Jump to content

Will Montgomery

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Will Montgomery

  1. Those units are inexpensive enough for you to purchase and try them out. My experience with the Wolverine was that it was ok to see what was on the film and probably fine for family members to see but no where near the quality I was looking for. Part of what is so great about film is how amazing it can look when transferred properly.

    If you are looking for a step up check out http://moviestuff.tv. Significantly more money than what you've mentioned but leaps and bounds higher quality.

    • Like 1

  2. On 1/8/2020 at 3:47 PM, Bruce Greene said:

    I would just add to run the camera for a few feet after the last take before cutting the film.

    Good point. It's easy to forget things you do without thinking.

    • Upvote 1

  3. If you don't finish the reel then you can simply cut the film at the loop, ease the stock all the way into the mag, remove the exposed stock (in a changing bag or dark room obviously) then either remove the short end (carefully label the can with stock type and length) or re-thread it back into the mag to use the rest.

    I always keep several pairs of little kid's blunt scissors in my kit for such purposes. They don't need to be super sharp or pointy just to cut film and better to avoid sharp point things on set.

  4. Nothing wrong with the workflow, but everything depends on your final requirements. If you have specific delivery requirements you adjust based on that, but especially when the camera originates in ProRes, you should be fine transcoding to whatever you need from ProRes. I would suggest working in the higher quality ProRes codecs however instead of the 422.

    Your workflow will change with every production so it's fine to get something that works for you but just be prepared to adjust for each gig. 


  5. I applaud your efforts to fix it, but the meter wouldn't be as easy as another mechanical issue. Unless it's a simple fail in the wiring, you'd have to buy another Scoopic to get the replacement part.

    Honestly you may be better off just buying another one that works since they are so inexpensive. 

  6. On 11/4/2019 at 4:04 PM, Allen-Deon Saunders said:

    @Will Montgomery

    do you have any footage to share? I’d be interested in seeing some if you do. If not I understand. The footage from the film posted by someone else was shot entirely slightly out of focus. I was wondering if that had something to do with the FFD. 

    I'll have to do some digging...the issue may be that it would have been transferred in SD but by a great colorist.

  7. On 11/2/2019 at 2:07 PM, Allen-Deon Saunders said:

    @Will Montgomery

    Hey Will,

    You are right Pentax Super Takumar lenses are great. Do you have experience with this camera (K-3)? I am asking because even though it has an M42 mount it is far more technical than that. The Flange Focal distance from the mount to the film is about an inch. Most 35 mm cameras with a m42 mount type have a different distances for the image to be in focus (flange focal distance). Meaning, Unless someone has actual used a still lens on this camera, developed film, and then seen the results I cannot assume that option works. Do you have experience shooting with still lenses on this camera?

    Looks like you've got a ton of responses. I can't speak for the technical mathematical details but like when I asked a local mechanic about a Ferrari sitting at dealer in West Virgina, his response was... "Runs good."  So that's what I'd say about the K3 and other Pentax lenses.

    I've used 24mm, 35mm and 50mm Pentax Super Takumar lenses with the K3 with excellent results. When it was in focus in the viewfinder, it was perfectly in focus on the film. The 50mm was particularly sharp. I think I shot some Double X with it and was very pleased with the image quality and sharpness so I don't think the Flange Focal distance is an issue. Great inexpensive combination.


  8. Rule of thumb: If you are sourcing old stock, go for the slowest speed you can like 50D or 100T. Faster stocks deteriorate faster. Always stay away from that Vision 800T stock because it hasn't been made in so long any of it will be pretty nasty, unless you're going for nasty then thumbs up!

  9. I think I acknowledged that you will capture more information as you say. I'm just saying especially if you finish in HD, a 4k scan may only be a 25% improvement in perceived quality when footage is shot soft or poorly exposed. Aren't we basically agreeing with each other? I don't think your point is lost. I'm sure you have many people extremely happy with your 4k services, you do great work. 

    Looks like 4k scans have come down significantly in price which is great. In fact Pro8mm lists their fees and a 4k scan is actually 25% more than a 2k scan which is kind of funny after I pulled that 25% number out of the air.

  10. On 9/21/2017 at 9:52 AM, Adam Frisch FSF said:

    If anyone's in doubt about scanning at higher resolution, don't believe the old "no point in scanning 4K on super 8 as it can only resolve HD anyway" is BS. Compare a 4K scan vs a HD and see for yourself.

    In absolute terms yes, 4k scan of Super 8 will look better than HD. But it helps when it's shot with a decent camera, great lens and actually in focus...something that the majority of Super 8 footage isn't. For things we shoot today with care I'd go 4k all day long. For my parents and grandparents home movies, not so much.

  11. Canon AF-310XL. Probably the worst lens ever on a Super 8 camera and the autofocus only works when you first pull the trigger, but I've given these out to kids at events and gotten great results. These are inexpensive cameras so they don't have to feel bad if they drop it and destroy it.

    When they are actually in focus it's not horrible...but even the out of focus bits can be fun if edited well.

  12. Not a very technical answer and a completely different stock, but I can tell you recently seeing 16mm Ektachrome projected made my jaw drop in the color rendition. It was more than just slightly more saturated...it had colors that I just didn't see after working with scanned film for years.

    And don't get me started on 16mm Kodachrome...that was another world projected. 

    I've made prints from Vision stocks look great but never seem to have that overwhelming beauty that reversal stocks give me when projected. I realize this is due to the higher contrast and color saturation but it is something everyone should see while they can.

  13. So it's the black, older version and not the Autofocus (AF) silver one, correct?

    It's a decent camera. I believe once you put some batteries and film in that should go away as Mark indicated it's a low light or underexposure indicator.

  14. Not being an engineer but having owned many 16mm cameras, my take on different camera bodies with the same lens as stated in the original premise would be that an individual frame would be quite similar for multiple cameras with the same lens, it's the movement from frame to frame that is different. 

    While I don't have a Bolex, I can say that my Canon Scoopic has beautiful individual frames, but I can see flutter in skies quite often whereas my SR2 is steady and continuous as a rock. I've been told the movement on a Scoopic is extremely finicky and difficult to adjust as changing one element leads to issues on another element and basically it wasn't designed to be worked on and adjusted as precisely as the Arri. Bolex's are fine cameras and I'm sure a well-maintained one will be great; it just may be harder to find qualified Bolex techs vs. Arri techs at least in the U.S. Not sure in London.

  • Create New...