Jay Young

Thanks for that. I was thinking more to start off with, but I guess you have to start somewhere, and Mitchell it will be. Simon, I also have a Speed-graphic and use it almost daily for some reason or another. I was also thinking about getting an Eyemo to use short ends or whatever with. Let's face it, Mitchell cameras are not really "vacation" friendly. But, can you imagine what the people on the beach would think when you brought out the big BNCR and casually said "I'm filming my kids at the beach!"

Let us say for the moment, that the world was perfect and presents rained down from the heavens. Let us also say that you have $3000 to spend on a 35mm camera. Which would you pick: Mitchell or Konvas. The reason I didn't include Arri, is that like all things German, if it says Porsche on the front, it usually has Porsche price on the back; even if it's junk. I have been saving, and I would say in the next month or two, I would like to buy a complete package. I have been leaning towards 16mm, but I really would like to shoot on 35. In my wildest dreams, I think 2-perf techniscope would be what I would want... Well, in my wildest dreams I would shoot everything in 65mm. The Russian stuff seems to be flooding the market. Prices are relatively low. Mitchell gear, on the other hand, is scarce. Woops, forgot to add one thing: Sync-Sound is a must. I can stand an MOS camera, as long as I can attach some add on device for syncing. Thoughts? Opinions? Those who have owned any of these great machines, I would love to hear from you.

I have several episodes of this Magazine but the retailer who carried it has not gotten the next one in. When I go to the website, I get adult entertainment. Does anyone know what happened to this fine magazine? What the correct website is? If they are still in print? Thanks, --JRY

Welcome to super 8mm. First, film speed is always important to an extent. Film speed in whatever format, 8mm or 65mm, is film speed. I hate to think that you went to film school and didn't learn anything about film speed. My suggestion would be to read about film speed. Different speeds are going to give you more or less noticeable grain when projected. You'll have to ask a keystone guru about the cartridge vs. that model of camera. Some film speeds are notched to tell the camera which speed is actually present. I think you can still find 25ASA and such, and I believe Pro8mm carries some that you could use, if you liked that producer. As I understand it, 18fps for telecine isn't going to be a major problem. The real problem is going to be sound sync. Hope that little bit helps.

Is your footage a bunch of little single frames? If so, I might try to convert that to an actual motion format, unless FCP deals well with the .bmp format. Personally I have never worked with the bmp format. When you load your footage into FCP, what happens? Are you able to edit it?

So, what have we decided after all this time? Blue-ray is ok? Blue-ray disks more truly represent the filmmakers vision, or that of the theatrical release? Anyone have a website that will tell me how to set up my player and tv to truly represent what is on the disk? I do not want my SD to be converted into 16:9 automagically. I do NOT want my Todd-AO, or scope pictures to be magically converted into something that fills the screen. No, zoom or normal or whatever. I want black bars, on the side or on the top, where ever. I want to see everything that was meant to be seen in the theatre. I try REALLY hard to select the best disk, the one that has the correct aspect ratio with black bars burned in. To me, this means that whatever was in the theatre, I get on my tv. Whatever media I need to get (other than a release print) I will try to find. If I create a film in scope, I want it to be played in scope. When I shoot films for people entering in festivals, I make sure to know what the projection format is, that way, if I also edit, I KNOW my work will be rendered correctly... or mostly correct. That is what I want out of Blue-ray.

So your post struck a bad chord with me, so I apologize in advance for my rebuttal: I have seen some really fancy CG work. One of my favorites is in an episode of Star Trek: Phase II. Stargate Universe looks good, like the areobreaking. BUT, visually, I rather like the rotoscoped version in 2010: The year we make contact. I am glad the latest trend is to NOT use CG. That will force people to either cut scenes, or use physical models; either I am ok with. I don't blame the tools. That would be like me blaming Premiere for not giving me a good edit. I have total faith that if someone would spend WAY more time making it look great instead of just "good enough", CG would be better. I think some of the problem also extends to the American view that mediocrity is acceptable. Call me a perfectionist, thats fine. I would rather pay someone to build a real physical model, lit by actual real lights, than have someone experiment in the computer. Ever since The Last Starfighter, CG has been about "Hey, look what we can do NOW", instead of, "Look at this, 50 year old technique that we made look better using just a little bit of computer." Ok, soap box off... Would it help if I said I don't PREFER CG.

Is there a definitive source for shooting miniatures? As a side note, why do they call them miniatures, they are HUGE! Anyhow, I am in lust with Douglas Trumbull's' work. My favorite film is 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Blade Runner and Star Trek are both epically beautiful. I have been looking for a very technical source for this, but all I can come up with is the usual: We shot it at 1/2 a frame per second and it was 1000 feet long. I am planning a sci-fi epic. One that will take a long time. It is my personal project. I feel the more I learn how to do myself, the better I will be able to explain what I want when I hire a professional to do it. I want to shoot models, because I hate CG, and I think they look more real. Any thoughts?

I totally understand all of your quips about digital being easier and whatnot, but I rather hate digital. Now, if I can find a nice digital recorder with 1/4" input or XLR for cheap, I will go that route. That ZOOM H4 or whatever looked promising. I don't see the point of spending digital money on a digital recorder when I can spend cheap money on an expensive tape recorder that USE to be expensive. The reason I wanted a tape recorder, is because that's the way it has been done for years, and I see no reason to change. I HATE CDs/DVDs because they are inherently more fragile than tape, even if you take good care of them. Scratches and nicks make for bad playing CD's. OK, so the players have gotten loads better over the years. I still think tape is better. Just my thoughts. I have never had a tape "skip". If part of the tape is damaged, the transport pulls the tape right on past that part and keeps going. I can just cut that bad part out. Recording to card is ok, but it lacks that analogue feel that I do so like. Sorry I ranted about CD's there, I know they have nothing to do with anything. I guess I want to record on tape because it's a physical medium. Digital recording is sort of like air, and those pesky files can find their selves misplaced.

Why? Why would anyone do this? Only to use 35mm lens? I have seen some great footage from cameras that use the built in lenses. DoF should be achievable with ANY film camera that has an iris and adjustable focus. No?

1) Most Super 8 Cameras use some sort of battery, with a lot of those being Double A. The Beaulieu's do NOT use AA sized batteries. 2) If you had really been reading this forum for weeks, you would have seen the three or four posts that state that sound film is no longer made. There are people that have some sound stock, and will most likely sell it to you. I don't mean to be rude. To answer the question, just about everyone that made a super 8 camera that was of any count, has a sound model. Pick a brand, and they will have a sound model somewhere. 3) You can order film from Kodak, and Fuji. You can order film from Pro8mm with developing included in the price (I think). You can send it off and get it developed at a number of places. The Russians make such a thing as a tank from the Lomo brand that will allow you to do home development of your own film, if you want. 4) Most cameras have a zoom. Some cameras have a slow. 5) This will be dependent on your film speed, not the camera. Of course, some lenses are going to be faster than others, and thus more able to record in darker climates. 6) Most have auto exposure, and manual. From the above requirements: Canon 814 XL-S (Lots of features) not cheap. Canon 1014 XL-S CANOSOUND Nikon R 10 Super (Top of the line camera) but no sound Nizo 1048 Sound (no slow motion) Nizo 801 (No sound) Now, there are cameras that will record optical sound, but I haven't seen that many for sale lately. Of course, then you need an optical sound projector. Your best bet is to record sync-sound with some sort of tape recorder or digital audio recorder. Use a head slate, and everything should be fine (as long as you film at 24fps). Hope that helps.

I have been looking for a portable machine for some time. I would very much like a Nagra, but they are out of price range right now. Surly, someone in the last 50 years made a portable reel to reel with XLR input. The reason I ask, is because I would like to use all the good mics I have, and I HATE adapting XLR to 1/4". Those adapters put way too much stress on the plug, and they are like a foot long when you are done (I have no idea why, someday I will make my own). Anyhow, if that is not a possibility, what about 1/4"? I'm not a big fan of digital recorders, which is why I would like to stay away, but if I HAD to go that route, I would might.... have to see. Is phantom power out of the question? Am I asking too much?

You are correct. I didn't want to give any subtleties away. Forgive me, It's an old habit. I had a wife once who would throttle me at even the mention of a title to something she wanted to see or read. She is now a very EX wife. :lol:

Well, perhaps you are correct, but It's my list. We must continue to agree to disagree because I feel this film is as good as Pulp Fiction. For more explination on why I rank this film high on my list: The dialogue scenes in the a fore mentioned films are all long and drawn out, including the Hitchcock scenes. In these scenes, nothing happens except the building of suspense. In 2001, when Dr. Haywood Floyd first gets to the station, and meets a group of people talking in the lobby, the same reminds me of The same can be said of Dr. Floyd not knowing what was found on the moon. The use of close up shots mirrors the interrogation scene in Blade Runner where Decker figures out the woman is not human. Again, this builds tension. In fact, somewhat builds tension just like Hitchcock's Rope. Although it is relieved very much quicker.

Agreed with the OP. This is perhaps the best modern Cinematic work I have. I rank it among the greats for me, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Dr. Strangelove... The dialogue is fantastique! The German is spot on, and the French is amazing. The score is exactly where it needs to be. The suspense built in each scene is cinematic mastery. I couldn't help feeling as if the spirit of Hitchcock was alive and well in this film. Well done Tarantino. Cinematography was excellent, and the signature top down lighting was wonderful, as usual. I can't say enough good things about this film.

So, as I was browsing through some junk store today, and I found this Kodak XL340, new in box. $5 later, I had batteries in it and everything works. Anyone tried out this little camera? All I know so far is that it's 18fps, auto exposure, and I think the lens is an f1.8. While it won't do for my sync sound needs, has anyone used this? Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip0yfbzXKas Give that a watch and see if anything in it has the same effect. I still haven't had time to look at the film again. And youtube isn't helping any. I think what your talking about is the open rolls or diddles... To a blind person, it should just look like you are playing RLRLRLRLRLRL when you could be playing: RRLLRRLLRRLLRRLL or RLRRLRLLRLRRLRLLRLRR or whatever. Remember, the typical impact speed of 38.8 mph results in a 17.6 mph rebound speed for a wood drumstick. A camera at 24fps could report anything visually when this math is applied. After all. Each drummer, while trying to match exactly the next, is constantly adjusting the speed of the stick. Hope that helps. P.S. To get a taste of what is actually happening when a snare drummer plays, here is a short excerpt:

. I think he is talking about me, when I was comparing the data usage between Transformers 2, and District 9. It was, of course, not a fair comparison because the Transformers 2 material was shot on 15-perf 65mm, took 72 hours per frame to render, and used almost 150 terabytes of storage space.

I havent seen that film in a long time. If you can give me a reference to where in the movie that occurs, I may be able to help. I marched for almost 12 years in various drumlines, so I can explain how the physics of playing work. And I can explain a bit about what is actually going on when you watch someone play. Just let me know.

Yes, Yes, and more Yes. Just got back from seeing this with my father. I've said it once, and I'll say it till someone makes a good picture. Set the camera on a tripod, and WALK AWAY! Holy crap, I shout this at the TV every night, then promptly change the channel and watch something that was made 50 years ago because they don't shake the camera. Agreed 100%. This story could have been good. It could have been a REALLY great film. But, I think they just wanted to show off how many terabytes they could use. Transformers used close to 150. I wonder if they got that far. Why can't anyone just present a nice Sci-fi narrative that looks decent? Even the new Star Trek falls prey to this, and I half way liked that one. I do have to say, that while the theatre I saw it in presented the film in 1.85:1, matted in the projector with dust all about the gate, I didn't see the usual detractions from digital production in which I hate. So I may be a fan of the RED after all.

Since I am a musician, I thought I would comment. Usually, when shooting an orchestra, or anything on stage, the stage lighting present is (as I see it) geared towards giving the audience the best possible view. When I have photographed things on stage, I did not get say in the lighting because there is a level that is good for the camera, and often times that level is not good for the performers. Orchestral musicians are picky. You may have to deal with a lighting level above what you need for a good shot because the musicians can't see. You may be surprised how quickly it gets dark in the very back of some stages. Are the musicians playing live? If they are, and they are very well rehearsed, this may not be such a big deal. Most very good orchestral musicians have a lot of the score memorized and only rely on the sheet music for cues and various notes they have written. Still tho, it could be hard to read all that if the lighting is not at a level that it suitable for them to do so. Hope that helps.

Alright. Does anyone know where I can buy a 4008 or an R10 for less than $900? I would really like to use a great camera, but Ebay is crazy right now. I haven't seen anything in the sale section lately. Is anyone selling there extras? I don't care how heavy it is, as I'll never use it hand held.

Did anyone else watch this? I need to complain, and it's not even over! First, half of the footage looks ok, but only just. Then, the other half looks like something an 9 year old with a $150 Sanyo would make. Is this the face of HD broadcasts? Now, mind you, I understand that it doesn't matter what media a good story is recorded on, and I think this is a good story. But, I couldn't help being distracted by the poor action footage. Another very distracting aspect of this show, was the multi 3 and 4 screen splits. I know "24" is popular, but really, does every show have to do this? And, if so, does it have to do it every 10 minutes? I guess this is another show I will chalk up to my being nostalgic and my love for classic cinema composition. Set the camera on a tripod and walk away! Thoughts?

What ARE you talking about? That footage looks AMAZING! I only hope I can create footage as good looking as that.

Michell it is... Now to find one that is as cheap as a Konvas... :lol: