Scott Bullock

Okay, I think I've correctly added a signature . . . we shall see very soon! And yes, my last name really is "Bullock." That's with a "u" not an "o" and no, I am not the (relatively) famous VO guy with the same name. I also changed my occupation from DOP to "other" as my primary source of income doesn't come from being a cinematographer, even though I do get paid small sums for my services on occasion. My primary income comes from being a master control operator at a television origination facility. Anyway, because so many of the older members of the board have been so gracious with their time in responding to some of my questions, including David Mullen, I figured I'd go ahead and provide my full name instead of just my first. If that is the best way to get these knowledgeable people to respond to my posts, it's a very small price to pay, in my opinion.

Sounds to me like your footage will definitely be overexposed. However, especially considering the latitude of today's film stocks, that is better than it being underexposed; you can't pull an image from something that was never there to begin with. I'd definitely have the camera serviced as it sounds as though the camera's lubricant barely exists anymore. You could run the risk of the camera's mechanisms seizing altogether. Additionally, based solely on the information you've provided, I'd wager that the camera was running slower than 24fps. Therefore your film will most likely be overexposed and under-cranked; the latter being more difficult to deal with than the former.

David Mullen wrote: "If you're going to project a reversal original, I hope it's just a test or other footage that you don't mind getting scratched." Absolutely, I'm strictly talking test footage here. And thanks for the input and links regarding labs and modifications.

Thanks again. It's time for some testing. To that end, can anyone recommend a good way of projecting S16 so that I can see it in its natural aspect ratio having been shot on reversal film stock? Is it possible to obtain an S16 projector, whether by renting, buying, or modifying?

Personally speaking, I love the NPR. For most applications (not all), I'll go head to head with an Aaton XTR or Arri SR any day of the week. I've had one for nine years, have worked the heck out of it, and when I recently had it converted to Super 16 it only had 1 worn part that cost me less than $40 to replace including labor. Virtually every modification is available for it (or so it seems to me, anyway): a brighter ground glass, video assist, 15mm rods to accommodate follow focus and modern matte boxes, 16mm to S16 conversion, 15 speed motors (crystal at all speeds), CA-1 to Arri 'B' mount, PL hard fronts, etc. The best part about the NPR is that you could overhaul it, including repainting, have all of the aforementioned modifications made to it, and be working with essentially a brand new camera for a fraction of the cost of buying a worn SR3 or XTR. If you decide to do all of that though, be prepared to be without the use of your camera for a number of months; the wait is excruciating but I don't think you'll be disappointed. I know I wasn't. The NPR isn't without its limitations, however. You can essentially forget about super slow-motion, for example, and FPS "ramping," at least in my experience, is a nightmare if it's even possible at all. And let's not forget about that infernal, non-orientable Kinoptic viewfinder. If you can find an Angenieux viewfinder -- BUY IT! Cinema Products made a viewfinder for their cp-16s that was orientable as well, but not all of them will focus correctly on the NPR's ground glass, so test prior to buying if at all possible. Overall, and especially for personal use (as to opposed to 'for clients'), I've found the Eclair NPR to be a fantastic option to the more expensive packages. When looking at end results, I've never had anyone admonishingly say to me, "You shot that with an NPR instead of an ARRI, didn't you?" If my funds were unlimited would I rather own an NPR or an XTRprod? Of course I'd go with the Aaton, but if money wasn't a consideration I'd own a Arri 535, MOVIECAM, or BL IV first and foremost and then work outward from there. All in all, cameras and formats are, to some degree, a very subjective thing. Stan Brackhage, for example, spent his entire life as a filmmaker using a spring-wound Bolex and his work resides in the Museum of Modern Art. Not many of us will ever be able to say that. Speaking of the Museum of Modern Art, there's also a horror classic that resides there called THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE and guess what, it was shot using an Eclair NPR.

I appreciate all of the help that you guys have been offering. You've helped to clarify things that were a little hazy for me, underscored things that will become problematic, and have offered solutions to things that are of concern. For that, I extend my thanks to each of you. Have any of you ever seen footage that was shot on S16 using 35mm still primes and then blown-up to 35mm? I'd love to hear any and all experiences, especially with regard to end results: I mean, it might be a real bear to get those images in the can, but at the end of the day are you satisfied with the results given the limitations of these lenses?

Yes, of course you are right, and such testing is inevitable it seems. I'm hoping someone out there who's actually shot S16 with 35mm still lenses will give me their opinion/s, which is obviously much cheaper than shooting film. However, I imagine that there's really no way of getting around doing actual film tests. And yes, I'll definitely report my findings on this board once they're completed. I'm also going to take the lenses to my local rental house and have them projected; at least that will give me a decent idea of what to expect. In the meantime, however, can someone tell me -- I hope this question doesn't sound too stupid -- if depth-of-field charts exist for S16 and where I can find them? My version of the ASC manual doesn't have them, but I'm not sure if the newest edition does or not. Also, if a 50mm lens in 35mm format has approximately the same angle-of-view as a 25mm lens does in 16mm format, what focal length would I need to use to get the same (approximate) AoV in S16? Is there some simple correlation that exists as there does between 35mm and 16mm (i.e., dividing a 35mm focal length in half roughly equals the focal length needed to acquire the same AoV in 16mm)? Thanks again, folks.

Thanks for the response, Mitch. You've given me some things to take into consideration. You wrote: "In ease of use, these lenses will be harder to focus as their markings are near useless, and if you want to use any filters then you will quickly discover that the front housings are all different sizes." Yeah, the markings are virtually useless. However, what if one were to do critical focusing for everything, even pulls, the old school way by placing one strip of tape around the barrel for a reference mark and another around the focusing ring? Say, for example, a couple of pulls were required for the shot; could one critically focus each mark and then feel confident that the lens would be correctly focused once the focus ring is returned to that mark? I'm not as worried about using filters for the lenses because my NPR has been fitted with 15mm rods thereby allowing the use of a matte box. "For mismatching, these lenses will not match in color, contrast, sharpness, chromatic aberration and a host of other lens characteristics." Very good points, indeed. I figure that these problems would be especially apparent when switching between the Canon lenses and the Nikon ones. However, most of the lenses I have are Nikkor AI-S manual focus lenses, which, if I'm not mistaken, use exactly the same lens coatings. Therefore, am I incorrect in assuming that the color and contrast would be relatively the same among all the Nikon focal lengths? As for sharpness and chromatic aberration, I've always assumed that one would run into these same problems even if using more expensive primes. Of course, I could be wrong, as I'm relatively new to the world of prime lens cinematography; most of my experience has been with zoom lenses in the regular 16mm and video worlds. Photographing with S16 is pretty new to me and I'm still trying to learn its particular nuances. "I think that a 14mm can be doable as a wide lens but it is limiting." Yeah, that sounds about right to me. I really do want something wider but here are my major obstacles: I can't seem to find a comprehensive list of C-mount, wide-angle primes that will cover S16. I know they exist, I just don't know what they are. As for using the Arri-B mount on my NPR (yep, had that modified as well), I know that there are many fantastic quality optics out there, but I feel like I'll have BIG mismatching problems if I try to cut footage shot with an Optar Illumina 9.5mm, for example, and that shot with a Nikkor 24mm. I don't know this to be true as I've yet to shoot anything with the Nikkors, but that's what I anticipate happening. I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is whether or not I'm wasting my time by shooting with 35mm SLR lenses when I can always rent lenses at my local motion picture rental house. The only reason I wanted to use them in the first place is because a) I already own them, B) know that they'll cover S16, and c) felt that they might be an affordable alternative not only for myself, but for certain clients as well. I mean, if somebody comes to me wanting to shoot a down and dirty horror movie but has limited funds and is willing to give the SLR lenses a shot, as it were, is everyone involved going to be disappointed in the image quality if the film happens to land a distribution deal? The last thing I'd want to hear someone say, including myself, is "If only you'd used Zeiss Super Speeds instead . . ." I definitely appreciate any and all input on these issues as I have some serious decision making to do with regard to what kind of glass to put into my own personal kit; keeping in mind that I'm basically trying to develop a S16 setup geared toward filmmakers who are on an ultra-low budget but still want to shoot film. So, to that end, I really need to find out if 35mm still lenses are a viable option or if I'm going to have to suck it up and fork over the 5 to 10K to buy a good S16 zoom lens and/or set of primes. I do own an Angenieux 15 - 150 lens, but my gut instincts tell me I'd be more pleased with Nikkor and Canon primes despite their (understandably) difficult use in motion picture work. Again, I thank everyone who is willing to offer their advice and opinions. I promise that everything offered will be carefully considered.

First of all, I'm a newbie here so please go soft on me for now. Secondly, this is a wonderful discussion that applies to me so when I saw it in cyberspace I just had to join in. (I'm sure I'll be posting in many other topics as well, but I need to surf the other topics a little more thoroughly first so as not to be repetitive.) Finally, I can't believe it took me so long to find this site . . . I must have the web surfing skills of a tortoise! As to the discussion at hand, I have a little bit of knowledge on the subject but am still seeking plenty more. To wit, I have an Eclair NPR that was converted to S16 and I just acquired a C-mount to Nikon adapter and also a C to Canon FD adapter, as well. I did this mainly because the adapters are cheap as dirt and I already own a good assortment of Nikkor and Canon 35mm still lenses -- all primes, ranging from 14mm to 135mm. In fact, I think I have every common focal length between the two. I've yet to do any real testing with this set-up, but I was hoping to get some feedback on what to expect if/or when I attempt to blowup my images to 35mm. I don't expect to get the same results that I would if using Optar Illuminas or Zeiss Super Speeds, but am I going to be completely horrified and have to run out of the screening room in order to puke, or otherwise hugely disappointed? (Certainly these 35mm still primes have to be better than using an Angenieux 15 - 150mm, don't they?) Or, will the results be acceptable should such a need arise on a particular project? I already understand the limitations of trying to use such lenses for wide-angle work (because there is a decided lack of "wide-angle" 35mm still lenses out there), but what about the slower speeds (f/2.8, 3.5, 4) of these lenses? Am I going to have to shoot all my interior night stuff wide-open with 500 ASA film? Speaking of wide-angle lenses, is the angle-of-view on a 14mm or 17mm lens going to be adequate enough for most applications in the S16 format, especially for interiors, or am I constantly going to be looking for something wider? If so, what opinions are there regarding - gasp - the uses of "quality" wide-angle adapters to increase AoV? (I do see that digital SLR lenses are becoming increasingly wider, but I have very little familiarity with them in terms of quality.) Okay, that is a lot of questions, so I will stop for now even though I have many more, like the best way of calculating depth-of-field when shooting S16 and using 35mm still lenses: Are there charts available? Or will I have to critically focus every shot? Any and all responses are greatly appreciated. Sorry for such a longwinded initial post . . . :unsure: