Javier Calderon

Thanks, Will. Yes. I am indeed approaching things from a video perspective, as I've never worked w/film before. Your suggestion of renting a camera and testing stocks is a darn good one, and one that I kind've plan on going with. If I decide to work w/film, I know that I won't be able to afford much more than an ACL II. That will most likely be the camera used. Since I don't plan on renting a camera for production - i.e. I'd rather OWN the camera and continue to work on my skills even when not in production - I think the ACL II seems to offer the best camera for the price. Tell me Will (or anyone reading this) how stupid, crazy, UNtenable, etc. the following idea sounds. Be gentle w/me, again, as I admit my filmatic ignorance here: Shoot 16. Get footage back in digibeta format. Ingest into Final Cut Pro Edit . . . Put it on a DVD. The end. Um . . . what am I missing? I'm sure a lot, but . . .

Thank you for the response, Adrian. You actually bring up what I think is an interesting point: "If the film calls for a "videoish" look, go HD. For a film look go film." This statement is a testament to the fact that nowadays, and with the popularity of video and video productions, films that either have "video-esque" looks to them or are entirely such are not completely disregarded or looked down upon. In other words, if the medium is making an artistic statement based on its use (i.e. a film with a big budget using video for a "documentary footage" look), then it can be effective. It seems this was not always the case. I'd say it's good that it is now, however. I think fictional, dramatic, narrative work, however, seems to call more for film . . . no?

"Film is dead" blah blah . . . I keep hearing that from people . . . The battle rages on . . . but - and I don't care what anyone says - the HD projects I've seen, from low end productions to top of the line, Apocalypto/Once Upon A Time In Mexico budgets . . . well . . . still look like video . . . Awesome, very clean, very nice video to be sure . . . but I can still tell they're NOT film. Okay . . . So I'm not here to rant (believe it or not) . . . I'm here to throw in a few ideas that have been jiggling around in my mind for a while and see if anyone can offer some much needed help, advice, perspective, etc . . . I'm finishing up post on a DV feature that I helmed. I've been considering the pros and cons of shooting the next feature on video or film . . . It seems that serious, yet very budget minded, productions are, at this point, no longer going to be shot on DV (correct? Does it seem like this is a fair assessment? Someone please let me know if they think or feel that the DV medium has NOT been left behind and is still a viable one at this point for indie feature film making. Heck I'd TOTALLY shoot my next film on DV if my assessment is incorrect. It's cheap comparitively speaking). So if one is serious, but on a budget . . . then . . . HD is one definite option . . . NOT HDV . . . HD. But what's out there? When it comes down to it and one does the cost analysis of doing a film on HD - HVX200 at around $4K, or the Sony PMW-EX1 for $7K as WELL as the computer, P2 cards, storage, etc that it takes to handle HD media - the final costs show up at around the $20K-40K range at the LOWEST. Now then one has to ask themselves: What could the same price get me for a 16mm film production? It seems that for around that price, you can get a decent ACL II (around $2-4K) AND you wouldn't need to get the crazy HD setup that you would have to in order to do post on the Panasonic or the Sony footage. You can edit in SD so you wouldn't need as hefty a computer. Two quick obvious pros of shooting w/HD are that 1) you have immediate visual access to the footage you just shot. Also, provided you have the disk space, 2) you can shoot take after take a-la Kubrik w/o incurring any extra costs (besides, that is, the extra time in post that it'll take to organize and choose between all those takes!). Those two HD pros seem to be, conversely, two obvious film cons, namely 1) you DON'T really know what you're getting out of what you're shooting during production. You have to wait for film developement first; which brings me to the second film con. 2) On a budget, you have a limited number of takes, because each frame of film is money being spent. However, the obvious pro of film is, well . . . it looks how it looks . . . and although HD is definitely making leaps and bounds . . . it's still not there yet . . . It's not there yet . . . and yet in order to presently gear up an HD production . . . it seems you're going to end up spending about as much (if not more) as you would on a 16mm production. It seems w/a video (HD) production, you're gaining in convenience, what you're losing in the "look". Am I on the right track here, people? Again, help me out, and let me know if there are significant variables that I'm not addressing one way or the other that can effect the price of the film or HD prod here . . . In the end, it's seeming to me that, if I'm going to end up HAVING to spend about $20-40K minimum to get an HD feature up and running . . . and that same amount of money could possibly allow me to do a 16mm production (granted w/very different considerations like 1) a much more limited number of takes, and 2) not being able to know if my day's shots are good or not until AFTER telecine) . . . then . . . it almost seems like a no brainer (to me anyway) . . . shoot on 16 . . . right? Okay fine . . . it might be more difficult, etc . . . . but so what? . . . it's art . . . nothing good is (or even should be) easy . . . Anyway . . . Any thoughts on all this garble would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much, Javier Calderon

Thank you for the info Tim. Here's another question (anyone else please chime in as well). I've since looked at your Arri site, and have been looking at some of the threads on here regarding Arris, etc . . . There's the 16S . . . There's the 16bl . . . There are the SR series . . . and these are but a few of the various arris out there right? Okay . . . So . . . I had been under the impression that Arris are generally more expensive than the Eclair ACL2 . . . That they were a better sync sound camera . . . but also much more expensive . . . and this is not necessarilly the case I see now . . . Obviously, as anyone here can at this point see, I am but a wee novice, and am starving for proper information. I'm trying to educate myself, by reading this site and doing google searches, but can only go so fast and have only been able to gleen so much. I was under the impression that the best sync sound camera for around $2K that I could get was an Eclair ACL2. The 16s is a bit noisier (as you mentioned, Tim), but I'm assuming there's an Arri that is LESS noisy than even an Eclair - yes? that would make an even better sync sound camera? I'm also assuming that whatever Arri this would be would fall quite out of my price range. All the same, I still would like to know . . . :) I know this message here is very, very scattered in terms of info on my part . . . and no super clear question is quite being asked . . . but . . . it 's almost like the reading that I've been doing is filling me with more questions than I even know how to formulate at this point. Anyone patient enough to supply any words of info here would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much, Javier Calderon

Thank you, Tim. That in itself if pretty helpful information to get me started. I shall look at the link you sent. Thanks again, Javier

Hello, all. Just did a search on here under "Arriflex S16", and then "Arri S16", and didn't really find as much as I hoped for, so I'm posting on here as well. I'm looking at getting a good sync sound 16 camera. My price range can't go much (if at all) over $2K. I was at first looking at Bolex, but, finding out that they are not suitable sync sound cameras, I continued searching and it seemed that the ACL2 was a good way to go. I still feel this, and have been looking out for good deals on ACL2s, feeling that any better sync sound cameras would be out of my price range. However, I just ran across an Arri S16 being sold for under $2K, and all the sudden I'm wondering what THIS camera's capabilities are - especially as a sync sound piece. Can anyone give me a brief bit of comparisons and/or advice on which one would be better for my purposes? i.e. an ACL2 at ~$2K or an Arri S16 for around the same price? Thank you very much all in advance for your responses, Javier Calderon

Okay. I've gotten through two pages on this thread . . . but it's quite a voluminous one, so I'm going to go ahead and post this information hoping that it hasn't already been covered by someone else: I found a site that, along with having what seems to be a pretty good amount of information on various types of film cameras, also has a section specifically on K3's, as well as some footage of a short they shot on one. This is for the main website: http://www.owyheesound.com/index.html This is their section on film cameras: http://www.owyheesound.com/owyheesound_ins...lm_cameras.html And at the bottom of this particular link, you'll find the section on K3s: http://www.owyheesound.com/owyheesound_ins...ogorsk_k-3.html as well as the short they shot using it: http://www.owyheesound.com/owyheesound_pro...he_trestle.html Now, this particular K3 they have apparently is one with the horrible registration that I've read (on here) some of them randomly come with. Also, the footage doesn't really look all that great . . . But I think it's good to look at because it gives you an idea of some of the not so good type of footage that this camera is also capable of (so as to try to improve on your own image capturing). Javier

So have I. I believe, however, that only PORTIONS of that film were shot on that camera - not the entire film itself. I may be wrong, but I think this was the case. Javier

Um . . . What about its db level, Sean? Is it a loud/noisy camera? I've been slowly but surely investigating what type of sync sound camera to get, and had been leaning toward an ACL2, as I keep reading about them being about the best sync sound camera in their price range - most everything else (Bolex, etc) being much too loud and fit more for MOS work, and the only cameras as good or better for sync sound being much more expensive. So does this Kinor really fare well enough as a sync sound piece? Thanks very much, Javier

Josh, I'm a little confused here. Could you help clear this up for me please? Here's a quote I ran across not too long ago posted by Mr. Matt Pacini: "Just a note of trivia: Blair Witch Project was shot on Hi-8 analog, not DV. I've seen in print, incorrectly listed as anything from DV to Super 8." So what was the film actually shot on? Anyone know difinitively? Am I missing something? Thank you everyone, Javier

What?? Oh my gosh . . . I can't believe that! :D I tell you what, to say that I'm still a novice/neophyte regarding my filmatic knowledge is, I believe, being very, very kind. All that being said, part of the reason why I am now soooo focused on film (particularly 16 at this point) is because, in doing a lot of R&D into what format to most cost effectively shoot my next feature on (still editing the present one), I at first happened upon, and was "sold" on Panasonic's high definition HVX 200. I read quite a bit on it, and the more I read, the more viable it seemed. And THEN, after all that reading (and, again, being sold on it) . . . I saw some image from it. Heck . . . it looked good . . . but it WASN'T FILM. It simply didn't look as "good" a some 16 footage that I'd seen (heck, should I say ALL 16 footage that I'd seen?). Plus, on top of all that, the camera itself, with a couple of (necessary) p2 cards, would end up running near the 10K range. So then I asked how much more expensive (than 10K that is) would it be to shoot a 16mm feature? Well . . . as Mitch and so many others on hear have already said, the costs are VERY comparable. There are, of course, trade offs; like, for example, the fact that, because I shot my last feature on DV, I was able to shoot like fourty five hours of footage and not kill myself budgetarilly. On a 16 prod, I'll have to cut my ratio down considerably . . . But then again, 1) image quality on 16 will be vastly improved, and 2) the more I'm learning about film making, the more I'm realizing that I would have enough coverage without having to shoot even half that much footage on a 16 production. Anyway, the point of all this long ramble is that with me, you're looking at someone who was SOLD on shooting on DV (and/or at least NOT film) because I'm so poor, etc, etc. I figured it'd be a considerable while before I "graduated" to shooting on this oh-so-intimidating (and "vastly expensive" medium). And it's actually been BECAUSE and not inspite of the budgetary constraints THAT I've veered toward film . . . And I'm happy I did . . . and very exited about the confirmation that I keep getting from the research I've been doing that this was MORE than the right choice to have made. Just my peso. Javier Calderon

I know that this is a super old post, so I'm probably off by about two plus years . . . but I JUST read (like literally a thread ago) that about the LAST thing you want to do is get film stock from ebay . . . Matter of fact . . . I'll just quote it: "Whatever you do, DO NOT BUY RAW STOCK ON EBAY. You can be lucky, but in most cases film on auction is more expensive than recans/short ends from a company that makes tests which will give you a certain safety. I have seen an ambitious short film project go down the drain because the director thought buying 35mm color neg on eBay was a great idea. Of course he blamed the lab for grainy, flat images with a greenish tinge, but he got silent when they informed him that this stock was at least 10 years old. And don't believe the claims that stock has been "refrigerated" or "kept cool most of the time" ! All your creative work ends up on that piece of plastic, so don't gamble on film stock!" Seems to make sense to me. Javier

Mr. Pytlak . . . you are like the link GURU. Thank you for the continued information dissemination. I've been reading the threads on this site from day one . . . and your links are very valuable. Javier Calderon

Okay. So are you guys saying that the CP-16R is a very good sound/sync camera? Is the camera a low noise camera? Is it better/as good/comparable to the Eclair ACL 2 in terms of sound/sync/noise output? Thank you

Christopher Nolan's (Batman Begins) first feature: Following. Great film, by the way.

Ahh . . . Thank you both, gentlemen. So, I guess it does creat a noticable difference in grain since, as mentioned, super 16 actually enlarges the frame so the percentage of enlargment, compared to standard 16 isn't as much - thereby keeping your film grain to a minimum. Okay, fair enough. But . . . what if one is shooting FOR grain? Like something that looks a bit "edgier" and "grittier"? Again, I admit to my present ignorance in film, so maybe there are much better manners to achieve this "edgier/grainer" look, but, if indeed that is what one is going for (as, it seems, some films, stylistically, don't seem to look all that bad if the "grainy" look is purposefully and artistically chosen), would one be horribly ill-advised at simply matting their standard 16 frame while shooting with a 35 projection in mind? While I am the first person in line to try to save money, and I admit that if I CAN get away with not having to spend an extra 1-2K for a super 16 conversion I woulnd't, please don't think that I'm simply inquiring about any of these things so as to just go the "cheap" route. One way or the other, I'm going to have to shell out what for me will be quite a bit of money on my first 16 package . . . I'm just weighing as many options as possible while keeping in mind some of the kinds of films I'm interested in presently working on/visualizing. Thank you! Javier Calderon

Thanks for the words/response. Yes, I've been slowly but surely going through the ACL link that E.P. Davee posted earlier. Between reading all these post and all the information on that site - as well as the fact that I still have to log in my full day of editing on the feature I'm working on - things are going a little bit slow. But that's okay. All this is a LOT of information, and I need to continue to be patient. Regarding your recommendation to NOT shoot a feature on an ACL, I fear my options are kind of limited here, as my funds are not of the most abundant sort. I guess the fact that various and sundry very low budget independent films were shot on, for example, bolexes, and 1) the bolex is not necessarilly any better than an ACL (many, it seems, would say even NOT as good as . . . ), and 2) a good enough portion of these film makers went on to have very good, working careers . . . well . . . inspires me to not allow myself to be too discouraged by the fact that I may not be able to rent (let alone buy) something like an Arri package. I consider myself still learning and am certainly on a "long term" (multi plus year) plan in terms of being able to eventually make the kind of living I want as a film maker. It's feedback like yours and everyone else's that helps give me ideas as to the best direction(s) to take, however. So thanks again. :) Oh . . . and needless to say . . . I won't be bidding on that ACL on Ebay.

Okay, so then I have a question (I'm very much a neophite, by the way, so bear w/my present ignorance, please). Hopefully this won't seem too off topic (although, perhaps, a little tangential). Reading this thread, it seems in part that being able to successfully project a standard 16 image on a bigscreen involves properly cropping the top and bottom of the frame (presumably during shooting to prevent unintentional cropping of desired image content). So here's the question: Can someone please explain to me what the major/significant advantage is of converting to super 16, when it seems that properly cropping your standard 16 frame before shooting allows you to project to 35 w/out major fuss? I mean, I would imagine that your image grain, clearness, etc would, indeed, be all the more compromised going standard 16-to-35 as opposed to super16-to-35 . . . but is it indeed THAT big of a difference between the quality of a super16 image-to-35 verses a standard16 image-to-35? I know I'm missing something, because this can't be the only reason that warrants spending a thousand plus dollars on an involved camera modification. Any responses able to shed some light on this would be much appreciated. Thank you, Javier

I would imagine that your package is probably a bit out of my price range, but I would definitely be more than willing to at least let you tell me about it/give me a price on it. :) Feel more than free to email me and give me the run down on it as well as send photos if you have any. Thanks.

Thank you much for the info Davee. Thank you also for responding/letting me know about the ACL on Ebay. As I write this, there's a French made ACL 2 that I'm presently looking at on Ebay as well. Also thanks for the link! I'll take a look at it . . . and will of course, be back on here I'm sure asking more questions. Javier

Okay, Dan. So size/compactness, and sound/quietness (if that's even a word). Fair enough regarding these ACL advantages over the NPR. Can you (or anyone?) let me know what the main differences are between the ACL 3 and, say, the "regular" ACL - i.e. with no number at the end? The Ebay seller seems to be selling an "ACL" - not an ACL 1, 2, or 3 . . . so I was wondering if it is a big mistake for someone to look at an ACL in the same light as the ACL 3 is looked at or to think they are the same (or even similar) models. Thanks!

Hmmm . . . So the NPR verses the ACL eh? I began reading on this 16mm forum a few days ago, and, like I said, started at the FIRST thread posted a few years ago . . . so I'm not super far along . . . but I found a few interesting blubrs touting the ACL (particularly the ACL 3) over the NPR - but nothing too definite as to the exact reason why. I'll see if I can find the post and link it to you. Are the NPRs considerably cheaper than the ACLs? Let me ask you, why are you yourself leaning more toward the NPR? Is there some feature that, for you, makes it more advantageous? Do tell. :) Thanks, Javier Oh . . . and ps. I've since emailed Guy. Should be hearing back from him soon enough, and will post any pertinent info on here.

Thank you very much for your response, Alex. You know it's funny that you should mention Mr. Bodart, because I was just communicating with him back and forth for a little while the other day. He was actually very, very helpful indeed, and I much appreciated the information he provided. As I was, at the time, mostly interested in Bolexes, we only spoke of that brand - but since you mentioned him as a pretty knowledgable source of other brands as well, I will definitely send him another email. Here's a concern, however. Knowledgable and helpful as Mr. Bodart was, do you think it would be super wise to consult one camera seller about whether the purchase of another camera from ANOTHER seller would be a good idea or not? I mean I would kind've prefer to simply see what the opinions of the knowledgable people on here are regarding that Ebay item - seeing as nobody on here's going to necessarilly loose any business by recommending the item - whereas Mr. Bodart (no disrespect meant at all toward him) might have a vested interest telling me how NOT a good idea it would be to consider the Ebay item and, instead, recommend me one of his own Eclairs. Just thoughts/considerations. Thank you very much again for your reponse, Alex, and I welcome and look forward to anyone/everyone elses. Javier

Hello all. I've recently began serious R&D regarding 16MMs. I'm presently finishing my first feature, and should be finished by the end of this year (crossing fingers). I am desirous of shooting my next film on super 16 for possible 35 screening. I was sold (I mean SOLD) on the Bolex . . . until I arrived at this site and began reading all the (very) helpful posts on here (I've started from the very first post and am working my way up . . . so it's taking a while). I need a good sound sync camera, and, much as I WANT(ed) to go w/a Bolex (EBM, for example), I'm learning that they are pretty loud . . . ACLs, on the other hand, are much quieter no? Okay. With this in mind, here's my question(s). 1) I saw this particular item on Ebay (I know there are risks buying on Ebay, but 1) I'm still looking in case I see a good, good deal, and 2) I'm, of course, on a serious budget): http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...Q%3AUS%3A1&rd=1 I asked the seller if it was French or British made, and they said French. It has two days left and so I was wondering if it seems like a good candidate for bidding. It seems good, but, then again, what do I know right? Also 2) It says it's an ACL . . . Is there a significant difference between the ACL, ACL 1, 2, and 3? Sorry for the long winded question, but I'm (again, very) excited about my learning more and more regarding film, and I want to continue to educate myself. Thank you everyone very much in advance, Javier Calderon