Sandy Thomson

I'm getting close to buying an SR2 package including zoom. I noticed an old post (2004) from Mitch Gross saying you could buy an SR2 pkg for 12-15k. I've been looking and havent seen anything like that range advertised. I sure don't want to throw money away and would love to know where to go to get prices in this range. Anybody with a suggestion?

Well folks, I think this thread has probably about run it's course. I've learned a lot from the various posts and thank all for your contributions. There may be a certain amount of preaching to the chior here because this is not a video site, but the comments seem pretty objective, just the same. Now it's time to research the editing side at the same time as I'm inquiring into the market to see what the economics are on the selling side. Once I'm back in the business doing something I'll let you know how it's going. I think I'll have one or two corporate "captive" accounts to get me started but then I'm on my own. I started out thinking I had no choice but video and that film was anachronistic for the kind of work I'm planning. It now looks like s16 with good gear is going to work for me at least at the head end. It's going to feel like an old shoe!

Folks; Some great comments for experienced pros which I really appreciate. What a great vehicle! On the video side I was looking at the SDX 900 as my preferred camera after reviewing most options, so I see I'm not alone. If I go with Super 16, I believe my choice would be a new Aaton. If I could find a good used package I might wind up with a well matched lens/camera combination that's worked well together rather than building a package from scratch. But how can you know the condition of the gear? There does seem to be an abundant opinion that S16 with good lenses and the new film can meet my needs. After the primary medium choice, then comes the editing part which I also would want to do myself. It seems like what's makes the most sense is to produce a digitized copy of the original neg or a work print and then do everything on the desktop including all soundtracks. From there to the point of cutting for conforming, it seems like it's mostly a video editing operation. I'm a passive owner of a company which is in the business of internet delivered technical training. The basic medium is and has always been video for live action and I've watched these guys patch together a never ending range of camera and editing gear. Money's always been tight. Every year there's something new. They work in Betacam SP now. But it seems they can never remain state of the art for long. Anyway, what I want to avoid is getting all hooked up with S16 and then have to change to video in 2 years because film just can't keep up or demand for the former at the distribution or TV level forces the issue. I know an air to air still photographer who's shooting with an 11 mp Cannon and he says it's better than 120, but franky, I like the look of the film better. It may not be quite as sharp but there's a feel to it that to my eye is more pleasing. Will it always be that way? Or are we romantics trying to shovel sand against the tide? s

Please take out advertizements all over the internet with this important piece of knowlege. Yeah, it's expensive, it's not as easy to thread a magazine as it is to pop in a tape, there are other inconveniences like critical focus that we're all well aware of. But damn, I certainly spend less time lighting 35mm than any other format, even 16mm when you consider that you're almost always using a slower filmstock in 16. That is really a relief to me and the way I like to work. I have an interesting situation where I have a consumer DV camera running side by side with my 35mm footage (I use the video camera to get the reference sound for dubbing). Given the same lighting the DV totally looks way too contrasty, the 35mm looks just the way I want it to. To bring down that contrast I'd have to either fly in fill cards, or diffuse the source, and find JUST the right amount of diffusion so that I still have definable shadows, or play with both. That's like 2 to 3 times the work for a DV image. Granted the professional DV cameras have a better range and a better lens, but it's not THAT a big of a difference. - G.

Many thanks to Mitch, David and John for the very useful feedback. It helps me in the decision I'm leaning towards of shooting in Super 16 with the option to post thru HD when needed for T-V or other markets with this requirement. I have a basic love of mechanical things and the physical attraction of the film camera is meaningful. Changes in editing techniques that have evolved over the time I've been out of the business are intriguing, and it's clear there's a lot to learn. Just the concept of digitizing the workprint and then doing the editing by computer is a whole new process for me. Right now, I know I have to resist the urge to go shopping for gear, and spend time exporing the potential markets, talk to people in the business and make sure I know a whole lot more about it than I do now. Fortunately for me, the cost of entry is not an issue. But on the other hand, I don't want to waste my money buying something that I realize a year later was a mistake. Sandy

I've been out of the film business for a a long time. Used to shoot and produce 16mm corporate films. I'm planning to retire from my present job and would like to do historical mechanical stuff like the restoration of an old aircraft, railroad, ship topics etc. T-V or distribution to historical buffs. Have researched the DV options from pov of cameras and editing but I would prefer super 16 if there are advantages and a quality/economic argument to support. Was a member of CSC and did all camera work and editing at the time. loved the medium. Is there a future in film? (I mean the medium, not my capabilites). sandy