Fogged film?

[Matt Pacini]

So, let me get this straight:
If you flash using an external rig, in the mattebox, you can actually see exactly what the effect is? Is it precise and predictable?
If there was an internal light of some sort, then the correct thing to do would probably be some type of mechanical dimmer, similar to the Panavision Obie light I saw, where they had rotating cylinders that were reflective on one side, and black on the other, and the knob rotated them controlling how much light was reflecting outward, without changing the voltage to the light.
Any way to have some mini-rig inside the camera, that was actually doing what you're talking about, in front of the gate?
So you could see the effect, just like if it were in a mattebox?
(Kind of the same concept, as the mini-internal 85 filter, which only has to be tiny inside, but big outside, to accomplish the same effect.)
I would love to do something like this, but it would be great to not have more shit to attach to my camera, plus, I don't want to stop using my Nizo Aspheric III Ultrawide lens adapter, which won't work if it's not right up against the lens. If it's extended with filters, etc., you can see vinyeting. (Did I spell that correctly?)

Man, Roger, you are a madman!
The amount of mods you've done, is amazing. You have balls the size of bowling balls, I'm telling you.

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

I was hoping that it wouldn't have to be that complicated, and perhaps there would be a way to do it without putting anything in the optical path.
Like, if you could have a little light, or LED in there, bouncing diffused light inside the chamber.
I would imagine that would end up on the film.
You could then have just a little Pot on the outside of the camera, to dial in your amount of flashing.
What do you think, Roger?
Is this another one of those "simple explanation, difficult implementation" scenarios?

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Nigel]

Matt--

Have you ever seen/used a Varicon??? That is basically what you described. It allows you to change the amount of flashing while shooting. They are cool but I do think that flashing is highly over rated when you can get the same results without the hassle in other ways.

Also, who says that when you put your eye put to a S8 camera on a tripod is moves???? That is way you use a good solid tripod(I like Sachtler) with sandbags on the legs-- and when you mount the camera you make sure that you screw the hell out of it(Without stripping it of course) on the mounting plate. I have never had a problem with S8 cameras moving on a tripod unless the tripod was a piece of shit. Good Luck

------------------

[Alex]

The Super-8 Cameras that have the "stiff" non-retractable handle can "vibrate" if your forehead touches the camera or the rubber eye-cup.

Retractable handles on super-8 Cameras like the Canon 1014 Or Beauliueu 4008's won't have this problem.

------------------
Alex

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
Have you ever seen/used a Varicon??? That is basically what you described. It allows you to change the amount of flashing while shooting. They are cool but I do think that flashing is highly over rated when you can get the same results without the hassle in other ways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When shooting negative, this is true. But please elaborate on methods for reducing contrast when shooting reversal that will give the same results with less hassle. I've been shooting reversal for most of my life and, frankly, I have yet to see anything work as easily or as effectively for reversal as flashing, but I am open to new ideas!

Enlighten me!

Roger

[Nigel]

I haven't flashed reversal to be honest. A way to get the same effect as flashing without going through the risk of double exposure is to do the following--

While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One. Good Luck

------------------

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I haven't flashed reversal to be honest. A way to get the same effect as flashing without going through the risk of double exposure is to do the following--

While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One. Good Luck
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I confused...you mean push your film two stops, or overexpose two f-stops, then underexpose one stop during processing.

I don't like that idea because it messes with dept of field issues..and it puts way too much faith in the lab.

But it is an interesting concept.



------------------
Alex

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nigel:
I haven't flashed reversal to be honest. A way to get the same effect as flashing without going through the risk of double exposure is to do the following--

While shooting you "Push" your film Two stops. Then you tell the lab to pull it One. Good Luck
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, three things:

1) As illustrated (literally) above, double exposing isn't required to flash film while shooting. It can be done using a device like the one I described which takes all the risk out of shooting since you can see the amount of flashing when shooting.

2) Pushing doesn't decrease contrast on reversal, it increases contrast as well as increasing grain. Also, push processing doesn't really work on dye transfer processes like Kodachrome. The effect isn't the same.

3) The idea behind flashing for reversal was to lower the contrast for reproduction purposes. Negative really doesn't need to be flashed to get acceptable reproduction contrast. Therefore, your comments about flashing being "over rated" and "easier ways to lower contrast" than flashing seem needlessly argumentative, considering your lack of experience lowering the contrast on any reversal of any kind. Why automatically take such a counter position on something that you admit you have no experience in?

Roger

[MovieStuff]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex:
I confused...you mean push your film two stops, or overexpose two f-stops, then underexpose one stop during processing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've got it backwards. When you 'push process' film, you UNDEREXPOSE and over develope, not overexpose and underdevelope. If you rate 50 asa film at 100 asa, you are underexposing it, then overdeveloping to pull out the detail. That is 'pushing'.

When you 'pull process', you overexpose and underdevelop, which is what you described. That is different as it actually derates the film ASA.

Roger

[Nigel]

Roger--

I said that I have never flashed reversal film--I have never had the need. However, while using Neg film you can Push two stops and then have the lab pull one and get the same effect. I do know what I am talking about and have shot plenty of flashed film. The use of even the Varicon will expose the film to some sort of light either prior or after the film has passed the gate. Otherwise the only way to "Flash" the film is to use the formula I described.

------------------