Jump to content

Aaron Hunt

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aaron Hunt

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Denver, CO
  • My Gear
    BMCC, Aaton LTR 54, FS700, Bolex,
  1. Sean Porter says some really interesting things about 'beating up' the digital image, to sort of pull out that natural grain, and to give it some character. What do you think? Interview here. http://www.cinelinx.com/interviews/item/9323-sean-porter-d-p-of-green-room-on-adapting-for-the-narrative.html
  2. Thanks Brian, black bands are no issue. We wanted the 1.66 from the beginning, I just didn't know the telecine for the AR would be such a unique labor. I see Fotokem has the option for a 1.66 transfer, any other labs you know of that are good and convenient?
  3. I'm worried as several compositions are already intentionally tight for headroom. I'm quite adamant about avoiding the top and bottom crop although it wouldn't be that significant. We shot on an Aaton LTR 54 and I assumed the viewfinder's two frames were for reg/super 16 ARs. Is there a chance the larger frame was actually for a 1.75? I don't mind black bars on a full-gate 1.66 transfer. Do most labs allow this though?
  4. Hey folks, My school likes to go through color lab for film processing/telecines, but it seems as though they are limited only (as evidenced by the telecine form) to 4:3 and 16:9 Aspect Ratios. Shooting on Super 16, I framed for the native AR of 1.66 and would prefer not to crop the top and bottom of my frames -- even if it's still "...the same basic shape" as they put it. Are there any other easy to use/ship to and quality labs that can telecine our rolls at a 1.66? Thanks in advance! Any help is appreciated.
  5. Thanks Chris, for a while I just couldn't get my head wrapped around it... But putting it in the context of still photography focal lengths helped me do so. I really appreciate it.
  6. Thanks Adrian. But then does the way that lens handle space/barrel distortion operate the same across all sensors/film? I understand that you'll be getting less or more of an image (the "crop" factor) depending on the sensor or film format, but just curious to know if the lens still operates consistently in terms of how it's handling space.
  7. Thank you. Is Super 35 Film 16x9 the reference then that all other sensors/film formats are compared to? I just figured lenses labeled Super 16mm were labeled in focal length as is. Then according to this there'd be a 2.1x crop factor and workout to a 19.95 (basically a 20mm) lens.
  8. Hello, first time here on the site. I just shot an exposure test on a roll of super 16 on the Aaton LTR 54 with a Zeiss ARRI Super 16 Super Speed lens set. The guy I rented the lenses from muddled something about one of the lenses actually working out to being about twice the FOV of its actual focal length, and this has stuck with me. Is a 9.5mm lens built specifically for Super 16 cameras, not just that original 9.5mm FOV? Here is a still from the test roll that was shot using the 9.5mm lens, and since I've had this supposed crop factor bugging me, this doesn't seem to have nearly as much barrel distortion as I'd expect from a 9.5mm lens -- in fact it looks something more like an 18mm which would make sense if there were a crop factor.... But is there? It's driving me nuts! I am also using an adapter (if that's any factor).
  9. Perhaps worth noting, I am also using an adapter mount... Not sure if this factors into it at all.
  10. Hello, first time here on the site. I just shot an exposure test on a roll of super 16 on the Aaton LTR 54 with a Zeiss ARRI Super 16 Super Speed lens set. The guy I rented the lenses from muddled something about one of the lenses actually working out to being about twice the FOV of its actual focal length, and this has stuck with me. Is a 9.5mm lens built specifically for Super 16 cameras, not just that original 9.5mm FOV? Here is a still from the test roll that was shot using the 9.5mm lens, and since I've had this supposed crop factor bugging me, this doesn't seem to have nearly as much barrel distortion as I'd expect from a 9.5mm lens -- in fact it looks something more like an 18mm which would make sense if there were a crop factor.... But is there? It's driving me nuts! The girl in the still was quite close to the lens.
×
×
  • Create New...