Seth Baldwin

Been experimenting with preflashing, I've had no issues manually preflashing by exposing a gray card prior to shooting a scene, however it certainly takes up unwanted time prepping each can. I don't have any first hand experience renting an Arri Varicon or Panaflasher but it looks like a massive time saver. Are there any similar products to the Varicon and Panaflasher on the market that an individual can purchase? I've had so little luck finding anything that i'm considering trying to make my own.

Would gamma ray fogging of expired film be similiar to preflashing? The fogging of gamma rays does not fog the film evenly of course, and I suspect it also doesn't react evenly with all the dye layers resulting in a heavy color shift in the fogged stops. All expired fogged film I've worked with has seemed to fog the cyan dye layer the most, resulting in very red shadows. But my main question is whether or not gamma rays fogging would actually increase shadow detail the same way it would with preflashing.

I had a look through the "Kodak chemicals and formulae" pdf. I'm trying to find information about the ECP-2D developer formula used for Kodak 2383 Print Stock processing. Can anyone please guide me to this? Thanks

I'm trying to send a film scan through the ACEScct pipeline but unable to find ACEScct as an option in the ACES Transform effect in Davinci for working node based. I'm able to set my color science in the master color management settings to ACEScct but not within the node based ACES Transform effect. The node setup i'm trying to use consists of the following three nodes: 1. The first has the ACES Transform effect applied, IDT set to ADX 10, ODT set to ACES (I want this ODT to be set to ACEScct but there is no option). 2. The second node is for the grade. 3. And the third node contains another ACES Transform effect with the IDT set to ACES (which again I want to be ACEScct), and ODT set rec709 for my monitor. In the image attached you can see I have no option for ACEScct or ACEScc in the ACES Transform effect, only ACES. Is this an issue with my davinci? Thanks.

I'm quite interested in this print stock from the 90s and was looking to see if there were any modern emulations of it for my davinci workflow. There's plenty of LUT's for Kodak 2383 print stock, hell 2383 is even available default in davinci under "film looks" but I'd be very interested to try out this print emulsion look. Espeically because I have a few cans of Kodak EXR 200T and 100T that are in pretty nice condition through my clip tests that I'd like to try out and support with a classic print stock used at the time. Assuming no one has made a LUT for this print stock, how would one even go about creating one? There is some documentation found online about this print stock such as this pdf here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.heli.city/docs/motionpicture/kodak/lab/h15386.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNn9nQnqPyAhUBOSsKHbAsAAIQFnoECAQQAg&usg=AOvVaw3x4Swdz6LQI68bHLtB14Ar Is there anyway I could emulate it myself?

Trying to educate my self on the DI process of 35mm film. So far from what I've gathered, after shooting and developing they would have the film scanned to a log gamma like cineon into DPX files. Which they then took through editing and grading, eventually at the end they would grade to a 2383 lut to take into account how it would look on print. Those prints were sent to cinemas. Where im confused however, is when they would then digitise for online distribution like netflix, blueray, ect; would they scan the actual prints or would they use the scans from the originial negative and then just apply a 2383 lut in DI at the end?

I'd rather not have all my highlights glow red..

So would you suggest I dip a microfibre cloth in the prebath, only run it down the back side of the already processed and dried film, then submerge the film in a water bath to wash it off, then do a final rinse with photoflo again?

Is prebath even safe to use on already processed film?

When shooting stills of vision3 and developing ecn-2 at home, i remove most of the remjet off the film with the prebath, and then during the wash after development before the final rinse I will use a microfibre cloth while soaked in 30 degrees water to run along the film to try and remove any left over remjet. However I find even after doing all this, my negatives will dry after about 24 hours and they're still a bit sticky from remjet. This has become an issue with my lab being able to scan the negatives. Is there anyway I can remove all left over remjet after the film has already been developed and dried?

I was planning on purchasing another Canon EF to modify it to PL for specific cases. I certainly want to keep one of them EF. If they removed the mirror, the shutter of the 5D still operated correctly? They'd just be shooting in the dark I assume.

I know there's a PL lens to EF body adapter by fotodiox, but they only cover specific older PL lenses which have a max rear element of 14mm.

Hi, Are there any companies or products that will allow the adaptation or modification of a Canon EF mount body to become PL? I would love to use PL glass on a Canon body.

I've been doing some researching on how best to stabilise older Kodak motion picture stocks. The stock i'm trying to stabilise is Kodak EXR 100T. From what I've found online, apparently the solution will have to contain 37% formalin mixed with a standard wetting agent like photoflo. I'm however confused with what wetting agent to go with. I read up that Kodak photoflo is intended to be used for black and white stock, yet I see a lot of people also using it for color negatives. Would a photoflo 200 solution mixed with an added 10ml of 37% formalin be an appropriate solution to stablise this stock? Or is there a more relevant wetting agent to use for these color negatives. Thanks.

Yeah, I'd likely need a spectrometer from Sekonic, can rent one thats fine. Or what phil said sounds promising.