Nick Mulder

You're confusing the gate with the aperture... The aperture is in the lens ... The gate will not affect the light falling on the film aside from the extra area in super16 - which may or may not vignette (which again is actually a function of the lens)

For 25fps editing/playback - 32/25 = 1.28 %128 *test*

You still will have missing information as with one (film) camera you couldn't have a 360deg shutter angle... But you're correct in that its a pretty convincing effect.

The way to get long motion streaks but with time running near normal (so motion footage isn't just a jarbled mess which you may or may not want) would be to have a few (quite a few actually) cameras running through the same lens (someone else can design the prism for that!) but synced consecutively out of phase with each other ... Each stream would give you the jarbled mess but it could be put together in post as a coherent stream ... for example: 1.0 - 2.0 - 3.0 - 4.0 (cam1) 1.1 - 2.1 - 3.1 - 4.1 (cam2) 1.2 - 2.2 - 3.2 - 4.2 (cam3) 1.3 - 2.3 - 3.3 - 4.3 (cam4) etc... becomes> 1.0 - 1.1 - 1.2 - 1.3 .... 2.0 - 2.1 - 2.2 - 2.3 .... 3.0 - 3.1 - 3.2 - 3.3 etc... the 'streams per cycle' could be anything you choose thereby giving you control of the relative duty cycle (which is one and the same as the length of the streak) - duty cycles exceeding %100 could be done, so in effect you are seeing into the future (sort of) within each frame geddit ? heh Might be better achieved with 1 sensor somehow - I'll let the digital video guys answer how that could be done. The data outputs per frame would 'overlap' themselves ...

quickly off the top of my head (and going with a theme here) Feist '1234' Jamiroquai - 'Virtual Insanity' Love those long shot choreographed - simple but at the same time 'tricky' vids ... Also: Chemical Brothers 'Elektobank' Sofia Coppola stars in 1997 as a gymnast ... really nice editing in sync with the audio with the exception of the bit at 1:54 "all right check this out" - the edit is late IMO - maybe my downloaded version has the audio out of sync, but that would mean all the other (really nice) cuts are out ... despite some clunky 'acting' it just works, super cool ... Chemical Brothers 'Let Forever Be' as some one else has already listed - very 'Science of Sleep' (with came after) and last but not least: APHEX TWIN - 'WINDOW LICKER' If you have not seen this please do so - skip most of the beginning if it gets a little dry, trust me its worth it.

That last still is a killer - very nice ... "the lady knows what she wants!"

pretty interesting stuff !

Sorry :unsure: I am yet to get it developed ... still truckin on other gigs - namely 8x10 stills for my own enjoyment and what I have developed for a friend from his EL turned out to be reg16 (I thought otherwise) but seriously - what exactly are you looking for ? weave ? unless I'm mistaken that and lens quality are the only things that an EL might have differently from any other super16 (as they tend to take the prism adjusted Switar lenses)... A badly adjusted Arri will weave more than a normal EL - so... hmmmm ? :(

Best lenses : Kern 26mm preset Kern 75mm preset Yum

right, my description works for the newer H16's with the magnifying optic that is mounted directly above the prism (as in onto it) - yours is an RX4 (or five?) that has the older more slightly more destructive/problematic design for conversion ... more info here: http://www.sci.fi/~animato/s16/s16.html Hopefully your turret has already been modified correctly and had a proper re-centre of sorts - have a read at that site and see the different options ... I'm scared your conversion may have just been widening the gate and bodging the finder ! BTW: a quick way to find out if the lens mount is centered is to put a vignetting lens on the front like a wide with heaps of filters on it ...

Well, you should expect the loop formers to make a good loop and not have the film rubbing anywhere through being too big or choking from being too short in the first instance... Thats about the only thing I can think of in a loaded Bolex that you might not hear going wrong in total darkness... When I did my super16 conversions I had to realign the whole lot in completion and in the process learn how the system as a whole made a good loop - for my first paid gig shooting in super16 I was really panicking when I loaded it in darkness as I now knew how much could go wrong from bad adjustment... But I knew it was ok now, and still is ... basically, if it loads inconsistently enough in light for you to worry about it doing it in the dark, it needs adjustment - A well, adjusted loop former/gate/claw mechanism should - or I'll just say it> will work correctly every time ... But to answer your question maybe just point a very low intensity flashlight at it (use near dead batteries and snoot it with tape) - or get good at reading it like braille ;)

Its something most users new to super16 go through - especially if they are used to reg16 ... Perhaps it should be included in the super16/16mm/1R/2R FAQ ...

Manual, you can thread the loop intact - automatic, you have to carry the projector around with the loop in it or cut the splice and redo it once you've loaded it again... Once you get a projector it'll all make sense ;)

Reminds me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5blbv4WFriM

For a locked off (non moving camera on a tripod) ghost effect shoot your scene once without the moving ghost and then once with scooby-doo. Now depending on how transparent you want scooby-doo to be is how much you offset the exposure in each 'pass' (you'll be getting into motion control/green screen before you know it! ;) ) For %50 transparency each pass should be half of what your light meter says the exposure should be - so f8 becomes two passes of f16 so they 'add up' or 'integrate' to the correct exposure for the background and halfliness-ish-ness for the ghost ... For only partial ghostliness expose even more on the talent pass and less on the background plate (is that the correct term?) - and so on ... Get it ? yeh! cool Just a tip>> Its better if you are 'particularly wondering' about anything in particular to ask the particular question you are wondering about :lol: Otherwise people dont feel particularly inclined to write a helpful reply

why ? cos things get smaller the further away they are ;) What we perceive as straight lines in our vision are far from being so - try to dislocate your expectations and actually investigate the data coming through your eyes and you'll see what I mean ... (much easier on drugs) The camera doesn't have these expectations and once the data is put up against relatively 'straighter' reference (your frame in Final Cut) you get your 'what the ??!' moment . I will admit though that the fact our film plane/sensors are flat and not spherical like the back of our eye makes it worse.

Gear is getting very cheap - glass as always is still the major component of a set up though Anyhoo - about 6 months ago I got myself a Sinar P 8x10 setup with a box of about 50 sheets of E64, still going strong (I had it lab tested), although I mostly shoot B+W and print in Platinum its nice to have in the fridge - Ferrari stuff on a VW budget ... There was a Mamiya 645, the new auto fancy pants everything body (was a back up body hardly used) going for $175 (us) at a local store the other day - mad prices ...

As lame as it is>> "Now we're on the same wavelength ..." :lol:

You need to know the lattitude of your film stock or sensor then simply make sure the exposure is more than half or so that amount of stops below an average reading - a spot meter and a quick read up on a zone system for dummies will do wonders (no disrespect here, I simply mean most zone system stuff is more suited to stills/film and the basics will do for cine) ... To help out make sure the subjects to be silhouetted are as black and/or lo-con as you can get them then the rest of the scene can be exposed closer to normal (if that is helpful or not is up to you) Depending on the lighting gear you have you can then spot meter the back light and control how far this will expose relative to the silhouette . Some form of flagging/gobo work could help if there is other stuff in shot - but without knowing the full picture you expect its no use describing them yet 'Spot Meter' is the word of the day here

Excuse me for being the Mr Correction-pants but just to be clear for those of us yet to use a polarizer... Direction in terms of the conceptual model we have of light at the electromagnetic/midichlorian level... but not the general 'macro' ray propagation direction/s that we mostly (if not always) think about and work with It sounds like this: http://www.last.fm/music/Porter+Ricks/_/Port+of+Nuba

I'll put my hand up also ... Every 'desk' job I've had has been night shift and my main source of income up to yesterday actually has been working in theatre where we work evenings and weeks ends in the dark all the time... On a pack-in and then rehearsals for a big show (Mamma Mia! We Will Rock You etc...) we can do 7 day weeks 12~15 hour days - which leads to seeing the sun on our lunch break only... Painful on the body and the mental aspect hits others more than some, something about my upbringing/genes just lets me cope. My father was a flight engineer on 747's and my mother an Air Hostess - constantly changing time-zones. New Zealand to London for instance flying West you get perpetual day and/or night... Only just thought of that - interesting :lol:

Um, I know for certain you know more about this game than I ... but I wouldn't agree Polarizers cancel polarized light independent of wavelength. If the light you want to preserve is non-polarized and the rest happens to be then it is relatively 'un-cancelled' which after correcting for exposure becomes relatively augmented ... ---- The light that is internally reflected twice inside the water drop may well be polarized sue to the reflection anyhoo... too hard to stick in my internal physics/lighting/simulator (my brain) ... So yes, I agree with your main point - keep it simple, but you may as well drag a pola with you to see... it'll take 20 seconds max

There is nothing special about the light a rainbow in terms of exposing it on film or sensor of your choice - if you have a spot meter then you can dial in the exposure to your liking - otherwise just go with a general incident reading exposure as you suggest ... What is the 'best result possible' that you refer to ? A really punchy saturated rainbow ? Filters ? hmmm, I assume you mean a polarizer ? (gawd, I hope you dont mean this filthy thing :rolleyes: ) My physics is really lacking at the moment so all I'll say is that yes, maybe it could help - rainbows are always 'perpendicular' to the observer and only work with the sun being on certain angles again in relation to the water and the viewer - therfore I'd hazard a guess at saying the effect of a polarizer (if any) is always helpful or always not ... am I getting my mathamaphysics right-o-mondo here ? helpful huh! answer >> take one with you when you go rainbow chasing and test ...

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=23905 is a good film with a scene that might interest you and theres always: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089798/ but I couldn't comment on the quality of the cinematography, its been a while since I last watched it :rolleyes:

Its for sound yes but not optical sound no... - I dont know the exact process as I doubt I will ever have use for it (although one day I might read up on it for interests sake) but the bulb would flash a frame of film for registration later in the editing process. It might make a interesting talking point key-ring or similar or there might be some Luddite film-maker out there who would really appreciate it (but probably has 7 of them already) - i.e. dont just throw it away !