Erdwolf_TVL

Thanks for that!

I actually did a bit more research and found

http://www.dalelabs.com/

By the looks of it, they perhaps got the cost / effort balance to an acceptable level.

Regards

Jako

Don't forget that 35mm consumer (C-41) films are usually perforated KS-1870. So there will be some printer slippage (slight sharpness loss) when you print them on a contact printer. Also, with normal emulsion-to-emulsion printing, the slides will have the wrong orientation (emulsion toward the projector lamp), and may be difficult for some slide projectors to focus well.

 

As Dominic notes, processed color negatives can be spliced into a roll for printing (perforated BH-1866 is optimum), but in most cases, the lab might offer only roll-to-roll color correction, not frame-to-frame. If the rolls have been cut into short 4 or 5 frame lengths, all the splices needed will cause issues.

 

Frankly, if you really want slides, it's best to shoot a reversal film:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professiona...1.22.14.9&lc=en

Thanks for the valuable feedback!

Prints are nice, but they don't leap out at you like slides do.

Long, long ago I made the choice to stick with either one or the other. I chose prints, because they are much easier to view and work with. My father has an incredible slide collection that to this day bears my envy.

---

Nowadays, I'm feeling a bit adventurous, having seen what can be done with Cine film.

So yeah. Perhaps I should just bit the buck and have a handful done digitally.

- Jako

A few . . .

 

I presume you have shot on stills material, not motion picture negative. It's very similar, but not identical: so you may find that the colour reproduction ins't what you expect. In particular, the orange/pink masking levels are a little different - so lab printer lights won't be typical of motion picture stocks, and you may find that the greyscale doesn't stay entirely neutral from black to white.

 

Which brings up the next point: when you shoot stills, each frame can easily be colour corrected individually. If you have your filmstrips printed as motion picture footage, you won't get a unique colour correction for each frame. At best the lab can change it's printer light every three or four frames: more likely they would print the whole lot at one light, or maybe each strip would get a correction. So unless all your exposures were spot-on accurate, you should expect some variation in colour and density in your results.

 

If your negative is (as is normal) cut into four- or five-frame lengths, you will have an awful lot of splices in your joined-up roll: and it's more than likely that you will lose the edge of the end frames in making the splices (they would have to be hot cement splices).

 

What you get back would be a long reel: unless you have access to an automatic slide mounter, you will have a major task cutting and mounting each slide individually.

 

Why do you want your complete collection transferred to slides at this point in time? No doubt it's a good reason - just curious to know what it is!

Okay, I confess this is slightly off-topic, but here goes!

I've been taking 35mm colour stills for the past 10 years. I guess this would account for a half-decent amount of film, should I join all the negatives end-to-end.

I know that it's fairly common practice to produce projectible film from negative. It appears to be a bit more exotic for stills.

Most labs I found on-line transfer digitally (I'd prefer contact printing) and most of them charge in excess of 3 Pounds PER SLIDE. This is not worth my while, considering the amount of material I have.

So, here's a thought. I'll join my negatives end-to-end and have them printed by a film lab. Which charge per feet, rather than per image. Even if I have to attach a couple of (hundred?) feet of dead-wood at the end of the reel, it may still be worth my while.

Any thoughts?

I would suggest a more inert dessicant like silica gel or Molecular Sieves. Most chemical salts are likely to have an effect on film.

Thanks for that... I'll try to get my hands in some silica gel instead.

Good afternoon

Will Calcium Chloride affect film? Kodachrome 40 to be precise.

I have bought a chemical dehumidifer (normall used to dehumidify rooms and cars) and would like to place this inside a sealed container, along with my supply of film. I will then be placing this unit in the freezer.

It would be a bummer if I am doing more harm than good, so please advise!

Kind Regards

Jako

Thanks for that!

Hi,

 

I've just about completed a short film shot on mini HDV (16x9 PAL 1080 50i) and looking to transfer to 35mm.

 

I have obtained quotes both here in Australia and Overseas from various transfer facilities and found the process to be very expensive.

 

I am wondering if anyone has attempted to transfer video to film on their own using a projector/monitor and a 35mm camera. I have attempted this before with SD video and Super 8 and had quite good results.

 

The plan would be to convert the mini HDV master to HDCAM 24p and screen on a HD Monitor. I would then film the monitor, taking one frame at a time before processing.

 

I've estimated this method would be about half the cost of having it transferred at a post production house.

 

What are some issues that may arise? Is this feasible or an 'experiment in terror' ??

 

Thanks,

Stuart Clegg

The big problem with conventional displays, is that the three colours are slightly offset for each pixel. When you enlarge the frame, you are likely to notice artifacts. Also, the pixels often have black spaces between them. IMHO, DIY will make it look more like a big TV screen than a movie!

If you use a DLP projector with a colour wheel or a CRT project (do they even make those anymore?) you will reduce or eliminate the above problem. Snap a 35mm slide off your screen and project it onto a huge screen. You will get an idea of the artifacting.

The other thing to consider, is that you may need to add some logic to the conversion process. Downsampling 25 to 24 frames per second is no laughing matter. You may end up doing the process one frame at a time, which could take a while.

I would shoot a lot more Colour Neg for 16mm if I can justify the cost of printing it for projection. Now, I have access to a dry optical printer through the No-where LAB in London. They have only used machine for black and white work to date, though.

My question is this. Is a special and / or adjusted optical printer required to make a positive print from negative? If the magenta bias eliminated by the print film or the printing light?

---

I see the following print / internegative films available on Kodak's website.

2382 / 3389 / 3395

7242 / 3242 / 7272

Are these available in 16mm and which of these are most suitable for printing on a budget?

Hey all,

 

I just transfered some footage from one of my new K-3s and we noticed two major flaws.

 

There is a black image in the top left that looks like it could be a broken perf but I think it is actually something in the lense (it appears in all the footage shot over several days).

 

There are also odd scratches throughout. What makes them odds is the don't really move much and the don't scratch the whole image...it is if something kept hitting the film in the same spot each frame.

 

Luckily the aesthetic I was going for is crappy home movie footage so it works fine. But I would like to be able to avoid it in future. My S16 K-3 does not have the same problem.

 

Ed

 

Here's another pic.

 

Ed

The footage indicator could also scratch the film, if it has a rough edge. On which side is the film scratched? Emulsion or Back?

I would suggest going ahead and doing the S16 mod.

 

At the moment you are projecting and transfering to SD, but in the future you WILL be transfering to HD... maybe not for another 5 years, but soon it will be more affordable and all your TV's will be HD. Then at that point you'll have the aspect ratio needed on all your older film.

 

Remember, it makes no difference whether or not you use the S16 frame now, especially if you don't modify the K3 viewfinder because you'll still see the regular 16 frame when shooting. You can keep shooting as you do now, just when you eventually need the extra area it will be there.

 

If you are projecting, try the Ektachrome 100D. When Kodachrome 16mm is gone that will be your stock, and I think you'll be happy with it. I think its $35 direct from Kodak.

 

Don't be afraid of negative stocks, especially if you transfer to video... they will blow you away with their quality and latitude. Especially the new Vision2 50D.

 

Another tip with the K3, make sure you invest in an 85b filter, I don't think it comes with one out of the box.

Thanks for the feedback! Just one question...

So, they don't reallign the viewfinder when going to Super-16?

That could be a problem with artistic shorts / other shots where composition is paramount.

???

I received back my first roll of 16mm Kodachrome today. Naturally, I am very impressed with the results!

The K3's speed and registration is MUCH better than I have ever imagined!

It works out at about the same cost per minute as Super-8 Negative printed to Positive.

The turnaround time is much shorter, though. I doubt whether I will use colour negative with 16mm any time soon. It promises to be very expensive.

---

Looking for suggestions. I don't know whether it is worth going for Super-16 on my K3. I am an enthusiast. I don't film for money yet. I don't have a Super-16 projector. Most of my work is for 4:3 projection or output to standard video. Plus, I see no need to risk losing a fully working camera...

But the unexposed area of film IS a bit of an eye-sore on the raw stock.

Is the upgrade recommended?

I recently had my Beaulieu serviced and shot a test roll with it.

 

When I finally got it back and viewed it we discovered a strange streak of light leading from the perf side and into the picture area on the FOURTH frame of almost every shot.

 

I have never noticed this before with this camera on previous footage and was wondering if it was a fault or a diliberate marker - like a flash frame.

 

Anyway any thoughts appreciated,

 

Andy

 

(p.s. the pictures look pretty grubby cos they've only been scanned in a home flatbed scanner)

 

another example

Does the problem change when using a lower film speed? IE, 12 FPS or even slower?

Thanks for the assistance!

Well, I've posted some Super-8 Kodachrome to Kodak and it came back processed!

Now I'm about to mail off a roll of 16mm...

- Do I simply remove my own daylight spool and ship it off to Kodak?

- In other words, is the expectation that I should rewind it? (presumably not)

- Will I get my spool back, or willl Kodak send me another?

- Do I need to pay for the return shipping, or is that included, as with Super-8?

- I'm presuming I should put the film back in the dark protective housing - do I need to tape it up?

- How much leader (if any) can I expect on my returned film?

- Should it be sent to the same Kodak facility in Switzerland as Super-8?

- Is there anything I missed out on?

Please accept my humble appologies is these questions have obvious answers...

YES!

 

I bought a k3 off him - it was a pile of junk!

 

He did give me a full refund however

Could you elaborate on what was wrong with your cam?

Well, I took the K3 gamble and I am not disappointed. But I'd lie if I said it couldn't be better.

The screws holding the lens-thread to the camera body appears to have stripped during transportation. A big problem for one who would like to pick up the camera and shoot. I will taper a new tread and replace the scews with beefier ones. Come to think of it, I could also replace it with a tiny nut-and-bolt.

Luckily the camera has enough space to accomodate these changes.

One of the filters has a scratch mark. Luckily, filters aren't too expensive. I will be binning the scratched filter.

The zoom lens is enormous and has a lot of glass, but feels a bit cheap. The mechanism isn't as sooth as that of my Pentax still camera (that's why the K3 is currently fitted with my 50mm prime :P)

Right now, I'm waiting for my Kodachrome to come back from Kodak. If it is free from scratch marks and the registration is acceptable, I will be posting positive feedback with note to the above.

Anyone else dealt with him? Any other experiences in this regard?

the biggest advantage to shooting in overcast or very soft lit situations is that the texture and color of the subject matter will generally become more visually dominant over light & shadow. maybe using well color-coordinated wardrobe/production design/location might help. or integrate pattern and texture in a similar way too. or you could create your own kinda de facto light & shadow by juxtaposing dark objects against light to create the contrast missing in the lighting (ie. person in white outfit standing against a dark blue wall, etc). and you could overexpose a stop or so to saturate the colors (just use an nd grad for the sky, overcast skies often come out as white). and there's always shallow depth of field.

 

hope this helps,

jaan

Thanks for that!

When shooting in an environment with an inherently low contrast (an overcast day for example) is there a way to make things look more interesting / colourful?

IE, using CircusChrome, a special filter or by exposing differently?

Or should one just have to live with what one can get in such environment?

Most of my filming is experimentation and home movies where I cannot always control the "scene" :)

 

This image looks underexposed. I suggest shooting your 500 at 250.

 

 

This image is a victim of flat light.

 

 

the noise above looks like lens flare to me. I like this image.

 

 

The hotspot might have been corrected in telecine in a fully graded session

 

 

Looks underexposed and ungraded to me.

 

 

again, this looks like flat light = flat image...

 

I suggest shooting your 7217 at E.I 100 and your 7218 at E.I. 250. Then ask for a best light transfer. One light transfers are not usually suitable for presentation, just offline editing.

Thanks! I'll give it a few extra notches of light and see if the results improve.

I've had quite a length of spliced Super 8 Vision2 200 / 500 telecined to Mini-DV.

Overall, the quality of the conversion was good. It was a one-light conversion, so there are inevitably areas of overexposure and underexposure. Some scenes, however, appear exceptionally flat and lifeless in comparison to others.

I would like to know if any of these scenes could be improved with altered exposure settings whilst filming, or whether I should take this up with my telecine provider.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample1.jpg

Vision2 500 - The black is very noisy. I gather the grain is from the emulsion, rather than telecine? This was slightly underexposed using reflected light reading from the dog's coat.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample6.jpg

Vision2 200 - A good transfer. Colours are accurate and the contrast is good.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample2.jpg

Vision2 200 - What is this bright spot in the centre of the image? Is it light leaking in from the viewfinder?

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample3.jpg

Vision2 200 - Did I overexpose? Or did the telecine machine? It appears too bright, even though colours are accurate. I used average relfected light for the very bright scene. Had to use an ND filter.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample4.jpg

Vision2 200 - This image appears lifeless. I exposed using the reflected light from the foreground.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Erdwolf_tvl/Sample5.jpg

Vision2 200 - Again appears very flat. This time perhaps underexposed in the camera or in TC. I used reflected light from foreground.

If you're shooting for 9 x 16 format HDTV,how else would you go?

How much of the useful frame would be left after cropping?

I mean, with Super8, there isn't much to start off with :blink:

I have a Canon Scoopic and an Elmo 1012 SXL.I was pondering etching the vf glass for 9 x 16 framelines.Anyone ever try this?Just wondering if that's an easy thing to get into.

How good of an idea is it to shoot letterbox on Super-8?

From all around, I've heard that K3s tend to vary greatly in terms of quality.

Touch wood, mine should be arriving in about two weeks' time.

When it does, how should I go about testing it?

Obviously I will run some film through it at various speed and have it processed.

What other things should I be looking at?

What's the worst defects you've seen with these models?

Crumbs. Those super-8 prices are starting to make 16mm. look reasonable. Think I'll carry on collecting old 16mm. kit.

I'm waiting for my EBAY K3 to arrive ;)

Hi, firstly here is the link to Wittners site http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/katalog/...mm/s8_filmm.php I see the said company are offering 100d in the super 8 cartridge. Has anyone used any super 8 100d??. How would 100d results compare to 64t, will there be less grain, will the image be sharper. Can i expect unsteady images like 64t.

Not to steer the conversation off topic, but curious none the less...

I see their 40T "Chrome" film is for the K14 process. Presuming this is cut down Kodachrome?

Where would one get this processed when Kodak close their doors?

Dwaynes in the US?