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.

I actually went and read the entire 10 pages of posts that got Stephen banned and I have to say: my appreciation or interest in RED products have gone down considerably. It seems more like a cult of personality than an objective forum; people slamming all none-believers left and right. In ten pages I saw no REAL criticism or questions answered, but only bile being slung at the one person (Stephen) who had what appeared to be legitimate questions. For me, a product like that is not worth using because it does not have to evolve at all; its fanbase will support it as long as possible because adherents will ignore the flaws, or point out the flaws in other systems rather than logically thinking through what they are doing. What they seem to have is a square peg, a bunch of round holes, and an overzealous hammer-hand. It reminds me of Mac-heads (I own a Mac and an iPod for your information, before the insults start). They are so blinded by their product and their leader they cannot even COMPREHEND how someone got there first or how something else out there is equal. Many of them literally believe that the iPhone is the first touch screen phone, or that the hardware of a Mac is somehow inherently different from the hardware of a PC. They buy the products out of blindness and Apple capitalizes on that; just like RED is doing with its users. Many of us have fallen into this trap before, but usually for brief periods of time -- my love for the XL1s made me blind to the DVX100 and I held onto that camera for my life until I couldn't justify my love for it any longer. But the difference is, there's not someone out there being the FACE of the XL1s, there's not someone out there that people TRUST, and that's the problem with RED (and Apple, for that matter). There's a face to it; you look at that person and you say: "They wouldn't lie to me! They don't want my money, they want to change the world!" Stephen's comments were no harsher than half the comments on posts here; the difference is that this is an open forum where the differences in ideas are (usually) celebrated. The Red forums are insular and biased; no good can ever come of that. But what I don't understand is how can users trust RED to begin with? The product my produce good results, but the management seems intent on obfuscating the facts. Release dates are overlooked; broad, game changing promises become minor improvements; and it's not being presented as a tool but a solution -- and those two things are not the same.

Hey Jeff, To be honest about your reel: I felt like it was too flashy. I couldn't keep up with anything that was going on and I couldn't tell the difference between what you had actually edited and what you had done specifically for the reel. I clearly looks like you know what you're doing but it would be nice if I could see that within a context other than just a reel. That being said, I notice from your website that you're currently living in New York; curious if you're interested in doing some editing work on a feature that myself and another Cinematography.com frequenter (Olivier Koos) will be shooting in March (he's even flying over from Luxembourg for the no-pay shoot). We're running on basically a no-budget budget, and I certainly don't have the horsepower to edit RED (oh yes, we're shooting on a RED cam) at the very moment, so if you'd love to do a little collaboration with some other guys from the forums we'd be glad to have you. Send me a PM or an e-mail if you're at all interested. All the best, Josh

I didn't think the A-Minima loads would work because they are A-Wind. Will send you an e-mail, though, about the mags; I may have a lead on a 400' mag for sale, just waiting on an e-mail back. If a-minima loads will work that may just be the answer to all of my problems without having to buy new mags anyway.

Michael, It's a music video shoot, over two weekends in Texas. I don't really have much of a choice as nowhere I have called has ACL 400' magazines in, and my CP16 is just too heavy for the job (not to mention my batteries are dead and it would be a big hit to buy two or three batteries for one shoot). I would spool 400' loads down to 200' loads, but I am just not equipped to do it as I live in a New York apartment and there is no way I can make any room a dark room. I'm not worried about the loading of mags as the ACL is coax and it takes all of a couple of minutes to load the mag. Snap it on the camera and I'm ready to shoot. Actors grumble anyway, so I wouldn't concern myself with that either way. With luck I'll have a small crew, which means I can have someone loading/unloading mags to cut down on time. Part of the reason I bought an ACL though was because I like the thought of constrained film, of making a film on one 100' (or 200' if I can get recans, but those are seemingly a little hard to come by as far as I can tell) roll. Thanks for the thoughts, though.

I'm curious, as my search for an ACL 400' magazine seems to be fruitless at the moment, how labs feel about significant projects run entirely on 100' mags. I'm looking at shooting 3600 feet of film and it is now looking like, unless I can get something spooled down to 200 ft loads for my 200 ft magazines, I'm going to be shooting the entirety on the project (much to my chagrin) on 100 ft daylight loads. Am I likely to incur a penalty of some sort, or just frustrated grumbles from the lab techs? Also, IS there a way -- short of doing it myself -- to spool 400ft loads down to 200ft loads without significant cost? Best, Josh

Hey Harrison, Nice to see a reel from a fellow UT graduate (I was in the theatre department). I'm going to be in Texas (Waco) shooting two music videos on Ultra16 in February / march if you'd be interested in DPing. Very low budget, not sure what the pay would be. PM or e-mail me if you wanna talk about it: liontamarin@gmail.com All the best with life and career, Josh

I have to say it, because I know somebody will, but: The whole idea about technology moving so fast: invest in film. It's been around for a hundred years and it is still going strong. (And then you can have whatever resolution your heart desires.) :D

He was saying that UNLESS you have a client that is willing to subsidize the cost of your shooting kit, you had might as well rent for a low budget. Having read the posts here -- though I've been absent from the board for several years -- I have to agree with the advice you're getting. It's not that the 7D isn't a great camera, it's that you have a WANT that you want to fulfill, and that is a dangerous thing to have when you are looking at dropping several thousand dollars on a camera. It reminds me of my last teens early twenties (not too long ago, in fact) when I had my camera WANTS. So what did I do? I managed to get an XL1s -- the talk of the DV world when it came out -- only to find that by adopting a technology early (which is still what these SLRs with video are, an early product that is going to improve greatly) I completely skipped over better solutions, all because I wanted a removable lens (worthless since I didn't have the money to get the adaptors for better lenses). Then, when it came to me WANTING a 16mm camera I jumped on eBay and bought the cheapest sync sound camera I could find -- a CP16R -- only to find its limitations of weight and difficulty to thread made it a burden that I only used a couple of times (I've recently purchased an Eclair ACL for a shoot because of the weight issue with the CP16R). If *I* were going to buy an HD camera, I would go with an HVX200, honestly. It's a rugged little machine that has been on the market for a while, has tapeless recording, and people LOVE it. Of course, it is out of your price range if you only want to spend $2000. But for a few thousand dollars more you are going to have a far better VIDEO camera than the 7D. That's the other thing, video is added onto these DSLRs; it is not their main focus, it is a bonus, but people suddenly feel as though this is what they were made for. It is not; they are made for photography, and while there may be some photojournalists who would actually use and desire this video mode on the camera, it's still a camera being marketed to still photographers. But since it's the NEW thing, everyone wants to be the one shooting on it. Save your money; wait a while. Find a camera rental house and learn about the process of renting equipment -- if you are looking at being a filmmaker of any stripe this is something you're going to need to be comfortable with and the process can often be intimidating if you're not used to it. But a good piece of advice, always, is don't be on the bleeding edge. You cannot foresee the problems and downsides of something so new. And PS: I officially hate Canon in terms of the proprietary nature of their cameras/lenses. Even if you DID buy the 7D, take it from me who has owned a Canon video camera and a professional Canon still camera, you will hate yourself for buying a camera that requires Canon autofocus lenses or else costly adapters to make other lenses work. Went I went to a DSLR I went Nikon because I knew there were 50 years of lenses that were compatible with the mount. -Josh

So I've been struggling with whether I should use some of this spare cash (and by spare, I mean a tuition deposit I'm getting back after my fellowship) to buy a digital SLR but instead I opted to get a lens or two for my Canon SLR and take some shots with good ole film (to be scanned and printed later, no prints). But I'm in a new city (New York City) and don't really know where quality developing comes in. Since I'm going to be using C-41 film, for the most part (maybe some slide film and definitely a little black and white), I'd like to find a lab that has a little bit better quality control than your average Duane Reade. Does anyone have any suggestions on a good lab (that would do professional quality prints if I happen to take something worth printing) on Manhattan? Also, what film would you recommend for 35mm (and to a lesser extent 120)? I prefer a high saturation, high contrast film but any recommendations would be great. And if anyone has experience with the EF mount lenses for Canon EOS cameras some suggestions there would be great as well. Hope to hear back from y'all. The City is exciting, especially with the prospect of having some motion picture labs less than a thousand miles away (as was the case when I was in Texas), so I'll probably be doing some 16mm in the near future. For now, I'm just looking to capture some of the city on still film.

I'll concur with the CP16R comment. Someone said you would be out of luck if any camera in your price range were to break -- but they neglect to mention two wonderful service centers for the CP in America (Visual Products and Whitehouse AV). The people there are honest and reliable and can have your camera up and running (from nearly any condition) into a perfect machine in no time. CPs, like the BL, are tanks. They're going to be (probably) older than you are, and they do have their problems (which are easily eliminated and some of them you can fix yourself with only some parts ordered from one of the above mentioned places). You can also get a hard-front PL mount on your CP, a video tap (if it has the tap door on top), and a S16 conversion. I've shot with mine and the images produced were better than expected, even with the Angenieux 10-150 lens (which wasn't as crappy as people made it out to be, completely watchable and interesting). Definitely get the CP16R and not the A, though, as the A has a dogleg viewfinder (non-reflecx) which will completely destroy your chances of getting new lenses. The R is a reflex camera and you can put any lens on the camera that will fit the mount (or the replacement mount if you get one).