3 ms·

On the build versus buy axis, there is the Lomokino https://microsites.lomography.com/lomokino/ https://microsites.lomography.com/lomokino/ I have one. It's

On the build versus buy axis, there is the Lomokino https://microsites.lomography.com/lomokino/ https://microsites.lomography.com/lomokino/ I have one. It's been pretty fun and certainly a different way of thinking about making pictures. It fits in a hoodie pocket so it makes a reasonable walk around. Scanning workflow requires some bespoke decisions. As would lab processing if I used it. I don't. I shoot it in B&W and develop in a tank.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
Hmmm, a little googling suggests the Lomokino shoots only as fast as you crank (not 24 fps or anything cinemalike) and, even if you could run 24 fps on it, you'd get 4 to 6 seconds of film on a 35mm roll. This 3D printed camera is looking pretty good to me. Aside: love the Super-8 film used in the music video for the Pixies filk-like, "Andro Queen": https://youtu.be/10lyWR25_nQ https://youtu.be/10lyWR25_nQ
- brudgers 4y ago
  I don’t disagree. There are trade offs. For five minutes shopping and fifty bucks total investment you can have a working Lomokino arriving the week after next and be out making pictures fifteen minutes after that. What I think puts it on the same axis is a similar picture production workflow. There’s not much difference between developing exposed film, digitizing the negatives, and compiling them into something that will render. Because that’s most of the work, fewer frames has the advantage of making redoing steps easier when figuring out the workflow. The results are less good but easier to obtain. And if cinematography is a priority it might be better to get a film camera and run movie film through it.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    You're right regarding convenience of course. I see Kodak still sells Super 8 film at about $40 for 50 ft. A vintage Super 8 camera can be had on eBay for a good deal (I picked up a Canon 310XL a few years back — the same model I had as a teen — looks like those though are about $300 in good condition).
anfractuosity 4y ago
I'm curious about the B&W film you use, is that some form of positive B&W film, that can be projected? Edit: Just looked more at the camera, it looks like it takes a 35mm canister of film, interesting. So I guess normal B&W film?
- brudgers 4y ago
  My goto B&W film is Arista Edu 200 in 100’ rolls because it is cheap. Movie moguls aside, projecting 35mm movie film at home is impractical because there never was much of a consumer market for projectors or cameras because 35mm movies are at an industrial scale. The projectors are big loud bright and hot. 16mm film would be about the limit for a hobbyist, and it is good enough for a feature film (but not a studio blockbuster). It’s about 1/4 the size of 35mm. Also worth knowing that 35mm movie film requires bespoke processing due to the remjet layer to prevent halation and static charge buildup. And processing 16mm movie film is not cheap.

JKCalhoun 4y ago

Hmmm, a little googling suggests the Lomokino shoots only as fast as you crank (not 24 fps or anything cinemalike) and, even if you could run 24 fps on it, you'd get 4 to 6 seconds of film on a 35mm roll. This 3D printed camera is looking pretty good to me. Aside: love the Super-8 film used in the music video for the Pixies filk-like, "Andro Queen": https://youtu.be/10lyWR25_nQ https://youtu.be/10lyWR25_nQ

brudgers 4y ago
I don’t disagree. There are trade offs. For five minutes shopping and fifty bucks total investment you can have a working Lomokino arriving the week after next and be out making pictures fifteen minutes after that. What I think puts it on the same axis is a similar picture production workflow. There’s not much difference between developing exposed film, digitizing the negatives, and compiling them into something that will render. Because that’s most of the work, fewer frames has the advantage of making redoing steps easier when figuring out the workflow. The results are less good but easier to obtain. And if cinematography is a priority it might be better to get a film camera and run movie film through it.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  You're right regarding convenience of course. I see Kodak still sells Super 8 film at about $40 for 50 ft. A vintage Super 8 camera can be had on eBay for a good deal (I picked up a Canon 310XL a few years back — the same model I had as a teen — looks like those though are about $300 in good condition).

anfractuosity 4y ago

I'm curious about the B&W film you use, is that some form of positive B&W film, that can be projected? Edit: Just looked more at the camera, it looks like it takes a 35mm canister of film, interesting. So I guess normal B&W film?

brudgers 4y ago
My goto B&W film is Arista Edu 200 in 100’ rolls because it is cheap. Movie moguls aside, projecting 35mm movie film at home is impractical because there never was much of a consumer market for projectors or cameras because 35mm movies are at an industrial scale. The projectors are big loud bright and hot. 16mm film would be about the limit for a hobbyist, and it is good enough for a feature film (but not a studio blockbuster). It’s about 1/4 the size of 35mm. Also worth knowing that 35mm movie film requires bespoke processing due to the remjet layer to prevent halation and static charge buildup. And processing 16mm movie film is not cheap.