-
August 29th, 2001, 12:13 PM
#51
Inactive Member
Hi Matt:
Again I am confused! (Sorry)
Many films are shot on standard Academy ratio (non S35). Must be projected with proper lens (or 8ft people will be in Amorres Perros). Release in DVD in orginal Aspect Ratio (widescreen letterbox). And maybe shown in cable movie channels (where cropping, Pan Scan, or no cropping, letterbox, can occur.
Again,I emphasize that a movie can go through without being cropped for viewing. (Commercials and TV Previews excluded.)
What am I missing?
------------------
-
August 29th, 2001, 09:24 PM
#52
Inactive Member
8th man asked:
"I wish sombody could explain to me why the three perf format for 35 isn't more popular. Aaton is always pushing it and it makes perfect sence to me. Why waste so much film to cropping?"
Because, unlike our projects, film costs on big budget movies is incidental compared to labor and equipment costs. Going with a non
standard film format just rocks the boat, in terms of equipment rental and post production. Any savings they'd see would be minisculce compared to the headache of having to accomodate a non standard format where equipment can be had from only one company. I can't imagine a bigger production nightmare.
Roger
-
September 2nd, 2001, 06:53 AM
#53
Inactive Member
I thought I was the only guy who has seen Kung Fu Rascals!
That's funny, because that's the movie that got me into this Super 8 frenzy to begin with.
It was about 92, and I had finally decided I was going to somehow, make a film.
I was reading some filmmaker magazine (I think it was Film Threat Video Guide), and I saw an ad for Super 8 Sound, and their $4,000 total filmmaker kit (ah, the good old days before they started raping people with high prices).
Anyway, I was living in Glendale at the time, (right next to Burbank), so I marched in, and saw their bookcase with Super 8 movies on them.
I said, "sell me the top two selling Super 8 videos".
So I got KFR's and some piece of crap with Richard Kern and Nick Zedd filmes on them. (really really bad stuff).
I gave away the kern/Zedd tape, but kept Kung Fu Rascals.
Cheesy story, but I figured if one could get that quality of image, you could actually make a movie, so I did.
P.S., it's also a good movie to watch if you think it's a good idea to shoot silent and dub all your dialog later. Yechh!!!!
I still have the "making of Kung Fu Rascals" issue of Film Threat Video Guide.
I learned a lot from that issue. Great in camera forced perspective work. Steve Wang (director) has gone on to direct the "Guyver" monster movies, which I've seen in Hollywood Video, but haven't rented.
So that's where we're all destined with this S8 stuff.... (sob sob, sniff sniff)
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
September 2nd, 2001, 03:42 PM
#54
Inactive Member
I mentioned this before, but for a really good example of some wide screen super 8 (actually I believe they just cropped the image top and bottom) check out a super 8 movie called "Kung Fu Rascals" if you can find it. The photography is really good and the wide screen effect works just great. So-so movie but looks good and has fun effects and fight scenes. That letterbox is a terrific way to hide splices! 
Roger
-
October 8th, 2001, 01:31 PM
#55
Inactive Member
So, has anyone found out what the exact lens's are that Pro8mm sells for $1500!?
Still looking for a cheaper way to do it.
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
October 9th, 2001, 03:17 AM
#56
Inactive Member
Man, they will never tell. somebody is going to have to rent one and see for themselves. I will at some point but that wont be 'till next year.
------------------
PRM
-
October 10th, 2001, 04:08 PM
#57
Inactive Member
Might this one work on my Nizo 4080, which has a lens attachment thread size of 67mm?
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1283726829
This one has a "The Barrel diameter at the
rear is 70.6mm". I know its difficult for anyone to say if it will work without trying it. But I'm reluctant to purchase such a lens without at least a better idea. Anyone?
Thanks,
Madrone
------------------
-
October 11th, 2001, 05:23 PM
#58
Inactive Member
I dont think you will find any Anamorphics that dont vignette slightly, you will always be restricted to maybe 15mm or 25mm, but as the "A" lens is already squeezing either 2x, 1.5x,or 1.75x. the normal picture into the same area, you are not loosing your wide angle.The picture is compressed only in the horizontal plane, so a 15mm setting is really halved to 7.5mm which is quite normal.
------------------
-
October 12th, 2001, 03:46 AM
#59
Inactive Member
Be forwarned!
My Nizo 6080 has a lens diameter of 67mm, and I bought two Bausch & Lomb anamorphics with a lens diameter of over 70mm, and they were NOWHERE EVEN CLOSE TO BEING BIG ENOUGH!!!
Just because it will screw onto your lens, DOES NOT make it big enough for anamorphic.
There was significant vinyetting (did I spell that coreectly?) and I had to zoom WAY in to get rid of it, which of course defeats the purpose of wanting to shoot wide entirely.
Matt Pacini
------------------
-
October 12th, 2001, 03:48 AM
#60
Inactive Member
Be forwarned!
My Nizo 6080 has a lens diameter of 67mm, and I bought two Bausch & Lomb anamorphics with a lens diameter of over 70mm, and they were NOWHERE EVEN CLOSE TO BEING BIG ENOUGH!!!
Just because it will screw onto your lens, DOES NOT make it big enough for anamorphic.
There was significant vinyetting (did I spell that coreectly?) and I had to zoom WAY in to get rid of it, which of course defeats the purpose of wanting to shoot wide entirely.
Matt Pacini
------------------
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks