Some questions on the old days of making movies.
Brian
was using 8mm film (with socket holes down the sides [or was it down
one side]).
I'm trying to remember how many minutes (I think it was 3 minutes) did
a small camera spool of film last. I remember you had to turn it over
in the camera to use the other side then the film was split down the
middle when processed. Was it 3 minutes per side or a total of 3
minutes for both sides of the film?
Also when sound was added to the movie was this done by magnetic tape
glued to the side of the 8mm film when the film was in the camera? I'm
thinking that the chemicals when processing the film could destroy the
magnetic coating. Or was the magnetic strip added to the movie after
it was processed so you could add music and narration to the movie.
Regards Brian
Richard Crowley
> Some of you will remember the days when the only way to create a video
> was using 8mm film (with socket holes down the sides [or was it down
> one side]).
> I'm trying to remember how many minutes (I think it was 3 minutes) did
> a small camera spool of film last. I remember you had to turn it over
> in the camera to use the other side then the film was split down the
> middle when processed. Was it 3 minutes per side or a total of 3
> minutes for both sides of the film?
"Common length film spools allowed filming of about 3 minutes
to 4.5 minutes at 12, 15, 16 and 18 frames per second."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_film#Standard_8
Surely you can reach Google and Wikipedia from you computer
down there in Southern Hemisphere?
> Also when sound was added to the movie was this done by magnetic tape
> glued to the side of the 8mm film when the film was in the camera? I'm
> thinking that the chemicals when processing the film could destroy the
> magnetic coating. Or was the magnetic strip added to the movie after
> it was processed so you could add music and narration to the movie.
"Super-8 was at one point available with a magnetic sound track at
the edge of the film but this only made up 5 to 8% of Super-8 sales
and was discontinued in the 1990s."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_film#Super_8
The mag coat was applied directly to the film stock and was
designed to be impervious to processing chemical processes.
It was intended to be recorded during filming. The 16-mm
version was much more popular, mainly for local TV news
and film schools, etc.
Brian
>"Brian" wrote ...
>> Some of you will remember the days when the only way to create a video
>> was using 8mm film (with socket holes down the sides [or was it down
>> one side]).
>> I'm trying to remember how many minutes (I think it was 3 minutes) did
>> a small camera spool of film last. I remember you had to turn it over
>> in the camera to use the other side then the film was split down the
>> middle when processed. Was it 3 minutes per side or a total of 3
>> minutes for both sides of the film?
>
>"Common length film spools allowed filming of about 3 minutes
>to 4.5 minutes at 12, 15, 16 and 18 frames per second."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_film#Standard_8
>
>Surely you can reach Google and Wikipedia from you computer
>down there in Southern Hemisphere?
>
You can't reply to a computer (such as Goggle or Wikipedia) and I
prefer to chat with a person in the newsgroups.
One example is of people giving their own personal accounts of the
past on the topic 80 minute video tape in this news group.
Thanks for answering my questions.
Richard Crowley
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>Surely you can reach Google and Wikipedia from you computer
>>down there in Southern Hemisphere?
>>
> You can't reply to a computer (such as Goggle or Wikipedia)
> and I prefer to chat with a person in the newsgroups.
Sorry, I can't tell what you are trying to say there?
One of my favorite quotes from Prof. Peter Schickele (composer,
entertainer, and biographer/musicologist of "P.D.Q.Bach") was:
"You can't have an *opinion* about _Facts_."
> One example is of people giving their own personal accounts of the
> past on the topic 80 minute video tape in this news group.
Asking simple factual questions makes people look like they are
unable to help themselves to readily available information. If you
want to ask for anecdotes about cinematography that is a different
matter, but it wasn't clear from your questions.
Brian
>"Brian" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>Surely you can reach Google and Wikipedia from you computer
>>>down there in Southern Hemisphere?
>>>
>> You can't reply to a computer (such as Goggle or Wikipedia)
>> and I prefer to chat with a person in the newsgroups.
>
>Sorry, I can't tell what you are trying to say there?
Example:
Tell me Google is there a better way of doing this? Did you find this
difficult to do Google?
>
>One of my favorite quotes from Prof. Peter Schickele (composer,
>entertainer, and biographer/musicologist of "P.D.Q.Bach") was:
>"You can't have an *opinion* about _Facts_."
>
>> One example is of people giving their own personal accounts of the
>> past on the topic 80 minute video tape in this news group.
>
>Asking simple factual questions makes people look like they are
>unable to help themselves to readily available information. If you
>want to ask for anecdotes about cinematography that is a different
>matter, but it wasn't clear from your questions.
>
Fair enought.
Regards Brian
Richard Crowley
> Example:
> Tell me Google is there a better way of doing this?
You can find 100 (or maybe 1000) more ways of doing something
from Google than you will get from any single forum.
> Did you find this difficult to do Google?
Google will return far more opinions on how to do something
than you will ever find in a forum.
Try it sometime, you might be surprised.
Paul Furman
>
> "Super-8 was at one point available with a magnetic sound track at
> the edge of the film but this only made up 5 to 8% of Super-8 sales
> and was discontinued in the 1990s."
I shot super-8 around 1985-1990 with dual sound tracks (on each side).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-NOmBO2TqI
I would play with alternate sound tracks hooking up a cassette tape to
dub onto the projector. The original intent was to be able to add a
sound track over the recorded audio but another option was stereo sound
although one side was narrower so less fidelity but it was all crap so
who cared? <g>
> Brian wrote:
>> Was it 3 minutes
Yeah, the spools were 3 minutes. These days I shoot time lapse on a
Nikon DSLR which allows 999 frames in a sequence, presumably played back
at 30fps that's only 30 seconds play time. The 3 minute rolls gave 4320
frames at 24fps and a size 8x less than today's consumer DSLRs. That was
5 minutes at 18fps. I recall my projector allowed 24 or 18 fps. It was
spectacular projected on a wall!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_mm_film#Super_8
>
> The mag coat was applied directly to the film stock and was
> designed to be impervious to processing chemical processes.
> It was intended to be recorded during filming. The 16-mm
> version was much more popular, mainly for local TV news
> and film schools, etc.
>
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Brian
I remember that when they made a professional recording for TV
broadcast the sound was recorded on to a separate unit (small reel to
reel tape deck) rather than record it on the camera. I think they
might have used 16mm film (rather than tape) in the 1970's so this
would be the reason for having separate sound. I'm not certain how
they managed to keep the sound in Sync all the time, maybe they made
short recordings from different angles.
Regards Brian
David Ruether
"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:o22ae51d6964g0708...@4ax.com...
> I remember that when they made a professional recording for TV
> broadcast the sound was recorded on to a separate unit (small reel to
> reel tape deck) rather than record it on the camera. I think they
> might have used 16mm film (rather than tape) in the 1970's so this
> would be the reason for having separate sound. I'm not certain how
> they managed to keep the sound in Sync all the time, maybe they made
> short recordings from different angles.
>
> Regards Brian
For semi-pro work with 16mm, a separate deck was used for
ambient audio (it could be synchronized with a "clap stick", or
by using synch signals from the camera if it could provide them).
The deck was often a (relatively...;-) compact, (RELATIVELY)
light, quite expensive Nagra. Additional sound could be added
later during editing, for which (with low-end work) a ganged
synch block was used with parallel sprocketed film and audio
wheels to keep things in synch while editing, with a viewer for
picture and a magnetic head with amplifier + speaker for sound.
For less "semi-pro" work, one could use magnetic-striped 16mm
stock, and for more "pro" editing, a Steenbeck editing table
with multiple synchronized video and audio platters and a large
viewing screen could be used. Once the 16mm work print and
16mm magnetic audio tapes were made, the work was edited
and sent to the printer, who "timed" the scenes to match them
(or to any requested changes) while the master negative was
made. From the master, release prints were produced with an
optical audio track down one side of the film (which displaced
the sprocket holes that would normally run down that edge of
the film). Now, let's not hear any complaints about how hard
it is to use digital editing suites, hear?!!! 8^) They are the best
thing to have appeared since sliced bread...! ;-)
--DR
PTravel
> Some of you will remember the days when the only way to create a video
> was using 8mm film (with socket holes down the sides [or was it down
> one side]).
The original filmstock size, dating back to the days of Edison, was 35mm
with sprocket holes on both sides. 16mm, double-sprocketed half-width film,
was introduced early in the 20th century as an amateur format, and
eventually evolved into a semi-pro format used by news media, for industrial
film production, etc. I believe it was sometime in the '40s that 8mm film
was introduced as a strictly amateur format. It consisted of a small spool
of 16mm that was was exposed on one side, flipped, exposed on the other,
then split down the middle during processing.
There were a number of schemes for adding sound to film, beginning with
mechanically-synced record players. The "accepted" standard for
professional production in 35mm was an optical track. 16mm utilized either
optical or magnetic tracks. 8mm was always magnetic track, added after the
film was processed and split. It was used, almost exclusively, for short
films and cartoons that were distributed in the 8mm format. Super 8 was an
improvement on 8mm. The film was distributed in cartridges and, unlike 8mm
which was 16mm film split after processing, was actually used in camera as
an 8mm strip with a 30% larger frame size (achieved with smaller and fewer
sprockets). There were some Super 8 cameras available that would record
sound-on-film using specially-striped film with a magnetic strip along the
side. Interestingly, there were professional-grade Super 8 cameras though,
as far as I know, they were never utilized for professional production.
16mm professional cameras were quite common and, up until fairly recently,
were routinely used for indie and low-budget production. The last major
film I can recall that was shot in 16mm was Leaving Las Vegas.
Pro 16 cameras, like their 35mm and 70mm counterparts, use a separate audio
recording device, i.e. a tape recorder. The industry standard was Nagra.
The cameras had crystal-controlled motors that would transmit a sync pulse.
The sync pulse assured perfect synchronization between sound and audio.
Each scene would be started with a slapper slate, providing an initial
visual and aural sync point. Once these were aligned, film and audio would
stay in sync thanks to the crystal-controlled motors.
Before the advent of crystal sync, synchronization was achieved
mechanically -- sprocketed audio tape was used, with each "frame" of audio
equalling a frame of film. Editing was done on a machine that could hold
multiple reels of film and audio tape, and sync was maintained mechanically
by aligning the sprocket holes.
> I'm trying to remember how many minutes (I think it was 3 minutes) did
> a small camera spool of film last.
My recollection was 3.5 minutes, total, for 8mm, slightly less for Super 8.
> I remember you had to turn it over
> in the camera to use the other side then the film was split down the
> middle when processed. Was it 3 minutes per side or a total of 3
> minutes for both sides of the film?
Total.
> Also when sound was added to the movie was this done by magnetic tape
> glued to the side of the 8mm film when the film was in the camera?
See above. As far I recall, there were no 8mm cameras that recorded
sound-on-film. That was an innovation enabled by Super 8. Remember, too,
that film speed for 8mm was 18 fps (if I recall correctly). This is slower
by 25% than the 24 fps standard for commercial film production. This
resulted in the characteristic flicker of home movies, but also was far too
slow to allow for full-fidelity audio reproduction.
> I'm
> thinking that the chemicals when processing the film could destroy the
> magnetic coating.
With respect to 8mm and 16mm, it did not.
> Or was the magnetic strip added to the movie after
> it was processed so you could add music and narration to the movie.
For 8mm, yes, for Super 8 and 16mm, no, it was already attached.
>
> Regards Brian
David Ruether
"PTravel" <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:7km6o1F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:coo0e5htvoamhpgp5...@4ax.com...
> I believe it was sometime in the '40s that 8mm film was introduced as a strictly amateur format. It consisted of a small spool of
> 16mm that was was exposed on one side, flipped, exposed on the other, then split down the middle during processing.
I remember that my father had some 8mm Kodachrome movies that
dated from the late 1930's (oh, I wish I had taken better care of these
and still had them!!!).
>> I'm trying to remember how many minutes (I think it was 3 minutes) did
>> a small camera spool of film last.
About three minutes, depending on how much footage you fogged
while loading, flipping, and unloading the film...
--DR
Steve King
"PTravel" <ptr...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:7km6o1F...@mid.individual.net...
|
| "Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
| news:coo0e5htvoamhpgp5...@4ax.com...
| > Some of you will remember the days when the only way to create a video
| > was using 8mm film (with socket holes down the sides [or was it down
| > one side]).
|
| The original filmstock size, dating back to the days of Edison, was 35mm
| with sprocket holes on both sides. 16mm, double-sprocketed half-width
film,
| was introduced early in the 20th century as an amateur format, and
| eventually evolved into a semi-pro format used by news media, for
industrial
| film production, etc. I believe it was sometime in the '40s that 8mm film
| was introduced as a strictly amateur format. It consisted of a small
spool
| of 16mm that was was exposed on one side, flipped, exposed on the other,
| then split down the middle during processing.
|
| There were a number of schemes for adding sound to film, beginning with
| mechanically-synced record players. The "accepted" standard for
| professional production in 35mm was an optical track.
For 'production' you could clarify this statement by pointing out that in
early talkies production sound was recorded on an optical track on a 35mm
transport completely separate from the camera.
| 16mm utilized either
| optical or magnetic tracks.
In the release prints. I think that there were a few cameras used for news
gathering that recorded synch sound on magnetic stripe.
Actually, the synch signal recorded on the tape (Rangertone, Pilot-tone,
Neo-Pilot tone) was used to continuously adjust the playback speed of the
tape deck so that the speed (of a studio deck for instance) would exactly
match the speed of the recording deck as the field recording was transferred
to either 35 mm or 16 mm magnetically striped film stock. That audio film
stock was then used in the editing process. And, that audio film stock
could be used to provide field production sound from dailies playback, where
a projector and a "dubber", the audio film stock playback machine, were
locked in synch by selsyn drive motors in each hard wired to each other.
The selsyns caused the film in the projector and the audio dubbers to ramp
up to speed in perfect synch and to maintain that synch throughout playback.
The same selsyn synch system was used, when various sound rolls (dialogue,
music, sfx, presence, etc) were mixed down to the final film sound track.
Often many dubbers were loaded with sound rolls that had been edited to
precise visual cues. It was very cool to see all those dubbers loaded with
35mm stock roll up to speed together. The mixed sound was recorded to
three-stripe (3-track) 35mm audio coated film stock and simultaneously to a
optical recorder, which made the optical sound stripe. Later that negative
was combined with the picture negative to create release prints. Obviously,
there were many permutations of that process depending on the production.
SNIP
Steve King
PTravel
"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:hc59sa$pju$1...@news.albasani.net...
Smarty
I did some Super 8 sound movie making in the 1960s (before buying an
open reel black and white video recorder in 1969) using a system
developed by Bell and Howell called "Filmosound 8" which used a
standard Phillips style cassette for the audio synced with the Super 8
movie camera using a connecting cord between the audio recorder and
camera.
See:
http://www.mondofoto.com/manuals/canonfilmosound/
I recently transferred some of these directly to DVD (actually BluRay),
thus spanning 40+ years since the original recordings, and also
avoiding the (4) generation losses going from Super 8 to Beta to VHS to
DVD to BluRay.
The Filmosound system was the first Super 8 sound system, and had the
advantage of not requiring any special film processing, since the audio
and film were stored on 2 separate media rather than using a striped
audio track added after film processing. The system was not a
commercial success, but actually performed very well. My equipment is
still working after 40+ years, barely.....
My wedding in the 1960s was also recorded using this process, with good
picture and sound, all considered.
Smarty
Richard Crowley
> Actually, the synch signal recorded on the tape (Rangertone, Pilot-tone,
> Neo-Pilot tone) was used to continuously adjust the playback speed of the
> tape deck so that the speed (of a studio deck for instance) would exactly
> match the speed of the recording deck as the field recording was
> transferred
> to either 35 mm or 16 mm magnetically striped film stock.
The tape decks recorded a 60Hz "pilot tone" on the tape. The original
Nagra recorded two "stripes" in the middle of the full-track audio. But
because they were 180deg out of phase with each other, they cancelled
out when the audio was played full-track. But the pilot tone head would
pick up the 60Hz (or 50Hz in Europe, etc.) and then they would take
that pilot tone, amplify it, and use it to drive the synchronous motors on
the "dubbing" machines which were like a projector, but with a mag tape
head instead of a gate, lens, etc. That is how they got the mag film tracks
to come out frame-for frame with the film images. Of course, they were
synchronized with each other using the similtaneous optical and audible
snap of the clapsticks on the slate.
As late as a few years ago I used clapsticks on a slate to sync a couple
of cameras I was using to make an instructional video about choral
conducting. I had one camera on the conducting professor and the other
on the choir. But I didn't have two cameras that would do timecode,
so I had to resort to the older technology. Its very satisfying to snap
the sticks. People vied for the privelege. :-)
Brian
film in the past. The last time I looked at a film projector at a
picture theatre it was using an optical film system for the sound (yes
that was in the 1960's) What do modern picture theatres use this days
for sound? Is it a audio DVD that's in sync with the projector?
I think optical film sound systems were only mono.
Is it true that you can turn a stereo sound into 5.1 surround sound?
Last year I came across some students making a movie and I found out
that they preferred to use 16mm film instead of using digital tape,
maybe the quality of the picture is better. But when they get the 16mm
film processed it gets converted back on to tape (I think it's DV
tape) and then it's edited on a computer.
Regards Brian
Richard Crowley
> I've been reading all the interesting posts on how sound was used on
> film in the past. The last time I looked at a film projector at a
> picture theatre it was using an optical film system for the sound (yes
> that was in the 1960's) What do modern picture theatres use this days
> for sound?
At least here in the US, film exhibition is slowly dying in favor
of DLP projection from special 2K or 4K video (distribited on
a whole stack of data DVDs) Of course, all the channels of
the sound track are included in the digital stream encoded onto
the distribution media (which is sometimes satellite feed, etc.)
> Is it a audio DVD that's in sync with the projector?
That is one method that is used. You really should learn how
to use Google. You would be amazed at the info out there.
> I think optical film sound systems were only mono.
Not hardly. There were several multi-track optical sound
track schemes. Dolby has a scheme where they print a 2D
"barcode" square between the sprocket holes. It can carry
at least 5.1. But you would have to use Google to learn
about these things.
> Is it true that you can turn a stereo sound into 5.1 surround
> sound?
Maybe as a magic trick, but not legitimately.
> Last year I came across some students making a movie and I found out
> that they preferred to use 16mm film instead of using digital tape,
> maybe the quality of the picture is better.
Well, the operative term is probably "different" not "better".
In particular, the dynamic range and gamma curves of film
are still longed for by kids who are too young to know better.
However modern digital cameras (such as my own EX1) easily
eclipse 16mm film and approach 35mm.
> But when they get the 16mm film processed it gets converted
> back on to tape (I think it's DV tape) and then it's edited on a
> computer.
Yeah, nobody wants to cut film anymore. And if you scan it at
2K or 4K, then you have lost NONE of the information on the
film, so there is no advantage in physically cutting long strips of
plastic.
PTravel
> Last year I came across some students making a movie and I found out
> that they preferred to use 16mm film instead of using digital tape,
> maybe the quality of the picture is better. But when they get the 16mm
> film processed it gets converted back on to tape (I think it's DV
> tape) and then it's edited on a computer.
>
> Regards Brian
As Richard mentions, getting a "film look" is the vogue among young film
students. There are several ways of doing this:
1. Shooting video at 24 fps, rather 30 fps.
2. Applying specific gamma, color and saturation scaling to approximate a
"film look." This can be done either with a camera pre-set (common on
amateur cameras) or done in post. My personal feeling is it is better done
in post, as color must be graded anyway.
3. Using depth-of-field (DOF) adapters. Video cameras have a very deep
depth of field, meaning that anything from touching the lens to infinity
will be in focus. Filmmakers like to control composition and audience focus
by using shallower depth of field which throws the background out of focus
while keeping the foreground, i.e. the actor, sharp. DOF adapaters all work
the same way. They attach a standard SLR still camera lens to the front of
a tube. At the back of the tube is a ground glass screen. The video camera
focuses on the ground-glass screen, producing a contrasty image with
extremely shallow depth of field. Think of taking a picture of the screen
on a camera obscura. Because a good HD camera will resolve the "grain" on
the ground glass, the glass is either rotated or vibrated (this also
minimizes dust effects). To ameliorate vignetting, an additional lens is
used between the ground glass and the video camera lens. The net effect is
actually quite convincing, but there are a couple of problems that result:
a. Because the video camera is focused on the image produced by the primary
lens on the ground glass, the image is flipped. Unless you like to shoot
upside down, it needs be corrected. This can be done with the addition of a
prism in the DOF adapter, by an electronic mode to the video camera, with a
rig that mounts everything upside down, or by using an external monitor that
flips the image.
b. The addition of the tube, the acromat, ground glass, vibrating or
rotating mechanism, and primary SLR lens adds weight and size to a rig.
It's almost impossible to hand-hold a DOF adapter -- usually, they're used
with tripods and various rigs to hold everything together.
c. DOF adapters perform miserably in low-light because of the light loss
inherent in imaging an image on a ground glass. They work best in bright
sunlight, or with the addition of considerable artificial lighting.
Richard Crowley
> c. DOF adapters perform miserably in low-light because of the light loss
> inherent in imaging an image on a ground glass. They work best in bright
> sunlight, or with the addition of considerable artificial lighting.
OTOH, in lower light conditions, you probably have the iris wide
open which tends to reduce the DOF. Another alternate method
of decreasing DOF is to simply reduce the light with ND filters.
Brian
Zooming in on a subject in low light conditions can sometimes limit
the dept of field causing the background to be out of focus.
I watched a document on Stanley Kubrick and found that Stanley managed
to get some old camera's that bad the ability to film in low lighting
conditions and have a wide depth of field. He needed these camera's
for indoor scenes and did not want the room brightly lit. I think the
period of the movie was the 18th Century.
Regards Brian
Richard Crowley
> Zooming in on a subject in low light conditions can sometimes limit
> the dept of field causing the background to be out of focus.
> I watched a document on Stanley Kubrick and found that Stanley managed
> to get some old camera's that bad the ability to film in low lighting
> conditions and have a wide depth of field. He needed these camera's
> for indoor scenes and did not want the room brightly lit. I think the
> period of the movie was the 18th Century.
Perhaps you are thinking of "Barry Lyndon":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/
He used special Zeiss F/0.70 super-fast prime lenses (which were
made for NASA moon landings) to be able to shoot amazing things
like interior night-time scenes lit by candle-light (or so they want us
to believe.)
According to IMDB, they used modern cameras: Arri 35BL and
Mitchell BNC. "Old" cameras (or their lenses) would never have
been able to shoot those kinds of images.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon
David McCall
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:3fKdnU8qMY9p1HHX...@posted.pcez...
Mitchell BNCs and Arri 35BLs have been around since at least the 1960s.
I think the BNC goes back farther than that.
David
David McCall
"David McCall" <mccal...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hchhv1$19f$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> Modern is a relative term.
> Mitchell BNCs and Arri 35BLs have been around since at least the 1960s.
> I think the BNC goes back farther than that.
>
> David
Film technology tends to move very slowly.
"Barry Lyndon" came out in 1975 and those cameras were modern at that time.
David
David Ruether
> Perhaps you are thinking of "Barry Lyndon":
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/
> He used special Zeiss F/0.70 super-fast prime lenses (which were
> made for NASA moon landings) to be able to shoot amazing things
> like interior night-time scenes lit by candle-light (or so they want us
> to believe.)
This reminds me of my days shooting weddings (both stills and
videos). I preferred to avoid the look of artificial light (but with
stills I would add a bit of fill light - and I got good at hand-holding
a 35mm f1.4 at f1.4 and 1/4-1/8 second...). 'Course the brides
often preferred "atmospheric" lighting during the receptions
(consisting of the chandeliers turned down almost to extinction
and single candles in the centers of each of the large circular tables
in huge ballrooms). And of course gentle reminders to the bride
that "photography" literally meant, "the recording of *light*" would
result only in temporary increases in the general room light level...:-(
The amazing Sony VX2000 got me through it, though, since it
could shoot reasonably good video in ridiculously low light
levels. The results were not any where near that of professional
movie level requirements, but they did serve well enough for
their intended purpose.
--DR
Frank
in article <Re: Some questions on the old days of making movies.>,
"David Ruether" <d_ru...@thotmail.com> wrote:
According to Vincent Laforet, come December there will be no longer be
any need for fancy F/0.70 lenses or Sony camcorders as the "paradigm
shift" Canon EOS-1D Mark IV DSLR will be available to every Tom, Dick,
and Harry with a few dollars to spare.
Lights Out, Camera, Action < Vincent Laforet's Blog
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/10/19/lights-out-camera-action/
His "Nocturne" video on Vimeo has been temporarily taken down at the
request of Canon, but can still be seen on YouTube.
YouTube - Nocturne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM
"Nocturne" doesn't have all of the slickness of his earlier "Reverie"
video, shot on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II (aka the "Presidential camera")
and variously described as a cologne commercial or a clip from a music
video, but I'm probably even more impressed with "Nocturne" than I was
with "Reverie".
Reverie on Vimeo
http://www.vimeo.com/7151244
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
(also covers AVCHD and XDCAM EX).
David Ruether
"Frank" <fr...@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:nv0pe55pbjflrosep...@4ax.com...
NEAT! 8^)
And, I agree on which I prefer...;-)
--DR
GaryT
Thanks for the links. I also watched his JOB First Look
http://www.vimeo.com/7151433
and was curious how one creates a shot that goes from underwater to above
water (that at least looks like one take) without drops appearing in front
of the lens. (example from about 1:21 to 1:24)
Gary T
Frank
Obviously, we feel the same way about this. :)
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
Frank
in article <Re: Some questions on the old days of making movies.>,
You've very welcome, Gary.
>I also watched his JOB First Look
>http://www.vimeo.com/7151433
>and was curious how one creates a shot that goes from underwater to above
>water (that at least looks like one take) without drops appearing in front
>of the lens. (example from about 1:21 to 1:24)
Windshield wipers, of course!
GaryT
So assuming your answer is correct and not facetious, do they then go in and
edit each frame separately to remove the blade? I really did mean that as a
serious question. Particularly with things such as these surfing videos
where there is no change in perspective, even with a monster telephoto it
looks like the camera has to be out on the water and moving in tandem with
the surfer. Similarly, if filming a motorcycle race with a cameral mounted
on a bike, there are obviously specific film making techniques to keep spray
and debris from either getting on the lens at all, or removing the
appearance of it in post.
Gary
Frank
Sorry, Gary, I really don't know. There certainly are substances that
can be applied (sometimes sprayed on, I believe) to glass to cause
liquids such as water to behave in a certain manner. Someone
knowledgable and experienced in this area would have to answer your
question. About as far underwater as I get is an occasional shower.
Perhaps underwater photographers/videographers use the same automotive
glass treatments as drivers do? Products such as Aquapel and Rain-X,
for example. Rain-X is called "The invisible windshield wiper". There
are also some windshield treatments used in the aviation industry, I
believe. Perhaps someone knowledgable in this area will pop in here
and provide an authoritative answer.
Richard Crowley
> "GaryT" wrote:
>>So assuming your answer is correct and not facetious, do they then go in
>>and
>>edit each frame separately to remove the blade? I really did mean that as
>>a
>>serious question. Particularly with things such as these surfing videos
>>where there is no change in perspective, even with a monster telephoto it
>>looks like the camera has to be out on the water and moving in tandem with
>>the surfer. Similarly, if filming a motorcycle race with a cameral mounted
>>on a bike, there are obviously specific film making techniques to keep
>>spray
>>and debris from either getting on the lens at all, or removing the
>>appearance of it in post.
Or you are seeing take 37, the first one where the lens
didn't get splattered. 1-36 are on the cutting room floor.
> Sorry, Gary, I really don't know. There certainly are substances that
> can be applied (sometimes sprayed on, I believe) to glass to cause
> liquids such as water to behave in a certain manner. Someone
> knowledgable and experienced in this area would have to answer your
> question. About as far underwater as I get is an occasional shower.
There are also methods where they use a rapidly spinning
disc of glass vs. a fixed sheet. The centrifugal force flings
the water off the surface. A technique used in big ships
where the helmsman has to be able to see where he is
going even in heavy seas.
J. Clarke
On big ships the helmsman is not a decision maker--his job is to steer the
course he was given--and the lookouts, if a proper watch is being maintained
(which is not always the case for civilian vessels), will be outside at
various points purposely constructed for the purpose of serving as lookout
posts, but the decision to change course will be made by the OD, and he
better have a damned good reason for it if he doesn't consult with the
Captain first.
Where you'll see those spinning spray-flingers is on smaller vessels,
fishing boats and the like.
Brian
That bit of information is interesting. Maybe they could do the same
for cars driving in very bad weather conditions. Window wipers are out
of date and not always effective.
Regards Brian
J. Clarke
Basically there's a big rotating disk of glass or plastic. On a car it
would be awkward to arrange. This is not new technology by any means.
Richard Crowley
> On big ships the helmsman is not a decision maker--his job is to steer the
> course he was given--and the lookouts, if a proper watch is being
> maintained
> (which is not always the case for civilian vessels), will be outside at
> various points purposely constructed for the purpose of serving as lookout
> posts, but the decision to change course will be made by the OD, and he
> better have a damned good reason for it if he doesn't consult with the
> Captain first.
>
> Where you'll see those spinning spray-flingers is on smaller vessels,
> fishing boats and the like.
So do you have any original thoughts of your own?
Or is your role limited to kibitzing others' reponses?
Have you actually engaged in a discussion of video here yet?
Richard Crowley
> There are also methods where they use a rapidly spinning
> disc of glass vs. a fixed sheet. The centrifugal force flings
> the water off the surface. A technique used in big ships
> where the helmsman has to be able to see where he is
> going even in heavy seas.
Here is a photo of the spinning disk (upper left corner) ....
http://tinyurl.com/yhhplxj
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhhplxj
This is Mr. Clarke's notion of a "fishing boat".
Paul Furman
>
> Now, let's not hear any complaints about how hard
> it is to use digital editing suites, hear?!!! 8^) They are the best
> thing to have appeared since sliced bread...! ;-)
Yeah, I spent a lot of time splicing that super-8 film, counting frames
& making notes for each clip to be able to arrange them in a meaningful way.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
David McCall
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hd9e0l$9it$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
enough.
David
Martin Heffels
<rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>However modern digital cameras (such as my own EX1) easily
>eclipse 16mm film and approach 35mm.
There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock. They both have
the same characteristics. Digital camera's still are 2-3 stops behind
in dynamic range, compared to modern filmstock.
The advantage of film is that it is more forgiving with light,
compared to the lowly videocamera's being used at most filmschools.
Further if you go for your telecine, it's easy to colour-correct,
compared to for instance DV25 or HDV, where you can only make tiny
corrections.
So, all in all film is ideal for students in those regards.
cheers
-martin-
Martin Heffels
<rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>Perhaps you are thinking of "Barry Lyndon":
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/
>He used special Zeiss F/0.70 super-fast prime lenses (which were
>made for NASA moon landings) to be able to shoot amazing things
>like interior night-time scenes lit by candle-light (or so they want us
>to believe.)
They used candles with multiple wicks to generate more light, and also
reflectors just above the candles, to boost lightlevels a bit.
-m-
Richard Crowley
> There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock. They both have
> the same characteristics.
Resolution. Bigtime.
David McCall
except that there is a lot more area on a 35mm than a 16mm.
David
J. Clarke
What point do you think you are making that has any actual relevance to the
production of movies?
David McCall
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hechf...@news4.newsguy.com...
same no matter if it was slit to 16mm or 35mm.
The resolution of the stock is the same. The difference
is more about the frame size than the emulsion.
Don Stauffer
Remember, in the film days, the resolution was measured in lp/mm. In
that measurement the resolution is the same for a given film, regardless
of the format used. It was only in the TV era that resolution was
referred to format size, and became a relative resolution, so many lines
per picture height or picture width.
John Williamson
As far as I can tell, the resolution of 16mm and 35mm film is still
better than most digital formats, if you count it as pixels. It's not
*quite* so clearcut as the examples below, as the contrast of film
decreases as the number of lines per mm increases.
I'd guess that consumer level HD is now roughly equivalent to Super 8
film for picture quality, with compression artifacts replacing film grain.
16mm is about 10mm x 8mm x 165lines per mm x 2 pixels per line = About 4
megapixels per frame, and it's uncompressed. Just a bit worse than the
2K high definition cameras.
35mm is about 22mm x 16mm, equivalent to about 19 megapixels per frame,
also uncompressed. About the same as a 4K camera.
For still cameras, given a good lens, the *best* consumer cameras are
now about halfway between 110 and 35mm 100 ASA print film.
The absolute top quality professional hand held digital cameras are
about as good as 120 rollfilm.
A`properly scanned 35mm still frame using fine grained film such as
Kodachrome 64 will come out at about 87 Megapixels uncompressed, if the
scanner will permit it. All ignoring camera lens limitations and using
first generation film, not copies, of course.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
David McCall
"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7mvpguF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> I'd guess that consumer level HD is now roughly equivalent to Super 8 film
> for picture quality, with compression artifacts replacing film grain.
>
I have no scientific data, but good quality standard-def video looks better
than I remember 8mm film looking when it comes to resolution.
The term "grain the size of golf balls" is how we described it back then.
16mm could be pretty decent though if you had lots of light and a reasonably
fine grain film stock.
David
John Williamson
HD on the same size screen. Then again, we always used Kodachrome film,
and I've seen Kodachrome slides from a Minolta 110 SLR (Top left on this
page):-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/artistofmimicry/sets/72157600718092563/detail/
blown up to about 8 feet diagonal, still looking good. The limits seemed
to be the projector and camera lenses.
David Ruether
> As far as I can tell, the resolution of 16mm and 35mm film is still better than most digital formats, if you count it as pixels.
> It's not *quite* so clearcut as the examples below, as the contrast of film decreases as the number of lines per mm increases.
>
> I'd guess that consumer level HD is now roughly equivalent to Super 8 film for picture quality, with compression artifacts
> replacing film grain.
Regardless of the specs, I can tell you that 1080 HDV shot with
a good camcorder (the lowly Canon HV20...) looks better on a
good 42" LCD 1080p screen viewed at 6.5' than I ever remember
8, super-8, or even 16mm film looking at a proportional viewing size
and distance. It is just plain sharper and smoother (if shot in good
light). A further indication that this is true is that the various sub-35mm
film format transfers to video intended to become part of professional
productions also look inferior to the output of the HV20, and even
broadcast 35mm movies are roughly on a par with the HDV20 level
of image quality as viewed on that 42" LCD. As to compression
artifacts, I have (surprisingly) *never* been able to detect any with
the HV20 unless its low light limit is approached, or unless the footage
is edited using a program that is not kind to HDV (such as Adobe
Premiere...).
Time to update your gear...;-)
--DR
Martin Heffels
Yes of course :-) But I thought you were more talking about the
dynamic range. Maybe I misunderstood you.
-m-
Richard Crowley
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>"Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>>> There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock.
>>> They both have the same characteristics.
>>
>>Resolution. Bigtime.
>
> Yes of course :-) But I thought you were more talking about the
> dynamic range. Maybe I misunderstood you.
They cut and perforate the same stock for whatever size you
want: 70mm, 65mm, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, etc. (Where "they"
is whomever is left making the stuff. Not Kodak anymore.)
But clearly when you say "16mm" or "35mm" you are refering
to a particular frame size and I believe that 35mm is >2x in
both height and width of the image area = >4x the number of
equivalent pixels.
My understanding is that when they scan film (camera negatives
or whatever), the two standard resolutions are "2K" (2048 x
1536) or "4K" (4096 x 3072) I heard that "4K" was selected
to be slightly higher resolution than the best 35mm film available.
There is evidence that they scan 65mm (camera negative) at "8K".
J. Clarke
> "Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>> "Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>>>> There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock.
>>>> They both have the same characteristics.
>>>
>>> Resolution. Bigtime.
>>
>> Yes of course :-) But I thought you were more talking about the
>> dynamic range. Maybe I misunderstood you.
>
> They cut and perforate the same stock for whatever size you
> want: 70mm, 65mm, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, etc. (Where "they"
> is whomever is left making the stuff. Not Kodak anymore.)
Whaddaya MEAN "Not Kodak anymore"? Google "Vision3".
David Ruether
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7n0qreF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>Resolution. Bigtime.
Again, just going on appearance (and an assumption or two...;-),
I was somewhat disappointed in a recent purchase of "Chronos"
(a transfer to Blu-ray presumably from 65mm IMAX film original)
compared with what the "lowly" little/cheap Canon HV20 can
look like (with careful picture adjustments - and exposure since
its latitude is considerably less than that of film negative material...).
The IMAX transfer wasn't worse - it just (surprisingly) wasn't better.
--DR
Don Stauffer
I agree on the 8mm and Super8. I transferred a bunch of old family
movies to VHS, and more recently to DVD. It is obvious that the
resolution of those movies is more than adequately captured by VHS
resolution. Of course, they were taken with a cheapie Brownie camera, so
have no idea how much performance is due to film and how much the camera
and its optics. I suspect it was more the film, as the Super stuff was
taken on a much better camera, yet there isn't that much difference in
picture quality.
Brian
But there are many disadvantages with film such as the dye in the film
changeing colour, the film getting scratched or breaking with wear. It
was expensive to duplicate film. Thank goodness we have digital video
these days.
Regards Brian
Brian
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:34:17 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
><rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>
>>However modern digital cameras (such as my own EX1) easily
>>eclipse 16mm film and approach 35mm.
>
>There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock. They both have
>the same characteristics. Digital camera's still are 2-3 stops behind
>in dynamic range, compared to modern filmstock.
>cheers
>
>-martin-
There are some phyical differences between 8mm and 16mm film else
everyone would use the cheaper 8mm film option. 16mm film has a bigger
frame which lets more light thru resulting in a brighter picture.
There is less magification needed for a 16mm film so scratches etc
don't show up as much as they do for 8mm film.
Regards Brian
Richard Crowley
> Martin Heffels wrote:
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>However modern digital cameras (such as my own EX1) easily
>>>eclipse 16mm film and approach 35mm.
>>
>>There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock. They both have
>>the same characteristics. Digital camera's still are 2-3 stops behind
>>in dynamic range, compared to modern filmstock.
>
> everyone would use the cheaper 8mm film option. 16mm film has a bigger
> frame which lets more light thru resulting in a brighter picture.
> There is less magification needed for a 16mm film so scratches etc
> don't show up as much as they do for 8mm film.
"filmstock" in this discussion means the raw film material before
it is slit and perforated to any particular width. Obviously the
frame size is different between 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 65mm, and
70mm. And THAT is the major factor here, not the basic stock.