Matthew W. Phillips

I am trying to consider the same decision for a short (horror) film I plan to shoot next year. As for the 50 ASA difference, it depends on if you are shooting indoors primary or out.

For indoors, unless you have a powerful light kit, that 50 ASA will matter. Also, it depends on what kind of look you are going for. The Tri-X has a strong contrast and the Double-X is lower contrast. Obviously, you can correct a certain amount in post but you should go into it with this is mind.

It may be that your film can utilize both stocks depending on the moods and whatnot. 

In general, if you want the deepest blacks you can get, I would go with the Tri-X (and light accordingly). If you want a more dramatic feel, I would go with the Double-X.

Edit: I am probably going with the Tri-X since I believe the strong contrast will work more for horror.

I pulled the trigger on the U16 kit on eBay.

Thanks for everyone who helped out. I will be sure to post some camera tests once I get everything set up and done.

51 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

It was hand held. 

Nice! I was thinking "wow, this is either incredibly stable for hand held or surprisingly shaky for a tripod."

There is no way I could get footage that stable hand held. Amazing work.

6 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Good luck with your purchase and happy holidays to you and to your family.

Thank you! Happy Holidays to you as well, Giray.

6 hours ago, Doug Palmer said:

Not absolutely sure, but I would think so.  Most zoom lenses seem to cover ultra-16 fairly well.  You could always try projecting an image say of a window with it,  on to a card with dimensions drawn.

Thank you. I will give it a shot. For sure, I will do a camera test before shooting anything serious but was just curious if anyone here knew or had tried it.

6 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

It should cover it but on the wide end it may vignette a bit as 12-120 barely covers r16. 

I was worried about this. Granted, I can probably live without the most wide portion of this lens but hopefully not too much needs to be given up (or I might just shoot R16). I really like the look of the U16 package for the money though so I might take a chance.

6 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

Check out the link I posted up named Suffragette as it was shot on that lens at 2.8. It was scanned at 4k. Good luck with your purchase and happy holidays to you and to your family.

I watched the footage and I did not notice any vignette with that. Of course there were a couple of shots where my eyes would not good enough to make out because the sides looked a bit dark on my monitor. But the footage looked sharp.

Did you use a tripod for this or handheld? Just curious...

6 hours ago, Giray Izcan said:

15-150 version will cover for sure as it covers s16.

Sadly, I had to go with what was available and the 12-120 was the only one I found in CP mount.

I purchased an Angenieux 12-120 CP-Mount lens off of eBay just to have (in case I purchase this kit or another that doesnt have a lens). 

I have no experience with Ultra 16 so can anyone tell me if the 12-120 should cover the Ultra 16 without a vignette? Thanks for anyone who can help.

58 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You have not only questioned my skills/abilities on several occasions,, but also have done the same with others in the past. You have gotten snippy several times unprovoked (like tonight) and your name calling is disrespectful to a level of a middle school bully. You have taunted me now three times in the last month for simply answering your questions. 

All I've done is answer your questions. 
 

Maybe I am judging your tone wrong because on this side of things, you come off as incredibly arrogant and curt.

For example, I mention dailies:

Normal person: "Actually, those are not used so much these days"

You: "The days of dailies are behind us...Good luck delivering raw files to clients."

Also, I say "I am not sure of the quality of those scans (maybe someone can chime in?) but that is an amazing feat if they look on par with past scanning solutions."

Normal person: "Although the Blackmagic seems like a good deal, it does have some tradeoffs that make it not the best for professional work."

You: " it's really blown off as a toy due to..."

Me: "Mocking? I just assumed this is what you wanted to hear. I tried disagreeing with you and that doesn't work so why not just be super nice and flatter you? Still not right?

Not sure I know how to please you, Tyler."

You: "You can please me by not mocking me. "

You in other places: "You haven't even shot a real film on motion picture film, so how do you know?"

"Most industry professionals wouldn't waste their time with a group like this OR answer rudimentary questions. "

"Having your film on Netflix? Been there, done that. "A Cowgirls Story" that I co-produced, edited and graded was on Netflix."

"Having your film win film festivals? Trophies are on the wall. "

"How about working with stars? I've lit and lensed; Mark Hamill, Bill Duke, Tim Roth, Joe Dante, Wim Wenders, William Friedkin, Jennifer Beals, James Franco, to name a few. "

"I will never understand people who make feature films that nobody will ever see. Is it an exercise in futility? "

2 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Not with people like you, who constantly question validity of other members skills/abilities. 

I have never questioned your skills/abilities, Tyler. I question your attitude and yes, I will check you if you get snippy or disrespectful with me. Even calling you out on stuff is a way to show you that you are being rude/dismissive/talking down to me and you need to knock it off. If that means I have to try to ding your ego, so be it. 

I recognize that you are a professional at some level. But all the more reason to show patience, practice humility, not feel the need to exalt yourself every chance you get. Your work should speak for itself and you can teach and correct in a manner that is dignified to yourself and your craft. If I talked to my students at Uni. the way you talk to me on here, I wouldn't have a job very long. Students and non-professionals are going to make mistakes, say stupid shit, and generally learn by experience. You can't fall apart every time someone has an opinion or take that disagrees with you.

1 minute ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's not "bragging" when you simply give context to a comment. Otherwise, the comment has zero value. 

Tyler, truth isnt determined by the person saying it. It is determined by the message being said. You don't need to preface everything you say with "I worked on 5 features with this camera" or "I scanned ten million feet of Kodak film through this scanner". Simply speaking your peace is fine and respectable. I don't hear David Mullen list his filmography every time he answers a question. It is enough to let your yes be yes and your no be no.

What "value" a comment has is a decision between the sender and the receiver. No amount of posturing will change that. 

2 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You can please me by not mocking me. 

I just repeated the things you that always mention. If you think I am "mocking you" that is because you are myopic about how much you brag on here about yourself and your work.

1 minute ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Anyway, ya don't have to mock me for existing. 

Mocking? I just assumed this is what you wanted to hear. I tried disagreeing with you and that doesn't work so why not just be super nice and flatter you? Still not right?

Not sure I know how to please you, Tyler.

3 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The days of dailies are behind us, most people just run film off at high resolution and never go back to it again. Storage is so cheap these days and scanners like the Scan Station can create flat Pro Res 4444 files right from the scanner. So you never have to deal with the DPX nonsense or proprietary codecs like the Cintel. Oh yea... didn't mention that did I. It uses a proprietary codec that only works in Resolve. Quaint. Good luck delivering raw files to clients. ?

Maybe you should work for BMD, Tyler. You seem to have your golden finger on the pulse of all things industry related. I realize this would be a sacrifice for you because you are so busy shooting the next Academy eligible film while juggling multiple feature film edits/grades. I don't know how you do it all, Tyler. And you manage to do it all while still responding to every post on this site within 5 minutes. You truly are the archetype of all that we mere mortals could ascribe to become.

Godspeed, Tyler.

3 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So the term "Cintel" has been used for more than one machine. Back in the day, the Rank Cintel was the best machine. It used a CRT illumination system and the best they ever got was 1080p resolution, but boy did it look good. The problem is that the CRT's are now pretty impossible to get, so anyone with one of those machines, is going to convert it to Xena or one of the other guys who is removing the lamp source/imager and replacing them with modern components. 

The "Cintel II" is a Blackmagic product. I know it's confusing as they don't call it a "Cintel II" on their website, but suffice to say that's what the company calls it. So when you talk to people and they say "it was scanned on a Cintel" they are probably talking about the Rank machine, not the Blackmagic. I've made this mistake several times when talking to older people who have been in the industry a long time. Heck, my first short film was scanned on one of them and it looks pretty good. I have actually a lot of experience using it with an original DaVinci real-time coloring tool. They're pretty amazing machines, being able to auto scene detect, grade, save those grades and then transfer the grades in real time to tape, or today HD recorder. 

The Cintel II is actually not a great deal anymore. When it first came out, it was interesting because they were doing something nobody else did; make an "entry level" scanner. It can look good if you don't have crazy highlights, if your film is pretty dark and you aren't pushing the stock. But if you push the stock pretty hard, if you're one of those guys who likes direct light hitting the lens, you will get horrible FPN (fixed pattern noise) and you will need to re-scan in HDR mode, which is a 2nd pass at 18fps. That means your average scan speed is now 9fps, pretty slow in the long run to fix a problem that shouldn't exist, had BMD not used that garbage 4k imager. The problem is that when they developed the scanner, it was the only imager they had. The UMP 4.6k imager isn't global shutter, which is a requirement for a real-time film scanner. Heck, none of the BMD imagers would work, they're all horrible rolling shutter imagers. So they'd need to use one of the high-end imagers and that would mean the price of the scanner would be more competitive to more commercial machines like the Kinetta and even those modified Rank Cintel's. The machine has many other issues that prevent it from being an archival scanner, like how it deals with splices and the fact the capstan drive version (retirement for archival scans) puts way too much stress on the film. It also doesn't like 2,000ft lab rolls which I use a lot, we had nothing but problems on our last project with it. Damn man, took us 3x longer than it should have due to the issues and BMD has zero support. 

I could go on all night about it, I've scanned hundreds of thousands of feet with them, both HDR and SDR, 16mm and 35mm. 2 perf, 3 perf, 4 perf, I've used the machine for months at a time. It's got a lot of problems. I was forced to use it for awhile because all of our other machines were down, that's why I bought my own machine for home, so I didn't need to constantly deal with broken machines at the office. BMD (like always) did a great job with the machine in terms of how it works, but they failed at some very important things, which make it again... a toy in the long run. It may sound simplistic, but ask anyone in the industry and they'll agree with me. 

Fair enough...anyone in the industry disagree with Tyler or does everyone universally agree with him?

At the very least, it sounds like a dream for getting dailies...even for "professionals"

1 minute ago, aapo lettinen said:

all crystal sync systems use regular dc motors because steppers are too noisy for any motion picture use except for time lapse sequences.

Maybe that is true in the old days but that is not true at all today. Thanks for answering my question however. I now understand the problem with getting the precision. A stepper motor would make short work of the precision issue but it might not work in the camera body. Now you have me wanting to play with motors to see what possibilities there are.

Also, sound isolation has came a long way since what was present in those old cameras. Might be interesting to see how much more the sound can be baffled with an eye toward that front.

2 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

the issue is getting the actual motor running speed to be so stable that it is close to the accuracy of the crystal itself or at least in the about 100ppm range if possible. the Atmega chips are fine, it is just that one can't match the motor speed to a target with that kind of accuracy with speed measuring methods (speed measuring methods are not accurate enough) and that is why speed measuring methods are not used for crystal sync systems

Does the CP16r use a regular DC motor or a stepper motor?

2 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

Wait...let me get this straight...are you implying that the ATMega sync is not accurate? This is news to me since these are the same types of chips that are used in time intensive applications that need more precision than ~41.67 milliseconds.

I created a laser tag system from an ATMega setup and it would send IR pulses into the uSecond teritory with incredible precision. I could send data packets with pulses faster than a single frame in a 24 fps camera.

2 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

controlling a motor "some simple way" means for example using a Arduino to measure the frequency from the motor's encoder (the running speed of the motor) in Hz /rpm/fps/whatever number and then comparing this to a reference number (the motor running for example 24.85fps and the reference number aka the target being 24.00fps) to work out how much the motor's speed is off and then adjust the motor power back and forth until the motor rpm matches as closely to the target number as possible.  for example using the simple pulseIn function in Arduino to measure the pulse duration from the encoder and work out the motor speed from that number.

This is the "speed measuring" method of controlling the motor but it has nothing to do with crystal sync systems and it is hundreds to thousands of times less accurate than real crystal sync system. the real crystal sync systems are not used for much anything other than movie cameras so there is nothing readily made available and thus they need to be made out of scratch every time which is very time consuming and challenging

Wait...let me get this straight...are you implying that the ATMega sync is not accurate? This is news to me since these are the same types of chips that are used in time intensive applications that need more precision than ~41.67 milliseconds.

11 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The Cintel II is a low-resolution scanner by today's standard, it shoots UHD resolution in 35mm mode, but you still have to crop the perforations off. So the actual image size is 3.2k ish. In 16mm mode, it's not even 1920x1080. It's fast because it's lower res and it does not write DPX files, it writes a proprietary compressed codec that BMD designed, which is probably very similar to their BMRAW codec. It has plenty of dynamic range for adjustment, but what I've seen of the Cintel II is that if you don't nail the color in scan, it won't be fixable down the road. The scanner does have good registration, it has a decent movement and gate. Optics are also not bad, but the imager lets it down. They really needed to update it, but the lead guy on the software side died. The other developer who was in the UK no longer works for the company evidently. So there is only one guy left who worked on the project as it was a 3 man team evidently. So the scanner sadly, probably won't ever be updated. It's a real shame, I think if they paid the money for the 6.5k global shutter IMX camera like the Scan Station and changed nothing else but the speed of the imager to the computer (thunderbolt 3 instead of 2) they'd have a competitive scanner for $40k ish. But in it's current config, it's really blown off as a toy due to it's imager only really. I like everything else about it and I've used it a lot. 

I think it is a bit reductionist to call it "a toy." Many indies used to use flying spot telecines for finishing so the Cintel sounds like a great option for people in that price bracket. Although I haven't used it, your own description sounds like it is quite an improvement over what many who were budget or time constrained had previously.

2 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

programming a bare Atmega328 microcontroller on a breadboard with a simple ISP.  this is why I like to use Arduino Uno for early software versions of Atmega328 code: less wires and hassle if needing to change the code hundreds of times during the day. 

 

Loading the final software version into the Atmega328 which I installed to my self designed circuit board. This is one of the intermediate prototypes for the Konvas controller and not the final device: 

 

Calibrating one of the intermediate prototypes using an oscilloscope: 

 

It is tons of more stuff than just using an Arduino for controlling a camera some simple way. In most cases one needs to specifically design the boards from ground up for the exact camera model and motor you need them for. The same goes with the software... nothing readily available can be used for the job, not even as a reference when designing stuff.

I do not understand what you mean "some simple way". If you are controlling a motor, you need to work out the timing and distance. It isn't "simple" but it isnt particularly difficult either if one knows how to code. I would think the most difficult part is getting the board the correct size/shape to fit in the camera properly and retrofitting any new components.

This isnt meant to be disrespectful but there are plenty of tutorials on robotics/proper motor control out there to make that part of it relatively simple.

34 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

I am using Atmega and Attiny microcontrollers at the moment but I am designing the circuit boards by myself and just bulk purchasing the chips from 30 to 100 at a time, then programming them and soldering them along with the other necessary components to my self designed boards.

Typically they look like something like this in the device: 

 I have some Arduinos for testing the early software versions for user interfaces etc just because they have the built in usb connectivity and voltage regulators so that I can save time for not needing to hook up a separate ISP to them when making hundreds of small changes and testing what the end result was (I wrote for example the display functions on my Konvas 15epss Crystal Controller on Arduino IDE to make it faster and easier for me to modify it quickly on the fly when prototyping) but I don't use any Arduinos or other factory made boards for final devices as I am designing the final circuit boards completely by myself, sending the cad files to a factory and getting the board blanks back which I solder the components to and do the flux removal etc finishing, testing and QC before installing them to the devices . 

Fair enough. I suppose I misspoke. I meant "are you designing based on an Arduino-style workflow". I figured you would need to still make custom PCB. What I meant is are you following the Arduino style (having your custom PCB have the VR with smoothing caps, the ATMega chip, the 16 MHz crystal, etc.)

Good luck. I watched your videos on YouTube and you should really do VO work because your timber is incredible.

Another cool possibility is "remote start/stop" using an IR LED / IR Receiver combo. This is simple to implement if you are using an Arduino-style framework.

14 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

I am writing new crystal sync algorithm for the CP16R which is why it is taking a bit longer than expected to finish the modification. The system needs a limited amount of machine learning functions to perform correctly so it is much more advanced than my original crystal sync code and thus it is more time consuming to finish and test it too.

I have my original CP16R camera body and now got another similar cp16r which is in worse aesthetic condition (soundproofing materials missing from inside, the external paint in bad condition) . Having two camera bodies makes the modification easier and faster because it is easy to test stuff with lower risks. It should take about 6 months to finish the modification but will post results as soon as I get new tests done with the prototypes. I will sell one of the camera bodies after the modification is finished because only need one for my own use and would want to give someone else the change to use the spare camera for real work instead of keeping it in storage ?  

the final plan is 10 internal Crystal speeds and internal variable speed function for manual speed ramps. External input for additional speeds if needed. Film end warnings just like in the original camera but possibility to select other film amounts than 200ft and 400ft. The shutter park function if I get it working reliably.  Some kind of display may be possible but will test it to see how practical it would be and if it can be fitted nicely into the camera body. The speed selecting is done by using a rotary switch (much more practical than a display based user interface) so the possible display would only be used for film counters and battery voltage meters. 

I have already finished the electronics design and will concentrate on the software and mechanics now. Have run tests with my single speed crystal sync board but don't want to post any images of that design so will wait until getting the actual 10 speed design running before posting any videos ? 

Maybe I missed this in scanning the pages of info. in this thread but are you using Arduino or some variation of it? I am into  uController programming and had thought about using it to do something like this but was curious what a fellow tinkerer thinks of the prospect?

10 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I know it's a bit of a gray area, scanners versus telecines, but I think one distinction is that scanning doesn't happen in real time, whereas a telecine transfer does.

Indeed. I was looking at the Blackmagic Cintel and they claim it can scan in real time. I am not sure of the quality of those scans (maybe someone can chime in?) but that is an amazing feat if they look on par with past scanning solutions.

43 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I think what’s confusing is that you often hear that for print publication you should deliver a 300 DPI image but that doesn’t mean an image that is 300 pixels wide, it means more that if printed 10” wide, it would have to be 3000 pixels wide to be 300 DPI. If I understand correctly.

I know nothing about 35mm DPI but in computing, the DPI is used for printing to demonstrate how many linear dots are needed to replicate an inch of pixels on a standard display. Most computer monitors (at least historically) are about 72 DPI. Because monitors can display more colors than printers can (which are working with CMY color and black generally), the printer has to dither the image to try to replicate a similar look. Graphical content usually needs a minimum of 300 DPI to look blended properly. So you need roughly 4-6 "dots" of printing to replicate each pixel. A very strange concept it is and quite confusing.

54 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

It seems like a good camera except for the bowtie shutter. It is known for smearing issues when shooting into light. It may be ok though. 

I may be exaggerating a bit but something to keep in mind. I hope it helps. Other than that, I think well maintained CP's are very robust and quiet running cameras. I think it is a good buy. 16mm is a lot more affordable than 35 any day of the week so I think you will be able to shoot a lot more with it than you could with a 35. 

As you know, Cinelab offers great quality for unbeatable prices so yea...

Also, as for the CP mount dilemma, you could get an adapter made for not that expensive to whatever mount you want at Les Bosher I am pretty sure but of course, check with him. 

With a good lens and a well maintained CP, I think you will be more than happy.

Thank you. I did notice the bowtie shutter also. I have never personally had issues with them but I know that some do. I had forgot to mention that point.

40 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Here is an example  from this little music video I shot for a friend. I shot this on 7219 stock rated at 250 with a Zeiss 10-100 t/3.1 lens obviously on r16. The one light lowcon print, or the imitation of it i should say, was scanned at 4k. Essentially,  Fotokem puts the regular print stock through ECN 2 to lower the contrast to make it more scanner friendly. I put it through DaVinci to convert the DPX files to prores 422. That's straight up from one light print so no digital corrections etc.. as is. I shot this on an Eclair NPR but camera body shouldn't matter.

 

 

That looks great, Giray. That is the kind of timeless look I am after. Incredible that it looks that good as a one light. 

I feel really good about the purchase but am still on the fence about the lens situation. The buyer told me he can include an adapter from CP to Arri Standard. Are Arri Standard lenses any easier to find now or have all of these disappeared thanks to M43 users adapting all the old glass for the BM cams?