Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Mainly Cinevia T64 in Single 8. Single 8 is also great for special effects. Tried ektachrome 64T but the image is very unsteady. (At least with my cameras).Jean Poirier wrote:Great workmanship. What filmstock are you going to use? Jean
With such a value at stake better not drop it and be careful with heat from the lamps. Wouldn't want a meltdown either.Sasounet wrote:Hi there,
After to many months (years) of work, here is some pictures of the model of the main spacecraft I made for my sci-fi super 8 film.
The model is about 4.5 foot long (1.4 meter) completely scratch built. And yes, the central part is rotating.
On those pictures, the model is missing a few parts and the weathering is not finished. Total cost (excluding workmanship, we all work for free) is about $1500.
Filming starts next month!
François
I would have like to film with such a fast film. Great for depth of field! (At f2.8 with Kodachrome, you don't have a lot of depth of field. Now why did I built a model that long...)Andersens Tears wrote:Wow! Class! This is gonna look excellent! looking forward to it!
Had you considered 200T? It is supposed to be good for special effects?
I get the T64 from Retro. Nice guy.aj wrote: Where do you get the single-8 film? Do you have recent experience with Kent from singel8film.com?
If you can squeeze it down to 5.6 at a focal length of 8mm, you'll have about 8 inches to about 12 feet. (I'm doing this from memory so I might be a bit off). Wide angle will also accentuate the size of the model. As you probably already know, you don't want anything out of focus in the foreground or the background when shooting miniatures like this. Again, looks just fine. Can't wait to see the final product.Sasounet wrote: I would have like to film with such a fast film. Great for depth of field! (At f2.8 with Kodachrome, you don't have a lot of depth of field.
Recently Andec in Germany started a transfer service of Super 8 negative to Super 8 positive. And I don't find it too expensive. But I haven't tried it yet ...However, I am an old school guy and I want to be able to project my movie at the end. That rules out all negative film.
It is very difficult for me to crank up the lighting to get 5.6 reading. The problem is that I want to light the model with a single light source in order to have sharp shadows. In deep space with only one sun, the shadows are real sharp ;-)MovieStuff wrote:This looks just terrific. Great job.
If you can squeeze it down to 5.6 at a focal length of 8mm, you'll have about 8 inches to about 12 feet.
Well we all know what the final product will be...:MovieStuff wrote: Again, looks just fine. Can't wait to see the final product.
Indeed I want this film to be as scientifically accurate as possible. It was also to difficult to have the cast floating around during the whole film... So something as to be done. Don't talk to me about artificial gravity; I want a scientifically accurate film.vidwerk wrote:Wow! That is fantastic!
Looks even technically accurate with the spinning gravitron.
Cheers.
Yes I know about that and I would be willing to try it. However, I think I remember that with this process, the emulsion ends up on the wrong side of the film making it prone to scratching in a projector. Do I remember right ?71er wrote:Recently Andec in Germany started a transfer service of Super 8 negative to Super 8 positive. And I don't find it too expensive. But I haven't tried it yet ...However, I am an old school guy and I want to be able to project my movie at the end. That rules out all negative film.
