Jump to content

Ethan Brake

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ethan Brake

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Director
  • Location
    Tennessee
  1. Dom Jaeger, I have yet to look at that pdf because it makes my browser crash for some reason. I'll have to wait until I have access to another computer.
  2. Using optical design software I can, in theory, design a perfect lens for my application. But in practice, I have no experience whatsoever in actually constructing a lens, and dealing with the manufacturing imperfections of real world glass. Although it's something I've never done before, I do have plenty of experience in using cad software to design parts and then machining them out (I have a relative who owns a machine shop), so making a good barrel wouldn't be too difficult. I'm just wondering, if I can precisely control all other aspects of the design and construction, would stock lenses be good enough to produce a quality projection of a super16 print. As far as existing s16 lenses go, the main reason I'm looking at this route (other than fun and learning) is that I need a much larger lens that allows for plenty of lens shifting, as this is for projection at varying and possibly large venues that might have the projector at audience level, or high up in a projection booth. In my experience most larger lenses are much more expensive, and this route also allows me to possibly make several lenses designed for different throw distances. I know I have plenty more research to do in order to undertake this, just trying to get a feel for it.
  3. I've been mulling what it would take to make a lens from scratch, particularly a projector lens. With proper machining equipment, I believe I could construct every part of the lens except the actual glass elements themselves. As far as designing the optics, instead of ordering custom glass elements, I could take advantage of the low cost of mass produced elements from companies like Edmund Optics. However, I'm wondering just what kind of tolerances in the glass thickness would be acceptable. For example, in an old episode of "How It's Made", they show the construction of a Canon EF 500mm F4 L IS USM lens, a $9000 lens, and they mention that the glass elements have a tolerance of +/- 0.001mm. That kind of a lens has far more precision than I would need. The cheapest elements from Edmund Optics however have a tolerance of +/- 0.1mm., something I would guess is way too low, but I'm not sure. This is for projecting Super16 film in a modified projector. Really, I don't think I would need better precision than what you would find in a $100 DSLR kit lens. My question is: What kinds of tolerances would be acceptable, and/or what kind of precision is used in mass produced kit lenses.
  4. Much appreciated for the input, just wanted some info and viewpoints that weren't a decade old. I figured that digitally blowing it up would probably be the best option, but now I'm sure after looking at the prices given for digital printing by Video & Film Solutions (After days of researching, I don't know how I didn't come across their website before...) They are much lower than I expected, and had I known that, I probably wouldn't have even considered the optical blow up to begin with. Hopefully one day, I'll have a budget large enough to skip the blow up and just shoot 35mm film to begin with.
  5. First post on this forum. I must say, having never actually worked with film before, I'm glad I found this website. Very informative. DISCLAIMER: Never having worked with film, my knowledge comes entirely from the internet, no hands on experience. So if I say anything that sounds absurd, just let me know. Having always used digital cameras, I want to shoot a movie on Super 16mm film, and have it finished on 35mm film. I've been trying to work out the workflow to get from the exposed negatives to that final print. I want to have it photochemically color timed, preferably without ever having a Digital Intermediate. Now, if I were shooting on 35mm, I would simply color time, make the inter negative, and make copies from there, all analog. But with super 16, there is the sticky problem of having to blow it up to 35mm, and from what I've read, there are many ways to go about this. There are several discussions already on this forum, but most of them are over 10 years old, and the technology seems to have changed rather significantly since then. I have an idea for some possible workflows, but I don't know if they would actually work the way I want them to or not. One of them is to edit the 16mm film together, have it color timed, then optically blown up to 35mm, but I'm not sure if the colors would translate well (I've read conflicting statements, but some say that an optical printer can't reliably transmit the colors, meaning it might have to be retimed.) If that were the case, I could have it edited, optically blown up to 35mm, then color timed, but that adds the cost of working with more 35mm in the process. For another option, and I wouldn't really mind this as long as I didn't have to digitally alter the colors, but I could edit the 16mm film, color time it, then data scan it at 4k(Not that much more expensive than 2k) then downscale it to 2k(or not, if printing 4k weren't much more expensive, but I don't know.) and have it printed to 35mm film. The problems with that, however, after it was scanned, I don't know if you would have to digitally alter the colors, or if the direct scan can be printed back without any processing. If it were the case that I would have to mess with the colors digitally anyway, then another thought was that I could edit the 16mm film, scan it without color timing, print it back to 35mm film, then photochemically color time that copy. But, that might be absurd. I don't really know, but I feel like after it was scanned, then printed, there might be some information taken from the film that makes photochemical color timing less effective, since you're just working with what a digital printer put on it, not the original analog goodness. That's a bit of a book, so I'll summarize my specific questions: 1. Assuming both processes were done properly, which would be less expensive, optical blow up, or scanning then printing back to film? (I have no reference for cost for digital printing or optical blow up. As far as I know, in this day and age, one could be far cheaper than another.) 2. Assuming both those processes were done properly, which do you think would give the best results? (Knowing that I want a photochemical timing done.) 3. Will an optical printer transfer the timed colors properly, or would it have to be timed again? 4. Will a scan of an already color timed print properly transfer the colors when printed back to film? Or would the colors still have to be digitally altered before printing. 5. Can and untimed scan that has been printed back to film still be photochemically color timed, or is that absurd? 6. Sort of related to the first question, but any reference as to how much printing 2k and 4k digital to film would cost? I can't find any information on the cost like you can with scanning. Also, specific costs of the optical blowup. I feel like some people are going to ask, "Why not just use a digital intermediate, instead of photochemically color timing? it would give you much better results, and be cheaper", and they're probably right, but it's just a hands on artistic thing. I'm relatively young, and grew up in a world that is entirely digital. Watching actual 35mm films at a theater is like a distant childhood memory, as most theaters have long been digital. And making movies with digital cameras is all I have ever done, but quite frankly, I'm at a point where I would like to create movies the same way my favorite movies from decades past were created, even if it slightly compromises visual clarity.
×
×
  • Create New...