Timothy Fransky

It's one of my favourites. It really is. I mean, you have to love this kind of story. It's not exactly box-office gold.

I actually feel Mulligan looked amazing throughout the film. We really see a person, rather than an object. That sounds trite, but it isn't in the film. We, the audience, really get to see what Oak sees. Her strength, her independence, and her desire to be her own person. That might be the Scandinavian aesthetic at work—clean, clear, and fresh.

Isn't it interesting how she says she wishes a man to "tame" her, but the story proves to her how wrong a notion that is? She doesn't need taming. She's fine as she is. They dispensed with the 19th century domesticity in the film. The impression we're left with is that Oak and Everdene's roles will change very little. They will just be much more open with one another. That's truly beautiful.

Boldwood is a great character. I guess there is a bookend between the Oak shooting the dog and Boldwood shooting Troy. I'm not sure what that means.

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

No bother at all! Those resources are extremely helpful!

That's a great list. Thanks again.

I'm not looking to emulate any era (though my biggest influences are Chaplin, Keaton, and Tati). That's a one-way ticket to mediocrity.

I'm well aware how wide a topic it is. There's an entire European catalogue of silent film that often gets forgotten.

It can never be a truly hand-cranked, in-camera, nitrite medium any longer. No matter how much we might love those films from 1915-1940. The whole thing changed with "The Great Dictator." One the Little Tramp spoke audibly, the spell was broken. Silent comedy (not silent film mind) is book-ended by Chaplin. The minute the Tramp looks down the barrel of that Pathé in "Kid Auto Races at Venice," the die is cast. Once the Tramp spoke, the era ended.

Tati did manage to recapture a good deal of it with his use of 70mm, but he had also studied that golden era. He reinterpreted the language of physical comedy and mime by combining it with a good deal of the new wave.

So I can never emulate 1925 (or any year really) unless I have a really good reason.

 

Depends on what you want to do and, beyond a general expressed desire to do an iris-in, you haven't defined what that it is you want to do.

 

As for cameras being "designed to employ" a mechanical/manual effect, 99% of film cameras were not designed with specific special effects in mind, but gave the cinematographer a precision framework from which to made it possible with a lot of hard work, experimentation and imagination.

 

In the past several decades I have corresponded with others on how silent film special effects were made, this is about the point where most people drop their ambitions and do something easier.

I want to make new silent/visual comedies. So I'm exploring the techniques used in the golden age of silent cinema to see what's practical for today. It's not really about recreating anything. Rather it's being aware of the established language of silent film, but telling my own stories.

I'm not a cinematographer, I should reiterate. However, I feel that a director should have a working knowledge of cinematography so he/she can adequately realize his/her vision. This is especially important if you're working in a style of cinema that's largely dead. The last great director of visual comedy was Jacques Tati and that was the 1960s.

So whether I use the physical, mechanical effects or not, I want to know how they are/were done.

Certainly I agree that the Pathés, 2709s, and Mitchells were incredible platforms for creative filmmaking. Consumer or even pro-sumer film cameras cannot compete.

The question becomes then: are those techniques possible on the equipment we currently have access to? As a director, you have to think in terms of compromise. Where are you going to employ the most effort? You just can't have everything. So it's not so much a matter of dropping ambitions, it's more a matter of efficiency. A finished film is better than a theoretical film. If you're going to resurrect dead techniques, you'd better have a good reason, or they're wasted.

The Elmo fader is two polarizers; one fixed, the other you rotate to extinction of the image. You can make this yourself, but it is NOT an iris and you lose a ton of light when you stack polarizers, even at 100% transmission...

 

Just like any other camera, you get a set of rods or a plate (heck it could be a simple board) that mounts between the tripod and camera body and extends beyond the lens. You then mount a riser upon which you attach a filter frame that can accommodate a lens hood and any attachments you wish to use.

 

You'll need to carefully measure the distance from the tripod mount to the lens front and the height from a plane extending from the bottom of the tripod mount to lens center to either purchase or fabricate the mattebox holder.

 

Something like this might be suitable, but do some research, as I only grabbed a quick link or two on Ebay...

 

Matte box: https://www.ebay.com/itm/FOTGA-DP3000-M3-PRO-Swing-Away-Matte-Box-f-15mm-Rod-DSLR-Rail-Support-Rig-System/201249894356?hash=item2edb6dafd4:g:zU0AAOSw3KFWfOCA

 

Support Base and rods: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Perfeclan-15mm-Rail-Rod-Support-for-Lens-Adapter-Follow-Focus-Matte-Box-A10/292674435735?hash=item4424c17a97:g:4jcAAOSwAllbbFvx

 

Mechanical Iris:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/495370001/laser-cut-mechanical-iris-14-craft?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_ts1-b-toys_and_games-games_and_puzzles-puzzles-other&utm_custom1=a3dcf623-b1d6-4288-96b7-8d3a68810a66&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9sL_k9HC3QIVAb83Ch3AfgkwEAEYAyAAEgJYKPD_BwE

 

Do some Google searches like; DIY Mechanical Iris, DIY Matte Box, etc.

Again, excellent info. Thank you.

I saw an Elmo fader for sale on another site and wondered if it was worth the bother. Doesn't sound like it.

It seems to me that the matte box wouldn't give me the same effect as a proper mask/matte slide. In fact, it would more than likely cause focus headaches.

I do think a mechanical/manual in-camera effects have a unique look, but unless the camera itself is designed to employ them, it's a waste of energy.

Digital vignettes/masks look almost ironic when they're used. I'm thinking Wes Anderson here. That may just be because I find his sincerity suspect. I'm not certain he doesn't use iris effects and matting in a hipsterish fashion. I suppose that's a perfectly valid use, but I personally don't care for it.

Anachronisms can be funny. Buster Keaton used them quite effectively. I never felt he was laughing at the outdated technology, though. "Our Hospitality" uses the old rail technology for laughs, but it doesn't feel condescending. Wes Anderson does feel that way. But I digress...

It's a year later and the project didn't happen. The Arri 2C was sold and I still have both the U16 NPR's. I'm actually thinking of selling one of them to help fund my purchase of a Canon C200.

 

Lessons learned? As much as I love film, it was overly ambitious to try and produce that particular movie on film on a $26,000 budget in a place where there are only 67 days of sunshine a year, when the script says "EXT. - DAY" on nearly every scene. If I could send myself a message back in time I'd tell myself to just buy the C200 already and save film for the next project. Especially when I shot some location test footage with the actors on my BMPCC and digital didn't look near as bad as I thought it would. The BMPCC looked pretty amazing, very close to S16 after grading and filmconvert.

 

JUST WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR!!!

 

 

I just read through this entire thread. You had a BMPCC the entire time? Why would you need a C200? You could've shot the dialogue on the BMPCC and the rest on the NPRs. You still can.

That's some excellent info. Precisely what I was looking for.

I have an Elmo Super 106 and I just bought a Bell & Howell Model 627 16mm.

I know the Elmo has an attachable "fader," but I'm not sure this does the same thing as an "iris-in."

As for the B&H, I'm not sure how a matte box could even be fitted. It's an oddball turret design.

This film shows the use of clever slide-like masks. They slide into a slot between the gate and lens (I assume).

I love the effect. In visual storytelling, masking off certain parts of the frame is very useful. Chaplin used the iris-in to great emotional effect.

This can be done easily in digital editing, but if I wanted to use these tools in-camera, how would I do it? Were these specific to the Cine-Kodak Special? Or did all cameras before the 50s have such options?

Update! It DOES work. It must've been stuck.

I believe it was the last v14 freeware I couldn't install. It would install about 90% then freeze up.

 

Just Adobe Premiere Pro and the Lumetri Color panel within that program. Or if you're really feeling lazy, Auto Color effect does a pretty decent job. Or you could go at it with curves. Don't forget the Lumetri Scopes. Watch a few tutorials and you'll be halfway decent in no time.

 

Other people recommend Resolve (which is free unlike Premiere) but I just don't have enough experience with it to recommend it. It IS more of the industry standard in color correction. But I couldn't wrap my head around the workflow. Need to give it another try sometime. It handles 18fps footage well.

Resolve has trouble with Win 10. I don't know why. I've never been able to get it working on my PC.

I'm no expert, but I've been using Lightworks v14 free. It's a good option if you can't get Premiere or Resolve.

 

I would not touch a running Camera. Modding is nice, but especcially at 8mm difficult to "widen" the gate with a vile and the polish.

 

I personally have a Canon DS8 (double super8) and i put a Anamorphic Adapter onto the Lense (1.33). That gives me fairly a 16:9 AR.

Have a look at Maxims Adapters. I was sceptical first but he does a nice Job. I have one of his Adapters and it works just fine

 

http://www.vormax.org/anamorphic-lens-1-33x

 

PS: I consider to sell my Canon DS8 if i have a fair Offer.

Also, with the lack of availability of DS8, it doesn't make sense for me. If I were to change formats, I'd just go full 16mm.

 

PS: I consider to sell my Canon DS8 if i have a fair Offer.

 

 

I would not touch a running Camera. Modding is nice, but especcially at 8mm difficult to "widen" the gate with a vile and the polish.

 

I personally have a Canon DS8 (double super8) and i put a Anamorphic Adapter onto the Lense (1.33). That gives me fairly a 16:9 AR.

Have a look at Maxims Adapters. I was sceptical first but he does a nice Job. I have one of his Adapters and it works just fine

 

http://www.vormax.org/anamorphic-lens-1-33x

 

PS: I consider to sell my Canon DS8 if i have a fair Offer.

 

Camera is Elmo Super 106.

I agree with the others telling you not to underestimate the quality of silent films or the filmmakers.

A Buster Keaton film properly exhibited is a Swiss watch. The timing and pace are brilliant.

I would recommend getting your hands on a really good print/scan of any or all of these films:

https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/10-great-silent-horror-films

You have to remember that these were cutting edge films in their day. All the special effects were done in-camera.

Pay close attention to the staging and framing. They're all unique from one another, but generally staging was still very theatrical in the early 1920s.

The performers may seem like they're overacting by today's standards, but keep an eye peeled to how physical the acting is. These actors are telling the story with their bodies, not their voices. That's surprisingly tricky to do well. I would recommend assigning a movement coach to your cast. Make sure they understand the language of gesture.

I think some of these movies are still pretty unsettling, even now. Especially the Lon Chaney films.

I mean if you want to do a parody, that's another thing altogether.

 

I would not touch a running Camera. Modding is nice, but especcially at 8mm difficult to "widen" the gate with a vile and the polish.

 

I personally have a Canon DS8 (double super8) and i put a Anamorphic Adapter onto the Lense (1.33). That gives me fairly a 16:9 AR.

Have a look at Maxims Adapters. I was sceptical first but he does a nice Job. I have one of his Adapters and it works just fine

 

http://www.vormax.org/anamorphic-lens-1-33x

 

PS: I consider to sell my Canon DS8 if i have a fair Offer.

That's good advice. I'll look into the anamorphic adapters you mention. I'm not certain they'll work on my Elmo, though. Something to consider all the same.

Here's a NOS projector lamp. It's a long shot, but maybe one of you just happens to have a projector with a burned out lamp. Ised in B&H consumer projectors like the QX80. Thanks!

Well, I watched it, the Carey Mulligan version, 2015. Absolutely love it. I'm guessing many of the extremely low-light scenes were shot on a digital camera. Beautiful cinematography - I didn't find the handheld detracted from the story or made me conscious of the camera. Very encouraging to know excellent films are still being made. It differed a lot from the book but that's fine - novels and movies are two different things entirely and a movie can never slavishly follow a novel and not become boring and over-detailed. The actors were all fantastic. I was really impressed especially with Carey Mulligan's acting. The actors who played the three lead male roles were perfectly cast. Stellar effort. Warning, spoiler alert. I thought the final scene, the real pay-off moment after all the tension, was brilliant, how Oak says nothing but just moves in and grabs her. Very different to the book but worked perfectly.

I'm so glad you also liked it! I also thought it had to be digital, no it was shot entirely on Vision3 35mm stock in varying speeds. The scene where Bathesheba sings "Let No Man Steal Your Thyme" is amazing. This is why I say it's as good as "Barry Lyndon." The scenes lit by lantern are equally masterful.

The point of IMAX is to sit close enough that the image starts to fall into your peripheral vision (which requires the image have enough resolution) particularly above your head which is why IMAX documentaries have a lot of headroom. Same goes for Cinerama on the lateral direction, these are meant to be immersive viewing experiences where you dont perceive the frame edges so much.

This is really what I'm describing, isn't it? My background is the theatre, in which the audience does indeed see in three dimensions. Sometimes a director will play with space to limit or expand the audiences' vision, but the only limits on space are really the building you're working in.

IMAX is a very useful tool, if expensive.

 

Aside from the reasons of cinema construction, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that human vision naturally has a field of view that is much wider than it is tall.

 

 

After a certain point, making the screen larger just means people sit further away.

Makes sense.

Wouldn't bother me where I sat, so long as I could see. Others probably feel differently.

One of the things I love about Buster Keaton films is the height of his landscape shots. I would think that with the right subject, you could draw an audience more fully into the film.

Whoops. Double tap

Obviously we'd have to be talking about 65mm to make this happen. IMAX solved the riddle already I guess. Too bad it's so costly. I think The Dark Knight is the only narrative IMAX feature to turn heads. Dunkirk was a bit of a bust.

So I've been examining my recently acquired Elmo Super 106, and I'm noticing the powered zoom (t/w switch) isn't doing anything. Even when I pull the trigger, the lens doesn't move and there is no change in the VF. Help?

So I've been examining my recently acquired Elmo Super 106, and I'm noticing the powered zoom (t/w switch) isn't doing anything. Even when I pull the trigger, the lens doesn't move and there is no change in the VF. Help?

I'd want to shoot taller as well as widee.

Because there's usually room in a cinema for a wider screen, but you can't make the building taller.

That simple, huh?