Matthew W. Phillips

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 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?

The ad includes an Ultra 16mm CP16r that the seller claims has been recently serviced. It does come with a mag, battery, and charger but does not come with any lens. This is the part that concerns me because I have been having a hard time finding anything in the CP mount that those cameras take. He had it marked at $1,800 but is offering it at $1,300 if I pull the trigger soon. I was in the market for a new digital camera but none of the cameras currently out (in my price range) are going to give me the look I want. I love the look of film but most sync sound cameras were out of my price range while also considering shooting some film stock. All thoughts are appreciated. I have shot with CP16's before so I more or less know what I am getting into however the lens issue is a bit worrying. Can I find a better deal? Should I try for a different 16mm camera? Thanks in advance. Matthew

This is complete BS and you know it. That is why you refuse to name the institution and/or the instructors of record. That isn't how I understood these forums. I am pretty sure that I was told when I came here that the purpose of it being a "real name forum" was to encourage people to be responsible for their words and keep it professional. Who cares what "others" do? They aren't a part of this conversation; you and I are. No explanation needed. Was just pointing out a fact. What purpose would that serve? Not only would you violate the trust of people who confided in you but you would also expose the cowardice of people who do not have the courage to speak their mind publicly on an internet forum. Why would it bother me in the least what someone says who doesn't even have the courage to state it openly? Once again, that is not relevant to you and I. Nor does it change the "logical fallacy." I wasn't saying people don't ever agree with you. I was pointing out that it doesn't matter if they do because facts aren't determined by consensus. I would expect you to know this if you had so much education. No, it means when I make a thread and specifically ask you not to comment; please don't. It isn't as though my color grading thread has anything at all to do with you or your life. Just let it pass on by and ignore it and I will ignore the threads you start. Not at all. But don't get mad if you own a VW and someone comes along and says those are garbage. Dishing out what one can take is always a good policy. Your "school" is not on par with a regionally accredited University. I do not disparage technical trade programs but they do not make one an academic. And you said ""Film school professors are usually failed filmmakers" and they're right. The top professors at my college in the filmmaking program, were all failed filmmakers. " I am amazed at how you can speak so poorly of people who were nice enough to bring you into their classroom to present (assuming that story is even true). And University is not about preparing people for industry. That is what you don't understand. It is about developing critical thinking skills, learning how to solve problems in the chosen field, and having a theoretical framework instead of a "grinding" mentality. In CS, I deal with this same attitude. People think CS = learn the latest programming language. But there is always going to be a new language that is in fashion. CS goes beyond what is hot at the moment and teaches the theoretical framework and unifying concepts of what makes all languages work. Therefore, you can pick up new techniques quickly. I imagine a film degree also employs "timeless" knowledge that is more than just whatever is in fashion. I have zero interest in that. And never assume that everyone gets a degree for the same reason. Good practitioners don't always make good teachers and vice versa; they are two entirely different skill sets. If you want to discuss the merits of "hands on" techniques in colleges then I am all ears. My point wasn't that real world experience has no merit. My point is that, classically speaking, real world knowledge is not generally the focus on college. Even law students learn about legal theory and interpretation and tend to learn courtroom procedure in internships (or some take moot court as an elective). You may very well be a nice guy and on set be a fun person to work with. The internet is a strange place because the impersonal nature of it makes it very hard to see the human sides to people.

Robin, the truth is that none of us know the future. Film is somewhat tied to the price of Silver and Silver is a volatile commodity. If one could accurately predict the price of Silver, one could become a billionaire quickly. You might as well ask "will it rain in 6 months?" Who knows? But there is an expression "the trend is your friend" so, by following the trends of film, it is likely to continue to increase and not decrease. Besides that, you need an Oracle to advise you further and this isn't the site for that.

Aren't you one of those guys on RedUser that is always taking about how great Red products are? Now you are all of a sudden a fan of film? Interesting.

But that is not how it works, Tyler. And this part IS my field of expertise. The requirements for a Masters or above is not a college policy as much as an accreditation issue. Exceptions are sometimes made but usually for: 1) a Grad student who is acting as a TA (another professor is still the "instructor of record"). This is usually done so the PhD professor can have more time to conduct research. 2) "Guest speakers" are brought in to round out the theoretical with a little real world knowledge but this is not generally the focus of the course. College is not primarily about learning a trade as much as learning to think in a way that is conducive to the trade. This is a common complaint from many who graduate college and say "industry isnt like this!". Well, it isnt supposed to be. College is the time to think of things in an optimal way and provide training wheels and a firm theoretical background that can be carried into the real world (where you learn the practical or procedural portion). Just to make sure I am understanding you correctly, are you saying that you were at every lecture while the instructor of record lets you talk to his/her class? If this is true, I would assume that the instructor needs to be fired as they are not doing their job and are circumventing accreditation standards. I would be curious to know what institution permitted this if you can name names? Thanks for the clarification. That is a relief as I assumed the reason some people (myself included at times) were not banned from here was because Tim permitted a certain level of free speech among adults. I hope they deleted their posts of their own volition instead of it being scrubbed against their will. I did not find their Cinematography section any deader than anywhere else (here included). I admit that the Jarred Land model of "DVXUser", "RedUser", "BMCUser" is getting a bit played out. Tone is impossible to judge in an online environment. You do have a habit of throwing in certain "buzzwords" that imply aggression. Listen to this part where you said "garbage products" as though there are not professionals some where using those tools that you disparage? Yet, you have a very short fuse when anything concerning the film workflow is questioned. Is it fair to be critical but "if you dish it out, you must take it." I am aware of where I am. You might be surprised to know that I have been a registered user here longer than you. I started out at DVXUser even though I owned an XL2 at the time. I had a cool dude there expose me to Super 8 footage and my perspective changed toward film. I quickly found that a harsh place to enjoy film and was recommended to come here...which I did. The peace lasted all of about 8 minutes until the Red One wars started... "Others agree with me" is another logical fallacy, Tyler. That is the "Argumentum Ad Populum" fallacy. It is no different than saying "1 million Elvis fans cant be wrong!" But why can't they be? I don't want to leave a site that I have been registered to for 15 years and already financially supported. I would support it again if given the chance. But I don't want to be shadowed every post or thread I make with your specter constantly taking a contrarian viewpoint. I even offered a "cease fire" with you but you had to go and attack academics. Even if you were not intending to attack me personally, you cannot honestly believe that is in good taste.

So you werent actually a teacher at college, you were a guest speaker? It might have been helpful to make that clear since I have never heard of a college allowing instructors of record to teach without a Grad degree in a field where it can reasonably be expected. I am sad to hear that Gregg and Robin were "deleted". They were actually banned? Wow, this place is not what it used to be. Interestingly enough is that RedUser is much more popular and has a lot of the old members who used to post here. Not sure why they don't post here anymore. But I do think that it is time for me to find another forum that doesn't have you present. There is no further point arguing with you because you will always rationalize it as someone else's fault and your divine right to get involved.

Who is "everyone?" I cannot recall having a problem with anyone else but you. I have been nothing but 100% honest about everything. I don't have an ego about anything, admit I am not a pro, ask for help and critique when warranted. You take that as a weapon to start acting like my teacher when I never asked you for anything. I truthfully dont want your opinion and cringe everytime I see you reply to my posts. You have some need for validation that you spout a lot of random facts to appear like you know things; even if they aren't relevant. Don't make it sound like a "we vs. you" thing. I have zero problem with anyone else on this site but you. And do I need to remind you of that thread when Gregg and Robin nearly left because of you? I freely admitted that I used to be a tool on this site and I came back trying to do better. And I have been respectful to everyone but you make it hard, my good man. And how did you teach college when you admitted you don't have a Master-level or above degree? You admitted that you didn't go to Grad school and I know that no accredited program is going to let you teach post secondary classes without a minimum of a Master.

"White gloves", you have successfully ran off another member of this site. Well fucking done.

...please delete....

Fair enough. The answer is yes, Robin, film prices will go up...and up...and up. They will never go down and always up. Has never changed in the 20 years since I shot my first roll. Contrast that with digital where I purchased a Canon XL2 in 2005 for $5,000 and now I can get a 6k cinema camera for half that price. Amazing, innit?

Oh please...is this another Tyler "I am a pro and you are not" speech? Dude, you aren't even shooting your own feature on film; you admitted as much. And you aren't anyone that anybody has heard of so you can cut the "we" bit (including yourself among actual filmmakers) out. Just be honest and admit that you are ticked off that I insulted your precious Kodak and preferred medium. It sounds like you are the childish one who gets butthurt every time someone disagrees with your narrative. I have never even pretended to be a "pro" and you keep bringing it up like I care that you say it. I really don't. I have a great career that I enjoy so I have no complaints on that front. Where I get testy is when you come on here like you have all of this industry cred when you don't. Sure, you might have made a few shorts and am working on a feature but that doesn't make you anybody at all. Ironically, the people on this site with the most real cred have a much better attitude and approach than you do. I'll make a deal with you, Tyler. I wont comment on your posts anymore and please don't comment on mine? Since Tim doesn't have a block feature, I figure a mutual cease fire is best. And yes, I will let you have the last word since I know that is so important to you. ?

The point I am trying to make is that indie film shooters care more about Kodak than Kodak cares about them. I absolutely love the look of film but I hate Kodak. I don't like their business practices, their attitude, not even their stock much anymore to be honest. I don't support Red cameras because of certain things about them I disagree but Kodak is not far behind in my book. And I disagree with Tyler that Kodak has tried to lower prices to end users and tried to make it more accessible. I simply do not believe that and see no evidence that they have. Contrast this with Blackmagic Design who, love them or hate them, seems to really care about helping indies and making a good product within their budget. They even made Resolve accessible to the masses when it was once untouchable for indies. I may not think their cameras are on par with film but I really want to support them because I like what they are doing and believe they give a crap. When I was legit a student at Uni., Kodak did everything they could to try to get out of giving me a student discount and made me jump through hoops. It was ridiculous. And their student pricing wasn't even that great tbh. In a perfect world, another company would come out with a new film at a game changing price and bury Kodak once and for all but we could still keep film. My issues with film are mostly Kodak; however, they corner the market on film right now so it forces me to choose between my love of film and hatred for Kodak. The price increases are pushing me away from film. I just cannot keep paying it. I don't have a motion picture film camera now and that is also ridiculous to try to buy with people on eBay being crazy. Someone who is completely outfitted, gear wise, and has local labs and connections will, no doubt, have a vastly different take and I cannot blame them. It is easy to pontificate about how simple or easy something is when your own situation is covered.

It appears that economists can add film to the list of goods that is inelastic since it seems that no matter how much they raise the price, there will be a long list of compliant and loyal purchasers. Good luck with that. I'm out.

I think I need to exit this thread as it seems that reading comprehension is not a thing here. I never called film lovers "elites". If that were the case then I am guilty as charged as well. What I said was "I am completely blown away at how Kodak has stayed faithful to the 'elitist' mindset they had back when they controlled everything. It is like they would prefer to lose everything rather than find a way to make shooting film more affordable." The "elitist" here is Kodak; not film shooters. If y'all going to quote me, please quote me correctly and stop committing straw man arguments.

This isn't true at all. You can check out YT and Vimeo and find plenty of junk shot on film. People purchasing old cameras like the K3 to test them, realizing that film doesn't make you pro, and then selling them after putting those videos up with terrible handheld footage that makes my head hurt watching. Sure, there is less of it in film than in digital because of the low barrier to entry of digital. But it is there if you expose yourself to more than just the projects you choose to look at. I don't mean to pick on you, Tyler, but you have this habit of treating your personal experience as empirical data. That is fine if you want to share your experiences and those of your associates. But your associates and you do not equate to facts. I am still waiting on data on Kodak film vs say, Sony camera division. Supply chain issues have hit many companies; not just Kodak. Supply chain issues are not always indicative of popularity; sometimes it is logistics, manufacturing issues, raw materials, labor, etc than can contribute to these things. Maybe Kodak is doing better than they were but I would like to see some data to support this outside of "my friends and I..." If I am so "out of touch" then why is Sony absolutely murdering Kodak? Maybe Sony understands what the public wants whereas Kodak is still living in their own out of touch reality where they can command premium prices for a dying medium. You can talk all you want but the numbers do not pack up your viewpoint. And adding statements like "most filmmakers" is an appeal to authority. I swear, Tyler, if you didn't commit logical fallacies then I don't think you could speak at all.

I am sure that most people who shoot on film are going to get results far different than a well shot film you saw. Film doesn't magically make people good DPs. Much of what people remember of film is "survivor bias" but there was a lot of garbage shot on it. Also, look at some K3 16mm vids on YT or Vimeo done with subpar transfers and you'll see how bad it can look.

Thing is, I doubt you can point to any statistics on the matter. Anyone can pull out anecdotal stories (myself included) but film is on life support compared to where it once was and raising prices isn't going to make things better. I really don't care who you know or who you speak to. You know that film is a sad and pathetic pile of poop compared to where it once was. All of the cope and posturing in the world doesn't change that. Kodak once ruled motion pictures and now they couldn't touch Sony's jockstrap.