Josh Hill

Or for a little extra oomph to your image as a camerman, you could always buy one of the shoulder braces that are mentioned in another post in this forum.

Nope, The tapes I tried playing in it were originally shot in my XL1s. I know the camera didn't record because my friend tried to play back a tape in his Canon ZR1 (I think that's what it is) and there was nothing on it. When school is out I'm going to get an estimate on getting it serviced. Any ideas what it might be?

No, it's a Scoopic package. It comes with an XTR Prod, a full set of Zeiss S16 primes, matte box, rods, video assist, monitor, film, processing, telecine... Oh, and the Scoopic.

You can have a CP16R overhauled for a decent price at Visual Products (my choice) or Whitehouse AV. Some parts are being special made for the camera, but I've not heard of anyone having a problem getting parts for them (Eclairs aren't being made anymore, either). I have a CP16R and after an overhaul it is silent and runs smoothly.

I go to the University of Texas, so I can definitely say people worship him. Most of the film students, at least the undergrads, look at him like some type of God. (I'm not a film student, and personally think his un-collaborative style goes against many of the principles of filmmaking.) I think the funny thing is that I read an interview with him that says he could have never acheived the visual style he wanted for Sin City with film because film could not mimic the look of the original comic book, because black and white film comes out as gray. But if you look at something like Begotten, which was done with film and no digital processes, the look is much closer to the comic than any of what I have seen from Sin City. It exhibits a very two dimensional quality, as well as being composed of primarily black and white with few intermediate grays. Rodriguez is more interested in playing with toys, I think, than filmmaking. He built his own studio and bought his own cameras so he could do what he wanted, when he wanted, but in reality I think it's just about playing with technology for him. And I think the overall quality of his movies would be better if he would allow for collaboration. Instead of doing the directing, writing, art direction (I know he wasn't art director on Sin City, but he has been before), music, cinematography, editing and special effects all himself he could acheive a much greater level of detail and depth.

Also remember that the viewfinder is not dead on accurate with focusing or with exposure. There is a tendency to underexpose in my experience, so don't let it fool you. And keep full control of everything. Especially the gain and white balance. If you leave it set on auto you never know what it'll do in any given situation. If you're using the autofocus lens keep it on manual focus. When you need to focus hit the autofocus button to get you in the neighborhood and then fine tune it yourself.

I would go for just a good fluid head. It may be a little more expensive, but that geared head doesn't look to me like it's going to take the weight of a 16mm camera with full accessories and full load. I would be kind of skeptical about buying a geared head for under a grand.

Amen to the rehearsals, Matt. I think people can cut down on their shooting ratio dramatically if they would just embrace the rehearsals. I'm a theatre person, and so I have a definite appreciation of what rehearsals can do.

I would go with S16. I'm a big fan of the format anyway, and I think having some money for lights and a little more film to run through the camera outweighs the awesomeness of 35mm.

My suggestion would be to get a good Sync sound 16mm camera (Eclair or Cinema Products), both of which you could purchase for the cost of your DVX. This way you have the ability to play around at your leisure (with 400 foot mags, instead of being stuck with 100 foot mags), you'd be able to shoot for sound, and you could get some professional jobs with the cameras if you're going that route. If you're going to invest money into 16mm you might as well put it somewhere that you aren't pigeonholed by not being able to shoot longer lengths, or not being able to shoot sync sound (either because the camera isn't synced, or it sounds like a lawnmower). Eclairs, CP16s, or even older Aaton LTRs are some good "midranged" (to use the term from a video standpoint) 16mm cameras that can produce professional results, can be modified to be S16, or can be modified to accepted newer and better lens mounts (like the PL mount).

Why would you want to ADD scratches? Unless you're specifically trying to mimic old newsreel footage and the like, scratches are generally considered something to be avoided.

I don't know. I've shot less than 100 or so hours with my XL1s and when my "CLEAN HEADS" message appeared it hadn't shot any of the footage from earlier in that day. It finished out the day and now won't shoot or playback anything at all. Just my experience. I'm going to take my camera to get it serviced whenever school is out, and if it costs too much to service, I may very well either buy a new video camera or just shoot film.

I would go with the Scoopic. If you get a scoopic MS you can get an adaptor (albeit kind of expensive) to use 400ft mags on it. Plus it isn't hand wound like the K3 is.

Your math doesn't add up. If the set is 150 a day, at 3-for-7 that comes to 450 a week, times six is 2700 dollars. However, I assume you mean they are charging 150 day PER LENS which doesn't seem quite right either, and maybe you should think about renting somewhere else. My local rental company only charges 50 a day for their Zeiss 35mm primes, and that comes to 4500 dollars for your 3-for-7, six week shooting budget. Less than half of your "deal." If renting a set of lenses cost as much as buying a set of lenses, no one would ever rent. And by the way, your signature refers to something "raping" when you mean "rapping." Might want to fix that.

For that price though you could get a used Eclair or CP16R off of eBay. You might have to pay a little more for servicing for it, but then you'd have a quiet crystal sync camera.

Cut it down to 3:1 if you can. That'll cut down your film by about 12 minutes (a little over 400 feet). Shoot black and white if you can. Get recans/short ends. Process and transfer at MovieLab (GREAT prices and they're not too bad). That'll get it down under 1000, well under. Three hundred dollars will get you 1000 feet of processing at transfer at Movielab, if I remember their quote. You could easily shoot for under 1000.

But I think someone pointed out before, by spooling your own loads they are not as light tight as the factory loads so you have to be more careful about loading. I still think for me, though, I would use the money for an A-Minima to purchase an XTR or SR2. Then you wouldn't have to take the time to respool anything. In my opinion, the A-Minima is much more of a specialty, rental camera than something I would want to shoot with constantly.

Because Landon is young and idealistic. :D Buying sounds so much more prestigious than renting, I know I've bought a lot of my own equipment just so that I could have it if I need it. But when you're talking about lenses that cost thousands and thousands of dollars a piece .... renting, all the way.

5.9mm should do you fine. Watch Eddie Presley if you can, there are some good close up shots using a 5.9mm lens where Duane Whitaker's face fills most of the screen.

www.visualproducts.com But you will notice a good prime lens set from a reputable dealer (like Visual Products) is going to run you more in the neighborhood of 10 grand. The cooke prime set you were looking at was probably 2000 dollars for a single lens, not for the set. You can't even get a good 16 or S16mm prime set for under three or four grand (and that is a liberally low price). Renting the lenses would be far more your budget, I'm sure.

I've not had that problem with cameras, but I've had that problem with other devices that require motors (DVD/CD players, etc). The motor could have died, as in it has enough torque to start up but not enough to sustain running. Just a thought based on past experience with other stuff.

The biggest impact on what you shoot is the trouble with dealing with non-standard formats. Ultra-16 uses a widened 16mm gate, but there are fewer labs that want to deal with it, etc., than with standard formats. (Do a search for Super Duper 8 or Ultra 16 on the forums and I'm sure you'll find plenty of conversation/information about it.)

The 814 has a really sharp lens, but if I remember the ZM II has interchangable lenses. I have a Canon 814 Electronic that's being used on a couple of 35mm features right now for some S8 work, so the image quality/steadiness is apparently good enough. However, the camera itself has nothing to do with image quality. It's simply a box that you run film through. Unless you just NEED the extra features of the ZM II (or if you want to spend a couple of grand on the 6/7/8/9008 series) I wouldn't worry about it so much, the 814 lens should be sharp enough for whatever you need.

Are you finishing for film or for video?

A nice shady spot should be fine, but the darker the safer I would say.