We also used in some close up Desisti light with softbox, I don't remember if we used it in this one. Anyway all actors used lots of vaseline to get this totally wet skin look.
Last edited by jukkasil on Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I say, no offense intended, son, but your images, though well photographed, appear a tad soft and overly grainy next to my own experiences with the Vision2 negatives. Would you chalk that up to the camera being used or the fact that it is transfered on DV?
I have done some looking through the archives of this site and came across a nice representative of what Vision2 super 8 negatives are capable of by another chap and will post it here as an example of what I am talking about. I was alerted to this in another thread. Here is a frame from the Pro8 Vision2 100t shot with what the person in the photo archive gallery says is a Zeiss Contax prime lens, followed by one of your frames. The difference is remarkable.
Last edited by M'Lord on Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah, good comparison mlord, two different stocks 100T and 200T, using 2 different cameras/optics and one probably colourcorrected & adjusted after a high-resolution transfer and the other not colourcorrected after DV-transfer (yet). :roll:
What does that comparison tell you?
That you get better results using a good prime, a sharper stock after CC and high resolution scan than you would get from using a built-in zoom and a faster stock without any CC after a standard DV-transfer.
Well, in that I agree. :roll:
Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:Yeah, good comparison mlord, two different stocks 100T and 200T, using 2 different cameras/optics and one probably colourcorrected & adjusted after a high-resolution transfer and the other not colourcorrected after DV-transfer (yet). :roll:
What does that comparison tell you?
That you get better results using a good prime, a sharper stock after CC and high resolution scan than you would get from using a built-in zoom and a faster stock without any CC after a standard DV-transfer.
Well, in that I agree. :roll:
Son.
That lard, I mean lord really knows what he is talking about (troll is troll even he'll shoot film)! BTW. that 100 T example is scanned 2k, not DV like my one. Just make films and stopped bullshitting. I'd really like to see your own shooting (or have you even shot anything?).
Anyway in our movies (like this one) the story is more important than to get the best ever made image quality in Super 8 world. Anyway we are 100 %:ly satisfied of Andec's quality and what the best, no jittering at all using Vision stock and pressure plate, acting like 16 mm films/cameras. Cropping it to 2.35 in 16:9 anamorphic it looks like 60's italo western (shot in Techniscope 35mm ) and that's what we want to get and we really got it.
Last edited by jukkasil on Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Uppsala BildTeknik wrote:What does that comparison tell you?
That you get better results using a good prime, a sharper stock after CC and high resolution scan than you would get from using a built-in zoom and a faster stock without any CC after a standard DV-transfer.
Ah, you are correct. I see there are a lot of factors involved.
*sharper prime lens
*sharper film stock
*superior transfer method and format than DV
You are right.
But I ask you, and you have pointed out before that you are a film to video transfer expert, have you not had less grainy examples of Vision2 200t? Sharper examples? You must have.
Please, Mr Jukka, do not take offense, you have put some examples out on the table and we are only examining them. Your photographic skills are obviously to a high standard and it is no reflection on you.
jukkasil, the frame grabs look incredible. I can't wait to shoot some negative stock. My only questions about the clip you posted:
* Were you using auto-exposure for that shot? I only ask because when the branch goes away, the shot gets brighter and when the face comes into frame, it gets darker again.
* When can we see more? I'd be particularly in seeing some of the indoor stuff. When will we be able to see the finished product?
Looks great, keep us posted!
M'Lord, I think many of us would like to see some of your work if you're going to criticize everybody's else's. There have been some shorts posted on this forum that I didn't find very interesting or that I simply didn't "get". But as I've stated in many of my other posts I won't criticize it until I've got something to show as well.
sooper8fan wrote:jukkasil, the frame grabs look incredible. I can't wait to shoot some negative stock. My only questions about the clip you posted:
* Were you using auto-exposure for that shot? I only ask because when the branch goes away, the shot gets brighter and when the face comes into frame, it gets darker again.
* When can we see more? I'd be particularly in seeing some of the indoor stuff. When will we be able to see the finished product?
Looks great, keep us posted!
Yes, that one was shot with my wife with auto-exposure, cause I'm that actor!
M'lord: why you are putting this kind of comparions, if you even know (or didn't you know?), there are huge differences in those pictures cause of totally different transfer resolution etc.
sooper8fan wrote:
M'Lord, I think many of us would like to see some of your work if you're going to criticize everybody's else's. There have been some shorts posted on this forum that I didn't find very interesting or that I simply didn't "get". But as I've stated in many of my other posts I won't criticize it until I've got something to show as well.
Please attempt to differentiate in your mind between being critical of an individual's creative expression, and the much different avenue of critically examining and asking questions regarding the technical aspects of the medium used. I have done none of the former, and only politely the latter, and have been assailed for my constructive questions and efforts.
But I ask you, and you have pointed out before that you are a film to video transfer expert, have you not had less grainy examples of Vision2 200t? Sharper examples? You must have.
I transfer old home-movies for a living. 99.9% of what I transfer is older than the -90s and I usually make DVDs of the films.
I haven´t transferred a lot of negative films at all, one client that didn´t get too good results with his films (due to exposure and mixing lights/filtering issues I believe) is all.
Oh, except for a 200T (not V2 200T) from Mattias that was my first negative-testings ever, there was a thread about it with some frames too. I wasn´t too satisfied with it myself. Search for the thread if you are interested.
Hopefully I will get my hands on some realllly good v2 200T soon... I will post the results here (when I find the time...).
jukkasil wrote: M'lord: why you are putting this kind of comparions, if you even know (or didn't you know?), there are huge differences in those pictures cause of totally different transfer resolution etc.
I will accept an apology for your response to my sincere inquiry and fact gathering attempt.
jukkasil wrote: M'lord: why you are putting this kind of comparions, if you even know (or didn't you know?), there are huge differences in those pictures cause of totally different transfer resolution etc.
I will accept an apology for your response to my sincere inquiry and fact gathering attempt.
:roll: