Erdwolf_TVL

I have recently made the plunge and invested in a all-in-one light meter. Just a couple of things I would like to confirm. My camera's shutter angle is fixed at 155 degrees. The meter is designed for use with a 180 degree shutter. To compensate for this, I recalibrated the meter to match the camera using the Ev adjust function. - Is this a viable alternative to simply using a larger F-value? (The results seem fairly consistent when compared to the camera's internal meter now.) --- Cine film invariably has both a daylight and tungsten rating. - Should I set the light meter's ISO speed to match the lighting used? - Or should I always leave the meter set to the larger value of the two? - Will I get more accurate results if I held the 85 filter in front of the photo cell when measuring reflected light? I found that the jump between tungsten and daylight ISO speeds have a very small effect on the F-Stop suggested by the meter. One stop in either direction was the biggest jump I saw in my experiments. Any advice appreciated! --- BTW. Did search 5 pages back from present and saw no discussions to this effect.

B)--> QUOTE(Steven B @ Nov 28 2005, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just got some old rolls of Kodachrome II with a camera. By old I mean the box says process by 'May, 1969'. I've heard that Kodachrome lasts a really long time, but what might be wrong with this film if I shoot and process it? I'm an experimental filmmaker so I don't mind an unconventional look, but I was just wondering if I could get a vague idea of what that look might be? Does it tend to go red? Also, one of the boxes is kodachrome II photoflood. Is this the same as tungsten? What filter do I use to enable me to use photoflood film in daylight? Thanks! Steven I shot a roll of 20-odd year old Kodachrome that I found in an old camera in an attic. (This film was obviously outside of its protective wrapper for quite a while.) It came back from Kodak, processed, but completely transparent! Now I've got 50 feet of leader. Why don't you put it on E-Bay? I'm sure someone will be silly enough to buy it.

Please explain? I'm presuming you are concerned about the contraption falling over?

VNF-1 Ektachrome can still be processed using E-6 Chemistry. The results can be average or good, depending on the amount of care taken by the lab. I did a similar experiment by having VNF-1 processed as if it were E-6. Some parts were satisfactory. In some other parts the blacks have a green undertone.

On movie cameras the shutter angle (normally) equates to a relatively slow "shutter speed" in still camera terminology. 1/50th of a second is a realistic number, I think. Most still pics I take in comparable light are 1/500th of a second. Make no mistake, though. 8mm is available in up to 500 ASA in colour negative.

As you have alluded to, the nice thing about a mini-dv cam is that you can take it anywhere and everywhere. Even more so with cheaper cams that A. You don't give a damn about and B. Have Infra-red. You probably won't have gotten half the shots you did, had you been carrying around a bulky film camera. Re-enactment may be troublesome. Actors get paid good money to make something fake look real. More than likely re-enactments will live up to their name. You probably won't stitch together anything apart from an amazing holiday video, but you are sitting on a pile of inspiration that will help you create a truly amazing screen play. When you have a finished script, get some cameras a shoot it! "Books change when you read them a second time"

There's an excellent book on this subject. Look for "How to Read a Film" by James Monaco. I believe this is the new print... http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019503869...283155&v=glance

I have done some existing light still photography (read: I've been messing around) in the London Underground, using a violet filter. Hoping to cancel out the green bias. I thought of doing the same with film, until I saw the results. Not good! Correct me if I am wrong here. The green appears to diffuse very quickly when the light is reflected off seemingly white surfaces. In my pics, I found some spots correctly balanced, and some with visibly pink / violet tints. I have never seen this happen with tungsten filters before.

Shooting at 24fps, I have only ever experienced noticeable registration problems with one particular cartridge... Ektachrome VNF 125. I've had major registration problems on all 3 test cartridges I've shot. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/...uto814_sp8.html All other films, including Vision2 and the new Ektachrome have given me superb results. --- Is this because of the age of the above stock? Is the film thicker? Or is it just a fluke?

Why do you say that focussing is more critical in 35mm than 16mm?

- Arrive EARLY and take lots of shots of the empty track and stadium. Especially if the track is scenic. These are useful for creating contrasting scenes to the chaos to follow! - Shoot lots of behind the scenes stuff. Preparations, bikes arriving, bar talk, the stadium. Everyone will be watching the bikes. Show them a bit of the action they missed out on. - Mix ample tracking and stationary shots for variety when editing - Use neutral, subsued music in the background if you plan to use music at all - Try to get as close to the bikes as is safe (zooming will loose the engine noise!) - Try to get some tarmac-level shots (if safe) - Use a tripod - Don't stand in the crowd!

Will do at some point. Not very high on my priority list right now, since I've already telecined the colour negative. Would be an interesting comparison. I doubt whether it would look any better than the direct from neg, though.

The lab that did the works was "ANDEC Filmtechnik" http://www.andecfilm.de/html/start_english.htm The Wide Screen Centre in London act as their agents in London (to my understanding). Processing took about 10 days (from drop off to collection) and cost around 30 pounds for 100 feet. !!! Sorry, I said feet in my previous post when I actually meant meters... !!! --- As for editing this film, I think it's more than possible, provided you have the tools to work with polyester film. Though it may be worth splicing the negative (which is acetate) and then having the finished negative printed. --- I'm by no means an expert in this regard, though, so any comments would be appreciated!

I had 30 feet of colour negative film "printed" to positive by ANDEC Filmtechnik. And honestly, it blows Ektachrome 64 out of the water for what I would like to use film for. I will be doing 99% of my work on colour negative from this point onwards! --- The first 15 feet was shot on 500 ASA film. Inside a dark pub with a non-XL camera and some shots on a gritty tube station. The grain was average, but the results were good, considering the light that was available. The few seconds I shot in daylight with this film is almost indistinguisable from 200 ASA. The next 15 feet was shot with 200 film in daylight with a +2 Neutral Density filter. The grain of this one is so subtle, you have to squint your eyes to see it. The colours are very lifelike. Perhaps not as saturated as reversal, but the blacks are solid, and the whole thing oozes quality. And it's only a one-light print! From shoot to projection, the cost is about double that of reversal. --- I wonder what kind of stock they used for this? As far as I know there are no super 8mm print films available from Kodak. Perhaps they use cut down 16 or 35mm stock? The film is definitely polyester based. Very difficult to cut and film cement has NO effect on it. Better get myself a tape splicer... --- Either way, a most recommended excercise!

Are you located in the USA or Europe?

www.super8.nl

Resolution is truly amazing! The colour is vibrant. Perhaps a bit too saturated in places. I can live with that, personally. Though clearly more visible than that of Kodachrome, the grain isn't nearly as bad as I was lead to believe. Grain is most visible on smooth surfaces (sky, for example) on grass, concrete and tarmac you hardly see it. I'm curious to see how much grain is smoothed out during MPEG compression. I have a lot of overexposed sections. Need to get myself a good light meter!

Unfortunately, you can only increase your odds by going to a more expensive lab and a more experienced technician. You can never garuntee your results with film. Have you considered that it may be a cartridge fault? I personally have had no problems with the above shoppe and lab.

Krasnogorsk - 3 it is! This is exactly what I was looking for. No-nonsense, low maintenance. Thanks!

My advice is to invest in a good tripod :) Even if you never intend to shoot for money, this is an excellent investment. --- Keep in mind that to shoot a wedding with any degree of professionalism, one needs at least two cameras and two tripods. Two camera operators also helps! I usually set up one stationary camera either in the back of the church or on the gallery and stand in front near the altar with another. It takes longer to edit, but a lot of errors can be masked this way. --- When shooting a wedding, you should always be at the venue a few hours before hand. Picture the bride and groom. Ask yourself "What will they do and where?" Pick your shots before the first guests arrive. --- You should allow yourself more freedom of movement than the other guests. Don't be affraid to stand closer to the action by the altar. Otherwise people's heads and shoulders will always get in the way. --- Never, ever underestimate the entertainment value of behind-the-scenes footage!

Scouring E-Bay, though, I am a bit confused. It would appear that most cameras out there are either very old or very expensive. Is there such a thing as a decent entry level 16mm camera? --- It would appear that most cameras are Standard 16mm as apposed to Super 16mm. Which should I be looking out for? Is my assumption correct that Standard 16mm is more common?

Super 8 can be equated to anywhere between 1 and 2 megapixels depending on the film and shooting conditions. Considering that DV is just short of 1 megapixels, 8mm should (in theory) have much sharper image. Grain, however, eats away a lot of the "resolution" of film. Video has virtually no grain. On a TV screen, I prefer digital video over telecine. When projected side-by-side on any surface larger than the average "big screen" TV, however, I'd choose film. 16mm is a whole different ball game.

In a similar situation... My 814 only reads notching up to 250 ASA. I'm seriously considering buying a separate exposure meter. To this point, I've merely guessed and shot with manual apperture.

Thanks for that! Actually, the underexposure doesn't bother me that much... The lion was rather dark :) This is a one-light telecine, so I am not too concerned about intermittent over / underexposure. Should I do something of consequence, I would have a supervised telecine done. And I probably wouldn't work on Mini-DV :P --- I'm surprised about the green, actually... My eyes obviously aren't as well trained as well as yours to spot colour shifts. I can only guess that the green tint was have been introduced during the telecine. I'll let the lab know so they can correct this in future.

I recently shot a test cartridge of the above film. These are some of the highlights (or should I say low-lights!) The film performed exceptionally well considering it's a 200 ASA. --- FYI : Telecine performed by the WideScreen Centre in London.