Wendy Sanders McDonlad

Still looking to part ways

Still looking for an interested buyer. 

9 hours ago, Thibault Ravina said:

 

Hi there,

I purchased a K3 in March 2021 from a highly rated seller on eBay and shot 5 reels since then. The camera came in great condition and the first 3 reels came back perfectly fine, no light leaks and no scratches. 

Most of the footage from the 4th reel came back shaky and split, (as you can see on the video below), however some of the last shots on that reel came out fine and stable. I thought it was a matter of me not loading the film properly or the pressure plate not sitting tightly in the camera. I shot the final reel a couple weeks ago and it came back with the same issue, but on the entirety of the footage this time.

I am based in London and sent my K3 to a repair shop. They sent me a quote of 708£ (which exceeds my budget) for a full clean and repair, along with this message «  The main faults that need repairs are the claw and transport system. Scratching and auto loading cannot be improved if occurs - common fault with this model » .

Now I still have the loop formers on my K3 and having done some research, I found that some people had similar issues and that removing the loop formers could solve them.The camera was in perfect working condition and I take great care of it : I checked it before sending it for repairs and found no damage whatsoever. I know that the loop formers operate on a thread mechanism and therefore might not be very reliable.

Then again, I'm new to this so looking for any advice!

Thanks

https://kapwi.ng/c/NpXtAiQXqr

https://we.tl/t-bVLvVtNxV3

 

 

 

I've had similar problems, but not as bad as yours... somebody told me it's because I loaded the film looper too tight(short) and it's creating vertical streaks?? then I sold it... 

I metered at iso 1.6 or so... I like it but 2383 handles underexposure very badly... you have to really nail the exposure, otherwise it has very little room to work with and everything will turn out blue AF. 

I'm eyeing on an Iscorama 2001 MC, (uniblock in Nikon F mount) But I dug up some old post saying the contrast is very very low, however I'm wondering if anyone has real hands on experience with this lens or any footage/ photo for me to see them as a reference. The only ones I could find off the net is for Iscorama adapters(36, 42, 54) and a scarce few off vimeo of a 2003 with Pentax K mount version. 

Thanks in advance. 

I was doing some tests on my rooftop which has these garden foot lights, and it created these very prominent flare/ghosts that I don't know how to get rid of. 

Yes, lens hood did nothing. :( 

https://ibb.co/3RHsMrt

https://ibb.co/XY1TbkM
 

2 hours ago, Dennis Toeppen said:

Has anyone ever tried 3383 as a camera film? I have 3000' of it perfed double 8 and was thinking of trying it in an H8. 

Thanks in advance for any responses.

Dennis

I have done it and still been doing so with 2383 ( the 35mm equiv?) 

1 hour ago, Nicolas POISSON said:

.

The claim of the 50mm should not be taken too strictly. It just tells that the image will appear more or less "natural". But a 35mm, 85mm or 135mm will also look rather "natural".

well, I still don't quite get your argument.. so basically, any focal lens is close to the human eye?

This statement of 50mm is close the human eye has been said many times, and I'm only taking it for face value: the fact that looking through a 50mm lens on a full frame camera with one eye, objects in the shots looks more or less the same size as what I see in the other eye. 

But this is not entirely what I am asking here, but the point that people had put this statement in the context of full frame cameras, however Bresson and Ozu had obviously been shooting 3/4-perf but still making the same claim, appears to be very inconsistent. In other words, they are saying a 75mm on a full frame looks closer to what human eye sees. ....

So, I took a lot of still photos with 50mm lens on full frame film cameras such as the Nikon FM series. 

And I'm a big fan of Robert Bresson and Ozu as such. However, I stumbled upon a few articles presumably states that Bresson used 50mm lens exclusively and then claiming that it is the closet focal length to the human eye. 

Now wait a minute........

Were they all film on 4-perf film with soundtracks back in the day? So by motion picture standards, a 50mm is more or less a 75mm? 

How can that be said about being closet to the human eye???? What did I miss???? 

PS: Bear with me, as I'm still learning. 

Read them here: 

https://blogs.iu.edu/aplaceforfilm/2018/11/15/robert-bressons-surrealist-affinities/#:~:text=The 50mm Lens&text=He is famous for always,how the human eye sees.

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/call-me-by-your-name-single-lens/

https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/notes-from-cinematographer-leonce-henry-burel-on-robert-bresson

I think I'm ready to abandon this post.

I think I got all the answers I can, from the internet. 

Thanks everyone. 

15 hours ago, Max Field said:

Then those teenagers grow up to have disposable income and operate as a reliable executive produce base sort of entity. Getting together $1000 for a short becomes relatively easy without spending your own money. Unless you have the family connections in your first 20 years, you're not moving up the ladder in a standard hollywood way. They don't care about your quality, they just want to see you drive sales.

Oh, I understand that, "they" will make and take whatever makes money, and this has always been the case in the history of man-kind, about movies or not.

But what is the standard Hollywood way? 

7 hours ago, Dan Finlayson said:

There's been a few comments addressing the length of your short - I really think this is a major factor here.

So making a long short is really stacking the cards against yourself in the festival world.  Don't take it personally if it doesn't get accepted - you're absolutely at a disadvantage going up against 5-10 minute films that are easier to program.

I'm beginning to realize that. My short, 25min long is really more of a set piece, and I'm working on coming up with something under 10 min, after reading replies from this post.  Thanks for the headsup. 

18 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I mean you can get millions of views, you can make a living off YouTube, so does it matter how good the content is, if you don't need to ever work again? 

I mean does it matter? If you can retain an audience, you're doing well. 

It's a really bad time and nobody knows the future of the industry. ....

In summary, I don't think it's wise to waste money going to film school unless you get in for free or something.....

1) Yes it matters to me. My end goal is not to make a living off it, but to realize my ideas. This is why I do not hop on the scifi, horror, or whatever wagon that is trendy at the moment of discussion. 

2) I think nobody knows the future of the industry at any given point in history, let it be 20 years ago, right now, or 20 years later. 

3) Yes, I'm looking at only fully funded programs. If I had money to pay film school, I will obviously make something with the money instead. 

On 5/20/2021 at 11:59 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Make it, put it on YouTube, pay for advertising through social media and YouTube and be done with it. You'll get more eyes and more praise doing it that way than wasting time on a festival. 

but then what?... I'd seen some mediocre films made by some youtuber with a large following, and got millions of views... it made me cringe. 

If the eyes and praise are from those teenagers on the couch, it'd be pointless to me. My goal is to move forward, not to hear from other people's congrats... :'''(

Another plan is to use this short film to apply for a fully funded film school, so as to buy me some more time... 

12 minutes ago, Michael LaVoie said:

If you directed the short, then you are the connection.  You've proven you can make a film.  Just don't make the mistake so many others do and try to take every crew credit on the short that you can. Or brag about how you did it all in a day for $10. That looks terrible.  Make up names for the jobs you did but don't care that much about even if nobody was there.  Inflate the budget to something realistic and make it look like you are someone that people can trust to work with and give money to.

thanks for the advice... that gives me some confidence as I think I'm on the right track. 

we have a very small crew of 4, and two actors... There's not much credit to begin with, but a realistic budget in the $10K, due to the fact there was one crowd scene, and we rehearsed and shot it over a month. So I can't brag about the low budget and short shooting days even if I want to. 

The thing is the short film has no connection to the feature script I have, except they belong to the same genre. 

Morphed from my previous post about my prejudice against the small, insignificant film festivals. 

Rather, I thought it's more relevant to ask which ones that is more suitable for what I'm looking for, among the oceans of festivals. 

I have a very tight short film that is 25 minutes runtime, about a simple scene in a couple's life: two actors, and one location. It's more structured like a one-act short play. It had received almost unanimous positive feedbacks from the 10-12 people I'd shown it to, who are not my friends per se. 

My ultimate goal is to attract attention from interested parties that can lead to conversations about moving forward with my feature length project. 

In this case, what are the film festivals that is best for what I want? I can't submit to Cannes, because they limit it to be less that 15min long. ?

Thanks in advance. 

Ok, I think at this point what I need is advice for the kind of film festival that is suited for my project. I'll make a separate post about.

Thank for everyone's input. 

13 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

The problem is, there's not a lot of point in being in the big festivals either. They're largely a self-congratulation and promotional opportunity for the pseudo-independent arms of the big studios. If you don't have a serious campaigning budget you're unlikely to get near a big festival, and if you do somehow manage to get in, you'd get completely outshone by productions that do have the money for parties and promos.

I'd say put the effort into doing whatever allows you to make money directly, or whatever else it is that you're hoping to get out of this.

In the end I guess there's no harm in some wreaths, but at least make sure they're from a major city or something!

The real question is what's your end goal.

Maybe, I'm wrong, but I think you are talking about feature films, not shorts? 

I guess, I want to attract attention and claim awards at bigger festivals so I can get interest in my feature length project. 

I'm at the stage of planning ahead after I finish my short film. 

And I see there are about a million no-name, insignificant film festivals out there - as long as you have a post code, there is at least one film festivals attached to it. Hell, nowadays, with the majority of them going online, you don't even need a post code. I find it rather meaningless, if those awards are simply given by some kids out of college, who can't make a proper movie, and decide to put up a party to feel relevant. 

Then there is the million insignificant short films put up their posters with laurel wreath ribbons from those insignificant festivals pretending to be some kind of hot shot, followed by hollow self-serving youtube Q&As, of them ranting about what filmmaking is, or what the industry should be, after making just that one big steam pile. It make me a little sick. But to wail back to the topic ---

Is there really any point in wasting money on those festival fees whether I'm getting recognitions or not, if it ain't the big names like Sundance, Cannes, TIFF, Venice, Berlin..etc...  

4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

I here by predict .. Probyn's Criteria .. within 3 years .. all the usual suspect high end cameras will have as standard ,dual ISO or triple ISO .. variable ND .. either Sony sell the patent rights or the others get around it .. and the big one AF.. yes Auto Focus .. not for every shot.. but for singles extreme shallow DoF (god knows what size sensors in 3 years !) , running at  / away from camera etc ..    it just saves time = money = thats why it will happen 100% ..

And I also predict in 3 years, they will make even worse movies than the politically correct fabricated propaganda movies we have today. 

11 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

It really depends on the quality of the source that you pulled the image from. If it’s a TIFF frame grab from a 4K Blu-Ray, then the compression will be much less than a jpeg frame grab from a web stream. Hence the additional compression artifacts, or lack thereof. 

but it is just a mac screenshot from a ripped DVD9. Maybe this particular copy is especially good? I skipped to other scenes with blacks... they look consistent with this one. Magical...

14 hours ago, Tomasz Brodecki said:

In that screenshot you shared, shadow detail was completely replaced with absolute black, tossing away any information within almost half of the frame, histogram below


(pasting a boosted version below to highlight the issue)

yes, but why aren't the other images toss away and replace with black, instead of the ugly clusters. 

could someone explain why the last photo from the Leopard has zero such issue? It's got black all over, but absolutely no pixelation.