Jump to content

David T. Nethery

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Orlando, Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

3155 profile views
  1. Thanks for the reply , Phil. What does it mean on these sites: https://dannybribiesca.com/aspectratio/ , and here: https://www.unravel.com.au/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet and here: https://blog.chameleondg.com/post/111891072017/resolution-aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet where it gives the resolution of 1.85:1 as 2048 x 1107 ? This is where I'm still confused. -
  2. I hope some knowledgeable person here can help me settle something. I'm assisting a friend with setting up his animation project , which at first was going to be done at 16:9 HDTV aspect ratio at 1920 x 1080 , but he is now considering whether to work at 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio. I thought that 1.85:1 was 2048 x 1107 and that 16:9 was 2048 x 1152 because on several different websites I've found handy 'Aspect Ratio cheat sheets' posted which give those numbers, for example here : https://dannybribiesca.com/aspectratio/ , and here: https://www.unravel.com.au/aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet and here: https://blog.chameleondg.com/post/111891072017/resolution-aspect-ratio-cheat-sheet which all give the 2K square pixel resolution for 1.85:1 aspect ratio as 2048 x 1107 . (and for 16:9 they list the number 2048 x 1152) However, my friend put this to an editor of long-time experience and was told by the editor: "I've always worked at 2048 x 1080 , I've never heard of the number 2048 x 1107" . Well, that set me back ... What does that mean? Also, in terms of 16:9 the 'Aspect Ratio cheat sheets' referred to above all give the 2K pixel resolution for 16:9/1.78:1 aspect ratio as 2048 x 1152, however another article I found while doing my research insists that 2048 x 1152 (for 16:9 aspect ratio) is a wrong, ("a total crock") , that 16:9 2K resolution is not 2048 x 1152 , but rather 2048 x 1080 . http://endcrawl.com/blog/2048x1152-is-a-total-crock/ This article says: This is confusing. 2048 x 1107 seems to be mathematically correct for 1.85:1 aspect ratio , not 2048 x 1080 . (or 1998 x 1080 according to http://endcrawl.com/blog/2048x1152-is-a-total-crock/ ) Likewise 2048 x 1152 seems to be mathematically correct for 16:9/1.78:1 aspect ratio . Why would that article say "2048 x 1152 is a total crock" ? Can anyone clarify this for me ? If one were going to work at 1.85:1 aspect ratio should the project be originated at 2048 x 1107 or 2048 x 1080 ?
  3. Hi, Phillipe - Pavan Deep made a video showing how to do it . It's on the Facebook 8mm & 16mm users group. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156659339657394&set=gm.10155647398975671&type=3&theater&ifg=1 and see this post: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155998791637394&set=gm.10155104196645671&type=3&theater&ifg=1
  4. I've experimented with hand-cranking a Bolex . As mentioned the small crank makes it difficult . Fabricating a crank with a longer handle would help. But one other thing to keep in mind is that you need to mount the camera on a very STURDY tripod or you'll get a lot of unwanted "bounce" to the footage.
  5. I have a Bell & Howell 200 twin turret camera which I've had for some time , but until now has only been a nice looking 'paper weight'. (it's a 16mm 50'ft. magazine camera, not easy to get film for these cameras; the mags are designed to take 2-perf film.) But I've wanted to try it out . I didn't realize until recently there is an alternative method of loading these magazines that allows for the use of 1-perf film. The camera winds and runs , sounds smooth, no squealing, grinding or clunking, but of course it is unlikely to have been serviced in the last 50+ years ... so I'm wondering if I should try to add a few drops of lube ... I would imagine it's fairly simple inside , it looks like there are only 4 screws on the right side of the camera , which I think will give me access to any parts that need lubrication ... and one big screw in the middle of the winding key ... but I wonder if the spring is going to jump out if I take the side of the camera off or if the spring is in some sort of container which prevents it from unraveling ? Anyone have any experience with opening these up and adding fresh lube ? Anything I should watch out for ?
  6. Thank you for that thorough summary of the processing options, Martin. (I must say, over the years I've copied and saved so many of your posts from this forum and other filmmaking forums. Let me take this opportunity to thank you for always being so willing to share your encyclopedic knowledge .)
  7. Yes, I have some of the slip-on series filter adapter rings that work. (although that still means I have to find old Series V or Series VI drop in filters , not the modern screw-on filters) . The 24mm adapter fits on some of the Kern lenses (but not the Kern Switar 5.5mm f/1.8, which has a wider rim ... I think I need to find one that is 25mm or 26mm to fit the Switar 5.5mm f/1.8 ). But I was just curious about whether anyone knows the exact thread size of the Bolex retainer ring shown in the set of photos above , to see if I can use a threaded step up ring that is 28mm (?) to 37mm . However, I suppose I just need to buy the 28mm to 37mm step up ring to try it. [this shows a Kodak Series V adapter 24mm , which will fit around the rim of this Kern Switar 12.5mm f/1.5 lens]
  8. If you or anyone else needs the user manual for the Gossen Bolex light meter , it can be found here: https://www.butkus.org/chinon/flashes_meters/bolex/bolex_meter.htm
  9. Bumping this up to note that Alexandre Favre has a campaign going on now to raise funds to complete the film. https://wemakeit.com/projects/paillard-bolex-the-movie
  10. Here's another one to add to the original , long-ago , list : Metropolitan - directed by Whit Stillman, Cinematographer John Thomas. Super 16 . Arri .
  11. I have a Bolex lens (filter) question for you Bolex experts: On many of the Kern D-mount lenses (for the 8mm cameras) the thread size is 21mm . This takes a retaining ring and lens hood (Bolex catalog code: “ADUNI” ) . You screw in the retaining ring, then drop in a Series 4.5 filter , then screw on the lens hood to hold the filter in place. I have found the selection of Series 4.5 filters to be limited and hard to come by. I want to attach a step-up ring to be able to use more commonly found 37mm or 43mm filters. I have found a 21mm to 37mm step-up ring on eBay which I hope will fit the thread pitch on the Kern lenses … OR my other thought was whether it would be better to leave the Bolex retaining ring on the lens and attach the step-up ring to the retaining ring ? However, I don’t know exactly what the thread size is on the upper part of the retaining ring … it’s slightly wider than a Series 4.5 filter (25.4mm) … according to this website: https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-accessory/series-filters Series 4.5 filter retaining ring size is 28.6mm … I have seen Step-Up rings listed for 28mm to 37mm or 28mm to 43mm . Would a 28mm step-up ring work or do I need a 29mm step-up ring ? (I’m not seeing such a thing as a 29mm step-up ring available , so I’m hoping 28mm will work ) . See the photos.
  12. Old topic, but could continue to be updated: "Black Swan" (2010) although I think some of Black Swan was shot digitally, not on film. "Beasts of the Southern Wild" (2012) "Moonrise Kingdom" (2012) "Fruitvale Station" (2013) “Carol” (2015) "Certain Women" (2016) “Jackie” (2016) "The Old Man and the Gun" (2018) "Mid-90's" (2018) I'm sure there are others , including feature-length documentaries . I was surprised on the original thread that no one mentioned the famous surfing documentary "The Endless Summer" (1966). And reaching further into the past , all the Walt Disney "True Life Adventure" nature films were shot on 16mm (blown up to 35mm for distribution) , although many of those were two-reelers such as "Seal Island" , "Bear Country", and others , but "The Living Desert" (1953) , "The Vanishing Prairie" (1954) , and "The African Lion" (1955) were feature length. (a complete list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-Life_Adventures ) .
  13. I did get a message from Cinelab regarding their processing of Fomapan R-100: "We use our own brew of B&W Reversal chemistry , but Steve runs the Foma separate from Tri-X at different time/temp settings. We all shoot the product and I would say 100 ISO would be ok ."
  14. True indeed. I'm hoping that is why Robert will see this post and comment .
  • Create New...