Jump to content

Charles Doran

Basic Member
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charles Doran

  1. You have some great shots there, Tony! What camera -- 1014XLS? Excellent transfer.
  2. Haven't posted here in a while...my short film, "Westsider" is now available on amazon.com as a DVD-R. Westsider was shot using the following film stocks: Spectra's Velvia 50; K40; 7240; Kodak 64T; a one-off batch of Velvia 64T; 100D; Vision 2 200 T and 500T; and an old roll of 160G I found in an ebay camera. This dvd contains both short and long versions of "Westsider"; my first film (also shot on super-8), "Ennui", actor's auditions; behind the scenes slideshow; trailer; plus behind the scenes video of the shooting of one scene... Westsider on amazon
  3. If you aren't happy with the Velvia 50D you can always get the 100D from Spectra (and I think Pro 8mm as well)...
  4. Personally, I would only shoot with manual override. Having an external light meter was a great help. If you need a good camera with an intervolometer keep a lookout for the Minolta 401 - it comes up on e-bay all the time. Got mind for around $50USD.
  5. I used mine for some footage on a narrative short I made as well as bringing it to SE Asia for some vacation footage. It's a good little camera with an adequate lens and is probably the cheapest camera out there with an intervalometer. Here is a page of film clips I put together -- the second one from the left is footage entirely shot with the Minolta 401 ("kodachrome 40 clip"). http://www.westsiderfilm.com/clips.html good luck on your shoot!
  6. Not sure about Walmart, but Dwayne's in Parsons, Kansas will process your 64T and do a transfer. Not too much as I recall. A good, not-too-expensive transfer is the Transfer Station (or Film and Video Transfer) located in Reseda. They have one-light transfers for not too much as I recall.
  7. I credited Spectra for film processing and telecine - added their logo as well. Also listed each film stock but not sure if that was really necessary.
  8. Has anyone done any "pro" transfers with S8 sound film? I have several rolls in the fridge and I'm tired of looking at them so I'm going to make a short film this summer but I don't want to do a home transfer. Anyone try any of the S8 telecine houses for sound footage?
  9. Pretty sure this topic has been covered here. Do a search.
  10. Hello, any of you folks in the downtown LA area tomorrow night -- Westsider is going to be screening at the Downtown Independent theater (formerly ImaginAsian) at 6:00 PM as part of the new Zero Film Festival. More info here: www.zerofilmfest.com Check it out! www.westsiderfilm.com
  11. My super-8 short, "Westsider" will be making it's LA premiere at the Echo Park Film Center this Saturday, 11/15, 8:00 PM along with several other short films (5 of them originating on S8) with Los Angeles as a focus. More info: Echo Park Screening It's also screening in the UK at the Salford Film Festival the following Saturday, 11/22: Salford S8
  12. I think it's a great idea. I'm up for attending whether it's London or LA... Aside from the talks maybe one idea would be to showcase films people shot in S8 -- maybe a separate screening room or monitors or something...just an idea...
  13. Best bet is to talk with Doug or Jerry at Spectra directly.
  14. This is what I was thinking of: Super-8 Today ISSUE #4 (MAY/JUNE 2006) Ektachrome 64T Lab Test - Results of 7 different labs that were each sent a cartridge of E-64T are examined
  15. Congrats! I look forward to seeing this one day. Have you submitted to any of the LA fests?
  16. That's not what I'm stating at all. You ignored what I wrote previously where I stated that part of the point of this testing would be to allow filmmakers who do not have access or funds to supervise scene-for-scene transfers of their work to see how well different labs would perform given similar footage and instruction. That's it. Not necessarily. I simply think that blind testing would be conducive for the filmmaker -- flaws and all. <sigh> I understand what you are stating. I'm not an idiot. Go back to the OP and the follow-up posts. Not everyone is a pro like yourself who has the "communications skills &style, experience" etc., in dealing with these labs. There are many people who are willing to mail in their footage to a lab with the hopes that they can get a telecine which would match their needs. The original posters had different opinions on different labs based upon their footage. These are the people who I think would benefit from such testing. But if the original posters are interested in getting information based upon the performance of a lab's services how can a magazine's test results be any worse than another poster's opinion? I've been pretty civil and polite - no reason to be so insulting! ;) Good. For. You. Again, not everyone who is seeking this information is a pro like you with time on their hand or the knowledge to know exactly what to say to each lab. Perhaps you should write an article for one of the mags which would help people with this. While I may fail to have the Pollyanna-esque tone of your writing, my intent hardly reflects the Paranoid-brush you paint me with. I have written repeatedly in this forum and elsewhere of the positive experiences I've had with Spectra. Yes. <sigh> Again, you are missing my intent and appear to be running with the paranoid "if you don't agree with everything I state you are the enemy" attitude which is something more akin to the previously-mentioned Alex M. than the pro you've been in the past. Nothing would make me happier than to see great telecine work done by all labs. My only concern is that if a lab knows that there is a "taste-test" comparision the results may be skewed. This is why blind testing is done not only in products but in services. Nothing can possibly be 100% conclusive. All I'm stating is that it could be a good start. best regards,
  17. I disagree. If labs are expected to be as professional to all as you claimed in a previous post then why can't viewers/readers judge a company's work in a blind test? As for my experience, I don't claim to be a pro -- I've had 3 short films and a wedding telecined. I guess in your world that makes me a lackey but as far as I know I'm still entitled to an opinion. As I stated before there is no way such testing could be 100% conclusive. It would only be a start to allow those without access or money for a supervised transfer to judge the merits of a telecine facility. I have never disputed any of this and I'm not sure how this would end up in any final testing. In my proposed article, I would assume we would get pro footage rather than "crappy" -- so that would not be an issue. Really? This is what I wrote: <<I think the reality of the situation is that there are Super-8 labs that would attempt to work harder on a telecine project if they knew the results would be revealed in an internationally-read magazine>> Yet there are plenty of people who have written in to give horror stories about how wretched their telecine transfers are. I would like to think that most of these people who have written about their poor telecine jobs are not complete idiots. Scour the archives and you will find them. Let's try a different analogy here -- if Channel 4 brings in a car to different auto service stations to compare how well the mechanics work on their car do you not think that if the mechanic (or owner) knows in advance that this is going to be written up in the paper they would try their hardest to do the best job? That's why "blind testing" is done -- not just in products but in services all the time. Kaiser Permanente, for instance, actually polices itself by having an "anonymous" employee seek out treatment and testing to see how well the employee is treated, type of service, equipment used, etc. If the supervisor knew exactly which employee was going to be coming in, don't you think that they would be given better treatment? But do you honestly think that all labs would respond this way? Not to sound cynical but does stating "that's the world we should be living in" make it so? next post, please...
  18. You have a right to think what you like but the only goal I'm "seeking" is what would be the simplest way to achieve a comparison between labs. You don't comment on the Super-8 Today article comparing 64T -- that was a good -- though hardly perfect -- way to let the Super-8 community quickly ascertain which labs would do the best job in processing this specific film stock. You seem to be taking knee-jerk offense that a lowly filmmaker like myself would dare to contradict you, Doug. Do you think it was wrong for Super-8 Today to not let the labs know that they were conducting a blind test on the 64T processing? Really? then you obviously have been turning a blind eye to the unhappy results people on this forum and filmshooting.com have had with Pro8mm, Yale and other labs. I think you are unaware of the fact that there are simply not that many Super-8 telecine labs out there. While I don't doubt that on paper many of the professional labs you speak of work this way, I think the reality of the situation is that there are Super-8 labs that would attempt to work harder on a telecine project if they knew the results would be revealed in an internationally-read magazine. Well I'm glad to hear that. But there is nothing in the above paragraph that contradicts what I have stated. Many of the Super-8 shooters out there are not able to be present for a telecine session. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a metropolitan area like ourselves. The idea behind the article would be to send in 200 feet to different labs with specific instructions for the colorist. I never said it would be perfect. I stated (again and again) that, of course it would be helpful if the writer were to be able to sit in on supervised sessions and communicate their goals directly to the colorist. The fact of the matter is that I seriously doubt that either editor/publisher would want to foot the bill for this. Obviously I've touched a nerve here..sorry to have offended a pro like you (no sarcasm intended). The bottom line is that I feel you are equating far more professional-type projects (maybe I should state "larger gauge" projects) with Super-8 filmmaking. Not that Super-8 can't look professional or isn't being used professionally but, as stated before, in my observation and from reading and talking with others there are: a.) far fewer telecine options for the S8-specific filmmaker -- hence the article that could be helpful b.) some labs that do not take smaller clients as seriously as larger ones. That is my opinion and also reflects the observation from many S8-filmmakers I have interacted with. Obviously your Super-8-specific telecine experience differs. I am not contradicting it, only stating what I have experienced both personally (had a terrible experience with both Pro8mm arrogance and Yale incompetence) and from interactions with many other S8-specific shooters.
  19. Why? What is wrong with the idea of a "blind taste test comparison? Why do you think products get compared and tested all the time? While I am repeating once again that the results would not be 100% conclusive I can't think of any other way -- other than the editors paying an anonymous writer to fly out personally to get a scene-for-scene supervised transfer -- for a non-biased, impartial test. But at "best" is not what is being performed for the average Joe Blow -- the point of my last post. Oliver Stone may get the "best" treatment but would you or I? That is the point. According to Doug at Spectra, Pro 8mm did have more than one colorist and I believe Yale does or at least did when I went there for my telecine two and a half years ago. But that's not the point. Have you observed a colorist in action, Doug? Do you honestly think that Phil V. upon learning that this is a test being conducted for a Super-8 mag would allow one of his lesser-talented colorists to work on a piece of film knowing that the results would be published for all to see? Of course not. My point is simple -- have a magazine mail out 200 feet of the same film to each lab with specific instructions for a scene-for-scene telecine. Publish the results. Super-8 Today did something like this with the 64T processing. This could be a valuable way to see how labs perform at random.
  20. Which is what I stated clearly. There is no way you can have a 100% conclusive comparison. You seem to be mistaking the word "anonymous" for the term "failing to let the lab know what you want." By "anonymous" I simply meant that the magazine editor instruct the lab (using as much instruction as they can) on how to telecine a certain piece of film. And not let the lab know that it is being sent by Super-8 Today or Smallfilm. You cannot tell me that Pro 8mm, upon learning that the editors of a mag are conducting this test would not give a little extra effort to making sure that this piece of film be given the best colorist, the best care? In a perfect world, the best attention would be given to anyone, whether it's Oliver Stone or Joe high school student saving his pennies for a telecine. That's not the case -- hence the need for anonymous testing. I don't disagree with you there. As a matter of fact I'm going to be conducting an interview for Super-8 Today with Doug from Spectra within (hopefully) the next few weeks. Since Pro8mm had their say (in an interview/article conducted by the owner's wife!) I thought it would be cool idea to go thru the telecine process with Doug and talk about the various aspects of their lab. I learned quite a bit from the many sessions we did for my film. Regardless, I still think there is validity in doing a "blind taste test" amongst certain labs regarding their telecine.
  21. Without someone personally flying out to each telecine lab, sitting with the colorist and the same piece of film I don't see how the results we seek can be 100% conclusive. That's why I think the next best thing would be for one of the magazine editors to anonymously send in the same piece of film with specific instructions to the labs and request a scene-by-scene transfer. Even that wouldn't be 100% conclusive but the results would be interesting indeed.
  22. This is true. With so many pro labs performing telecine I'm surprised one of the S8 mags hasn't looked into this. I know Super-8 Today reviewed processing by several of the labs in a past issue but testing out all of the labs for telecine quality would make sense. Jurgen? Chis? You guys around? On a personal note, I think Spectra did a great job with my film -- but I've blabbed about them already many times.
  23. Bumping this up as it starts tonight...let us know how it goes...wish I could afford to fly over...
  24. That's odd...4 people shooting 10 feet each = 40 feet? :unsure: Aright -- 'fess up someone -- who shot the extra footage?! Maybe one of you metric folk? ;) Guess we will find out once the telecine starts! Anyway -- sounds like you shot some great footage -- my surf stuff will be boring next to yours!
×
×
  • Create New...