Mark Dunn

Well they sure weren't putting the flares on in post?

This would still have been 5247 at 100ISO- I don't know if '47 was pushed. Famously the whole of "Barry Lyndon" was pushed +1 but that was the predecessor stock '54.

Lots of lights methinks. Though my 1981 Panavision catalogue has a 40-250 anamorphic at T2.8.

11 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

As the aspect ratio of your images isn’t as wide as CS, but only slightly wider than 1:2, it could have also been 16mm or S8 with an attached Iscorama. … Or it’s a mix of 35mm-4perf-anamorphic and 35mm-2perf. 

I measure about 2.3:1 on my monitor. This is from "ABBA- The Movie" so it's certainly 35. I'd agree with the idea of 4P and 2P. But you might have expected the concert material all to be 2P, to get longer run times ( it would be a bit cheaper, but with ABBA in their pomp earning as much as God maybe saving a few $ wasn't so important.)

IMDB has the opening scene in 1.66 so there was clearly some optical printing along the way.

Wikipedia says the producers considered 16 but decided to go to 35.

Some thoughts. I'd say the sparks are elongated by motion blur. Coould the intensity of the flash, and the star filter, be masking the anamorphic flare- or is it because it's such a small source?

Sounds like Dirk's one of the only shows in town now for 35/16. You wouldn't send it to the UK to sit in customs.

I think you may have it backwards- you can adapt a short FFD lens to a long FFD body, but not vice versa unless you can recess the lens inside the body. The EF lens flange needs to be 44mm from the film but the R35's is 56.25.

In stills photography, DSLR lenses (long FFD) will always adapt to mirrorless (short FFD) but not the other way around.

The classic case is Stanley Kubrick machining out the front of a BNC to take the fast Zeiss lens for Barry Lyndon.

Just get a blanking grommet or plug of the correct size off ebay.

On a side note, was Super-8 always 1.44:1? I'd always assumed it was the usual 1.33 or 1.37.

Learn French.

On 11/8/2023 at 5:56 PM, Richard Bragg said:

Thanks, I think it's fine.  Just allot noisier than I thought it would be.  Also I had a takeup spool that was a bit warped...

Beware- a warped spool may not be light-tight outside the camera. If it is a plastic microfilm spool, as Simon mentions, the risk is even greater.

Quite a bit of the terminology in the Wiki piece seems to have been coined by the writer himself and there are a number of conflations and misnomers, such as "super gauges" extrapolated from the quite proper Super 35.

Your term "Breitfilm" is very useful and there isn't really an equivalent in English- obviously German can be concise when it wants to be. But I think "'Scope", "70mm" and "IMAX" are probably sufficient for general use. Professionals use 5/70 and 15/70 as specialised terms.

As to "Schmalfilm"- there was a British stop-motion animation company in the 1970s called "Smallfilms". They used 16mm.

When it comes to the mechanics of focussing, the requirements of stills and MP photography are not only different, but opposed. A short focus rack is a positive advantage in stills as the autofocus can be quicker, but as you've found it works against you when pulling focus, which is of course unique to cine. If you need to use this lens, and keep shallow focus, the only solution is to practise.

7 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Cine lenses have much longer focus throws. 

The extreme example is the f0.7 Zeiss lens Kubrick rebuilt for the candlelit scenes in "Barry Lyndon" , which had a focussing helix that rotated through two full turns- 720deg.

On 11/7/2023 at 1:35 AM, Charles MacDonald said:

Often the two digit code has been assumed to be the Strip number cut from the master roll.   (1 through 38 for 35 mm and 1 through 83 for 16 mm)  Back before Key code, the strip number was sometimes indicated by a sticker on the can the film originally came in.

Yes, I have an 80s can label and the roll and roll cut number are on that. My Keykode film has them printed on the film.

There was (is) a hand-held 65mm. camera.

https://www.oscars.org/science-technology/technology-history

The shapes are often just in outline, yes. In the Keykode era, a pair of letters are used instead of shapes, starting with DE in 1989.

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/keykode-id-table/

 I think Kodak would always have been edge numbered- it's indispensable for neg cutting.

However, I do have a spare roll of rushes from 1981 that were misprinted without edge numbers- the roll had to be reprinted as it would have been impossible to match the workprint with the neg. The rebates are clear, so unexposed- are yours clear or black?

The two box code is probably 1980, assuming it's not 1960 or 1940!

According to this

https://www.paulivester.com/films/filmstock/guide.htm

the SP is for "special process"  print stock. I don't know about the "70"- my 1987 VNF has "75". It may be a specification number referring to a particular pitch length, perforation or packaging.

You can change mags at any time. There are footage counters on the mags, but they're not very accurate and the camera assistant should be keeping a camera report for each one and updating it after every take with a running total of footage shot and remaining. You might tape the report to the mag to keep track of it.

I do know that the XTRPROD can identify different mags and show the footage remaining on each- this is helpful, but I would still keep a paper report as well. I see that the SR3 has a take and total exposed counter, but I don't think it can identify mags.

On 11/3/2023 at 9:58 AM, Jonathan Chong said:

Ha ha. Very funny

 

Quite serious. I've used it to fix focus for timelapse. Gaffer tape is probably a more filmic answer, if you have some, because it doesn't shed adhesive.

https://www.amazon.com.au/BOSTIK-BLU-TACK-S050Q-Bostik/dp/B001FGLX72

 I take that spec to mean that you need a 24V, 120W constant voltage supply. I assume the "channels" just refer to colour control.

6 hours ago, Edith blazek said:

stacking 2 filters will do just fine,

If all you need is a range of diffusion for various shots, that's probably right. As the manual says, the idea behind this gizmo is to be able to vary diffusion during a dolly in from long shot to CU, or vice versa.

I'm not sure I've ever seen it done- or noticed it, anyway. Which probably means it worked.

13 hours ago, Deniz Zagra said:

What about the one that can go up to 2500fps?

 

 

That's a rotating prism camera- the resolution is quite a bit lower. It certainly wouldn't intercut with intermittent very well, and you need a vast amount of light.

If the image is sharp overall- it's hard to tell from the frame enlargement- that points away from a dislodged lens but I would agree that the owner should be asked if it's suffered any knocks or shocks. We do need to see a clip, though.

I still say it may well be visually acceptable. Maybe you could ask a few non-experts what they think about the shot, without prompting. If they mention the reflections, then I'm wrong.

As to Photoshop, this is almost an animation job and not what it's intended for. As I said I know nothing of these things but I wonder if there is an effects plugin meant for a job like this. Does "power windows" mean anything to you? They're mentioned on the forum.

This? I could be completely wrong.

Glasses reflect- personally I would certainly accept it visually. It doesn't look too intrusive. Presumably this isn't going to be a continuous shot but will be a few seconds at a time which reduces the amount of attention it will get.

No idea how this would be dealt with as a VFX shot but it is a tremendous amount of work. Just make sure any extra work is charged for so they get the idea that you solve these problems beforehand.

That is quite a hike for Dwight but if the economics works out there is no-one better qualified in the Western Hemisphere. I have had a great deal of really valuable advice from him over the years. In fact have even been offered fees for consultancy on belt replacement myself which thanks to Dwight's encouragement I have felt confident enough to accept. He should really be on commission.

That fader is a variable ND filter, I think. I had one for Super-8 years ago, in a linear form- a strip of polyester that varied from clear to opaque along its length. You just pulled it through a slot in a matte box. It was pretty terrible but I think one or two survive in a film of mine.

You could backwind and fade-in to get a dissolve but I don't think I ever tried that. I did quite a bit of split-screen work with mattes and a backwinder. I had the film up on youtube but I think content matching on the soundtrack got it removed.