can't say I would be able to do the same in 35mm.
  10. Jay Young
    Yes, the one in Massachusetts. I'll see if I can't find one. I've got enough audio gear and parts here to surely get some kind of workflow happening. I also enjoy Robert's replies and insight.
  11. Jay Young
    Actually I've created a table to compare facilities and listed/published "professional" prices (no student deals or bulk). Maybe when I finally get all the numbers, I'll post it here. So far there are only two or three places that I can find. Alpha Cine seems to have gone dark, at least on the web. Cinelab, CineFilm, ColorLab (1/4" to Mag transfer!), Video Film Solution (Cheap??), ofer process/telecine solutions and are active; they are mostly the same cost. Cinelicious will do scan only, but are hilariously expensive. FotoKem, Technicolor (I wish), Delux, all seem to be active but are likely out of the independant market. Sorry if I seemed rather harsh in my previous post.
  12. Jay Young
    I figured I'd just record audio digitally. But if we're talkin tape, I'll just use my Otari 30ips half-track mastering deck! It's... sort of portable. HA! Does the optical sound printer only accept magstripe? Also, I understand Tyler, that you hate 16mm optical sound. I am getting the feeling that some of you that have replied don't ever want to edit actual film ever again. I can understand that. I'm sorry I want to do something different, and I feel bad that it upsets others. However, in the end, I'm gonna do what I feel will make the project work best for me. There can always be made a crappy youtube version, and there can always be made a film print in whatever format you wish. Sounds like shoot on film and digital the rest is the consensus. Guess I'll sell my projector.
  13. Jay Young
    Stills from Fritz Lang's 1929 Frau im Mond (Woman on the Moon), available on Netflix! I'll spare you the details of Lang inventing modern manned orbital rocketry in this film, which you should read about at your leasure. See below for hard shadows. There is, shown on screen later, a strong practicle lamp in the stair well. I assume this scene was lit to give the impression that same gas lamp would have. Because of distance, there is some softer shadows on this wall, but I believe this scene is still lit with two front lamps. There are distinct "three cross shadows" just like one gets on a stage earlier in this scene. Because the lighting is so high up, the shadows are religated to the floor, and not so much noticable. Strong side lighting of this kid, minimizing the shadows, but still hard lit. The strong shadow on the side of his face tells me there's no reflector. Just one strong key camera left. The interesting thing about this film is that it gets very much more soft the later you watch. Some of the more "upper class" interior sets look lit exactly as they would in some 1950's films. Also, who doesn't love a good sci-fi romance drama!
  14. Jay Young
    Thanks for the continued dialogue. I have a working project in mind, and even 7 pages of script started. But, because I have to think of all the elements that help tell the story, sometimes these technical limitations get in the way. I've been watching a lot of Fritz Lang, and I can't quite figure out why hard lit shadows are such a bad thing. I very much like the hi-contrast look. My film is sort of leaning in the direction of serial anyhow. Maybe I should just shoot, and record with head and tail slates, full timecode on audio recorder, and figureout the end format later.
  15. Jay Young
    Bill, I would like to screen it at a festival. However, I really just wanted to create an interesting film, and learn a bit about editing by hand. Perhaps that's just not practical any more. Perhaps that's why perfectally working editing tables sell for $100. I don't really want to do things the way everyone else does them. I don't want to shoot super16, I HATE the 1.85:1 ratio, and I hate the fact that literally everything has conformed to that standard. I don't necessaraly NEED a film out, but I had the idea of screening it locally with my equipment here. Yes, I would like to spend the time to create an interesting film, but I think for me it's more about the process. So, if it's unrealistic to try to do an edit on film, I can accept that. I'm still going to shoot on film. I can always have digital to film out made. I understand that some festivals can't (or won't) deal with film prints and I'll need a digital copy. I am anticipating this to be a long project over the next several years to finish. I'm just trying to get some of the details worked out. These things are important to me, but perhaps they shouldnt be? Who knows. Thanks for asking.
  16. Jay Young
    I just watched some of "The Artist" and, while I don't have a problem with the color? density? of the black and white, it just doesn't LOOK right. Was it a digital shoot? Just looked it up, most sources say Vision 3 500T, but it looks so... digital. lol I only say black and white because I think it could really work for my project. However, I already have about... 8000' of color 16mm laying around.
  17. Jay Young
    This is my kind of production. It's nice to hear someone else using hard lighting and make a "studio" picture. If you're talking about "Marnie" the Hitchcock film, it's got an interesting look, as most of his films do. You could always do what Hitchcock did, shoot rear projection in the studio for those outdoor scenes! Of course, I guess we would chromakey it today. Who has time to sync a rear screen projector....
  18. Jay Young
    Is there license fees for variable area? Surely not.
  19. Jay Young
    I haven't decided if I want to actually shoot on black and white, or if I would rather shoot color and then desaturate in post. I really like the look of a good contrasty black and white film. This project would work well in black and white. I really would like 2-channel sound, and this DTS on 16mm is an interesting option. I'm game to buy a DTS machine....roadshow anyone? However maybe I should do both. Make a real 16mm print with mono audio, specially mixed by myself to get the best out of optical audio within it's limitations. I'll have to check the alignment of the photocell in my projector. THEN, I can mix a proper 2-channel track and do a digital release with that.
  20. Jay Young
    Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail! Let me put a little more detail: I wanted to shoot 16mm and not super16 because I plan on shooting anamorphic (2x), final output to 2.66:1 - real cinemascope. Now I realise the final product will not be able to be shown in a theatre, and I did plan on getting the final negative scanned for digital consumption. The audio issues are interesting. While I would love to have stereo sound, I'm not entirely sure this particular project would be all that harmed by mono audio. Blowing up to 35 would be interesting, however I don't believe there are any projectors left in my imediate area... Well, there's two SuperSimplex e-7 Peerless MagnaArc's at the old University, but they won't let me use them because they "don't know anything about them"... wimps. Anyhow, maybe shooting on film with a digital edit and release is the best option for something like this... That would sure fix the audio issues.
  21. Jay Young
    Greetings, I've been searching this site for days trying to dig up information on the best practices of doing a photochemical project. I would like to do my next project on film, start to finish. I would like to edit workprints, and learn to conform a negative. I would like to go through the process of optical audio on answer prints. I understand that in this day, it is a practice that is generally not done. I am familiar with the D.I. process and how those types of edits get back out to film, but I am less familiar with the analog side of the art. If there is a book (surely?!) or other resource that could help me along, that would be welcome. Please see if my understanding so far is correct: 1. shoot principal on film 2. send to lab for processing 3. get one-line/timed print (this is the workprint) <-- Audio is recorded to 16mm mag stock at this point from origial source? 4. edit workprints to make a complete project 5. create internegative?? 6. create answer print? I don't really understand this A/B roll thing 7. conform negative to final answer print using edgecodes 8. release print struck from conformed negative? 9. I can always have a conformed (or original for that matter) negative scanned if I want to go digital... I'm sure thats wrong. But it's a start. I have access to 2 Steenbecks (16mm), 4 gang syncros, hot splice, tape splice, rewind tables. I own a 16mm projector with optical sound, but it may be mono only? Finally about the cost; processing and workprints seem to be about $50 more expensive than scanning. Thats fine with me. Am I dumb for trying to learn this stuff hands on? Thanks for your help.
  22. Jay Young
    Ok. after emailing WhitehouseAV, I used... liberal force and a big stick to pop the prisms off. Turns out not to be mold but the silvering on the mirrors being eaten away. Mirror resilvering time! At least the lens glass is good.
  23. Jay Young
    I have a Cinema Products CP-16r with fungus (or something?) on one of the internal elements of the viewfinder. It appears to be on the second element of the viewing (eye) side, as it does not change focus with the ground glass. Can anyone point me to a resource for proper disassembly? I have taken the thing apart but I CAN NOT seem to be able to remove the prizim covers, unless there is some secret after the two screws are removed. This is the one thing that does not seem to be covered in any of the available documentation. Before I spend money to replace it, I want to try to clean it! Thanks for any help you might have.
  24. Jay Young
    I picked up another CP so now I have two. One has to go... This CP is an earlier serial number with a bowtie shutter. This camera has been completely serviced by Paul Hillman at Visual Products. New belts New Clutch New alignment Front/Back focus check Complete CLA. The camera is REGULAR 16mm, never modified. It's also a sound model but the sound head was removed LONG before I got the camera. The mercury battery was removed from the camera so the internal light meter/footage alarm does not work. This was removed to prevent damage to the PC-board which is next to non-replaceable. There are no flaws with the camera. What you get: CP-16R 16mm camera body Angiex 15-150mm zoom 3 400' CP-magazines 1 or 2 core adapters (I can't remember how many I threw in there) XLR dummy-battery adapter. This will let you use any XLR type battery provided it is 20 (TWENTY) volts. 24v batteries should work, but as I don't have one, I have never tested it. According to the CP manual, the camera will operate from 20-27v. Two old Anvil flight cases. I have worked hard to remove all of the old perished foam from the inside and replace it with new good foam. I am not including any batteries because I only have two. You can purchase brand new batteries from Visual products for $150-175 USD, and they can be found on eBay. I'll also include 1 (one) 400' roll of Fuji500T so you can shoot right away. Asking price: $1200 Please feel free to email me with any questions.
  25. Jay Young
    So the camera is on its way back to me. Paul said the clutch was shot, and put a new one in. He also removed the mercury battery, and oiled it. Since the camera was shipped with the lens ON the camera, Paul checked the rear focus and alignment. The battery finally came up to stable voltage after days and days on charge. Apparently the camera runs perfect now! I'm excited.
×
×
  • Create New...