Josh Hill

I'm looking to sell one or both of my 16mm film cameras or trade one of them for a Super 8 camera -- preferably a Canon 1014 XL-S, a Nizo 801 Macro or Nizo Pro, or any Beaulieu 6008 or later. I also have some 16mm film stock (about 3600') to throw in with one of the cameras as an incentive. I just don't have the money to buy/process 16mm film, but would like to play with super 8 more. CP16R 3 400' Magazines Battery (may need recelling) Charger 12-120 Angenieux lens Overhauled in 2004 by Visual Products, only had 400 feet of film run through it since. Asking $500 plus shipping or equal trade Eclair ACL 1.5 - Ultra 16mm Converted / overhauled by Bernie O'Doherty in February 2010. Zeiss 10-100mm T3 lens 1 400' English magazine pistol grip 2 on board batteries Pelican case Asking $1500 plus shipping or equal trade Pictures upon request. You can reach me by e-mail at liontamarin@gmail.com

Only used once or twice, but was overhauled by Visual Products in 2005. Needs a little lubrication, but otherwise runs fine. The battery needs to be recelled -- I tested the camera a week or so ago and the camera only held thirty seconds or so of charge. I'm selling because I 1) Purchased an Eclair ACL for a project a few weeks ago and 2) I live in New York City, so I need the space that the CP16R and it's travel cases are taking up. Kit comes with: 1 - Cinema Products CP16R Camera 1 - Angenieux 12-120mm lens -- the glass is clean, no chips or fungus 1 - Travel case for CP16R (the styrofoam inside is not in good condition and will require a little bit of maintenance) 3 - 400' Magazines, with good movement, all work smoothly 1 - Travel case for 3 400' Magazines 1 - Travel case for Miscellaneous storage full of practice film, cans, odds and ends For the kit I'm asking $800 OBO. The three travel cases with equipment will be $150 shipping (actual cost). I have no place to store the camera come March and would like to get rid of it to someone who will use it (I have no been able to). Please send e-mails to liontamarin@gmail.com, as it is the most efficient way to reach me to submit an offer. I will sell to the first acceptable offer that comes in. Also, there are no pictures of the camera as it is currently in a storage room underneath a lot of my roommate's stuff. If they move out before I have an offer I'll do my best to post pictures.

It seems to me that a lot of people are assuming Panavision doesn't have a price scale that is infinitely negotiable, and that any negotiation under the suggested rental price would be a loss. In my LIMITED (mind you) experience with Panavision Dallas, they are great about making deals for filmmakers who are working outside of the big budget system. As someone has mentioned, many times before, the cameras that Panavision owns are PAID FOR; their rental cost is never a loss, no matter if they give it to you at 100% of the price nor 50% of the price. Every rental company, large or small, runs on the principle that the cameras pay for themselves quickly and everything else is, basically, profit. The acolytes of digital continually scream about how it is going to kill film, and have since I've been on the board and before. But how do they explain the fact that Panavision rents digital cameras -- a lot of them? (I believe that Panavision Dallas even rents out RED cameras, too). Panavision, if they wanted, could go out and buy the entire stock of new RED cameras, distribute them, and rent them. When we're talking about a 60 year old company, who has undergone multiple owners, we're talking about a company with 60 years worth of debt, worth of mistakes. When we say that digital is going to kill film, it's because Digital is new -- they haven't accrued their debt or anything else, but they will. It reminds me of American Gods (since I just finished reading the book); the old versus the new -- everyone wants to come out on top, but no one wants to believe that there can be no winners, that everyone can survive for a good long time. Digital will change, but film is still in the game because, like computer processors and everything else, digital has physical walls that they will eventually hit. The question is whether or not they will hit them before or after film is rendered a second tier format. Anywhere in the digital loop -- from cameras to RAM -- we could hit a physical wall that might prevent the giant leaps and bounds we are seeing now. Look at processors now, for instance: a focus on multithreading rather than single core speed. We're at a 3ghz wall right now, and while we might get past that in six months or a year, it may not be practical nor a huge jump. What should be said about Panavision is that is is another one of those fine American companies that have been mismanaged somewhere along the way, that has bloated itself to support itself and now it finds out it was swallowing cement and not helium all those years. RED works because it is a billionaire's hobby; being the CEO of a company as your job is something very different -- you want to hold on to that job and that lifestyle at all costs.

After reading some of these posts I feel like I'm the only one who has a 6-hour workprint of Apocalypse Now anymore. It's on VHS, looks horrible from the generations of copying, and has timecode affixed. Got it on eBay when I first saw the movie probably 10 years ago when I was in my teens. To tell the truth, it's not as exciting as you would think -- no matter how big of a fan you are. It'll really show you what it means to trim the fat of a movie.

Yes, I've heard Panavision practically GIVES the Elaine away to anyone who wants to shoot on it. And few do.

I feel like this is one of the many "Apples to Oranges" situations that come up on the board constantly. I don't know what you're looking for, but usually some industrious young filmmaker thinks they have found the secret to shooting a major sync motion picture on the cheap by using a basically MOS camera which sell for (usually) cheaper than its sync counterpart. The Bolex was, for many years as I understand it, used for nature photography and the like (though I don't know how, from some of the Bolexes I've heard, it didn't manage to scare away the wildlife). But I don't think it was ever actually made for serious, narrative filmmaking (which generally, though not always, requires dialogue of some kind). Just taking a shot in the dark, but I think you're going to want to do dialogue before too long if you are serious enough to be looking at your own 16mm kit, and for that I'd suggest an Eclair. There's lots of them on eBay ( http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=eclair+16...t=0&bkBtn=1 ) and they are generally (though not always) cheaper than a lot of the Bolex auctions with the same options. Hell, the NPR from Visual Products may end up going for under 1000 dollars. My ACL -- I am biased, after all -- is quiet and light, though I haven't shot from it yet. What you do need to understand, though, and what many of us growing up (or having grown up on the cusp of) in a digital world forget to realize is that a film camera is just a box. The lenses and the film are what are going to make the biggest difference (though the prism viewfinder leeching light doesn't help). With the same lens and the same film, the images aren't going to be very different at all; it's everything else -- portability, sound, etc. -- that changes with each camera.

Hey guys, talked to Bernie about both of these issues (he's sending me a second core adapter -- if you need one you should give Bernie O'Doherty at Super16 Inc. a call). All the manuals/etc. that I've read about properly loading the magazine have suggested that the inching knob was necessary for the claw to grab the perf in the film. Bernie also gave me a work-around on that one by putting on an extra frame on the bottom of the loop. Thanks for all the advice though! A few hours after I posted this Bernie gave me a call and we joked about the whole thing. He's a great guy -- I wish I had a second Eclair to send to him.

So one postponed music video (music film?) shoot, after realizing my ACL only had one 400' core adapter, I also realize that my ACL is without inching knob. An eBay camera, I didn't realize there was no inching knob until after I bought it (and after I had it serviced). Since the inching knob seems a necessary step in loading the camera (making sure the claw engages a film perf), I'm wondering if anyone can think of an acceptable work around. I would think that running the camera initially at, say, 8fps would be enough to cause the perf to engage (since that's essentially what you're doing when you turn in the inching knob), but want to know what others think. Is this far less of an issue than I am thinking it is going to be?

So why come here and ask for a critique and then reject it immediately when you aren't told something you wanted to hear?

What kind of steadicam rig are you renting for $50 for two nights?

You have an Angenieux 12-120 in PL mount? I don't think I've ever seen one of those up for sale; just older mounts. Just for the record, though, you're going to pay several hundred dollars for the mount adapter (in my experience) which you could use to rent a better camera for the shoot, more than likely (like an XVX200 and go the HDV route). Also, though, the XL1 might fight you a bit with the mechanical adapter. I've always very much disliked Canon's super proprietary lens mounts, which is why when it came time to get a DSLR I voted for Nikon. In terms of shooting, I shot several (terrible) shorts with an XL1s years ago. I jumped on the XL1 bandwagon before there was a DVX100 bandwagon to jump on. I think the XL1 was the most light sensitive of all the prosumer DV cams that came out. It seemed like I was constantly using ND filters AND stopping it down. I never did figure out how to consistently get the contrast right, but that may be my complete ineptitude as a photographer. If you're shooting day exteriors, I don't know how you're going to keep the images from being completely blown out; I never figured it out and I had two ND filters on my lens whenever I was outside. I'd still vote for renting better equipment than investing in the adapter (any adapter, for that matter) -- even if you already own the XL1. I've seen my footage (inept as it may be) projected on a cinema screen next to (equally inept) footage from the DVX100 and there was a noticeable difference in just the basic quality of the image. Maybe simply because of the great (or at least better than Canon) lenses a lot of the fixed lens DV and HDV camera have. That's just my two cents, though.

I didn't see anyone else jump on this in the thread, but I can think of at least TWO labs off the top of my head in LA that processes 16mm: Cinelicious and Spectra, both of whom I was in contact with for a music video shoot (that starts this weekend) that I'm directing for processing AND telecine. Well, that's not entirely true, Cinelicious will send your film off to be processed elsewhere, but I consider it full service as it is a one stop shop for processing/telecine with a decent turn around. Oh, and there's Pro8mm in Burbank -- don't know if you want to count that one as "Los Angeles." And this is from someone who has only processed 16mm film ONCE, a few years ago when I ran it through my CP16R (I'm hoping to be having more processed now that I have an Eclair ACL which isn't going to be such a chore to work with).

Being a theater person primarily, I was fortunate enough to attend a workshop on how to do a completely black and white production (on a low budget no less). 1) Actors must mix their own makeup from strict black (shadow) and white (highlights). You CANNOT use any gray makeup as it is more than likely tinted some subtle color (blue or brown, etc.) that you don't notice until you're looking at a completely black and white stage. 2) The sets must be painted, again, with strict black and white. If you need a gray tone you MUST mix it yourself from pure black or pure white; gray paint is not truly gray -- only mixing pure black and pure white will give you no color. 3) You can't dim the lights. To achieve a specific color temperature the lights (tungsten lights are the standard in theatrical presentation) must be at 100% across the board to read as white, otherwise they will read as orange/yellow/etc. You'll be using Neutral Density gels to lessen the intensity of the lights to keep them from going all orange-y on you. 4) Clothes are the hard part and you're probably not going to achieve a pure black and white look unless you are tailoring and dying your own cloth. 5) The inside of the mouths of the actors are going to read STARTLINGLY red if you manage to do the rest of the production in strict black and white. There is some kind of dye that you could probably use to fix this (the inside of the mouths should read black, more than likely) but I don't know what it is -- it's the only problem the theatre who was giving the seminar didn't solve. Good luck; it's a difficult thing to do. There is a theatre in the United States that does it (or did it, they may be defunct) and they actually patented their method as a trade secret to prevent others from copying them. That's all I can remember from the seminar/workshop I took in this; hope it helps.

Adrian, While I know everyone is different, I'm going to give you the same advice I give my friends whose plans involve -- at the end of some indefinite time period -- a major relocation: If you want to move to the West Coast, forgo the job. While you may save money, accrue more equipment, etc., you are going to be setting yourself up for a very specific lifestyle. I don't know anyone (in my life at least) who has been able to walk away from that kind of money after living with it for a couple of years. It's why my friends who are teaching English in foreign countries, who were going to be there for one year "save a little" are all still there. But beyond that, if the West Coast is your ultimate goal, every year you spend away is another year you are not making the contacts and meeting the people you need to be. You may know a few people already, I don't know, but we could very well be talking about pushing your other major career goals -- as a cinematographer -- years BEYOND the two you'd be spending in the job. It's why the most successful person from my graduating class at Columbia (where I got my MFA in Playwriting) is a Native New Yorker: he already know so many people -- hundreds -- that he could just glide into writing. The rest of us, we're no where near where he is. I don't know what you want to do in the end -- action movies or documentaries or whatever you can get -- but if you REALLY want to do something worthwhile with some saved money, I'd say instead of relocating find a project that you love, with people that you love working with and that you believe in, and give it a real shot: SAG actors and all. Be more than an employee, if you can. But if you really want to move to the West Coast, go now. Because every year you don't will make it one year harder to move in the first place, until maybe a mid-life crisis. But those are just my two cents, if they even make sense.

Dug it; if I had cash, I'd hire you.