Jump to content

Wendy Sanders McDonlad

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Wendy Sanders McDonlad

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Toronto, TN

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. thank you. I actually went to see the Wind 1992, didn't notice or find the skillful use of gradual filter you were referring to. Could you be more specific?
  2. As a newbie, I'm curious why don't we just put a light/ deflector to compensate? Isn't it what old movies always do? I see actors all the time with a bright face with the sun coming from the behind. Did it fall out of fashion due to the new "realism" thing?
  3. Alright, then why don't pre-install some window tint film on a blank gel, and then reuse it later as some sort of home-made ND. 🙂
  4. Those Fomapan films you shot looked great, but why is it almost all your footage have so much flicker? Also, that happened to the rest of the footage, did you shot the entire 100ft I thought it would be a few minutes long at least, depends on the perf of the camera. Do you have a longer video where I can see them?
  5. I used to have a K3 and played with some Nikon lenses mounted on a M42 adapter, it was completely useless for anything other than wide shot. Since the flange range is way off to get focusing. I wonder if I did anything wrong. Did your EF mount work with non-wide shot? You probably need a wide angel say 28mm to even match a 50mm for the super 16. But I find the depth of field was like 6 inches, if that..
  6. Out of curiosity, if buy one of those Ilford 100ft rolls, will the cord be compatible to be mounted on a 35mm movie camera, like say Arri IIC, or 435? Then, will it be possible to develop them in commercial still photography labs, without cutting the film?
  7. I have not actually done this, but I'm thinking, will it work if you just paste those films made for Car window tint and reduce the sun light? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Black-Windwo-Tint-Nano-Ceramic-Car-Home-glass-Vinyl-Tint-Window-Film-35-VLT/324191995288?hash=item4b7b594598:g:eVUAAOSwV3hb8pZz
  8. Is isn't interesting that just like classic cars, nitrate films, or dye transfer. They can all be perfectly recreated but went "extinct" because of the lack of economic incentives.
  9. Thank you David, I learned so much over this thread. My eye opener is that restored films are not a form of documentation as far as visual images goes. In the sense, I didn't realize that it's not the same as original literature text preserved, or even an albumen photograph. Due to the color grading aspect, I believe it really is a new art on its own upon each time presented, and therefore not a documentation at all to record what it was presented back in the day. Well, I rest my case, at least it's better than live theatre performance which I won't even get a glimpse on what it was like. 🙂 I find myself actually rooting for the future of digital format for its preservation qualities. What I see in movies will be exactly what other will see 100 years from now.
  10. I have no "objection" per se. but disappointed that from this point on, for my generation they would believe this is what the what the Technicolor looks like back in the day, when it clearly is a newly graded, albeit digitally to simulate it as close as possible. So if say, the benchmark print no longer exists, even with the original DP still alive and supervise the process, just so how reliable human memories are is dubious. Then the accuracy of such simulated grading is not a "restoration", but a new art that is solely dependent on our perception changes over art at that point, or what we think old movies SHOULD look like, but not was. Am I getting my point across?
  11. Also, if Technicolor dye transfer process is truly unique, then restoration from original negatives to then later grade to match it ( I don't know chemical or digitally) is just not technicolor look, but at the point of 2020, I wonder if there is such material for comparison, to show how much discrepancies there are.
  12. I also find this term "restoration" misleading, if they are scanned straight from ungraded negatives and then graded from scratch based on existing color prints. Like I said, if no such final print exist to use as a benchmark, then it's more like recreating from a new aesthetic totally dependent on an entirely new perception of color at that point. For example, if 100 years from now, I found a copy of pulp fiction's original negative, and graded as Black and White, then it's not a "restoration"..
  13. So then, does it mean none of the Bluray restoration we see is the work of Technicolor at all? Instead, it's graded (when? and by who?) from the original negatives to get as close as it can be? But if a film has its original negatives, but no Technicolor processed prints are available, does that mean nobody would know what it looked like then? I wonder how would they go about restoring that then... Graded it as they will?
  14. So it is a mistake then. since you won't say a movie is shot on Cinelab, because they did the lab work for the developing, etc.. Also, as I mentioned this film the Wild Bunch was probably shot on Kodak film stock first. Technicolor only did dye transfer after. So it was not even shot straight on to Technicolor stock either. You won't say some film is shot on Kodak Intermediate either.
×
×
  • Create New...