Jump to content

Bryan Darling

Basic Member
  • Posts

    226
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bryan Darling

  1. I should note, just in case that the Ilford is B&W.
  2. How long it takes them. I paid $172 plus tax. It was a 62 minute tape and took 1.5 hours at $115 an hour. They told me to send them a Firewire 800 drive because the transfer rate was faster, so my time would be less than using a Firewire 400.
  3. When I started shooting film at 17, my first meter was a Sekonic Studio Deluxe L-398. I bought it second-hand from a camera store. I now use a L-508 cine. The L-398 is a great analog meter and I used it constantly with my Bolex H16 Deluxe, it never failed me. Side-by-side the L-398 and L-508 give exactly the same readings as incident meters. It was great in learning because you can see the relationship of shutter and f-stop- very beneficial to a beginner. I've seen them on ebay for around $60. I've bought them for other people to use, they are very reliable and last forever. That's my two cents. When shooting Super 8, you just have to realize you'll need to compensate about 1/4 to 1/3 stop or so for the camera's specific shutter angle and the light used for it's own meter and viewfinder. You should figure it out after a roll or two of testing.
  4. Not really shootimng much film anymore, so I'm clearing out my final batch of filmstock, here is the list: 16mm - Out-of-date - Freezer Stored (1) box of 2x1800' (3600' total) rolls of Ilford P3 200 - rateable from 125-400 ASA or higher - $200 (1) 400' 7248 EXR 100T - 1R - $60 (1) 100' 7245 EXR 50D - 1R - $20 16mm - Current/Fresh Stock (2) 100' 7218 Vision2 500T - 1R - $26/ea (5) 100' 7266 Tri-X Reversal - 1R - $15/ea (2) 100' 7231 Plus-X Neg - 1R - $13/ea (1) 100' 7222 Double-X Neg - 1R $13 SUPER 8 - Current/Fresh Stock (1) Vision2 200T - $12 (1) E64T - $11 (2) Tri-X - $8/ea
  5. That would be FAT32, however the file size limit is 4GB with FAT32. That would be impractical for his purposes. Monaco Labs in San Francisco just did an uncompressed BetaSP to HDD for me. They are solely Mac based and do offer student discounts. I believe the normal rate would be $150/hr, their student discount was been 25% last time I used it. If you need I may be able to help as I have a working relationship with them.
  6. Schneider made some great RX lenses for the Bolex. Do a search for Schneider RX on ebay. They made a full set of primes starting at 10mm and going into a 150mm I believe. I have their 10, 16, 25, & 75. It's great glass and the prices are wonderful because most people only want the Switar primes.
  7. I have to say that I have transferred many thousands of feet onto Mini-DV and have screened off of a tape and DVD. I have had both they average viewer and professional industry viewers watch these films and not one ever made mention or asked as to what format it was transferred to. All they say is how great the films look. In the end I'd say go with what is practical and economical for your project. Don't get too caught up in the technicalities. There will always be some "better" format to transfer to or use. The content will always be more compelling than the technology. As for the compression of DV, I the compression is not near as much as MPEG-2 used for DVD. You can see compression artifacts far more often on DVDs than on DV, especially on the extremes of darks and highlights- I've not seen that in DV.
  8. If you are going for DVD as your end product, I'd do Mini-DV as it's fast and easy for a computer to handle. If you are finishing to some other higher end format and you have the money then you could go with uncompressed. Just remember it will take a lot more computer power and resources to work with. If you are going to do a lot of image manipulation and effects you may want to go with the uncompressed. It really comes down to what your end result will be, realistically. Most people doing low-budget- no-budget- work finish on DVD or DV tape. Those formats don't really need anything more than a DV master unless you plan on manipulating the footage a lot in the computer. Just go for the best you can afford. But that's just my opinion :D
  9. Hi, I have an immaculate Bolex RX-2 kit that I spent a couple years putting together. I'm looking to see if there are any interested parties. I've owned Bolex cameras for years and this is the smoothest and quietest one I've come across. The Schneider lenses are wonderful, very sharp, and in mint condition. These are up there with any of the Switar lenses from that era. I hate to sell this camera as it is really a love of mine, however I hardly shoot 16mm anymore and I'd really like to find a great home for it. Please message me with serious offers if you are interested and I can provide you with pictures of what you'd like to see. -Bolex RX-2 Body w/10x viewfinder & variable shutter -Schneider primes with both T-stops & F-stops - 10mm,25mm,50mm,75mm www.schneider-kreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/kinoobjektive_16mm.pdf -Switar 18-86 Zoom w/auto-exposure capability - the aperture setting control needs adjustment -Brand new Tobin TXM-26B crystal motor, speeds: 24, 25 and 30 FPS - purchased 11/06 from TCS -Full set of Bolex extension tubes for macro work -Pistol grip -Variety of gelatin filters: 85B, 80A, yellow, red, ND, etc. -Vanguard hard case with foam insert.
  10. Ironically, Robert Lachenay was also the name of Truffaut's boyhood best friend.
  11. Yeah your shadows generally should be the noisy part if it's film grain, at least that's where it is the most noticeably.
  12. The following stocks remain: (2) 100' - 7246 16mm Vision 250D @$15/roll (3) 100' - 7277 16mm 4x B&W Reversal (400ASA) @$8/roll
  13. One thing I forgot to mention is that the overall grain is much less on 35mm than the 16mm. But that is essentially a given.
  14. I've had both stocks shot extensively on two separate film. The 7222 can be grainy, depends on the situation you are in. However, I personally like the grain of 7222 and the project I did benefited from it. The 7231 is definitely finer-grained than the 7222, however you will see more grain depending on your situation. It all depends on how much underexposure or overexposure you've done to the neg. Another thing to consider is the telecine. It is possible that the telecine was not done well and/or the state of the equipment is not up to spec. I had both films transfered on a BTS Quadra at Monaco Labs in San Francisco. I worked with the same colorist both times and supervised the transfers. As for b&w reversal, you won't necessarily get less grain than the negative. In general reversal has more grain than negative. That said the Plus-X is very smooth, but I find it too flat for my taste. I love Tri-X and have pushed it a stop on occasion. The grain in all film is very dependent on your lighting situation and exposure of the negative. One recommendation I have is to get a workprint made of your test rolls and project them as a comparison. You can also directly project any reversal tests you might make. That would give you a good idea as to how your negative/original was shot and the quality of the telecine you received. A best light of 100' from each stock should be enough to give you an idea and should be fairly inexpensive. I have a compilation DVD that contains both of the films I referenced if you are interested. They were shot on an Arri 16BL using a combination of primes and a zoom.
  15. The following film stock remains: (2) 100' - 7289 16mm Vision 800T @$15/roll (2) 100' - 7246 16mm Vision 250D @$15/roll (3) 100' - 7277 16mm 4x B&W Reversal @$8/roll All film has been kept in cold storage. A roll of 7289 lost it's plastic box top due the cold of being in storage, roll is still wrapped and fine. I have personally shot a roll from the same batch of 7246, the workprint came out good.
  16. Wow, it should only cost you $.12 to $.16 per foot to process 35mm, especially if you are doing a feature. You quite possibly could get it even less if you're going to run 39k-50k feet of film and you work out a deal with the lab. I get $.16 in San Francisco and have been quoted as low as $.12 in L.A.
  17. I rate Delta 400 at 320 and process using Pyro. I'm not really sure how you're rating the 400 for 250. But I'd say that the Delta films should be more true to their speeds. I suspect you are using a lab to process the film. I would find out what they use as a developer, then go to http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html and look up the film along with their developer. See what ASA it recommends for that developer, or ask the lab what they have found. Otherwise I would rate it at 320-400 and see how it turns out. Don't worry to much about the speed rating right now, if anything do some bracketing and then analyze from there. Try to have some fun and concentrate on your composition. I shot this in bright daylight with a mix of shade and sun and it was very contrasty. Now this was not in Pyro so I don't know if I could have made this look better, but I'd say don't lean to the side of overexposure in contrasty situations.
  18. I think Mike brings up a good point. "Industry" equipment is astronomically expensive in my opinion. It's aims are for the industry and so that's where the customers are. That means the proverbial little guy has to step up to industry-level prices and expectations. This is where I see the growth of digital technologies as a savior. For the first time, the little guy is able to closely match the quality- from a technical standpoint- of the industry level. Currently we're going through a messy phase where standards and formats change and develop over the course of just a few years. However I believe over time this will settle to some degree, I see this in the growth of digital cameras beginning to focus on uncompressed output/recording and heading straight into data rather than video-based file formats. As film continues to decline in the mainstream and eventually ceases, it returns to where it began- the individual. Still photography is much closer to that than cinematography. Several labs in my area hardly run C-41 anymore. They save up rolls and run them weekly. It's inconvenient for people like me, but I see the shift where artists and hobbyists are becoming the exclusive users of still film. There will always be a few companies to cater to this niche market as it is profitable on a small scale. You can definitely see this in the rise of a Super 8 niche currently happening in Europe, the U.S. and Japan. Companies such as Eastman Kodak are too big to focus on niche as a whole. The very essence of their company and companies like them is Industry. It would be bad business, in my opinion, to create a S16 system- there just isn't a market for it on that level. Students, artists, and hobbyists typically don't have the capital anywhere near to what an Industry client has and for companies like Kodak this is their base. Now while they have a consumer market, that market is not the same as students, artists, and hobbyists. The consumer market is a huge mass where every consumer regularly spends say $5 to $1500. As a mass this adds up quickly and that becomes a profitable market based on sheer volume. This brings me back to the great age we are living in and will continue to grow. New businesses like Moviestuff and their products such as the Workprinter series provide the individual with low cost tools using hybrid technologies. The technologies and the tools that are created allow the individual with an alternative specific to their needs that just didn't exist at this quality level. Taking the Workprinter as a model example of this change, here is a tool that transfers film into a computer. It's been designed in such an open-ended way that you can get everything from uncompressed 4:4:4 to DV quality video. It's all dependent on how you configure your system. I took a demo of my work on one of these systems to Monaco in San Francisco, a lab I'd been using for 10 years. I met with the President and Client Relations, they were surprised for one that it was Super 8 and secondly at the quality I achieved without using a 500k+ telecine with an operator and engineering support. Now I have the experience of doing many a telecine in 16mm and this was my visual base in the creation of my transfer system. Now while I'm not going to Digibeta nor do my color/gamma corrections during the transfer, I am able to go directly into my computer then do my corrections real-time in post. I may not be able to transfer 35 to HD, but then I don't need to. That's the beauty of what's happening right now. There are more possibilities and customization of technology and the tools that they create. This is what will allow non-Industry, the people or proletariat if you will, to create and master high-quality media on par with the Industry but without all the bulk. In the Industry it is more about how you get to the end result. In the individual's world it's not so much how you get to that end result but that you just get their. This will always enable the individual to be more agile. Now that I've rambled incessantly, let me just say this. While Alessandro's idea is cool, I feel it's more romantic than practical. There are plenty of good cheap cameras that can do S16, such as the Eclair ACL. For most it's all the inherent costs of the medium that stop them from using it. When someone hears how much 2 minutes and 50 seconds costs in the end compared to the many DV tapes one can buy, there is no question in their minds. To me this is a perspective thing, if you shoot the way you shoot tape then yeah it will get astronomical quick. However, if you look at it as a limit you soon discover ways to use that limit to your advantage. In the end it really isn't the medium one chooses to work with that matters, but the work itself. In the same way that technically it's not how you get there that matters so much as that you just get there. That's why I see this as an exciting time where all this technology, both traditional and new, are coming together and creating things never before considered a possibility. A lot of people think that using the "best" technology and tools or a certain medium over another will create a good piece of work, however it is never the tools nor the medium but rather the person that creates a good piece of work.
  19. The PanF 50 is a pretty contrasty film so keep that in mind, care must be taken in your shooting/lighting conditions. The Delta 3200 is actually a 1000 speed film. It becomes 3200 through push processing. A lot of people rate the film at 1600 and have it processed as 3200 to get better shadow detail while retaining highlights. You can rate the film from 400 to 25000 depending on how it's processed. Black and white photographers will more often than not develop the film themselves by hand. One the best films out there is Ilford FP4 125, a lot of people rate it between 80 and 100. If you get into black and white film you'll find that the films out there are not the speed they say. Some are as bad as a stop or more, for instance I shot a roll of Efke 100 and found it to be more a 40 or 50 speed film as the negs were solidly about stop under. I develop in PMK Pyro which has produced great results and really helped me as a photographer. All do is expose for the shadows and it always holds the highlights. It also minimizes grain while increasing acutance, additionally it enhances edge effects. This is all probably more info than you need or want, but you'll find the terms more common if you continue to delve into black and white photography.
  20. This is so true and so important. I wholeheartedly agree. I've always had the same colorist on my projects and it's great. A good one learns and can anticipate what you like and are trying to achieve based on your aesthetics. Like any other job, you have people that can operate things and you have people that can master things. I also completely agree with Mike. The lab I've used for telecine and processing is not the cheapest but their rep is decent and they have always turned out good results for me. Their people are competent, friendly, and fun. This principle should hold true for any business you patronize.
  21. What's your price at Magic? I've used Monaco for years as I'm in Sacramento and it was easy to drive down to supervise. I've had a roll of 16mm b&w reversal transfered at Spectra Film & Video. It was a very nice transfer, extremely sharp...almost too sharp in my opinion. The operator is also one of the owners and he was the lead colorist for Pro8mm.
  22. One of my friends did a short film for about $30k. It was back when it was still practical to edit on film. It also included his answer and release print. He sold it to IFC for less than $5k, I want to say $2k, so let's say between $2k-$5k. It was a 2 year contract. I'd say you don't make short films to make money. You make them because you like short films. I personally enjoy working with the short film as a format. It's focused and disciplined. It becomes so easy to lose it when making a feature length film. It's a difficult form, real easy to lose focus, etc. How many feature length films have you seen and turned off after 15 minutes, haha? Anyhow I think it healthier to look at short and feature length films as different formats. You use whatever format the film you want to make calls for, or ends up as.
×
×
  • Create New...