new to film ,have a few ?s

[Guest jeremy edge]

Hi, my friend and I are thinking of using a budget 16m to shoot a music video this spring. My friend has a canon xl1 is very happy with it but ,you know even in frame mode it still looks like video.We'd like to step it up a notch.

 

1. Is there an online resource you'd recommend for beginners that covers things like...loading film,caring for film , operating the camera to help get a jump on the transition?

 

2. Is it possible to shoot a music video with a silent camera with a crank?

(we sometimes use throwaway camera audio to help guide lip-sync editing)

or are we better off with an audio cam? Do we HAVE to have a motor?

the manual ones are pretty cheap it seems.

 

3.Whats some good cam recomendations in the range of $300 -$900 ..used

 

4.We shoot a lot of widescreen video, if you dont have super 16 cam ,could we just crop 16m? I mean ,its not like you lose pixels right?

 

Any help would be appreciated beyond belief!

[René]

1. Is there an online resource you'd recommend for beginners that covers things like...loading film,caring for film , operating the camera to help get a jump on the transition?

Have a look at these sites:

16mm Links

Filmshooting forum (mostly super8, but that shouldn't matter too much)

Ron Dexter

 

2. Is it possible to shoot a music video with a silent camera with a crank?

(we sometimes use throwaway camera audio to help guide lip-sync editing)

or are we better off with an audio cam? Do we HAVE to have a motor?

the manual ones are pretty cheap it seems.

Getting a crystal synch motorized camera is definately a big advantage when shooting music videos, but there are other options. See this and this site.

 

3.Whats some good cam recomendations in the range of $300 -$900 ..used

I'm not too familiar with many camera's. Check ebay and remember that brands like Arriflex and Eclair are usually very good. The Canon Scoopic and the Krasnogorsk-3 are also very cheap models that may be good enough for what you need (non-synch and only accept 100ft loads).

 

4.We shoot a lot of widescreen video, if you dont have super 16 cam ,could we just crop 16m? I mean ,its not like you lose pixels right?

You do. The cropping takes place after the film has been transferred to video. So when you letterbox a portion of the frame, you lose those pixels. When played on a widescreen tv, the image has to be magnified a lot more to fill the screen. This makes things a lot grainier and less sharp. Super16 uses more of the film's surface, so it doesn't have to be cropped a lot to get to the widescreen aspect ratio. This usually does increasy the quality significantly, even on tv. But then again, it might not be a problem for you.

 

Hope this helps,

 

René.

[Matt Wells]

Hi, my friend and I are thinking of using a budget 16m to shoot a music video this spring. My friend has a canon xl1 is very happy with it but ,you know even in frame mode it still looks like video.We'd like to step it up a notch.

 

1. Is there an online resource you'd recommend for beginners that covers things like...loading film,caring for film , operating the camera to help get a jump on the transition?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Try www.filmshooting.com - the forum there would be very helpful, as will this forum too.

 

2. Is it possible to shoot a music video with a silent camera with a crank?

(we sometimes use throwaway camera audio to help guide lip-sync editing)

or are we better off with an audio cam? Do we HAVE to have a motor?

the manual ones are pretty cheap it seems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You do not have to have an electric motor, but forget about hand cranking - this went out in about 1920. You should be able to sync it up very easily after you have transferred you film to tape and are editing it on your computer.

 

3.Whats some good cam recomendations in the range of $300 -$900 ..used

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

With your budget, you should acquire either a Bolex H16 (they come in a variety of forms, some with clockwork motor others with electric motor) or a Beaulieu R16, or a Canon Scoopic. I have a Beaulieu so would be biased. There are nice examples of these cameras around, and there are also nasty ones - just like cars. take time to find the right one.

 

4.We shoot a lot of widescreen video, if you dont have super 16 cam ,could we just crop 16m? I mean ,its not like you lose pixels right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can crop no problem. There will be some loss of resolution and increased grain (NB grain, not pixles), but it will still look like a cracking video. IMHO it is really not difficult to get great looking images from 16mm for music videos, especially with the latest film stocks available from Kodak and Fuji. It is however very difficult to stop video looking like video.

 

Have fun

 

Matt

[jasarsenault]

I have shot a couple music videos with non-sync cameras. One we shot a story which required no actual sync. The second we put in sync what we could and used a lot of cut aways. We used a super 8 cam and a bolex. Neither of those were sync and the bolex had a spring wound motor.

[Wendell_Greene]

A great forum for asking questions and learning about music videos, the music video and music video production is Music Video Wire

 

When you mentioned hand cranked, I took it that you were referring to using spring wound, non sync 16mm cameras like the K-3 or Bolex. FYI, people actually still occasionally use handcranks on specially modified Arri 35mm cameras on music videos. You can see an example of this on LL Cool J's "Head Sprung" video and Nine Inch Nails "Closer" to cite both a recent and classic example.

 

I've worked on music videos where we shot the artist's lip sync performance on a DVX-100 and then shot the conceptual footage on Super 8 or using a spring wound Bolex or Arri S.

 

You could also develop a concept where there isn't any lip sync or artist performance in the video, you could just film images and cut them to the tempo and/or mood of the music. Some of the early videos by the band R.E.M were done this way and came off very experimental, like Stan Brakhage or Michael Snow films. The band Tool, who are never featured in any of their music videos, have done some amazing videos using puppets and stop motion that still hold up to this day.

[Guest jeremy edge]

yes i was referring to spring wound....which brings another question....can you wind the motor while in use...in other words can i shoot continuous footage longer than the wind? I assume its probably yes but it never hurts to be sure...

 

How abou a bell and howell filmo da70...I've found several of these cheap and even one modded to accept super 16?

 

The K3 kinda scares me with all the problems except for the ones with the expensive mods.

 

the scoopic seems like a safe bet,but ive had a harder time finding one in the budjet.

 

Thanks for all the info!

[Robert Hughes]

I was out shooting with my spring-wound 35mm Bell & Howell Eyemo today. The Eyemo and its 16mm Filmo are both rugged, simple to use, and with a little setup can run "pretty close" to 24fps. Don't count on sync lock; plan your shoot to use available means. I bought a Filmo off eBay for $25 a few weeks back, and after cleaning & lubrication it runs just fine. If you're new to film, a cheap spring-wound camera is a great learning tool and a heckuva lot more affordable than an Arri or Aaton.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Thanks for the input.I think its safest if i only invest a few hundred bucks to see if its something i want to explore.If i really take to it i can maybe invest in a motor or better cam. Im also exploring the super-duper 8 being discussed in the 8mm forum since we shoot a lot of video in widecreen. But i think most of the 8mm stuff to me that ive seen looks kinda bad unless you want that look.

[Allen Achterberg]

why not just rent a camera?

[eric.quao]

Hello,

 

Good day to all of you (well whoever reads this). I am going to be shooting my first movie. My question is, would it be cheaper to shoot 16mm or shoot mini dv and then have it transferred to film. The film is in black and white. I'm just the shooter (cinematograhpy / DP debute). I need to know as much information as possible. I would greatly appreciate your help. Any and all types of resources (books, websites, magazines, or contacts) is what I'm asking for. Thanks

 

1. How much stock I would for a 1/2 hour film? Whether it's 100 or 400 feet.

 

2. What is the best 16mm camera to rent?

 

3. Is shooting 16 different than mini dv? If so, how do I learn about shooting with 16mm? From cleaning and lubricating, to loading the magazines, to shooting, and reading time codes.

 

 

You can tell I'm an amatuer from the dumb questions.

[Tom Ballard]

Hello,

 

Good day to all of you (well whoever reads this).  I am going to be shooting my first movie.  My question is, would it be cheaper to shoot 16mm or shoot mini dv and then have it transferred to film.  The film is in black and white.  I'm just the shooter (cinematograhpy / DP debute).  I need to know as much information as possible.  I would greatly appreciate your help.  Any and all types of resources (books, websites, magazines, or contacts) is what I'm asking for.  Thanks

 

1.  How much stock I would for a 1/2 hour film?  Whether it's 100 or 400 feet.

 

2.  What is the best 16mm camera to rent?

 

3.  Is shooting 16 different than mini dv?  If so, how do I learn about shooting with 16mm?  From cleaning and lubricating, to loading the magazines, to shooting, and reading time codes.

You can tell I'm an amatuer from the dumb questions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's nothing wrong with being a novice. www.kodak.com is a good place to start. This board is a good source of information as is http://8mm.filmshooting.com/

 

In 16mm, 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps. Considering this is your first film, to be safe, figure a 12:1 shooting ratio. That means you'll have to shoot 36 minutes to get 3. Anything better than that ratio is a bonus.

 

A seasoned cinematographer will spend $10k-$12k for filmstock, processing and transfer for a 90 minute feature. Generally, around $0.70 per foot is a good number to use as a rule of thumb for budgeting. 30 minutes (10*108) = 1080 x 12:1 shooting ratio = 12,960 feet @ $0.70 per foot = $9,072

 

16mm- 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps.

 

Opinions on the best camera to rent will bring various responses. I have a couple of older Scoopics and a CP-16R converted to Super 16, so I haven't rented in some time. Probably an Aaton or an Arri, though, with a crystal sync motor.

 

Shooting any gauge of film is different than shooting any video format. With film, the latitude is greater, meaning it's more forgiving in that regard. With video, it's considerably less expensive to shoot, so it's more forgiving on your wallet. What you decide to do depends upon what you can afford and just how dedicated you are to learning about film. If I were starting over, I'd do just what I did- start with an old Super 8, learn about film and lightmeters and as much else as I could, then go on to 16mm & 35mm. Or, you could start with 16mm and make short films. I don't think I'd recommend shooting a 30 minute film for starters, considering the cost involved. But, that's just how my wallet sees it.

 

Good luck.

[Guest jeremy edge]

When i get the camera ,my plan was to shoot with one reel.Doing test shots of different lighting situations ..indoor, outdoor. Before we do anything serious.

Just to get an idea.

[Guest jeremy edge]

why not just rent a camera?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because with the price of renting a camera and being a novice with film ...i could own my own. Lets just say I rented a 16mm for one week at $900 .We'd need a few days to shoot the video and where i am at noone is really close so i might as well do a week. For that much money I could buy my own..learn mastery of using the cam one reel at a time until were ready to shoot.And i can use it as much as I want and all i pay for is film and conversion.

[eric.quao]

There's nothing wrong with being a novice. www.kodak.com is a good place to start. This board is a good source of information as is http://8mm.filmshooting.com/

 

In 16mm, 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps. Considering this is your first film, to be safe, figure a 12:1 shooting ratio. That means you'll have to shoot 36 minutes to get 3. Anything better than that ratio is a bonus.

 

A seasoned cinematographer will spend $10k-$12k for filmstock, processing and transfer for a 90 minute feature. Generally, around $0.70 per foot is a good number to use as a rule of thumb for budgeting. 30 minutes (10*108) = 1080 x 12:1 shooting ratio = 12,960 feet @ $0.70 per foot = $9,072

 

16mm- 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps.

 

Opinions on the best camera to rent will bring various responses. I have a couple of older Scoopics and a CP-16R converted to Super 16, so I haven't rented in some time. Probably an Aaton or an Arri, though, with a crystal sync motor.

 

Shooting any gauge of film is different than shooting any video format. With film, the latitude is greater, meaning it's more forgiving in that regard. With video, it's considerably less expensive to shoot, so it's more forgiving on your wallet. What you decide to do depends upon what you can afford and just how dedicated you are to learning about film. If I were starting over, I'd do just what I did- start with an old Super 8, learn about film and lightmeters and as much else as I could, then go on to 16mm & 35mm. Or, you could start with 16mm and make short films. I don't think I'd recommend shooting a 30 minute film for starters, considering the cost involved. But, that's just how my wallet sees it.

 

Good luck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[eric.quao]

Mr. Ballard,

 

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm glad that there are knowledgable people within this community. Where are you from? I'll make make sure to relay the message to the director. Once again, thank you.

 

I have another question. How can find out the cost of transferring mini dv to film for just a 1/2 hour film. The number you gave to me in your reply was 90 minutes. This conversation has opened my eyes. I have final cut XP. Would I be able to use the filters in XP make the dv look like film? Or could I just rent the DVX-100A (which shoots 24p) to save money?

[Tom Ballard]

Mr. Ballard,

 

Thanks for the prompt reply.  I'm glad that there are knowledgable people within this community.  Where are you from?  I'll make make sure to relay the message to the director.  Once again, thank you. 

 

I have another question.  How can find out the cost of transferring mini dv to film for just a 1/2 hour film.  The number you gave to me in your reply was 90 minutes.  This conversation has opened my eyes.  I have final cut XP.  Would I be able to use the filters in XP make the dv look like film?  Or could I just rent the DVX-100A (which shoots 24p) to save money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The cost to transfer video to film is nearly, if not as expensive as originating on film. Costs range from $250-$500US per minute, depending upon whether you're transferring to 16mm or 35mm. There are times when that method makes sense, but more often than not, it makes better sense to shoot film than transfer video to film. If you're certain that your production's destination is film and no circumstances exist that would require it be shot on video, then I'd recommend finding someone to shoot it for you on film.

 

This is strictly my opinion, but I've never seen video that looked like film. I realize that's the selling point for the prosumer cams like the DVX100A and the XL2, as it was for their predecessors, but it still looks like video to me. You can use the cine-gamma effect, add grain, a gaussian blur and 24p certainly helps, but if you plan to blow it up to 35mm, don't expect it to look like it was shot in 35mm. It won't. I've seen 28 Days and November and a number of other movies shot with the low-end Pannys and Canons then transferred to 35mm for projection and they all looked like video.

 

If your intent is to go direct to video, shoot film if you can afford it, video if you can't. If you're going theatrical, shoot film. If you want the inexpensive way out, shoot video, but remember- you only get what you pay for.

 

Go to google and do a search for "film to video transfer" or "telecine". That's the best place to begin learning. Then talk to the people at the transfer houses. The Kodak people are friendly as well, but they're not going to spend the necessary time to educate you in the film arena. Educate yourself. Learn about costs, terminology, theory and most importantly, practical applications of a camera. Buy one. Learn its capabilities and its limitations. Consider what you expect of the camera and test it- see if it's capable of doing what you need it to do. If it is, do it.

 

Good luck in your adventure.

[Guest jeremy edge]

Whats a good camera that can be upgraded to super 16?

Is the K3 and the bolex h16 the only ones in my budget?($300-$900)

Is there a user friendly camera like the canon scoopic that is able to be converted super 16? Any successful scoopics done in super 16?

If so where I can I check around for mods?

[Annie Wengenroth]

Bolexes can be converted to Super 16 more easily than say, an Arri S/SB. (Ha ha, I should know) They are also easier to load, smaller, and lighter, which you might find helpful since it seems you're just starting out with film. I've never shot on a K3 but until pretty recently I owned a Bolex and shot quite a bit on it. For what they are, (easy to use, compact, no battery to deal with) they can serve you well. But you might want something bigger or better for your purposes, so I don't know.

 

I should also tell you that having your own film camera can be a lot of work and maintenance. I wasn't prepared for this with the Bolex and didn't realize how much things like humidity and heat can affect cameras, nor did I understand why they overhaul cameras and make them "new" again. I guess I figured if it runs, it runs. (If it ain't broke don't fix it) Well, now I know better, and I can say firsthand that even if you find a great package on ebay for under a grand, be prepared to put some money into it as far as keeping it clean and running smoothly.

 

There's nothing wrong with this if that's how you want to do it; I myself am totally okay with this, but it is a bit of a shock to suddenly see your $600 camera package turn into a $2000 one. On the plus side, if you do get it cleaned professionally and get every single thing in perfect working order, the package will be worth that much more. There also doesn't seem to be much of a set price range for Bolex packages and things like that. I've seen them range from 300 to 3000, so it's not like anything you get will depreciate in value. Hope this helps.

[Guest jeremy edge]

I just got a Bolex h16 (post war model with the viewfinder facing down)

It needs a crank....other than that appears to be in good shape...we'll see...

 

Can you recommend anyone who does good work on bolex that wont charge an arm and a leg? I would like to have the camera serviced(im betting) and if I like it the super 16 upgrade is a must.

I found one place that will do the conversion for $695

 

Is that a good price?

 

I got this for 80 dollars but i am well aware that this project could well exceed $1000 quickly but still a good bargain seeing the price on some "super 16 packages"

[Annie Wengenroth]

80 bucks, huh? Not bad!

 

It looks like Du-All Cameras have a pretty good rate as far as fixing Bolexes. You might also want to consider Visual Products. Chambless Cine Equipment is good but their prices tend to be higher, in my experience, although they do specialize in Bolexes so at any rate they might be able to give you some good advice. They helped me out a lot.

 

If you would like a 75mm lens I have 2 left over from my Bolex package. Somehow these lenses didn't make it onto ebay with the rest of it (and somehow I ended up with more than one 75mm lens, go figure!). I also have 2 sets of filters and I believe I do have a winding crank lying around somewhere. So please let me know off-forum if you would like any of these things and we can work something out. (Either Private Message or email is fine)

 

$695 seems reasonable to me for a super-16 conversion... I don't know, what does everyone else think?

 

Speaking of deals on camera equipment, I am pretty bummed because I just got sniped on an ebay auction for an Arriflex S eyepiece. It went for 150 bucks which is 100 cheaper than what Visual was selling. It was the periscope kind that can swing up or out, too. :sigh:

 

Other questions: Which lenses do you have already, if any? You said the viewfinder faces down? ;) What's the serial number?

[Guest jeremy edge]

80 bucks, huh? Not bad!

 

It looks like Du-All Cameras have a pretty good rate as far as fixing Bolexes. You might also want to consider Visual Products. Chambless Cine Equipment is good but their prices tend to be higher, in my experience, although they do specialize in Bolexes so at any rate they might be able to give you some good advice. They helped me out a lot.

 

If you would like a 75mm lens I have 2 left over from my Bolex package. Somehow these lenses didn't make it onto ebay with the rest of it (and somehow I ended up with more than one 75mm lens, go figure!). I also have 2 sets of filters and I believe I do have a winding crank lying around somewhere. So please let me know off-forum if you would like any of these things and we can work something out. (Either Private Message or email is fine)

 

$695 seems reasonable to me for a super-16 conversion... I don't know, what does everyone else think?

 

Speaking of deals on camera equipment, I am pretty bummed because I just got sniped on an ebay auction for an Arriflex S eyepiece. It went for 150 bucks which is 100 cheaper than what Visual was selling. It was the periscope kind that can swing up or out, too. :sigh:

 

Other questions: Which lenses do you have already, if any? You said the viewfinder faces down?  ;)  What's the serial number?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i sent you a pm

i definetely could use a crank if you have one..

The other stuff maybe in a few weeks....

 

Here is the camera:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...me=STRK:MEWN:IT

 

or item # 3864948253

[Guest jeremy edge]

Looking closer at the pics...the viewfinder may simply be missing....I was just looking at the overhead shot and saw the lens at the top...assuming their was a missing eyepiece....but it may actually need a viewfinder....

 

I dont know much about these...im not sure which model it is..I tried looking at some pics online but the differences are so close...

[eric.quao]

The cost to transfer video to film is nearly, if not as expensive as originating on film. Costs range from $250-$500US per minute, depending upon whether you're transferring to 16mm or 35mm. There are times when that method makes sense, but more often than not, it makes better sense to shoot film than transfer video to film. If you're certain that your production's destination is film and no circumstances exist that would require it be shot on video, then I'd recommend finding someone to shoot it for you on film.

 

This is strictly my opinion, but I've never seen video that looked like film. I realize that's the selling point for the prosumer cams like the DVX100A and the XL2, as it was for their predecessors, but it still looks like video to me. You can use the cine-gamma effect, add grain, a gaussian blur and 24p certainly helps, but if you plan to blow it up to 35mm, don't expect it to look like it was shot in 35mm. It won't. I've seen 28 Days and November and a number of other movies shot with the low-end Pannys and Canons then transferred to 35mm for projection and they all looked like video.

 

If your intent is to go direct to video, shoot film if you can afford it, video if you can't. If you're going theatrical, shoot film. If you want the inexpensive way out, shoot video, but remember- you only get what you pay for.

 

Go to google and do a search for "film to video transfer" or "telecine". That's the best place to begin learning. Then talk to the people at the transfer houses. The Kodak people are friendly as well, but they're not going to spend the necessary time to educate you in the film arena. Educate yourself. Learn about costs, terminology, theory and most importantly, practical applications of a camera. Buy one. Learn its capabilities and its limitations. Consider what you expect of the camera and test it- see if it's capable of doing what you need it to do. If it is, do it.

 

Good luck in your adventure.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Ballard,

 

Thanks for the advise. I would like to know are the necessary tools I would need as a cimetographer shooting a black and white film. I think we are going to shoot it in DV and go from there. Thanks

[Guest jeremy edge]

"I've also considered looking into getting the video transfer done at a higher res...like 800x600 or 1024x768 .that way i at least dont lose pixel resolution?"

 

meaning if I shot in 4:3 I could just crop......

[Guest jeremy edge]

Has anyone ever heard of doing a "ghetto " super 16 conversion on an older bolex h16...

What im speaking of is doing like some do the K3.....widening the gate,finding a lens that covers and leaving everything else the same?

 

I dont need a wide variety of lenses and guestimating the viewfinder doesnt scare me.I just dont know if i want to spend the $ just yet to make this camera super16...seeing as it is an older non-reflex model...i dont know if it would even be worth it?

 

I've also considered looking into getting the video transfer done at a higher res...like 800x600 or 1024x768 .that way i at least dont lose pixel resolution?