Jump to content

Malcolm Ian Vu

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Malcolm Ian Vu

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 2:1 was used in 1930 on The Bat Whispers. Which was also the first usage of 65mm film.
  2. Terrence Malick has just dispatched Ninja Assassins to your location.
  3. It's not nearly as old as you describe, but perhaps this is the book you were looking for. "Special Effects: Wire Tape and Rubber Band Styles" (1984) by L.B. Abbott Picture of the cover: https://www.amazon.com/Special-Effects-Wire-Rubber-Styles/dp/0935578064
  4. The Bat Whispers (1930) was shot in a 65mm format, so yes.
  5. That's why I said "mass market". If they were relying on sales of Super 8 film, they'd need to move a few million cameras. Only way to do that would be at ~$299.
  6. Perhaps my subconcious mind was just fantasizing about Kodak needing to turn to another source of movie film revenue to keep operating. Like, oh I don't know... a new Super 8 camera for the mass market. But that's just crazy talk. :)
  7. Without knowing the precise language of the contract, that first article doesn't really tell us anything. Also, my post was really just a hypothetical. How long does Kodak live if they can no longer sell motion picture film? If they shut down, would that particular variant of movie-making cease to exist? Would another company fill the gap?
  8. I was under the impression that the only reason Kodak still operates as a producer of motion picture film was because the major studios agreed to certain large purchases of film stock each year. I'm not sure if these are multi-year agreements. But if movie production ceases for a prolonged period, Kodak will have no customers. How long can they survive such a situation?
  9. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "revolve on its axis". Do you mean like a flipping coin? If so, that's not going to look right if you only have the one image. Because of the perspective of the shot, the partial interior parts of the reel that are showing will not move correctly (well, not without a very heavy amount of work involving further art creation). Although if you just want it flipping around as a billboard, that could be done easily. Rotation can be done with neary any image manipulation software. Even just frame by frame, like this: Depending on how much ti
  10. If your actors wear contact lenses, some of the Acuvue UV-blocking contacts might help a bit in strong sunlight. The Oasys or Acuvue 2 lenses, perhaps. I don't know about their availability in France.
  11. What equipment are you using to record onto DVD? Standard VCRs only ever had composite output. An SVHS VCR would have S-Video output. That's a much cleaner signal to start with. But most D-VHS VCRs have component outputs, as well as HDMI output. You could play a standard VHS tape out through HDMI to a HDMI Recorder PC card (or external device), bypassing any DVD recording equipment. Then just burn the DVDs on the PC. Note: I have never tried this. Note2: D-VHS VCRs only ever had HDMI 1.0 with HDCP. I don't know if there would be compatibility problems with record
  12. They look variable to me. In the first segment you mentioned, even though the old woman and child are moving very slowly, I suspect that was coached. The movement of the birds at 1.25X speed appears normal. Of course, when the shot cuts to the pendulum on the clock, that is clearly moving at normal frame rate. The woman walking in the water and the children swimming under the water both appear to be shot at 48fps. Which version of the film are you watching? I'm not seeing a flashback sequence at 02:38:08.
  13. Of course common integer is a better system. You just have to keep in mind the lack of precision that might make certain people even more confused. 16:9, for instance, not actually being 1.78, but rather 1.7777777777... And 17:9 is used for the whole integer aspect ratio describing a 2K DCI, right? That's just a whole big mess. 17:9 = 1.8888888..., but will be shortened to 1.89, 1.9, or just referred to as 1.85. I'm not sure anyone with a physical film background ever really gets confused by these terms, since knowing measurements of the recording medium down to the hundredth of
  • Create New...