Nick Mulder

This new bolex sub-forum is an eye-opener huh :rolleyes:

I looked it up in a few online dictionaries and strictly speaking I dont think either of us used it correcty, you perhaps morer correctlyer than I - but I understand what you are saying, and I'm pretty sure you understand me ... ;)

I'm just telling it like it is for me - If I were watching this on television or in a cinema, without some small form of knowledge of the director or what to expect from the film (as we do almost %95 of the time) I don't think I'd bother watching it. I know banana's are a funny fruit being all yellow and stuff but it isn't meant to be derogatory at all, it's just the kind of film I'm interested in... However, each to his or her own - go for gold providing constructive criticism for something that we should "keep in mind that this is a very very rough sketch of what it will actually be. I wrote this in a couple of minutes so a lot of things are going to change." Me first though ! Your mystery man says ?I wouldn?t be so quick if I were you" then ?... If I were you I?d get going" - if you were picky and literal the contradiction dilutes the strength of the character a little here. What comes next ? It feels more like the premise to a video game.

My filters are bigger than the lens also - I put 4 bits of electrical tape around the rim to act as soft spacers, the tolerances of the tape are pretty good and I only get noticeable ghosting in very high contrast situations (the same as you'd get from a proper mattebox) ... I hold it all on with rubber bands ... Dodgy looking yes, but I'm still waiting for the system to fail me - its all friction captain! If it were a paid gig I'd certainly fork for the 'right' gear though

Maybe if the gun was a banana and you could still convincingly convey the "I stared into his eyes. They were cold. I knew that he wasn?t bluffing about any he had said." I'd keep watching.

If you can find it 7374 'television recording film' (not sure if it was available in 35mm) ... Not sure how much of it is floating around but have a read: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...764&hl=7374 (and sorry, I want to keep what I have)

I tape my polarisers/filters regularly to my odd creations - works quite fine for static shots once you have set the angle... No need to slap :lol: -_- (I'm a cheap bastard)

A lens will look 'better' in 35mm if all other factors are kept the same simply because the ground glass is bigger and the same detail isn't as magnified as in 16mm ... A lens that covers 35mm will probably have no problem with edge fuzziness working in 16 or super16, certainly not vignetting so you could easily get away with not having done the re-centre... Yip, you got it - test, and good luck with the wides - hopefully your lenses will be winners

Collimating wont solve the problem ... Its unfortunately its a myth - have a read here to understand why: http://www.apecity.com/manuals/bolex_lense...6mm_cameras.pdf All is not lost however... as the info states try each lens out - your wide Nikons may still be ok closed down a little

I suppose its rude to jump on the bandwagon and say I need one as well ? You dont have two floating around there do you ? I too just need the cable and connector.

He means relative to (most) stills lenses where they are usually always open and you have to affect some sort of aperuture preview switch to see the shooting DOF, this and also when the exposure is being taken is when the iris blades if ever are closed - they have to be especially fast to close and open again when you hit the release... Cine lenses on the other hand never in normal shooting conditions have to acheive the same speeds, and are often left at the last setting inbetween takes, which more often than not is some partial form of closure ... I wouldn't worry as much as you make out - apart from the possibility of the grease/oil getting into the optics as I have had happen when a lens was dropped, and the long term badness - and yes I suppose the extra internal reflections wont help things either .. but its not a show stopper Nick

yip - the 135 deg is separate (and more important) than the prism loss

Pretty sure its clockwise ... Simply, open it up and see if the larger claw pulls down when you crank that way - either that or the rollers roll the film down from top to bottom etc...

Those are the numbers I have in mine yep - the 0.3 isn't perfect but its the closest you can get to the actual loss of 0.2somethinghigherthan5 which I calculated one rainy day last year - works fine ;) It took me a small bit of reverse engineered math to get to it - I'm interested, how did you come by the 0.3 ?

do a search ... its been discussed in at least two threads. One problem is that often (more often than notactually ) your picture in cine will change and therefore the contrast ratios in picture will change also... The Zone system will obviously fail here unless you plan to develop each frame individually. :blink: That being said the concepts are still %1000 worth it to understand.

no reason it couldn't be used no... Make sure you know if you are getting the wireless version or not - extra $$$ for something you dont need unless you have and work with the stills strobes that mate with it. The specs for the DR dont mention filter compensation functions either - I use them often, very handy - but again, if you know your Log2 inside out then you wont need it :blink: ;) If you're not prepared to fork out for the cine version then I'd consider another cheaper non-cine model as the DR is kitted out to the max for digital still professionals, with its USB exposure profiling and wotnot (can be used for film yes, but its a hassle programming it) - you'd be paying for stuff you wont use, the cine version alleviates this offset a little ... at the right price of course...

Now, I'm confused ! - I wont try to reverse engineer though and just say this: What you put in the camera to shoot is %99 of the time a negative stock, when you finish shooting you keep it light tight and take it to the lab to be developed into a negative (no longer called 'stock' but is the same physical piece of film) - this is what gets transfered (telecined) . Some people get physical film print made optically, this is the thing you can put through a projector and watch at home and its possible to transfer this also, but that is not what you should be doing in normal circumstances - a negative gives you much more control. Correct. This is where my knowledge gets dim also ... But yes, you can scan to file at higher range with certain machines, and its not just 'pushing and pulling' as I'm guessing how you understand the terms - I think a little more research into push/pull and you 'll realize its not quite the same. Dimming and brightening move the gamma curve up and down (addition and subtraction) - push and pull work more like a multiplication and division of the curve (with a little plus/up) This is knowledge from stills B+W - hopefully it stands up to cine !

I have the cine version and although you should have the math in your head down so you can use a normal meter the cine does make things a lot easier - I think in addition to cine speeds/shutter angles it does a bit more in terms of FC, candela, Lumens output and wotnot which I am yet to play with... Best thing would be to download the manual and see for yourself. When I got mine the price difference was no where near the difference there is now - go figure... I got mine from a Hong Kong based eBay seller - came through fine (and much cheaper than local price)

I was saying they haven't been rude - I did by implication reserve the right to be so myself however ... What I meant by 'clunker' is basically the truth of the matter - if you were to ask the question you did as director in circles such as this and most probably in a 'directors forum' if such a forum exists it would make people well, I dunno... at least look at you waiting for the rest of the sentence that would make it make sense. Its weird that after shooting 6800' of film you now ask about processing - who is paying for this ? Considering these factors I dont think the grandmother analogy stands up - perhaps if she bought a computer for the same eventual cost of your stock, processing and transfer and then wondered if it used more coal when on the net than when it was doing the washing... Maybe thats taking it a little far :P "anti-pedagogical" huh ? - sheesh, I had to look that one up - Well, maybe I am being 'anti-pedagogical' - tell in a year or so when you're in the industry and know a lot more about film if you still think that though... as I said earlier: take it as a learning experience and good luck with the film !

Well, one reason I suppose was to make the basis of a good film that happened to transcend most the potential flaws of its internal logic ;) I haven't read the book, however its kind of redundant as we are discussing the film - so, hmmmm - I dont think it would be a far stretch to say that Tyrell Corp probably had its finger in the political pie and could experiment with relative impunity on it replicants by placing them in the wider community to see how far they could go before making the connection that they weren't actual humans ... I suppose if they were worried about the 'candle burns twice as bright' replicants why not make some extra Blade Runners ? Was it actually Tyrell we met at the beginning of the film ? (or a sort of Smithers character :lol: ) I cant remember exactly as I haven't seen it in a few years, but regardless if I recall he seemed like a rather philosophical type, not one to shy away from setting up a voyeuristic game of chess between his creations ...

I dont think anyone is being rude - its just hard to imagine such a circumstance that someone who types "I just finished shooting my shirt short film on Super 16" regardless of the typo (?) doesn't understand the basics of processing - i.e. that it is actually required. The " :blink:" icons etc.. are just an indication of the incongruity you have presented us. It is bit of a clunker to tell you the truth - but, as you suggest>> take it as a learning experience and good luck with the film !

Not a 'lab' no - unless it has telecine/transfer facilities also

If you were super strong, resilient and the rest compared to everyone else around you you'd start to think about it no ?

I dont know if you were doing it but if you sandwich glass or resin filters together closely (matte box type filters, not screw ins) you'll get interference patterns about the wavelength or so of the distance between them - I cant remember the physics/math exactly but its the same thing as a thin film of oil on water. Depending on the separation and consistency of the separation (i.e. how flat and clean your filters are) you can get some strong color cast, I've seen it turn up in print in medium format stills I have done ... I learned there is a good reason not to stack them directly and keep a distance apart of more than 1mm or so. Kinda like this: But the 'oil' is the gap of air between the two filters - same phenomenon, different set up ...