new super 16 camera

[Simon Wyss]

Kodak camera. Alright, light from the optics is diverted to the left, as seen from behind camera towards scene, onto a frosted pane, then depicted by a positive lens onto a sensor via a second, rigidly mounted mirror. The shutter-mirror slide is moved up and down giving alleged exposure equivalent to 220 degrees with a revolving disc shutter.

This obsessive intermingling of film and video camera is grotesque. What film needs are projectors (and step printers). Else we can forget filmmaking altogether. Childish all talk about look and grain!

[Brandon Paterno]

34 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

This obsessive intermingling of film and video camera is grotesque. What film needs are projectors (and step printers). Else we can forget filmmaking altogether. Childish all talk about look and grain!

agreed generally. optical and step printers are what set film as a medium apart. though it is a pain in the ass, there is a slightly growing interest in it as a process. the small gauge film and its limitations are what make it divine. though this isn’t the forum for discussing that methinks.

super 8 for example looks its best projected. seriously. on a good projector with a contemporary print it shines. something something motion cadence. 35 looks good but as it travels immediately from the film plane through the developer to a digital pickup the original camera negatives are never handled again (except possibly for reference?). the digital transcription of the negative is not representative of the soul or aura of the object emulsion, and its facsimile in its multiplicity seldom reckons with that fact outside of a surface level engagement with literal dirt and grime. this is something else isn’t it? is the digitized film video, film, or neither, in regards to its relation to the light which formed it? it would be an interesting thing to confront formally. but …not that any of this is of primary importance to a given filmmaker who gets bankrolled to shoot a production on film. 

Edited June 14 by Brandon Paterno

[Aapo Lettinen]

The main issue with photochemical finish and distribution is that no one will ever see the film outside two or three small festival screenings which are additionally real pita to arrange when needing to ship film copies to another country and hope they will come back in less than 20 pieces because of questinable projectors. And you can't afford to make lots of copies. And if you can't afford a 35mm projector and large home cinema screen setup you can't even watch your own movie outside festivals. It pretty much needs to be 35mm blowup if wanting to get good screen size for larger festivals and somewhat standard copy of the movie. Of course separate home screening version possible on 16mm but extra costs. Some good quality version needs to be available on digital to allow people to watch the film in the first place. Film copies for special festival runs and digital copies to get enough audience to call it a movie and not a camera test😄

[Robin Phillips]

its worth considering that any innovation that makes people more open to shooting the format the better. we're not going back to the 90s, 80s, 70s etc. you have to meet the audience where they are, at least to some degree, otherwise they wont even engage with what you're offering. in the case of this new camera, it has the real potential to engage producers who otherwise refuse to shoot film due to perceived risks. for a lot of (most of?) those folks, just telling them to take the risk anyway isnt going to convince them

[Aapo Lettinen]

Film is mainly about on-set workflow anyway, not the end result. The end result can be great of course but it does not add much extra value to the viewing experience. Whereas the "method filmmaking approach" of using special tools and work practices instead of the easiest and cheapest "logical choice" does make a huge difference and adds lots of value to the viewing experience

[Tyler Purcell]

21 hours ago, Steve Switaj said:

Tyler, I suspect this might be the right place for your pellicle camera to shine. 

Beamsplitters have their issues, and we've talked about them here, but in this application the trade off might be worth it.

Yea, I'm going to talk to them about it. Canon developed a system for their RS cameras, which we have a copy of, which works really well. I have a friend who kinda knows about it and we think potentially, we could figure out who made it for Canon and try to coat some glass. The beam splitter would be in a box with a front plate, sealed. So there would be no way for debris to get into the box. It would be more similar to a digital cinema camera.