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.

Spaceships dont need to roll and bank in zero-G...

 

But forgetting that for a moment, you usually convey size in a transportation vehicle miniature by the sort of moves it makes, and the Enterprise is the size of an aircraft carrier, so you risk making it feel smaller if it moves too nimbly.

 

What a CGI model does allow is for the virtual camera to fly around the big spaceship with greater freedom, from near to far.

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.

The model doesn't, much. The camera does.

I'm aware.

Not to be persnickety, but ILM didn't do TMP, though future ILMer Scott Farrar did shoot some of it (for Trumbull's team under Dave Stewart), as did former ILMer Doug Smith (the latter working for Dykstra at Apogee.) And yeah, they were all geniuses! Again, if you want to drown in TMP VFX tech, just read the last half of the monstrously thick RETURN TO TOMORROW book on the making of TMP ... put that together with Cinefex and AmCin coverage and you're probably about as close to knowing most of what and how they did things as you're going to get.

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.

Totally useable. Have a look.

Video transfer by me here https://vimeo.com/207964657

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.

It can be used for creating titles or hold-out mattes in optical printer compositing.

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.

If you have some expired film you can run it through the camera to practice loading and see how the transport is functioning. Make sure the gate and pressure plate are clean. After a few feet have run through, take out the film and check it carefully for any scratches. Run the dummy film through a whole spring wind and check if the speed seems to slow down towards the end. Spring motors will often slow down a little, but if it slows down a lot it either the camera needs lubrication, or it's tired or worn.

 

You can check the take-up tension by holding the take-up spindle (the bottom one that holds the spool that winds the exposed film on) while running the camera. You should be able to hold it and stop it spinning with a bit of finger pressure. It should slip smoothly, not jerkily. It needs to slip, because as the spool winds on more film, the diameter expands and it needs to turn slower. The film itself pulls on the spindle to make it slip, so it shouldn't be really stiff or jerky. If it slips too easily, the film won't be snugly wound onto the spool.

 

Ultimately, shooting a test roll will be the best way to check how the camera and lenses are working.

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.

It's the camera's speed settings they're are quite off.

 

Pav

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

It's a bit wider than the normal mid-range focal length that older 16mm cameras used to come with, which was typically a 25mm or 1 inch lens, but not as wide as the standard wide angle which was often a 10mm.

 

I wouldn't get hung up on comparing focal lengths in other formats, particularly as you can get confused with Super and Standard 16, Super and Standard 35, full frame stills 35 and various aspect ratios within those formats. Just get familiar with the lens you have on the format that camera uses, and if you feel the need to go longer or wider, try a different lens. It probably helps to have the matching finder lens though.

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?

Those film speed and frame rate settings on the lens are just for the rather vague "easy exposure" symbols next to the lens. Made for amateurs who didn't have a light meter or found the whole metering thing too hard. You should use a light meter and set exposure with the f stop marks on the lens.

Good advice. It seemed an extraneous, confusing thing.

 

Yup. I mean it's just speculation but yes USD. Which is $10 more than the $30 for any Vision3 or Tri-X stock direct from Kodak. Places like B&H sell it for as high as $37 before taxes.

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?)

To swing this topic back a bit to the title... seems like prices will be going up a bit. Ektachrome is predicted to be $40/cart. Ouch. Cheaper than Provia 100D but... when you include a scan (which I reckon most people will want given online video and sharing) it'll still be more expensive than CN or BW. I understand that it's a very niche stock and demographic but man... Kodak is pricing out their own diehard customers! Sucks...

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?

I must admit, though, that opening title shot on the Cornish coastline in the original 1967 version was amazing - the really long pan. Especially with the soundtrack theme over the top of it. It's a terrific story for feature film widescreen cinematography because of the importance of big landscapes to the story. The story always manages to emphasize how we are all dependent on the land ... and the sky. Sigh.

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/

Heavy iron is too much for me to collect anymore, but I would like to eventually get another 2709. Sorry I ever sold that pair...

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.

Yeah, sorry to bother you. Good luck with your future.

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...