Jose luis villar Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 Btw, why 16.66 fps? For recording with a camera at 50i, this frame rate is needed to avoid flicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lucas Posted September 27, 2015 Author Share Posted September 27, 2015 Btw, why 16.66 fps? For recording with a camera at 50i, this frame rate is needed to avoid flicker. Got it. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lucas Posted September 27, 2015 Author Share Posted September 27, 2015 I shot a bit of Tri-X film, dev'd it and then decided to try Carl's advice. Enlarger with 80mm Componon S projecting into a Nikon d70, horizontally . Focussing is slight guess work, as it whether the sensor is in any sense parallel to the film plane.... but, I shut down the lens to f11, to help. First attempt, I'm very happy with this. All my doubts about quality of my footage now evaporate. I'm excited – I feel that i'm getting there! Thanks to everyone in the thread and a special thanks to Carl for this simple and elegant idea. (And I had everything I needed to do this, already!) Notes relating to image quality below..... NOTES: I try and shoot some test footage whenever I can. This time I used a bit of Tri-X. Lots of things have contributed to this look. Mainly I forgot to reset my meter to 200ASA, so this was shot as 100ASA. So shot 1 stop over, which along my decision to to use APH09 as the dev, has made it quite grainy - but I like it. I even guessed the dev time (1:50 at 8m) as there is no real info on developing Tri-X Super 8 as a neg - so pleased to get anything this good. I'm still confused as to whether Tri-X in a Super 8 cart is the same as Tri-X in 35mm still photography form,which as we know is rated at 400ASA. Is Super 8 rated at 200ASA because it is reversed processed or is the emulsion different? Or another factor? So not really sure whether my film footage is 1 or 2 stops over exposed at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lucas Posted September 27, 2015 Author Share Posted September 27, 2015 btw. sorry I wouldn't/couldn't believe the flat-bed scanner was at fault. :D 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Looks great. And even if over-exposed, once it's in the digital domain, it becomes possible to rejig it in various ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted September 28, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 28, 2015 Much better! Yea those flatbed's are really not that great. I can't imagine trying to scan S8 with them, that sort of detail is just too much for'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lucas Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Looks great. And even if over-exposed, once it's in the digital domain, it becomes possible to rejig it in various ways. Super8Frame.jpg Yes, I also think Tri-X is quite forgiving. I'm still working on best exposure rating and dev times. It makes life much easier to be able to adjust curves or levels. I felt it was cheating doing this at first, but now I've accepted that my film-making is going to be a hybrid process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lucas Posted September 28, 2015 Author Share Posted September 28, 2015 Much better! Yea those flatbed's are really not that great. I can't imagine trying to scan S8 with them, that sort of detail is just too much for'em. Thanks. I'm going to go back a re-assess some of the other tests I have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now