Harry \x22Nic\x22 Nicholas
SmarterEveryDay
comments
Comments by "Harry \x22Nic\x22 Nicholas" (@HarryNicNicholas) on "How Does Film ACTUALLY Work? (It's MAGIC) [Photos and Development] - Smarter Every Day 258" video.
2
if this is a way to sneak religion into science, sorry, it won't cut it. digital is just as satisfying as film, i use both. this is the "world's best buggy whip" argument.
"let's go into the darkroom and see what develops" old university joke.
"some day my prints will come" another.
i was at uni 1982-1984 when i did photography, all black and white, i then went on to work in computer animation, i've done a top of the pops titles and loads of BBC work - the planets series (2000) for instance.
when i started out the second company i worked for was CFX, in soho, london, UK, we used to shoot from a cathode ray screen with 4000 line reesolution, onto to film, we used coloured gels in front of a mitchell camera to make colour from the basically black and white screen, and you had to shoot one pass of say red, rewind the film, change the colour gel, say green, shoot the film again, and repeat for all colours, then you'd send it to the lab and find out ONE FRAME was wrong and have to do it all again.
we would load rolls of 300ft or 400 ft film inside black bags, doing it by feel. if you wanted to make it look like one thing passed in front of another (this was all wire frame graphics) you would have to shoot a matte film, like a black square that would block out some of the wire frame to look like it was solid, so you'd load two or even three rolls of film on top of each other and go through the process as above, called bi-pak, one frame at a time, click, advance, click, advance, and hope it was right.
night vision - cool, but we used red or yellow light at uni....
i've probably thrown them all out but once upon a time i had BOXES of test strips for colour tests, literally dozens of albums full of 35mm film with different colours clients could use to decide how their "wire frame graphics" would look. i worked with wireframe from about 1982 till i guess 2000 when full colour, 3D rendering became common. bernard lodge, who did wotk on blade runner, used to take the wire frame and do hand animation over the top of it, making wire frame look 3D and cartoony.
you can see my crappy photography on instagram, and if you scroll back far enough (i exceed at everything) computer graphics too - @harrynicholas1 i have a youtube channel of guitar and computer graphics i've done, both my own and some pro.
lol, in your summation - i miss cave painting, that was real hands on... :)
i'll tell you why you love film, it's beacuse someone else is processing it, if, like me, you've screwed up tons of film for whatever reason, you say to yourself, okay, enough. i'm 67, i'm a fan of old stuff, but i really like new stuff too. it's a case of picking what's appropriate, but if you had to process all your own film, you'd soon get over it.
1
1
1
(cut and paste from comments)
if this is a way to sneak religion into science, sorry, it won't cut it. digital is just as satisfying as film, i use both. this is the "world's best buggy whip" argument.
"let's go into the darkroom and see what develops" old university joke.
"some day my prints will come" another.
i was at uni 1982-1984 when i did photography, all black and white, i then went on to work in computer animation, i've done a top of the pops titles and loads of BBC work - the planets series (2000) for instance.
when i started out the second company i worked for was CFX, in soho, london, UK, we used to shoot from a cathode ray screen with 4000 line reesolution, onto to film, we used coloured gels in front of a mitchell camera to make colour from the basically black and white screen, and you had to shoot one pass of say red, rewind the film, change the colour gel, say green, shoot the film again, and repeat for all colours, then you'd send it to the lab and find out ONE FRAME was wrong and have to do it all again.
we would load rolls of 300ft or 400 ft film inside black bags, doing it by feel. if you wanted to make it look like one thing passed in front of another (this was all wire frame graphics) you would have to shoot a matte film, like a black square that would block out some of the wire frame to look like it was solid, so you'd load two or even three rolls of film on top of each other and go through the process as above, called bi-pak, one frame at a time, click, advance, click, advance, and hope it was right.
night vision - cool, but we used red or yellow light at uni....
i've probably thrown them all out but once upon a time i had BOXES of test strips for colour tests, literally dozens of albums full of 35mm film with different colours clients could use to decide how their "wire frame graphics" would look. i worked with wireframe from about 1982 till i guess 2000 when full colour, 3D rendering became common. bernard lodge, who did wotk on blade runner, used to take the wire frame and do hand animation over the top of it, making wire frame look 3D and cartoony.
you can see my crappy photography on instagram, and if you scroll back far enough (i exceed at everything) computer graphics too - @harrynicholas1 i have a youtube channel of guitar and computer graphics i've done, both my own and some pro.
lol, in your summation - i miss cave painting, that was real hands on... :)
i'll tell you why you love film, it's beacuse someone else is processing it, if, like me, you've screwed up tons of film for whatever reason, you say to yourself, okay, enough. i'm 67, i'm a fan of old stuff, but i really like new stuff too. it's a case of picking what's appropriate, but if you had to process all your own film, you'd soon get over it.
1