Jump to content

Derick Crucius

Basic Member
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Derick Crucius

  1. Thanks all, so apologies if this is a bit redundant but lets say I export a Pro Res 422 file at 1080, would this yield better image quality than say a 2.5 export as a Pro Res Proxy? Right now, for the film at hand my Proxy export is about 3GB, but when I export a Pro Res 422 at 2.5k I'm getting a 6GB file. So would resizing help with quality control as well as space for the 5GB cap on vimeo?
  2. Awesome, thanks Bruce. Do you have a specific recommendation of settings for say, a Pro Res Proxy file that will hold the detail and grain better? I tried a pro res proxy and the results were ok, but again I got those terrible compression artifacts in the grain. I know there has to be something i'm doing wrong, because I've seen some pretty great looking scans that hold the grain pretty well online.
  3. Hey all, I know this is an old post, but I wanted to drop in and see if I could get any answers. Boris, you mention for the 12-120 that the "Type C" version is collimated for Bolex reflex. I have this lens and started a post about it here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=78924 In a nutshell, my version is a Type C, but does not have the silver satin mount that says "For Bolex RX" engraved, it is just a standard black c mount. Is mine just a different version of the same lens and is it indeed compatible with the RX prism? I'm getting mixed answers and I dont want to eat up film without knowing for sure. Best and thanks in advance, -Derick
  4. Hey everyone, I wanted to see if anyone could help me out. I wanted to know if anyone could recommend the best export settings from Adobe Media Encoder for a 16mm scan. I am fine with grain, in fact I love it. I have a project thats completely hand processed kodak 7222, and the results are quite grainy. The problem I have is that when I export the h.264 file for web, the grain just becomes ugly blotches and pixels. I've tried for many hours to get the best export, including raising my bit rate and everything. I know there must be a good method, because i've seen film scans that have quite a bit of grain on the web, but the detail is preserved, so i'm completely at a loss. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Derick
  5. So the version I have is not RX, but is Bolex compatible? Even though its the Type C version? Weird. Can I get this lens collimated to be compatible with the reflex prism?? Im kind of bummed I bought it, i thought it would work well with my camera.
  6. Thanks Glen, so there are just different versions? Because my type C does not have the chrome satin mount, just a plain old black c mount.
  7. Greetings everyone! My name is Derick and I'm new to the forums. I'm a filmmaker based in Philly and I work primarily with super 8 and 16mm film. I recently acquired an Angenieux 12-120mm Type C with the C Mount to use on my Bolex rex 4. Now from my understanding, the type c is made to be RX compatible, which is great. My only question/concern is, all of the images i've seen of this lens online shows the lens with the silver cupped mount with the engraved 'BOLEX RX" or something along those lines. The thing is, mine doesnt have the so called "silver cup" with that engraving. It just seems to be a normal c mount that screws right onto my camera. My question is, is my lens still properly calibrated for the reflex prism although it doesnt have this engraved mount? Were there different variations of the TYPE C lens that were made throughout the years, making mine different but the same as far as collimation? Sorry if this question has been asked before, I just can't seem to find the answer and I dont want to eat up a bunch of film and find out all of the images are soft. Thanks in advance, Derick
×
×
  • Create New...