Timothy Fransky

Oh yeah, the most convincing CGI starship thus far has been the USS Kelvin from Star Trek 09. The scale and detail of that model were really excellent. I also loved Enterprise in Star Trek Beyond. That's the best she's looked since TMP. I hate that they destroyed her. She moved in a similar way to the Refit Enterprise as well. So much sci-fi model work (CGI or practical) lately gives me motion sickness. It's important to see the model clearly if the audience is to believe it.

I entirely agree. I would add that the CGI model is able to have a lot more moving parts, which should make it much richer character. But if they keep destroying her every movie, she can't really develop as a character. Now I'm definitely rabbit-trailing.

As an actor, I'm always told to STOP pulling focus :lol: :P ! Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm aware.

Ah yes, ILM didn't get involved till Wrath of Khan. And I thought I was Trekkie. I'm particularly fascinated by the miniature work. The Enterprise in that film is probably the most convincing miniature I've seen. This includes 2001, the Star Wars saga, and the more recent CGI Trek films/tv series. On the other hand, it would be difficult to make that model "fly" as effectively as the ships in the mentioned films and tv. A big model like that can't roll, bank, or accelerate as freely as a CG model. Clearly I've thought a good deal about this, lol! If I could wish myself into the director's chair on a ST film, I'd want to see the gravitas of TMP Enterprise coupled with the agility/nimbleness of the more recent ships. But I'm hijacking now. Apologies for geeking out.

Those original ILM teams were wizards. I love practical effects. The level of creativity involved is palpable.

Looks really good, all things considered. Nice, sharp images in R8. It is flat in certain areas, but I like what it does with the light. It reminds me a bit of old Hollywood, when they used to light interior scenes with natural light. Meaning, they built an interior set outside and only used muslin as the ceilings.

It's not super sunny here this week, but it does get nice and sunny. It's especially brilliant with a fresh snowfall. It's not So-Cal sun temp, but it's interesting all the same. I was just looking for something cheap to test my camera with.

So not in-camera?

I've searched the site on this topic, but I still have questions. What even is hi-contrast b&w stock? I gather it's useful in practical special effects, ie bluescreen. Is optical printing its sole reason for existing? The only reason I ask is I can get it fairly cheap. If it's an acceptable 16mm camera film, I'd like to use it as a training medium.

I should also mention the camera didn't come with either 50' or 100' daylight takeup reels. If anyone has any to spare, I'll take em.

I don't have any 16mm film, dummy or otherwise just yet. That's next on the list. Fortunately it's not any more or less expensive than super 8. I'll probably start with Orwo UN54. It's the cheapest option for me. I tell a lie, I can get Kodak 3378 or 7363 for $18 per 100'. I'd just as soon avoid the sound neg tho.

How do you determine this? I noticed there are notches on the dial to line up with another on the body. I assume those notches are closest to the noted fps. You seem to be able to set the dial anywhere you like between the notches as well, which adds to the confusion.

Here's a few photos of my newly acquired B&H 627, which must be the UK/Commonwealth/Euro version of the 240T. All the text is in English, French, German, and Italian(?). I'm pretty pleased with the condition. It came with the standard 20mm Super Comat lens, plus a TT&H 2.8" f2.8. They both have matching Filmo finder lenses. The 2.8 finder lens is full of small, black speckles. I don't suppose it matters terribly since it's only used for broad framing. Does anyone have any advice for running a test to see if it's working ok? I've posted the manual on my google drive for anyone looking for a copy. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ivQFdVVpNo9GoojMP2YuQPrENiAZoJUR/view?usp=drivesdk

Thanks again! I DO have the matching finder lens, for both the 20mm and the 2.8" (70mm?) TT&H telekinic. Judging from the finder, the latter is a close-up lens.

I'm not ashamed to admit how green I am, so maybe someone could also help with field of view for this lens? Is 20mm considered wide in 16mm? Or is it closer to what a 50mm would see in 35mm?

Good advice. It seemed an extraneous, confusing thing.

Okay, yeah they generally price on par for Canada, but all the retailers are around $38.

I recently bought a B&H Model 627, which is the English version of the 240T, I believe. It came with the standard "sunomatic" 20mm lens, but I'm a bit confused by the film speed markings the manual outlines. Does this mean the lens can only worth with really fast film speeds? I've not seen 10 or 32 speed film. The fastest I've seen is 50. Help? (Also it has a male insert that screws into the lens. I assume this is for filters?)

That's $40 USD right? In Canada, any super 8 cart is pretty much $40 CAD. I've seen US prices for V3 and Tri-X at $29. Is this accurate?

Thanks!

I got a Bell and Howell 627 today. It came with the original 20mm Super Comat lens as well as a Taylor Hobson 2.8" f2.8 telekinic. It looks like it was never used. The take up spool is missing, but they're easily found. I'm excited about it anyway. I just had a question about the clockwork spring. I read somewhere that Bolexes should be fully wound between uses. I may have misremembered. Is there a standard MO for preserving spring life?

This covers about all the cinematography questions asked at the time. A steadicam was used for Troy's sword/penis display in the woods, so it's entirely possible it was used for the kamikaze sheep. https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/charlotte-bruus-christensen-far-from-the-madding-crowd/

I would love to see one of these in operation. It doesn't get the love the Mitchell does, but most of my favourite silent comedies were shot on this camera. From what I've read and seen, it's a brilliant, nearly hand-made camera.

Honestly, I've already got some ideas. I just wonder if Bell and Howell ever made matte boxes for the 70 series? I recently bought a Model 627, which is closer to a 240T, I guess. I'm seeing Bolex matte boxes and matte filters in a kit. I wonder if that wouldn't do? Hmm...