Matthew W. Phillips

Got my CP16r in and forgot how heavy they were. Need strong support which I don't currently have. Trying to get best value for strength so looking for an O'Connor 50D Fluid Head with sticks. Hopefully not in need of rebuild.

Thanks,

Matthew

57 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

As promised, here's the first bit of footage, shot on a walk through London and quick visit to the zoo, on a dark and grey day. Kodak Vision 3, 500T, Zeiss Distagon 12mm 1:1.2 lens. Prior to this the camera hadn't been used in 12 years, according to the seller. I tried to find out a bit more about the history. According to someone who worked at Arri at the time, the Super 16 cameras were made for a client in Switzerland and a few rental houses in Germany. They weren't popular and so they stopped making them. It took another 25 years for Super 16 to take off in earnest.

 

Rich color and beautiful grain. God, I love 16mm.

Thanks for sharing.

Watched the short and enjoyed it, Tyler. My favorite character is Nats, admittedly, but I ended up liking Frogy more than I initially thought I would. His look made me "prejudge" him (maybe this was intentional to demonstrate the shallow perception and summary judgments we give people based on appearance) but his situation made me relate. Oscar was my least favorite but I guess he was a friend who just didn't know how to handle the weight of the situation (which is often how it is; death is tragic but also awkward and few are prepared to engage with the reality of it)

Maybe I missed this in your notes but are you putting it on the festival circuit? When are you expecting to release publicly?

Good luck and congratulations. Completing a project on 35mm these days is quite the accomplishment and rare gem.

11 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

the most usable solution I can think of is to arrange some workshops with the potential crew you would like to use to see how interested they are to learn film related things and then continue to the projects with those ones who seemed to be really interested in the film workflow and wanted to work the same way than you. Doing this kind of experiments on real set is too time consuming and risky but a separate one or two day workshop would work perfectly for finding out who would like to continue further down the film path and who are more willing to stay exclusively in the dslr world. 

as for micro managing technical things on set... you need to give your crew enough time and training possibilities so that you can trust them being competent enough for not needing to micromanage the technical details. if you don't trust them at the moment then they just need more training and confidence to handle the details right (micromanaging does not help the confidence at all). let them borrow the camera and mags and some scratch film for couple of weeks after teaching them first how to load the camera correctly. then they could practice loading every day until they get it right every time

That sounds like a good idea, actually. Thanks.

For my next project (a short horror film), I want to be able to Direct as a Director. I don't want to be burdened down by worrying about the camera and lighting, etc. The problem is...where I live (Northern California), it is as different as can be from the industry in Southern California. I am not too far from the Bay Area where there is somewhat of a film scene but still not sure of the talent that is willing to travel up where I am to shoot (especially on a budget).

I purchased a film camera because there are no film rental houses up here. I also did it because I don't want to hire a DP who is going to push a look that I do not want (a modern DSLR/Red/mIrrorless camera with modern desaturated look). That sort of thing is about 99% of what I have seen up here. Most are really young and never shot on film.

So my dilemma is that I want a DP but I cannot afford to pay for traveling expenses + a decent rate to import one from the Southlands. Also, I like to work with people in my community and encourage a film scene here. However, almost none of them know film. Therefore, what is the proper approach to handle this?

As much as I want to trust people on a collaborative project, I simply cannot risk ruining film stock by novices, etc. My wife is my loader (as she has loaded film for me for over 10 years now) and I feel like I still need to worry about things like checking the gate, threading the camera (CP is a stickler for doing it right), checking the claw against the shutter to ensure a loop, timing, etc. This stuff takes me out of directing mode though but I don't mind.

I guess where I am concerned is in whether the DPs up here can meter for exposure (or even own a light meter), work without a monitor, and have a camera op. who can keep focus with an old viewfinder. All of this sounds like basic no brainer stuff but I really worry that the people up here have never had to do that before and are used to the modern conveniences.

Anyways, I have rambled on enough. Would love for you all to give some feedback and help a brother out! (Yes, even you, Tyler. Share some wisdom if you feel you want to. I can't stay mad at you; you are a brother in celluloid ?).

Thanks,

Matthew

32 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

Or just challenge yourself and shoot trix and light accordingly.

I agree with this. Although Double-X will be more forgiving, when you come from a Super 8 background, you were at some point forced to shoot reversal since that was largely what was available. 

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ok guys... so after a few phone calls over to Kodak here is what I got: 

"I'd buy now" 

So Kodak has 35mm color negative in stock.

They do not have bulk 16mm in stock tho. So it's the same as a few months ago, buy now and wait a few weeks if you want bulk, onsie, twosie, no problem. 

Since they opened their store in Hollywood, they are now selling discounted stock from it. I talked to them years ago about offering a discounted program for scratch and dent/out of date stock and they finally listened. So they have it available to EVERYONE now instead of just a select few. 

So if you're looking for deals, just call over there first. 

Thais is awesome, she runs the Hollywood store and is super kickass. She'll do the best she can and make things happen. Her e-mail is thais.castrale@kodak.com

Are they still offering student discounts? My daughter is starting a film program soon and wants to shoot on real film.

4 minutes ago, Matthew W. Phillips said:

For indoors, unless you have a powerful light kit, that 50 ASA will matter.

Actually, the more I think about it, this really isnt true. The reversal film will do better being properly exposed (or even underexposed by a wee bit; 1/3 stop or so) whereas the negative film would do better being overexposed by about 1 stop. Therefore, you might be better off with the reversal for indoor (if light is at a premium).

Sorry about the mistake; I need to slow down and think through posts before I clack away!

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.