[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Norma J

where did you get the film from?

http://www.nanolab.com.au/

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

telecine for super8 can be pretty cheap as there are many homemade solutions-- people have rigged some cool low-cost scanners. worth trying as it lets you edit.

i notice majority of your films are reversal-- the ektachrome of course is too. this means you get a positive copy and there's no need to make a negative and a working copy but you watch your film directly. like slides. ive never tried b/w reversal, but color is awesome.

you can also cross-process for weird effect (process reversal as negative or viceversa).

k gtg

pretty sure the ektachrome processing is not the same as c41/e6 cross process though so I dont know that I'd have access to someone who will do that for me? I know I would not do it in my lab if I were only running small scale heheh. In my experience with still film, slide looks great processed in c41 as it tends to exaggerate everything but I dont really like negs in e6 as the colour looks messy. Or at least the look is no where near as nice to me... Do you know if the results are similar this way?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

telecine for super8 can be pretty cheap as there are many homemade solutions-- people have rigged some cool low-cost scanners.

yeh.. cheaper is good. Plus.. I was kind of looking forward to looking at the different results I could get and whether it would look completely different visually, or not noticeable.

[akprodr]

re: telecine Something to be aware of is the difference in frame rate between film and video. For experimental porpoises, yeah, you can just project the film on a wall and record it with a camcorder. Using a CMOS camcorder would produce very spotty results; a CCD model would be preferred. Your eye has persistance but camcorders don't.

A professional telecine compensates for the difference in frame rates--doubling or tripling video fields to match with the film frames. yr lab has a good tutorial on it... (And you know they don't process B&W, right?)

But, doing it at home, you can do optical effects like project/shoot at an angle, zoom in, etc.

[phoenix]

yeh I read the tute about frame rates. So should be okay.. will play with projection speed I guess. What is the difference between cmos camcoder and ccd?

Didnt see they don't black and white process.. hmm.

[akprodr]

cmos grabs a whole frame at a time; ccd grabs a frame line by line by line. Why do you care? The easier example is a flash bulb going off--the fraction of a second the flash illuminates the scene, you'll see that part bright and the other part dark. look at this http://vimeo.com/3385757

But you'll run into the same problem with the projector--some fraction of the time, there will be light projected the other fraction will be dark--your eyes won't see it but the camera will.

There will still be an issue with CCDs but less so than cmos. Your camera will probably advertise why kind of sensor it uses right on the unit.

Sounds like there are other places in OZ that'l do the B&W.

Now I'm thinking about buying one of those Bolexs I see on craigslist from time to time... Yeah, like I have time or money for that...

<fraction of a second later> No, no I'm not. One of my peeves with film is the frame rate. I'd rather have more frames per second than less. But you with yr 25fps television would probably not notice.

Do you know what frame rate you'll be shooting? Standard 18fps or 24fps?

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by akprodr

Why do you care?


Do you know what frame rate you'll be shooting? Standard 18fps or 24fps?

was that a lead in to what you were explaining or were you really asking why I cared? I care because you just said it's important... if you were asking.


No idea as I said I dont have the cameras atm, and Im guessing it will depend on that.

[akprodr]

Yes, that was an attempt to be conversational--I did assume you wanted to know. Perhaps, 'why does this matter?' would have been better.

Good luck with yr experimenting. Let us know how you make out.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by phoenix

pretty sure the ektachrome processing is not the same as c41/e6 cross process though so I dont know that I'd have access to someone who will do that for me? I know I would not do it in my lab if I were only running small scale heheh. In my experience with still film, slide looks great processed in c41 as it tends to exaggerate everything but I dont really like negs in e6 as the colour looks messy. Or at least the look is no where near as nice to me... Do you know if the results are similar this way?

ektachrome is reversal and reversal means a positive image like slide so here you'd be talking e6-c41 cross processing. you have a majority of reversal film so that's what im talking about.

a friend of minewho used to work in film made this cool as shit movie where the reds looked insane and the sky was a weird ominous color and it was just brilliant. it was reversal film cross-processed and since that's what you've got i'd say it's worth trying it yourself.

by the way i clicked your link and that lab you're using (or just buying from?_) does telecine to miniDV. that's the way to go if you don't wanna be cutting tiny film strips. plus you can add further shit digitally. plus you can distribute without making film prints.

[atsonicpark]

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?wi3nydhuzdv

CHEERS TO YOU! This will help you in your quest.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ektachrome is reversal and reversal means a positive image like slide so here you'd be talking e6-c41 cross processing. you have a majority of reversal film so that's what im talking about.

a friend of minewho used to work in film made this cool as shit movie where the reds looked insane and the sky was a weird ominous color and it was just brilliant. it was reversal film cross-processed and since that's what you've got i'd say it's worth trying it yourself.

by the way i clicked your link and that lab you're using (or just buying from?_) does telecine to miniDV. that's the way to go if you don't wanna be cutting tiny film strips. plus you can add further shit digitally. plus you can distribute without making film prints.

What I meant was.. ektachrome doesn't use the same chemistry to process as either slide;e6 or neg;c41 process. Just wasn't sure WHAT chemistry it did use. Apparently though now it is fairly standard to process ektachrome in e6.. I guess previous chem(long list of types used) is discontinued or not used by most labs, or non die hareds.. and thus modern ektachrome64t/100d is suited for e6 process.? There are sites where people suggest otherwise though.. and note ECN-2 rather than c41 for x process... and that there is also e6 specific for cinematic footage film stock rather than still.. and I wonder which is the chem process the lab I have access to, uses. Think I will need to email the group perhaps and list my q's in order to get an idea of what my options are. They do list a lab in Melb that does b/w though so yey.

this film on youtube lists ecn-2 as x process for ektachrome and has super blown out reds. Was it anything like that? --->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q83bSsDmf90

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by akprodr

Yes, that was an attempt to be conversational--I did assume you wanted to know. Perhaps, 'why does this matter?' would have been better.

hehe its fine. Sometimes I seem to have bouts of aspergers :P

[akprodr]

Originally Posted by phoenix

says video no longer available??

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/bu...ed=1&th&emc=th

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by phoenix

pretty sure the ektachrome processing is not the same as c41/e6 cross process though so I dont know that I'd have access to someone who will do that for me? I know I would not do it in my lab if I were only running small scale heheh. In my experience with still film, slide looks great processed in c41 as it tends to exaggerate everything but I dont really like negs in e6 as the colour looks messy. Or at least the look is no where near as nice to me... Do you know if the results are similar this way?

i really dont know all the details cuz i work in video and when i need film shot i get someone to do it.

my friend's movie looked way better-- that film in the youtube looks overexposed and therefore the lovely color saturation of ektachrome is lost. hence the need for good metering.

the reason i know this is cuz i recently did some test shots on ektrachrome to see if it was worth it to shoot in film over video. actually shot in film too-- but the ektachrome looked fucking awesome when it was well exposed, washed out when not. negative film is a bit more tolerant of extremes. as you can see i have no theory, only empirical knowledge of this shit.

but for xperiment, try stuff.

i could email my friend and ask him what processed he used exactly-- he'd do weird shit like bury the can of film for 3 months etch-- but the thing is that even if i know, his video is on dvd and i'd have to rip it and blah blah . just experiment! go for it.

& here is nanolab's telecine page

http://www.nanolab.com.au/telecine.htm

[phoenix]

never did end up doing this but still want to. I found 8mm of me as a baby a few months ago and it made me want to try again.

Bump if anyone else since has knowledge to share.

[akprodr]

Eh. Shoot video and turn it into grungey 8mm look in post.

It'd be a lot cheaper.

[phoenix]

but its just not the same

nor anywhere near as fun/

[akprodr]

I'll grant you that it is different. But I would argue that it is not necessarily less fun.

It would be different if you were actually messing with actual film but with cartridged 8mm, what's the point?

But then, I've always considered myself less of a shooter than an editor. (And even then, I haven't even turned the computer on in weeks--shee-it!)

My video camera had a zillion ways to tweak the image but I always shot fairly neutral so I could mess with it in post.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by akprodr

But I would argue that it is not necessarily less fun.

sometimes I do math problems for fun.

fun comes in odd shapes and sizes when you are phoenix.

[akprodr]

The big question is: what is your goal?

Is your goal to follow a process or create a result?

Certainly, there is something to be said for following a process--to see how much fun it can be look at the US Congress' 'debate' on health care. Film has a long and storied tradition behind it. In the hands of someone with a lot of money, you can do a lot of interesting things with it. And golly, gee, whiz, I loved the process of working with 16mm. Again, mostly regarding post. After years of pushing electronic buttons to see my work, there is something engagingly visceral in grabbing the film, cutting it, and seeing the results.

But for most people, the role of filmmaking is to tell a story. And video has become the great equalizer in this regard. Over ten years ago, that Sony VX1000 made low cost, high quality results extremely affordable. Now, for the same amount or less, HD production is feasible.

I think most filmmakers want to use the technology that allows them to realize their story in the most unobtrusive manner possible. Certainly others like the challenge of either working in a cutting edge environment or an archaic one.

I think, if process is your goal, then posting questions here is useless. You should go out and just shoot stuff and see what happens. Learning about what other people have done will only get in your way of being creative in YOUR style.