charles pappas

shot it backwards?

https://www.govdeals.com/en/asset/493/21337

I’m curious know if there wasn’t a great deal of - perhaps a tremendous amount of - cgi/green screen used in this movie, because if there wasn’t, I will need to re-calibrate the way I look at movies. (I appreciate that the scene of the path to the castle, for one example, is the equivalent of matte painting; that’s fine). To expand on this a bit, i’m thinking of Orlack’s castle as compared to the beast’s castle in the 1978 Czech version of Beauty and the Beast (Jural Herz). The 1978 Beauty and the Beast castle is clearly all “real" whereas Orlack castle set might as well be all green screen for as much as we can see of it.

This is what I was told - a stepper motor would not work due to the force of inertia: Aapo Lettinen Premium Member 3k Cinematographer Finland Premium Member Posted October 24, 2020 The film transport needs to be intermittent. Basically this means that inertia will ruin your plans: the moving film reels have so much mass that they cannot be fully stopped and sped up again to full speed 24 times a second. Probably this type of prototype would destroy itself in couple of seconds if one would build one for tests. Even if it would be sturdy enough to hold the enormous forces the intermittent operation generates, the film itself and the plastic core would disintegrate because of them. Additional thing would be that the film would still create loops when running from the reel to gate and back but those loops would be uncontrolled and would introduce massive registration issues which would be very difficult or impossible to correct in the gate with any mechanical system. Some high speed cameras use a rotating prism drum which enables using continuous film movement without the film stopping for each exposure. this type of cameras are not usable for normal standard speed cinematography due to image quality issues... and the film still needs to be mechanically linked to the rotating prism drum so one still needs sprockets to make the system work. And yes, all the motors used for sync sound film camera use need to have a feedback loop which regulates and stabilises the motor speed, OR they have to be syncronous motors which are running at the same frequency than the incoming AC current alternates (like the old Mitchell motors and some older sound motors for various film cameras way before the crystal sync systems were possible to make)

I think when the fellow was leaning against the boxes on the pallet jack the lighting behind the boxes could have been softer and spread wider, and when he was leaning against the wall with his elbow on a junction box I think the same of the light that was behind his back. Other than those short shots it looked fine to me (on an 9 year old Mac Book Air) and more importantly it was an enjoyable two minutes.

In 1996 a black filmmaker named Bridgette M. Davis made a film which was given very limited release. It's just been re-released in a few theaters. It's well shot on 16mm, with an all black cast. The plot concerns the making of a film in NYC; clearly it talks about filmmaking.The producer of the film-within-a-film describes it as an "ultra, ultra, low, low budget movie." The funny thing is - maybe - that the camera shown shooting the film is an Arri 35BL, which doesn't immediately jump to mind as the camera to be used in an ultra low budget movie. I think it might have been possible to use the 35BL though, then, if it was borrowed free, if short ends were used, and if one of what must have been the many film labs in NYC gave the producer a great deal.

Kareem Davis Garvey worked at the pawn so no checks for stolen equipment.

Surely Coppola was paying a little homage to the Coen Brothers "Hudsucker Proxy," in that clip. I really hope this film gets some good big-screen distribution soon, ideally a real IMAX or 75mm release, but at least a theatrical release.

Yes, I used Bolex, Beaulieu and CP-16. 4-gangs, A/b rolls, etc., as you refer to. Lenny Lipton et. al. stuff. The $1.25 was for an answer print, which I used as a release print. Maybe the "Kodachromic," print stock cost more than normal print stock, hence the break-even formula for when to make an internegative. At any rate it didn't matter to me because I was only making one print. Considering it further, I guess the "electro-printing," was similar to the Auricon sound-on-film process.

Yes, I think reversal to reversal "release" prints were fairly common way back when; I had two short films shown as part of two Architecture and Film series and had one such "release," print made of each film. I seem to recall there was also a specific film stock for that that wasn't Kodachrome. The prints were priced as answer prints - about $1.25 or less per foot (more than one-light). There was informal break-even formula for the number of reversal release prints that could be made until it was cheaper to made an internegative. Maybe 5 to 10 prints - of course this was all for semi - amateurs. On the first film the soundtrack was "electro-printed" onto the reversal release print so no separate soundtrack film had to be made. By the the time of the second film electro-printing was dead, I was told, and a soundtrack strip had to be made.

For the record, I just saw it on that site and thought I'd post it just in case it is of value to someone here. Don't know anything about it.

https://www.govdeals.com/asset/18/25758 Looks good in pictures. Missing couple of plug cords?

I'll send you a list of the titles and producers tomorrow to see if you want any. I'll certainly at the least pack them for you. You're right about the rewinds, (and some of the other stuff) if the "sold for" prices aren't just scams, which I sometimes, depending on my mood, suspect. Thanks.

If anyone in Austin wants about 30 or so 16mm educational films - sound, color - dm me and you can have them. I'll throw in some rewinds too, maybe some other stuff.

If it were me, I wouldn't worry about the reflections much, but I'd put a good number of cutaways in there and fight to the death with the director over them. That is, unless this scene stacks up favorably with Bibi Anderson's famous monologue in Persona.

There is also a Bob Ross channel (24/7 I believe) that I get on Sling TV.

Surprised no one has mentioned "Nope." That movie got into celluloid vs. video, film sizes, film cameras.

Does anyone remember the title of this film about filmmaking that I can't remember. I think it came out just before "Living in Oblivion," and had a very similar plot: the misadventures of a small group of low-budget indy filmmakers. I remember the film being almost as funny as Living in Oblivion or maybe funnier, but it appeared to be truly low budget. Like 20 -25 400 ft. rolls of b & w neg plus lab costs and that's it low-budget. Anyway, it did get a release and I saw it then and maybe someone else remembers it.

Yes, having read a few comments here beforehand, there was no way I would have driven back to San Antonio again to see it on 15 perf IMax. My intention then was to just see it on standard 70mm in Austin, but when we were told the showing would be free we decided to stay. I will go to it it again in Austin on standard 70mm

Drove to San Antonio, taking an extra 20 minutes due to torrential rain. When we arrived at the theater, an employee said that the showing would be in a digital IMax format (can't remember what she called it) because the film projector was broke, having "blown the compressor due to pulling a 600 pound reel of film." I said, "Oh darn, we drove all the way from Austin to see the film. Can we get our money back? She said yes, AMC would be refunding all the money, and she would validate the parking ticket (which she did, $15.00) We were turning to leave when she said, you can still see it go in, the money will still be refunded." So we decided we might as well see it anyways, and I was glad we did see this very excellent film then, with the regret being not knowing when I'll see an IMax 70mm again. I am supposed to get a e-mail notice refund from AMC and I don't really care about the refund per se at all. However, if it doesn't come through I may contact them solely to reinforce their notion of the demand for 70mm IMax showings.

July 23rd in San Antonio. Projected Film IMAX, one of the few left.

Hello, is anyone interested in this 16x9 Inc.wide-angle lens converter. Before I try take take photos and post them here I'd like to gage interest. It is in mint condition, with the matte box, pouch and cleaning cloth included. The matte box alone is listed at about $150. I'm asking $225 including shipping. If anyone is interest I'll post the photos. Otherwise I'll put in on E-Bay soon at Buy-It-Now for more than $250.

I did see one of these shows and it was indeed spectacular. At least I think I did, except my memory is that it was more theater sized than arena sized. Having said that, I can't right now really remember anything about it except that it was probably in Houston Tx in the 80's and I went to see the show specifically because it was promoted as a spectacle. Not much of a reply, but thanks for bringing back a memory.

Beautiful, intense color saturation. Beguiling night shots. Grain blows up on the big screen and becomes another of the film's characters. Some light leaks throughout - might have been timed as by loading film in bright light. 16mm wind-up Bolex. $500,000 and counting gross.

Wonderful !!!