Super 35 Movie Maker

[Brian Drysdale]

I wouldn't say it's automatic, there are still choices to be made regarding the film stock being used, how you're going to scan it, plus the subtle variation in the frame rate fro the hand cranked camera. Chance is an important part of the creative process, something that's difficult to factor in.

I came across these links to other material.

Princess Ines - LomoKino on Vimeo

Art All Around - LomoKino on Vimeo

Isabel - LomoKino on Vimeo

[Dylan Couper]

Oh, I didn't get that the viewer was something you looked into and cranked... wonder if you can shoot into it for telecine.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I need to see the projector thing in action first. Also, wonder if there's a way to overcrank this thing up to 8fps.

I was just reading that someone managed 9 fps without any problem.

[Charlton Chars]

It would be totally awesome if they could develop a digital back for this, but I guess it would not fall within the Lomography way of thinking

[Dylan Couper]

Damn I just remembered how much I still want this.
I wouldn't want a digital back, after all, the purpose of shooting film is to SHOOT FILM. :)

[Charlton Chars]

This camera make it's images on a 35mm film. The resolution you gain from that amount of real estate on film just cannot be ignored. It allows you to shoot moving images on 35mm. Thanks.

[Evan Donn]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I wouldn't say it's automatic, there are still choices to be made regarding the film stock being used, how you're going to scan it, plus the subtle variation in the frame rate fro the hand cranked camera. Chance is an important part of the creative process, something that's difficult to factor in.

I came across these links to other material.

Chance is always present in the creative process - I don't think that's exclusive to using a camera like this. But those examples just further affirm my feelings about this camera. Imagine the exact same videos produced any other way - would you really want to watch them? There's nothing to them, their only mildly interesting quality is the look created by the camera. It's like Instagram for movies. Could somebody make an interesting film with this camera? Sure - but the camera isn't the important part in that equation.

Originally Posted by Charlton Chars

This camera make it's images on a 35mm film. The resolution you gain from that amount of real estate on film just cannot be ignored.

You're right - it can't be ignored, because in the sample videos it's clearly very low. The resolution limits of this camera has nothing to do with the recording medium.

[Brian Drysdale]

You'd select this camera because of the look. It's the same as selecting a RED over an Alexa or using vintage lenses as against modern glass. They all have different characteristics and you use the tool that's most appropriate to the story or film you're making.

[Rick Presas]

I've always thought that if you want a particular look, it's alwasy best to get the look IN-CAMERA. This totally allows that, cheaply.

[Adam Gold]

It's never the best way. It used to be the only way, before digital post-production.

What if you change your mind or decide you don't like the look, or it doesn't come out exactly right? If it's baked into the footage you are screwed.

Post is always the best way to degrade your footage. If you shoot B&W or a bizarre frame rate there's no adding "quality" back. It's incredibly foolish and short-sighted to deny yourself creative options.

At least IMO.

[Chris Hurd]

On the other hand, if you know exactly what you want and you need
a fast turnaround, then there's nothing wrong with doing it in-camera.
There is no one single right way. Fortunately, we have choices, and
we have best options depending on different circumstances.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Adam Gold

Post is always the best way to degrade your footage. If you shoot B&W or a bizarre frame rate there's no adding "quality" back. It's incredibly foolish and short-sighted to deny yourself creative options.

People commonly ran tests in advance. Quite a lot of the looks people now use were developed using photochemical processes. The creative options were worked out in advance rather than afterwards.

You don't need to do it now, but it's still an option.