Bryan Darling

Hehe, well not so much a dream. I mean I understand where you are coming from and I can agree. I myself was pretty amazed. I've been at this several years. Even Monaco in S.F. was amazed at what I've been able to do. It rivals there transfers and they've been in the business for about 100 years. But I'm not talking about compressed signals and cheap DV cameras. I'm talking about full uncompressed digital video. I?m talking about scene-to-scene real time color corrections, etc. I've always used professional transfers as a base for comparison. I've used them for 11 years. But to each their own, and everyone must do what they are comfortable with. The great thing is that there are constant innovations that one can take advantage of if they know how to and can figure out how to. My system may utilize a Workprinter XP but it is so much more than just that device. There is almost an infinite number of possibilities one can apply to using it. It's a matter of being able to recognize those possibilities, experimenting and testing that hypothesis and then improving on it. It's a never-ending process. I in fact had a very lengthy, almost 2 hour, conversation with one of the owners of Spectra, he was the chief colorist at Pro8 and he admitted that he's been very surprised at what a couple of people have been able to accomplish with a Workprinter. They recognize that there are other possibilities and options. It just happens that they are in an industry and service a particular clientele that is used to, and expects, a Rank transfer. I myself find no issue with Ranks or otherwise, it's more a thing of what one is comfortable with and knows. However I feel it would be close-minded to exclude the thought of a possibility that something else might accomplish the same end goal, in this case a high-quality & versatile film transfer, albeit through a different means. Anyhow my purpose is not to create an argument, and please I hope you do not take as such, but rather to point out that there is a possibility of something else even as preposterous as it may sound. I do say though that you have a valid perspective.

For what it's worth, I've been an avid user of Panasonic's Master tapes. I have a dealer in the bay area that gives me great rates and overnight shipping. It's California Media Solutions. If you talk to them tell them that Bryan from the Home Movie Store referred you.

I would say not so much reinventing the reel but rather innovating the reel. It's amazing what technology in both hardware and software has done over the years. I've been working in film for a meager 11 years but so much has really opened up. So much relies upon the operator/colorist. Technology is only as good as the person utilizing it. I think what's great is that there are options now. By next year, with my investment in further hardware & software, I'm convinced there will pretty much nothing I can do that a lab like Spectra couldn't. The best part is one can achieve results for a fraction of the cost, i.e. a DaVinci is $100k. The hardware/software setup I am investing in will do all a DaVinci can and more for a fraction of the cost. The one thing that won't change in all this is the human being, his/her knowledge, experience, & wisdom in utilizing all the tech here and in the future.

If anyone is interested. I have some Mpeg-4 clips of film transferred with using the Workprinter XP using my system. Suffice it to say it looks better on DVD but that's just a size/compression issue. Here is the link: http://www.homemoviestore.biz Go to the services page and click on the samples link, then click on film conversion.

I strongly recommend the Workprinter. I've been using one in my business for over two years. My experience comes from a film & photography background so I've spent a lot of time creating and refining a system for the needs of my business. I've taken a demo of my work on DVD to a lab in San Francisco and they were surprised at the quality compared to their "professional" telecine machines that do only 16/35. What I've found is that to get really good results it's not just a plug and play sort of thing. I spend a lot of time doing scene-to-scene correction, as with any transfer. There is a definite difference between a straight one-light and a scene-to-scene. I feel it's very important to have a good understanding of color, video principles, and digital workflow. It's one thing if it's going to be for a hobby, it's completely another if it's something you will be doing/offering to others. No matter what you'll end up spending endless amounts of time & energy and good amount of money to get good results, improve on those results, and in keeping at a level of good results. It's just important to keep in mind that these things are not just a monetary issue. The thousands you'll spend in equipment such as the machine itself, building/buying a decent computer, hard drives, video camera, editing/digitizing card, etc. I think for some, unless you really want to spend all the time and money, it can be better, easier, and cheaper just to find a good post house or lab and have them transfer your film. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of buying a film transfer unit, just think that people should be aware that it's not just a matter of buying a unit and then the magic happens. I've been able to create a successful business helping others and providing specialized services utilizing these tools, but I am constantly working on things to refine and innovate to achieve results on par with Ranks, etc. That said, the Workprinter is a great machine. I would recommend it over the Elmo or Goko systems. The workprinter is extremely versatile when it comes to options of workflow. It's a very simple machine, more so than a projector. The only thing I've had to replace are belts, but then I use my machine enormously. I hope some of this helps in deciding on a system. Good luck and have fun!

I've shot a lot of black & white reversal. I think shooting rolls of still b&w film isn't a bad idea if you want to get a general feel for lighting. However if the purpose is to get a feel for what the reversal will do, then shooting negative would net be that helpful. The contrast is different and the film can be printed in many ways, whereas reversal is what it is on the film. My recommendation is to buy at least one 100' roll from Kodak and just shoot it. Use your lighting equipment and do some tests. It will save you so much in the end to put out a little money up front to shoot some film to get a feel for it. As for silhouettes, you generally measure for the brightest light; that way your subject goes dark. In regards to using umbrellas and soft boxes, the simplest method would be to bounce the light off of reflectors that you can make with foam core and attaching sheets of reflective medias such as those by Roscoe. Another method is to put diffusion over the lights themselves, you could use ND gels if you wanted to cut the amount of light down. It sounds like you'll be using open face lights that put out light in all directions. A product called Black Wrap, a black heavy aluminum foil, is great for creating snoots and flags to control the light some. Essentially you can wrap it around a light get the control you want, albeit in a limited fashion. Just remember black & white likes contrast and contrast comes from using direct lights. I mean that in the sense of using diffused lighting or bounced lighting, i.e. soft lighting. Depending on the effect, you will probably find it far more visually interesting to "throw" lights places, rather than try to diffuse and bounce everything onto and around your subject. Lighting for black & white is not quite the same as lighting for color. Hope some of that helps.

Just a sidenote. I've never seen a red darkroom. That may have been true in the way back past. But all the darkrooms I've been in and used myself were more amber. If you look at safelights, they are a sort of yellow/amber to the eyes. I think that darkroom red is more some old overused stereotypical convention.

My question would be for what purpose do you want to know? Just general curiosity or do you have some specific issue or purpose? I use a program to convert Super 8 film to 18fps playing speed within the context of NTSC 29.97fps. The pulldown scheme is 4:3:3 for interlacing, meaning frames of film overlap fields of video. (A) frames to (4) fields of video, (B) frames to (3) fields of video, and © frames to (3) fields of video. If I want progressive, meaning no frames of film overlapping fields of video, it is 4:4:2. (A) frames to (4) fields of video, (B) frames to (4) fields of video, © frames to 2 fields of video. It would be different all together if I wanted to set it up for 23.976 fps editing. It would be 2:3:3 for interlaced and 2:4:4 for progressive.

I PM'ed his contact info.

I have been using Forde Labs/Alphacine. However, I've had some problems as of late with their processing. I am now sending my film to Spectra Film & Video. The guys there are very knowledgable and experienced. I would not pick a lab based on low price alone. There are so many details that go into good processing.

Check into Spectra Film & Video. Very good people, very knowledgable and experienced.

Haha, thanks. It's actually http://www.supermag400.com/

I would contact the member Bobolex. I bought my outfit from him. Great price and great equipment. He really knows his Bolex stuff :D

As for converting the camera. It seems to me to be more trouble than spending $300 for a later model Bolex body that includes a reflex viewfinder. I have a Rex-2 with a set of Schnieder primes that I paid $550 for. A great deal. It seems so much trouble to go through to be able to shoot single perf film on a camera that is far more cumbersome to operate. I've used non-reflex Bolex's in the past. Just my 2 cents. Bryan

You should go to the website. www.supermag.com They are selling off the last of the mags for $250. You'll find a list of compatible cameras.

Just talked to Spectra Film & Video in LA and they are supporting the SuperMag. They can supply 400' of Velvia 50D and soon both Velvia 100 and Kodak's 7285 (E100D). The cost of Velvia is $250-$280 and includes processing. I was told the E100 will be less, around $200+ and includes processing.

The Bolex should have no problem using single-perf film. However, just to make sure I would look at the attached photo and match it to your Bolex. It will look somewhat different, however what you are looking for is if there is one or two sets of teeth. If both sides have teeth then you can use only double-perf. I've used Bolex's for 11 years and have never had an issue with perfs.

To start with, the A-to-D converter. I recommend the Canopus ADVC-110. I've been using this for sometime to capture analog footage. The nice thing about Canopus is it's DV codec. It is one of the top, if not the top, codecs for DV. It's definitely worth the money. As for your video card question, this is somewhat complex, but the simple answer is: -The video out would actually just send out your computer desktop to a T.V. monitor. It would either mirror what you see on your computer monitor, or act as a second monitor splitting your desktop into two. One half would display on your computer monitor, the other on your T.V. monitor. -The video in is a more complicated explanation in regards to editing and such. Essentially these devices are for home users to capture low-quality video into an easy to view format. You would not get a DV file out of it. More so a MPEG file, not the best for editing. I would suspect you'd need to use a capture program that NVidia supplied with it's CD. So my recommendation is to invest in the Canopus converter. You'll get a lot of use out it as it's very versatile. Hope that helps.

I've used Monaco extensively for several years. My advice to you is to seek out FotoKem in LA. I have a rate of $.12/foot for negative processing and $.24/ft for workprint. The issue with Monaco is that they run so few amount of film through their machines these days. I'm talking about few hundred to a few thousand feet on any given day. I would be worried about consistency and chemistry issues. When it comes to lab work, there is no regards for single or double-perf. I too have shot older 7277 and had fine results with a workprint. I found that the stock is definitely good for some situations and not so in others. It is very low-con which can be either a cool thing or not depending on what your trying to achieve look wise. Overexposure and pushing can alter it some as well. In context to when this film was released it was designed to be very low-con, more so than 7279. The current stocks of today have made this a mute point.

I have to say that both of Judith Weston's books are great. I have read both and took her workshop. It really changed my perspective on process both in film and life. It has made a marked difference in my work and my relating with other people. If you do a search for her on Amazon.com you can find her books. If at all possible I strongly recommend her workshop. She is based in LA and travels throughout the world. She makes no promises and pushes no agenda. It's a great eye-opening experience if you want it to be. She is very accessible. You can call her and work directly with her if need be. Her website should come up in a google search.

I have to say that I whole-heartedly agree with Chris Doyle in that article. Go and do it! Why is it so hard for people? Why do they let themselves get caught up in technical bull. I think that's what delineates a filmmaker from a technician or a wanna-be. If you are truly a filmmaker you make films anyway anyhow because you can't do otherwise, it's not in you. It's not about cameras, not about digital or film, not about money, not about lenses, it's about making. I think those who are so caught up with everything else are more in love with the idea of making a film, not with actually making a film. That's why I feel film schools are pretty horrible on the whole. They are so dated and set in the way of the system, not about making films but about how to fill out reports, forms, and check boxes. About doing things the way they've always been done, i.e. to make a film you have to do this, this, and this. When really all you have to do is get a camera and start shooting, that's the way you learn.

Depends on what gauge your talking about.

If the instructions state 25 or 100 and 40 or 160, then those are the only speeds in which the meter will work properly. As for the E100D, Kodak itself does not manufacture it in Super 8 cartridges. There is at least one 3rd party vendor I know of that repackages it for Super 8. As to how they notch it, I am unsure. It would be best to contact whomever you are going to buy the E100D from and ask them how it is notched. Hope that helps.

Looks as though they are using beauty dishes around the strobes.

If you're set on color your choices are E64T if you're using reversal, and either of the negative stocks.