Josh Hill

Actually ... all of those sound like extremely cheap effects. Don't pay a lot of money to do something like that when you can do it for a few dollars. Look at what Sam Raimi did with Evil Dead. Do some research on the effects and you'll find pretty cheap ways of doing them (believably). Go watch the making of Dawn of the Dead (new version) and many other horror movies with head shots. Most of them are done cheaply and simply. Just know that you're wasting your two grand if you pay for someone else's conversion. You get it for your one shoot, but they get to rent it / market it as a S16mm forever. There are also some questions I don't think anyone has asked. What kind of lens is on this CP16? It may not be worth it to convert it to Super 16 if he only has a lens that will cover from 50mm up or if there is going to be vignetting with any primes he has. There would be no point in shooting Super 16 if the lens doesn't cover it, and unless you get the lens mount changed you're not going to be able to rent any Super 16mm lenses for the CP16.

Even if you buy and overhaul a CP16 for 2000 dollars and shoot in regular 16, that is a much better deal than upgrading someone else's camera. You will also have the camera for your own reshoots, make your own schedule and not have to worry about having to have someone else there to operate it. My CP16R is extremely quiet, probably more so than you would expect. It is self-blimped. I'm actually shooting some more with it this weekend (hopefully), which is really the best reason to buy your own camera: you can shoot when you want.

I don't believe Derek Whitehouse ever OWNED Cinema Products, and Paul Hillman (who now works at Visual Products) was their badass CP16 guy. He did a great job for me on an overhaul and I recommend him immensely. If you're going to get the Super 16 conversion, get it there. There's really not a whole lot about the CP that you need to know, or at least that you can't learn from looking at the camera. The magazines load in a 99 formation an there is a threading diagram inside the camera (make sure the loop is formed just off of the bottom of the camera, otherwise the pulldown claw will tear sprockets). The camera is sync at 24 (or 30 if you have the adaptor gear) fps, but runs variable speed from 12 - 48 fps, so you're not doing any super slow motion with it. What is really going to matter is the lens on the front. I have the Ang. 10-150 and just got a roll of 7222 back. The lens was sharper than I had expected. I have to note that after working with video (XL1s) for so long, the latitude of film was really unexpected. There were details that I didn't think would be there, especially in the shadows. One thing you may want to think about, though, is whether or not you want to spend 2000 to convert someone else's camera rather than buy your own. I got my CP for 1400 with tripod, mags, etc and had it overhauled for 1200 at Visual Products and I now own my own CP16R. Check eBay, they've been going for less than 1000 dollars. As someone said in another post about the CP earlier this week, they aren't as pretty to look at or stylish as an Aaton or Arri, but they get the same job done and are reliable cameras when well maintained.

Vittorio Storaro (Apocalypse Now) created the "Univision" system which is 2:1 aspect ratio. I don't understand why 2.35 is impractical for a DVD release, since it is done all the time. Why can't you just go with 2.35? On what format are you shooting?

I had Paul Hillman at Visual Products overhaul my CP. He explained to me that he used to work at Whitehouse and is the reason they have the reputation they have with CPs. He also stuck with his estimate even though the work took a couple of more hours than he expected (which would have been a couple hundred more dollars). I will without a doubt recommend Visual Products. They were great to work with and charged less than Whitehouse estimated. Paul Hillman knows exactly what he is doing (and he has people who special make some various parts for the CP like some gears, etc. to his specifications). Also, I just shot my first footage with my CP and it was great. No smearing (butterfly shutter) or anything.

Are these wondrous tools available for the CP16R?

By transferring to 30fps I mean that I'm going to be transferring to NTSC video (if that was unclear). I would shoot 30fps if I can, but I don't have the adapter gears for the CP to make it shoot 30fps (nor would I want to open up my camera and start tinkering around with it if I did).

So I'm a little hazy on the whole film/sound thing. I'm coming up on my first 16mm sync sound project (CP16R and HHB PortraDAT) which will be telecined for editing (unlikely that we will make a film print, but that all depends on how the short turns out). Since the DAT is not timecode, we're going to be syncing the old fashioned way with a clapper slate (a little less old fashioned because we are going to sync our own sound on the computer). We will be shooting 24fps for transfer to 30fps. Are we going to need to adjust the audio speed in the computer? This is the issue that I'm confused with. I was under the impression that, since we are not using a timecode DAT, we will end up with the same number of second of film/video with the same number of seconds of audio and we simply have to sync the DAT to the clapper and we are good to go. What is the procedure for syncing telecined video and non-timecode audio on a computer? What adjustments have to be made? Thanks, Josh

Here's a book that would sell to all those kids who think they are the next Rodriguez: "How to Make an Independent Film on Ego Alone" Just a thought while we were on the topic of books. Hehe

Alessandro, Duel was released in 71, albeit it on television (it was still feature length), while Sugarland Express was released in 74. So technically, Duel was Spielbergs first feature (unless there's another that I'm unaware of), though it was made for television I would still count it. And I have to agree with the comment by John that Orson Welles should not be given credit for making "War of the Worlds" famous. He simply made it famous is a different medium. It was famous to begin with, as was Wells. The impact shouldn't be ignored when it comes to radio, but I also don't think I would put much stock in people who attempted to kill themselves because of a radio broadcast (regardless if it was setup to be a "news" report). It was a RADIO BROADCAST for Christ's sake. And they did break in occasionally and mention that it was a fictional show by the Mercury theatre (they really do break in and mention it). Orson Welles was a genius and a hack all at the same time, and I think that's pretty amazing. His own arrogance fueled his demise. He did brilliant things with the material, but the fact of the matter is HG Wells is one of the most famous sci-fi writers of all time, Orson took great material and contemporized it for his time, similarly to what Spielberg has done. Even the 1953 movie adaptation of War of the Worlds was successful in its own time. It's the material that is so great. Welles used literary history to make radio history, and that (I believe) is where his contribution should stop: with his original radio broadcast.

Michael, Primer fell apart because it does what so many movies about that subject don't do: fall apart. I think the fact that it falls apart and doesn't wrap itself up in a nice neat little package is great, and one of the best parts of the movie. And it ends on such a sinister note that you can almost see what is going to happen and it doesn't need to continue. Carruth does what no one else does with this sub-sub-genre and lets the strings unravel. He lets the concept of paradox seep in eventually and slowly until everything has been jolted apart at the seams. I think it was brilliant (JUST got through watching it). I'll probably watch it twice or three times more today. Later, Josh

Check Visual Products (visualproducts.com). That's probably the best bet for buying a Super16mm camera. Great service and reasonable prices. For 10k you'll probably still be working with an older camera (Aaton 54 or Arri SR-1) but perfectly reasonable for your needs. You could get a CP16R from visual products, Super16 and PL mount, for about 7k. That would leave some money for audio (a DAT or harddrive recorder) and to even shoot some film through it. As for high speed, I don't know what cameras go 64fps off the top of my head, but you may be looking at more than 10k for a Super16 camera that goes above 50fps. But don't quote me on that.

I've always heard that the 10-150 is the superior lens when compared to the 12-120.

Begotten is visually amazing. I can't sit through it though. Not after seeing it two or three times already. But I like showing it to people to freak them out.

I think color bars are definitely preferable to black lead ins.

Visual Products converts a CP16R for two grand, so I just saved someone 500 dollars right there. :-)

Or an alternate solution: Buy a cheaper Regular16 camera like a CP16R or an Eclair NPR or ACL. You can get one, sometimes, for under two grand. Put some work into it (Super 16 conversion, PL mount conversion) and have a totally useable super16mm camera for around 5 grand or so. I got my CP16R for 1400, and should have gone ahead and gotten the S16 conversion from Visual Products (I got it overhauled for 1200, and the Super16 conversion is only 2 grand, the only thing is I don't have an S16 lens and couldn't afford PL mount too). I'm not getting a lot of work, and to be honest, haven't actually had the money to shoot with my camera so it wasn't worth it. But if you're going to be shooting enough to justify it, a PL mounted S16 CP16R should look just as fine as a S16 SR1 or LTR7/54. Just something to think about. Later, Josh

Everyone remember this thread. Someone actually agreed with Landon. And it was David Mullen at that! :P

Thanks, that was truly a beautiful bit of writing. So now I have been acquainted with Chesterton. If you're looking over my journal you should feel free to throw up a comment here and again. It just lets me know that people are reading, and I keep it up so I can share with the world (I don't see the point in keeping a journal strictly for myself. writing is made to be read by others). I'm curious about your comment about Chesterton being a conservative writer, but do you think from my website I am a conservative person? Curious, because while I may be dashingly liberal in my great state of Texas, I'm quite moderate elsewhere and just like to know where I stand occasionally. Thanks again for the essay. It was really worth the read. And beautiful. Later, Josh

You may not, however, be able to use them in a standard Edison socket because often theatrical units often times use a three pronged plug or a twist lock. If this is the case you will either have to fashion adapters or buy them.

For a school project, if he is in America, he can actually use that because it is within the fair use copyright laws. I doubt that piece of footage is even copyrighted as it is, and is probably stock footage anyway. I would also be willing to be that I can't answer your question, but someone should be able to somewhere.

Get a monitor. Thinking about this post and my XL1s, I never seem to worried about if it is "exposed" properly, since it's not film and does not have the same light sensitivity. I simply fire up a monitor (or I just trust myself and look through the not-great XL1s viewfinder) and adjust settings/lights/etc. until it is the look I want. Get the look you want, or as close to it as possible, in camera before you start jacking around with it in post.

If you're transferring video to film I would be leary about possibly wasting money on filmstock and processing to shoot off a monitor. I would bite the bullet and take it somewhere like www.dvfilm.com and let them do the transfer (with only 35 seconds it shouldn't be THAT horrible). They'll also, I believe, do titles for you. They'll also transfer directly from quicktime.

There will be no change in quality.

Just ask, be honest, and have a good sense of humor about it. Most people, even the most conservative, have a good sense of humor about those things. Unless they are just abnormally sensitive to horror movies, I doubt they're going to care much. They'll probably laugh about it, or hang around while you're shooting and bug you about what all of your gagetry is.