Jump to content

Good God- 16mm Camera value plummets in the last year...


Kirk Anderson

Recommended Posts

 

I saw a super 16mm CP16R on Craigslist listed for $300 to $200 then down to $100. Still hasn't sold, but the guy has bundled it with another CP16 and is trying to get $300 for BOTH OF THEM.

 

In may I saw a Eclair NPR full package ready to shoot sit on CL for weeks at $600.

 

 

which craigslist was this?

I've yet to see a 16mm camera on craigslist, and all ebay auctions I watched, even damaged cameras in need of repair are hitting $1000

 

why would someone NOT want a CP16 at that price? That's a great deal. okay, not good for the seller, but a buyer who needs a camera for a budget film-or even a film school wanting a cheap camera, those would be perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Site Sponsor

It is quite difficult, requiring extremely good crew and equipment, to make 16mm look as good, technically speaking, as many of the currently-available and very cheap HD cameras.

 

 

Sorry Phil but you are crazy 16mm is easy to make look good, much easier than a 900r or a 5D or a color-cam.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an Arri SR with a 10 to 100 zoom, two mags, batts and charger go for under 3 G. I was almost tempted to keep looking around for another deal like that and I asked myself, "why?" I couldn't justify an affirmative answer. As many years as I shot 16mm, I'm not even sure it's worth being nostalgic about it anymore.

I've collected a few test shots from back in the day that I might use as a sort of template to shoot for if I need to emulate a specific look but simple arithmetic tells the story of why it's gone the way it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The colorists I work with say that when digital is shot correctly (and this is harder to do than with film) and you have raw files to start from (Red), it can look every bit as good as 35mm. There's just less information to work with when there's a problem or you want to go off the reservation color wise.

 

Of course something straight from digital is going to look bad compared to film where it almost always undergoes color correction as part of the process. Plus low budget digital production can't afford to use a good colorist.

 

The writing on the wall is that many of the high end telecine/DI houses have seen 50% or more of their work go digital and 75% of the DI work becoming Red and even 5D.

 

Of course film isn't dead, but it will certainly be less and less important.

 

Less important is the correct term, sir. I can tell the difference, you can tell the difference and most folks on this forum can tell the difference and if you take the time to point it out to someone who isn't a cinematographer, they will see the difference too. Yet these differences are mattering less and less in the real world. The bottom line is what it all boils down to and if those subtle differences can translate into ticket sales at the box office or video rental sales, then you can make a case for continuing shooting film,especially 16mm. One of the last commercial shoots I was on, someone commented on how nice it would be to have shot the spot on film. The producer/ director said, "Yeah, all the artsy types want to shoot film, but no one offers to pay for the stock or lab expenses." As much as I would love to shoot film again, I wouldn't take a cut in my rates to cover the stock and lab costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Less important is the correct term, sir. I can tell the difference, you can tell the difference and most folks on this forum can tell the difference and if you take the time to point it out to someone who isn't a cinematographer, they will see the difference too.

 

For now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conditions are perfect, parative dollar, cheap super 16 gear and a film lab that owes me a (massive) favour...

 

It looks like it's time to go on a 16mm splurge...

 

I've noticed that super 16 cameras, that is the ones already converted aren't making as much of a nose dive in prices. I still see converted Eclairs still going from anywhere from 5 to 10 K. Aaton A Minimas, XTR;s and Arri SR 3's are still holding their 5 figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What does that mean?

 

Is someone going to come out with a 500T film stock with a 4K res. for 16 sometime soon that you aren't telling us about?

I'm saying that digital is getting better and even now it's getting harder to tell the difference between well shot and lit 35mm and well shot and lit Red One as long as both are color corrected by someone with experience in both formats. There are always exceptions of course, especially when you are dealing with less than optimal lighting.

 

I just saw some amazing footage in grading stage for a popular network show where some was 35 and some was Red One and when the colorist was done I couldn't tell you what was what. So while we can point out differences (especially with 16mm) between film and digital, it will get harder to do so as the technology provides more information to the colorist.

 

I love film now because on the high-end it's much easier to get to a better look and on the lower-end, smaller gauges have their own unique look and feel that is much more pleasing than middle-of-the-road video.

 

This probably worthy of a new topic, sorry if I'm bringing the discussion more off track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This was originally about 16.

 

I stand by my opinion that it is difficult to get the best out of. To get the best out of a 5D, you need a 5D, a battery, a lens, and a flash card. With this you can fairly reliably shoot very nearly broadcastable pictures, notwithstanding all the things that are wrong with Canon video DSLR pictures, which you can cut on your macbook.

 

To do the same thing on 16 you first have to run the gauntlet of the world's 16mm equipment suppliers, who have everything from Aaton XTRs and SR3s to an SR1 that's been converted to super-16 with a hacksaw and file, which rattles when you pan, rattles when you tilt, rattles when you turn it on, rattles when you turn it upside down, rattles when you walk past it and cough, and doesn't show you all of the picture at once in the dim, blurry viewfinder. To get hold of something that won't explode into a fascinating collection of piece parts at the first sign of trouble is, as mentioned previously on this thread, still an extremely expensive proposition. The only consolation is that there can be something horribly wrong with your equipment but you won't know until a week after your shoot. No, wait, that's not a plus, is it.

 

Then you have to buy stock. There is no availability of 16mm short ends in London, so you might at least hope to get something reliable. In order to achieve the sort of prices per minute often mentioned on the internet, though, you will have to use short ends, which if you are very lucky will not have been stored on top of a radiator for ten years.

 

Then you'll have to get it processed and transferred. I've found this to be an exercise in high-priced disappointment at the best of times because it's at this point you find out that your material is soft, noisy, sorry grainy, flickery and unstable, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, nor is there any very practical way to avoid this happening again in the future. I've only shot a few thousand feet of 16, and the reason for that is that I didn't see a frame of it that wasn't just horribly disappointing.

 

The core problem with 16 is inherent to its nature. The budgetary zone in which you can afford to do 16 properly, but you can't afford to do 35, is so vanishingly narrow as to be effectively nonexistent. Outside this band the only reason to do 16 is because you have no money, so you will end up with crap equipment and, I'm afraid to say, crap results.

 

It is easier to get decent results on a DSLR, if only because there's really no such thing as a fifty year old DSLR with the paint flaking off.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

The core problem with 16 is inherent to its nature. The budgetary zone in which you can afford to do 16 properly, but you can't afford to do 35, is so vanishingly narrow as to be effectively nonexistent. Outside this band the only reason to do 16 is because you have no money, so you will end up with crap equipment and, I'm afraid to say, crap results.

 

It is easier to get decent results on a DSLR, if only because there's really no such thing as a fifty year old DSLR with the paint flaking off.

 

 

I assume this nonexistent band would include recent S16 features like The Hurt Locker and The Wrestler, which would have looked way better shot on a DSLR? :blink:

 

At least a 50 year old film camera will still work, and with a little servicing it can produce an image just as effectively as a modern camera can. In 50 years, of course, a DSLR will be worth less than the aluminium it could be melted down for. Oh wait, did I say 50 years? I meant 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOu beat me to the 5 year punch line, Dom.

 

 

There definitely are 5 year old DSLRs, literally with the paint flaking off, though it'll be at least a couple more years before this reaches into the HD realm.

 

I have to say that I am neutral on this. . . I don't think that S16 would look BETTER than an HDSLR, necessarily (unless it's '01, or the now defunct '12). The images would certainly be different. It's a weird situation where the digital camera has the advantage of shallower depth of field (I have even heard people say it is *better* than 35mm, though this might be full-frame chips only).

 

You said, Phil, that the HDSLR would shoot broadcast worthy footage. If you're referring to documentaries outside of a controlled environment, though, I'd say that BOTH are generally f*&%ed, unless you can dig up 1,000 foot magazines, because the limitation is, what 12 minutes with HDSLRs and <10 with S16.

 

 

 

I'd really say it's a tossup unless you are looking solely at cost. And then, of course, you don't have money to make much of anything anyway. . .

 

 

 

(Even if you're shooting "Clerks" style, what does it cost now to make a run-and-gun Indie length movie, doubling the cost for inflation and subtracting the film and telecine charges?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
with a little servicing it can produce an image just as effectively as a modern camera can

I think this is my whole point. I don't think it can. Even if this were true, it's not really the camera producing the image; it's and the stock and the telecine, all of which are hideously expensive, but ancient cameras are often a usability nightmare. I didn't shoot all that 16 slightly (and consistently) just barely soft for fun, I did it because the cameras weren't lined up right and you can't possibly know that when you take them off the shelf.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that digital is getting better and even now it's getting harder to tell the difference between well shot and lit 35mm and well shot and lit Red One as long as both are color corrected by someone with experience in both formats. There are always exceptions of course, especially when you are dealing with less than optimal lighting.

 

 

You realize that by quoting "Less important is the correct term sir," you sounded like you were saying the opposite? I guess, since we agree, I can't argue with you ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/size]

I think this is my whole point. I don't think it can. Even if this were true, it's not really the camera producing the image; it's and the stock and the telecine, all of which are hideously expensive, but ancient cameras are often a usability nightmare. I didn't shoot all that 16 slightly (and consistently) just barely soft for fun, I did it because the cameras weren't lined up right and you can't possibly know that when you take them off the shelf.

P

 

Why are "ancient" cameras a nightmare? They're heavier, certainly, but I've shot rock-steady images with cameras that saw Apollo launches.

 

 

You're right about the stock and telecine. Telecine (unfortunately) is probably the BIGGEST variable now, even more than ancient cameras. Second to that would be film stock. Why is it that they were shooting 16mm ECO reversal (forget what it was, ASA 10, 8?) for *16mm* prints back in the '60s, but are shooting 500T film now? I blame Kodak (not sure if Fuji is as guilty with their advertisements). How is a film that is SIX STOPS FASTER going to magically be able to do the same job, just because Kodak has been slapping "new and improved" on every box that has left their warehouses since 1902?

 

Super 16 produces perfectly good images, if cinematographers and film students aren't gullible and stick to 200T or slower unless they ABSOLUTELY NEED THE SPEED.

 

 

 

As for film being out of focus, I admit when I first started I didn't check flange focal distance, focus scales, the gate, and with the exception of that last one, I never got bit in the a$$ save for maybe occasional edge fog or tail fog with 8mm. The great thing about film is that a human being with some smarts and just a little bit of training can check almost EVERY VARIABLE in a film camera. Try doing surgery on a DSLR or any video system with the same amount of success.

 

The elegance of film is its simplicity once it is coated. You and the lab are entirely in control of the image. As for labs, you have to ask the right questions. Same as any field, some of them don't know what they are doing, don't care, want to rip you off, want to get you out as quickly as possible so they can suck up to their big customers. But if you know how the scanners, telecine's work, its up to you to ask them all the same questions you would be asking about an HD camera, since you are basically rephotographing your negative now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

Here is my take as someone who has shot more than half a million feet of 16mm for all sorts of projects from features to spots. Just about any 16mm camera you pick up will work with minimal amounts of maintenance and be sharp as long as you have some half way decent glass. I have found that any professional 16mm camera like an Arri or a Aaton will have to be in an extreme state of disrepair for them to not be able to make an acceptable and sharp image. The camera can be easily and inexpensively checked by shooting a test chart on B&W reversal and projecting the result.

 

I shot a medical spot on a set of 5D's about two weeks ago and did not really find them to make much more than a acceptable image for the small screen. As far as Focus went the 5D is difficult to impossible to accurately focus if it has not been converted to PL and you are using real Cine glass. We used a HD monitor fed from the temperamental hdmi output and the zacuto loupe which is a joke, not the loupe but the worthless lcd screen which is basically SD and tells you nothing about critical focus at all.

 

Scanners are getting faster and cheaper as with all digital tech and the cost of motion picture scanning is ans will be coming down in the future.

 

Finally the real proof is in the pudding and films like Hurt Locker etc. which look great even on a very big screen with just a basic 2K scan and grade for filmout certainly beat the dslr's and other digital cameras for PQ when the game you are playing is a serious one. Dynamic range, real resolution and color fidelity means allot to me plus the fact that the 16mm film you shoot today will still be there and viable in 10, 20 , 50 years.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize that by quoting "Less important is the correct term sir," you sounded like you were saying the opposite? I guess, since we agree, I can't argue with you ;)

Thanks for the correction. Have you noticed what I have, though in the prices of super 16 cameras not dropping nearly as sharply? I saw an Arri SR go for under 4 G. So let's say you want to convert it to super 16, what are you talking for conversion along with the mags? I still see super 16 Aatons and Arri SR's holding at 8 to 12 G and up. Somebody still thinks 16mm is worth something. For now anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I shot a medical spot on a set of 5D's about two weeks ago and did not really find them to make much more than a acceptable image for the small screen. As far as Focus went the 5D is difficult to impossible to accurately focus if it has not been converted to PL and you are using real Cine glass. We used a HD monitor fed from the temperamental hdmi output and the zacuto loupe which is a joke, not the loupe but the worthless lcd screen which is basically SD and tells you nothing about critical focus at all.

I'd also assume that as a colorist you must really hate trying to "fix" 5D footage since there's nothing there to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

I'd also assume that as a colorist you must really hate trying to "fix" 5D footage since there's nothing there to work with.

 

 

Thankfully all of my duties as a Colorist are coloring Film not video so I am spoiled. When we shot the 5D spot I tried to get as much of the look in camera as possible but I don't know what the agency is going to do with it after. They said they were going to "color correct" it and I mentioned the possibility of doing a final pass in Resolve but they declined for "budgetary" reasons. I have tried doing some h264 to Pro-Res conversions and doing coloring in Resolve and there is certainly not much room to push it around in grading.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

With any luck we'll fairly soon get access to something like a 5D with unadulterated recording of the whole sensor, which should put us all in a reasonably nice place as far as gradeability goes. I still mourn Dalsa, which was absolutely superb from this perspective. I'm no champion of a 5D other than that it has, as I've said a million times, subjectively (if not objectively) nice pictures.

 

What it certainly does have is a far greater usability than the sort of rattly old 16mm cameras most people actually end up using.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread.

 

I think part of the reason here might be that 16mm doesn't hold the appeal price-wise over 35mm that it used to. 16mm short-ends are hard to find these days but 35mm short-ends are still available in abundance.

 

And when you finish to HDCAM or some sort DI everything ends up costing exactly the same after the stock/processing. Add to that 3 and 2-perf 35 and it just starts looking like there is little cost difference.

 

That's not to say you shouldent shoot 16mm if you want that look, but if your ambition is to shoot film instead of digital, it's barely a leap at all to go from 16 to 35.

 

I think that is the mentality for a lot of people these days, if they jump to film they jump directly to 35, not 16.

 

Maybe that is why 16mm production has lost it's appeal and therefor so has the price people are willing to pay for the equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it certainly does have is a far greater usability than the sort of rattly old 16mm cameras most people actually end up using.

 

I would totally disagree here. In general I find digital cameras to have much less 'usability' than film cameras. And DSLRs are far less useable than most digital cameras. I mean you are talking about something that was designed for still photography. It's like using a hacksaw to bang it a nail: it's simply not the right tool for the job, and yes it might get it done in the end but it's going to take a lot more work and drive you nuts in the mean time.

 

I will take the oldest, rattliest 16mm camera over a DSLR any day. It's simple to use, it creates a better end result and most importantly is a tool designed from the beginning for filmmaking, not still photography.

 

 

 

It is quite difficult, requiring extremely good crew and equipment, to make 16mm look as good

 

Phil - have you ever actually shot with a 16mm camera, or any kind of FILM camera? It sounds to me like you have a lot of experience shooting DSLRs and maybe they have had more 'usability' for you compared to other digital cameras, but I have never heard anyone who has actually shot with both DSLR and film say that before.

 

Saying that 16mm is 'quite difficult' is a ridiculous statement. You are talking about a format that has been used by amateurs, indie filmmakers, and pros alike for decades upon decades. I'm bewildered when people act like film is so 'difficult'. People have been making movies with film for a century. It's not that difficult at all. Some people act like indie filmmaking was impossible before DSLRs were invented. And how long ago was that? A few years ago? People have been making low-budget indie films a lot longer than that, and doing a pretty darn good job of it.

 

As for requiring and extremely good crew - you need a good crew to make your film look good period. The DSLR is not going to make your film look good on it's own. You need talented people operating this equipment no matter if it's film or digital. 16mm is not a special case in that regard.

 

So I suggest you go shoot something on 16mm just once. And see how "difficult" it really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't shoot all that 16 slightly (and consistently) just barely soft for fun, I did it because the cameras weren't lined up right and you can't possibly know that when you take them off the shelf.

 

Camera test. ANY camera can have some problem you don't know about when you take it off the shelf. That's why people do camera tests. People do camera tests even with DSLRs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...