[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by 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?

whoa there brother, that was backwards-- CMOS grabs line by line, hence the rolling shutter issue found in many CMOS cameras--sony ex1s, some new pannys, consumer-lever "HD" cameras, etc . google for a video demo.

CCD grabs the whole but in quality cameras it's split in R/G/B ("3CCD") & then recomposed, so each sensor grabs a full frame in color-- no rolling shutter there.

k

the other things is beware of the bolex: they are sweet, but i worked with one last year and fuck, it's the developing that gets pricey-- even if you nab an academic/student discount, runs at about $40 per 2 minutes of developed film. plus working prints, plus getting a steenbeck to edit, the pain, the pain. a motherfucking money pit, i'm settling for video for good.

i'd stick to film for things like handpainted film & stuff like that but that's about it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by 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.

i've seen a machine that is rigged as follows: it runs the film frame by frame and then it captuers in camera frame by frame. there's some sync involved and the optics work something like a DOF adapter would.

these are products of cottage industries rather than makers of industrial gear, but i've seen them work. the real cheapos do it poorly, others do a decent job. i'd rather put my $ on a good HD video camera

a lot of houses are digitizing film these days for reasonable fees, on DV or DigiBeta, depending on what you wanna pay for. This girl I know I think was offered $150 per 1/2 hour of 16mm to DV. Thing is she got 10 minutes it still costs $150 and it's DV where 16mm would fit more like 2K so I'd do it at HD capture (pillarboxed) or 16x9 and crop the top/bottom edges-- but that's $$$ I think more like $400 per 1/2 hour plus setup fees etc.

[!@#$%!]

ps look at this cheapie-- super8 telecine for $214

http://super8arena.com/panasonic-hom...l?currency=USD

you'd still need a camera and i don't know how it syncs the frames

super8 resolution is close to DV though so it would be an easy/cheap match

[akprodr]

True story: I was just at an estate sale and picked up a Sekonic 16mm camera Probably totally useless because it uses tiny reels--probably 50'

Oh wait, its a dual 8mm. The film carrier flips. Weird shit. The thing is built like a tank probably weighs 5 lbs.

[Tokolosh]

Telecine is the only proper way to transfer film to video.

The last time I used my 8mm cameras was in college.
Film has it's charm, but it's slowly becoming obsolete.
Same goes for tape-based cameras.

Flash memory and solid state drives is where it's at.

[phoenix]

film is so much more charming than than digital could ever hope to be... I think. There is something lovely about one chance to record, and including the unpredictable mistakes.

[akprodr]

"The technology of yesterday becomes the artform of today" Marshall McLuhan, from 'onsuper8.org'

[phoenix]

photography in all forms was considered purely a science until reletively recently.

[atsonicpark]

I like film. I've only shot a few things on film, on super 8. Was fun. I know EXACTLY how to get the same look -- flaws and all -- on digital, though. So, it's kind of a pointlessly expensive alternative just to be "authentic" and gimmicky. I know a dude who made a no budget film and wanted to have it transferred to 35mm -- for thousands of dollars -- just to have some "Real" scratches on it. Seems silly. But whatever works.

I'd say.. embrace digital. But, really, in my case, maybe not anyone else's, I use EVERYTHING.. vhs, broken dvd glitches.. old camcorders, film strips, notebook drawings, mspaint, polaroids.. anything works.I even designed my own video game for a sequence in no reason to exist..

[atsonicpark]

Here's a trailer for my new film.. I think it looks quite good for a $20 camera..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QGj_4zxQLU

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

I like film. I've only shot a few things on film, on super 8. Was fun. I know EXACTLY how to get the same look -- flaws and all -- on digital, though. So, it's kind of a pointlessly expensive alternative just to be "authentic" and gimmicky. I know a dude who made a no budget film and wanted to have it transferred to 35mm -- for thousands of dollars -- just to have some "Real" scratches on it. Seems silly. But whatever works.

I'd say.. embrace digital. But, really, in my case, maybe not anyone else's, I use EVERYTHING.. vhs, broken dvd glitches.. old camcorders, film strips, notebook drawings, mspaint, polaroids.. anything works.I even designed my own video game for a sequence in no reason to exist..

for me I enjoy the analogue process far more than the digital. I find it cathartic and ritual. processing a film by hand or running through negs brings me more joy than uploading and point and click. I agree though, whatever works for each individual.

[atsonicpark]

Oh, it's definitely fun as hell, but I guess, to me, frames are frames, no matter how you make the frames.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

Here's a trailer for my new film.. I think it looks quite good for a $20 camera..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QGj_4zxQLU

Weird, when I saw that I was thinking that maybe you had upgraded... because it does look a lot better than usual.

[atsonicpark]

Nah dude, I purposely degrade/fuck up the footage. Still the same camera. You can get a lot of mileage out of it.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by phoenix

for me I enjoy the analogue process far more than the digital. I find it cathartic and ritual. processing a film by hand or running through negs brings me more joy than uploading and point and click. I agree though, whatever works for each individual.

i do love analog photo, but film, holy fuck, i don't have a trust fund to support such a habit, and it's slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwww to work on, by comparison to digital.

still you can be locked up for months editing a movie-- today's movies are edited digitally anyway, even when shot on film.

editing on a steenbeck, with knife and tape = a royal bitch

you can get nice stuff done of course-- hand painted film is one niche that digital can't cover and it's cool as shit-- relatively cheap too.

[atsonicpark]

you can do the equivalent of hand painted film with digital... just open up artrage, print screen each frame, there you go. haha.

i like to edit film strips with safety pins.