Mike you never "steer" us wrong with your Moo-velouse found films! Christmas part was a time capsule of nostalgia! Bet the watch was a Timex and that TV in the background was amazing! Thanks for sharing!
Looking good! At the very least we can see exactly what's going on. The people look genuinely happy at the homecoming and Christmas present unpacking - even considering that someone pointed a 1000 Watt lamp at their faces.
@@Filmboy24 I remember it well. Just one split second into a lamp like this and your head turns away. You went almost completely blind after that for a few seconds. We also warned the people before shooting: don't look into the lamp. I also rehearsed a few times before shooting. You didn't leave the lamp on for long. Just a few seconds each time, switching it off after each shot. It got very hot and used up a lot of current. I guess it's about as dangerous as looking into the sun at the beach.
Great job Mike -- according to my Prom bow-tie-o-meter, that was very late 1970s -- and comparing clothing/hair styles with old family photos -- yeah, NLT 1980 I would say. It'd be cool if someone recognizes it....
@@oldradiosnphonographs Thank you, Radios! We are fine, a little damage to my car, fence and back porch is destroyed, but no flooding and we and our house is fine. Appreciate you asking.
I’ve tried AI upscaling with Ektachrome 160T and it didn’t do well. It made the footage look like it was from the 2006 movie “A Scanner Darkly” if anyone’s seen it. If you havnt, the movie used an effect called “rotoscoping” and this is essentially what AI does automatically but no one calls it that….they use the fancy tech word “upscaling” which gives the illusion that it’s a healing tool but is essentially a computer generated cartoon brush or filter or whatever nah can’t even call it a filter. It’s a rotoscope at best.
The bottom line is that computer pixels and film grain are two completely different things. If the film didn’t record it on the master negative the computer has nothing to work with so it will “cartoon in” what it thinks should be there with pixels not actually part of the original image….Like you get a badly exposed or out of focus shot of a family dog, the AI upscaling will draw Jar Jar Binks face on it or some other character model that it has in a reference library because it literally has to make up the detail the film didn’t capture.
I spent three hours last night trying to get four different AI upscaling apps to take a freeze frame of a squirrel I captured on Super 8 and filter a GTA character animation for a thumbnail of a video I posted and it was coming out with some totally weird outputs that were totally not the same image. No one needs to worry about AI taking jobs…at least not yet.
Well..... technically it has seen the light of day once, when it was exposed (I know, I'm fun at parties). I just received a 8mm Paillard-Bolex Zoom Reflex P1, btw. And then I ordered, finally, a UPB-1A UNIVERSAL DEVELOPING TANK for 8-16-35mm. And then I ordered 5 rolls of Double 8 Black and White Negative Fomapan, because I want to develop it in Rodinal. I don't have a scanner yet, but I think I'm in the line for one.
I wonder how much of the issues in the beginning of the reel are down to bad exposure, because when they use the blinding light indoors the contrast is so much better. I often have issues with older cameras, also polaroids, when taking pictures in the actual sunlight. Brightness outdoors is quite unreliable and when it comes to older light meters I'm often on the over exposed side.
Funny you mention that, I’m dealing with some overexposure issues now with some older Tri-X shot outside in bright sun. I think you’re onto something with the reliability of some of these older built in meters.
@@Filmboy24 I will start experimenting with ND filters on very sunny days. However, since I'm in Ireland this is gonna be a very drawn out process. ^^
That was cool! Liked and subscribed. Forgive my question which has probably been asked often, but I can't watch 305 videos to catch up right now: Have you ever tried to denoise footage like this with software? Also, I too have a mystery cartridge of Kodachrome 40 that needs developing and need advice on where to send it for digitizing.
Thanks so much!! Yes, I have played with grain reduction in the past but it can be daunting on these really old B&W films. I bought a program called NEAT Video and it's primary purpose is grain reduction. Very tricky to use and it's always seemed to make my footage look much worse. It masks some of the grain, but at the same time it kind of adds movement to where the grain once was. Really weird look.
I recognize that dog! His name is Rusty. he's a good boy.
😂😂
Mike you never "steer" us wrong with your Moo-velouse found films! Christmas part was a time capsule of nostalgia! Bet the watch was a Timex and that TV in the background was amazing! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks so much, Jeffrey!!
Looking good! At the very least we can see exactly what's going on. The people look genuinely happy at the homecoming and Christmas present unpacking - even considering that someone pointed a 1000 Watt lamp at their faces.
It's amazing there isn't more permanent eye damage from these sun lamps of old. Man those things were dangerous, lol. Thanks, Christian!!
@@Filmboy24 I remember it well. Just one split second into a lamp like this and your head turns away. You went almost completely blind after that for a few seconds. We also warned the people before shooting: don't look into the lamp. I also rehearsed a few times before shooting. You didn't leave the lamp on for long. Just a few seconds each time, switching it off after each shot. It got very hot and used up a lot of current. I guess it's about as dangerous as looking into the sun at the beach.
another great episode- so cool to see these forgotten memories brought to life. great work !
Thank you, Elliott, I really appreciate it!!
Great job Mike -- according to my Prom bow-tie-o-meter, that was very late 1970s -- and comparing clothing/hair styles with old family photos -- yeah, NLT 1980 I would say. It'd be cool if someone recognizes it....
I feel like your meter is pretty dead on!! Thank you, Aengus!!
Excellent as usual. Thanks Mike !
Thanks, Cecil!!
Are you ok? I saw your town got flooded by the hurricane and I am concerned!
@@oldradiosnphonographs Thank you, Radios! We are fine, a little damage to my car, fence and back porch is destroyed, but no flooding and we and our house is fine. Appreciate you asking.
Some good old KFF (Kentucky Fried Frames). Loved the Christmas part, got me super nostalgic.
Mmmmmm, deee-licious!
We love your work
Thank You!!
Maybe Ai will someday be able to “restore” all this old footage to the colorful, relatively clear goodness it was meant to be.
I’ve tried AI upscaling with Ektachrome 160T and it didn’t do well. It made the footage look like it was from the 2006 movie “A Scanner Darkly” if anyone’s seen it. If you havnt, the movie used an effect called “rotoscoping” and this is essentially what AI does automatically but no one calls it that….they use the fancy tech word “upscaling” which gives the illusion that it’s a healing tool but is essentially a computer generated cartoon brush or filter or whatever nah can’t even call it a filter. It’s a rotoscope at best.
The bottom line is that computer pixels and film grain are two completely different things. If the film didn’t record it on the master negative the computer has nothing to work with so it will “cartoon in” what it thinks should be there with pixels not actually part of the original image….Like you get a badly exposed or out of focus shot of a family dog, the AI upscaling will draw Jar Jar Binks face on it or some other character model that it has in a reference library because it literally has to make up the detail the film didn’t capture.
I spent three hours last night trying to get four different AI upscaling apps to take a freeze frame of a squirrel I captured on Super 8 and filter a GTA character animation for a thumbnail of a video I posted and it was coming out with some totally weird outputs that were totally not the same image. No one needs to worry about AI taking jobs…at least not yet.
That would be awesome, Steven!!
Well..... technically it has seen the light of day once, when it was exposed (I know, I'm fun at parties).
I just received a 8mm Paillard-Bolex Zoom Reflex P1, btw. And then I ordered, finally, a UPB-1A UNIVERSAL DEVELOPING TANK for 8-16-35mm.
And then I ordered 5 rolls of Double 8 Black and White Negative Fomapan, because I want to develop it in Rodinal.
I don't have a scanner yet, but I think I'm in the line for one.
🤣🤣 Why did I know I could count on you, LOL.
You are in for a treat with your new stuff coming! So much fun...Best of luck!
I wonder how much of the issues in the beginning of the reel are down to bad exposure, because when they use the blinding light indoors the contrast is so much better.
I often have issues with older cameras, also polaroids, when taking pictures in the actual sunlight. Brightness outdoors is quite unreliable and when it comes to older light meters I'm often on the over exposed side.
Funny you mention that, I’m dealing with some overexposure issues now with some older Tri-X shot outside in bright sun. I think you’re onto something with the reliability of some of these older built in meters.
@@Filmboy24 I will start experimenting with ND filters on very sunny days. However, since I'm in Ireland this is gonna be a very drawn out process. ^^
That was cool! Liked and subscribed. Forgive my question which has probably been asked often, but I can't watch 305 videos to catch up right now:
Have you ever tried to denoise footage like this with software?
Also, I too have a mystery cartridge of Kodachrome 40 that needs developing and need advice on where to send it for digitizing.
Thanks so much!!
Yes, I have played with grain reduction in the past but it can be daunting on these really old B&W films. I bought a program called NEAT Video and it's primary purpose is grain reduction. Very tricky to use and it's always seemed to make my footage look much worse. It masks some of the grain, but at the same time it kind of adds movement to where the grain once was. Really weird look.
Looked like 1973 to 75 to me.