Pavan Deep

Processing 100 foot is not too difficult. The C41 process used for print film is very easy as is processing black and white, [E6 slide film] is tricky this is what I have done so far, processing Super 8 film. The Eyemo does take 100ft loads and is BH perfed, I have tried it with exposed print film that is KS perfed and there seems to be no issues. Apparently colour print negative film has a backing layer which dissolves during processing, as far as I know the Remjet's main purpose is to make the film move when filming at higher speeds. As I said the only reason to use print film is due to its ease of processing. Pav

There seems to be some colour film and a lot of in black and white available in the 35mm format in bulk 100ft lengths for photographers. I know 100ft will only yield about a minute of screen time at 24fps and as such may not be that useful for many. I have heard that stills film may not run smoothly in a movie camera at high speeds because it lacks the right lubrication, I have also read that there is a difference in the size and shape of perforations between stills film and motion picture film. I know cameras such as the Konvas and Kinor work fine with ‘normal’ motion picture film but they are deigned to work with film that has the still film’s perforations. I just wonder if has tried it the other way and have used stills film in cameras that are designed to run motion picture film, like the Arri, Aaton, Moviecam and even Eyemo’s? ? It would be nice to try some of Ilford’s black and white stock. The only real advantage of using any stills film is that it can be easily and very cheaply processed at home. Pav

Digital is here to stay, but so is film - a shock to many. But then why shouldn’t the two co-exist for many years? Many still prefer to shoot on film and edit digitally, there’s nothing wrong with that – it is the best of both worlds. If we look at statistics we can easily see that the digital trend in Hollywood features increased rapidly and was probably intensified when Kodak was seen to be in major trouble in 2011, since the beginning of this year we have seen Kodak re-emerging as a different company, one that is committed to film. This has brought a new air of confidence that film is a viable option for image creation and we can see that film is becoming a popular choice, ironically for low budget features. Digital has always been seen as easy, portable and cheap. If we look at digital productions we realize that the digital workflow isn’t always easy and can be full of headaches. Many filmmakers talk of how digital has liberated them freeing them from using huge equipment that’s associated with 35mm, but looking at today’s digital shoots where there seems to be a colossal amount of cables and a myriad of attachments making the cameras increasingly cumbersome and bulky that portability has gone. The cost of hiring film equipment and shooting film isn’t as much as digital. If we look at television productions that switched from film to digital, one of their main reasons for the switch is this belief that digital will be cheap, but for many this is not happening as many report no significant changes in costs. Pav

Which spool is turning? It should be just the take up if no spool with film is above. Have you tried getting some exposed film and spooling it onto a daylight spool and threading it through the gate and to the take up spool? I am pretty sure that only the take up spool turns, if the film is threaded and attached to it only then both spools turn as they are now connected with film. Pav

The bottom line is that for an independent film-maker filming with 16mm currently works out cheaper than using RED or Alexa. I don't like the film vs. digital debate either, but a friend wants to shoot a film and was told that Super 16mm was too expensive and was persuaded to consider using an Alexa but the cost of the Alexa package is working out quite a bit, it's the gear, transporting it and the insurances. I put together the cost of shooting the project on 16mm, the costs are far cheaper. Few emerging film-makers have the money to buy the expensive higher end digital cameras which depreciate quickly. While the DSLR's are cheap and great the post work takes ages, people try very hard to get that film look with endless hours using their laptops and countless Pulg-ins, the end result doesn't always look like film. Pav

I am constantly hearing people say that working with film is really expensive so they have had to use digital instead; Clearly the high cost of film puts many off film, but are people simply dismissing the film option by making excuses that it’s too expensive and jumping on the digital bandwagon! There is certainly a growing trend amongst filmmakers choosing digital seeing it as the cheaper and easier option, but is digital always cheaper or easier? Digital offers the convenience of immediacy and the common belief is that it’s cheap, there seems to be an overwhelming tendency to just go with the flow, whereas film is seen as messy, cumbersome and old fashioned. I know film is expensive, but exactly how expensive is16mm? Personally I feel if you want to work with 16mm you can, as it's still a very viable option, cameras are small and cheap and film is still being made. You have to work differently as there's no immediacy and if you're working to a small budget you haven't got the luxury to have a large shooting ratio as you might have with digital. You can even use an old 16mm camera, which can be bought for a few pounds and use it with modern film and get stunning results. 16mm cameras are easy to borrow [for free] and cheap to buy or rent, film stock is the only real expense, but it doesn’t have to be, as it depends on where you buy it from. I used to buy film from Fujifilm, it was very cheap, but they have stopped making film, Fujifilm is still available in the UK from Frame 24 and it is still quite cheap, I also buy film from DP's and even off Ebay at very good prices. Typically a 400 foot core of 16mm can be bought for £30.00 or less, that's about 11 or 14 minutes of screen time (24 or 18 frames per second), processing and digital scanning can be about £150.00. So using 16mm which is either 11 or 14 minutes can cost me under £200.00, it's not as expensive as everyone makes out. High end digital systems like the Alexa and RED are difficult to get for free, they are expensive to buy and rent, a typical weekly rental package of RED or Alexa is normally in excess of £2000.00. Thus in my experience working with such high end digital systems can be more expensive than working with 16mm. Digital only becomes cheaper when working with pro-consumer systems such as the DSLR's, [unless you get the high end digital gear for free]. The quality from a DSLR is remarkably good and many try to make it look like film, though I don’t think this works well. In my opinion while the DSLR images look great on large television screens they don't always look so great on a large cinema screens. Pav

The Kinoptik is one of the sharpest Super 16 lenses I have ever tried in Super 16. I am getting to use some Zeiss primes and will use a PL to EOS adaptor fitted to an EOS to C mount, I have not seen a PL to C mount. Pav

I have a 9mm Kinoptik lens that came with my Ikonoskop Super 16, it's very sharp and intended for Super 16, I also have a Pentax CCTV lens that's very sharp and covers Super 16. Pav

This is great, I'd love to see some footage. Pav

I have just come across the Kiev Alpha 16mm camera, this uses a pellicle mirror which diverts some of the image to the viewfinder. Obviously there'll be light loss and one would need to compensate for this when setting the aperture. But how much light loss will there be? About 1/3 of light loss? There’s not much information about this camera except that it was aimed at an amateur market and have found out that it’s small and light, but haven’t heard from anyone who's used one about how it performed, whether it scratched film, gave steady images and how long the wind lasts. Pav

Well, I am tired of hearing film is dead - death is so final. I am not critical of digital at all and make use of it where I can, but I am confident that film is still a better choice. I do sense a lot of hostility and aggression towards film mainly from those who use digital and often praise digital, making claims that it is better than film and making wishing film to be dead. I don't understand why it's fashionable to simply dismiss something like film without really understanding it. Pav

One thing that I am certain of is that many of us who use film and understand it are very passionate about it, it's a mixture of romance, nostalgia and beauty, there isn’t the throw away disposable attitude with film as there is with digital. For me film is not just another image capture medium, there’s an endearing simplicity to film something that digital does not have, I understand the mechanics of a film camera, I understand how film reacts to light and more importantly I can see a series of images when I hold up the film to light. Often like many when I see my images after they’ve been processed by the lab and telecined I am always excited, there is an indescribable magical quality about them, whereas my digital images may look good on set in the monitor, but I am often disappointed with them in the edit room, there is no mystery or magic, it's a different mind-set. I seem to agree that many who praise digital are students and many have not really had the opportunity to work with film as such they don't understand it and often aggressively dismiss it. On a my film shoot, which is Super 16mm a student decided quite arrogantly to share his wisdom [lack of it] and tried to convince the crew that film was only used for archiving, needless to say he didn't work with us again. I have spent a lot of years lecturing in colleges and universities and on many occasions I have heard lecturers tell their students that the equipment they are using is the same as the professionals, in most cases this is not true and as blatant lie. I have sat in lectures where a where lighting or framining in a television program is being discussed and clearly the program has been shot on film, but yet the lecturers insist it's been shot digitally and in some cases even specify what camera is used - further misleading their students. In many ways I feel most academic institutions teaching film production are setting up students to fail by giving them innacurate information and by not giving the reality of this industry where survival is dependent on a combination of luck, talent and skills, an institution can only really provide students with skills. Pav 　

I think the debate of ‘film is dead’ is somewhat absurd; people have been making these statements since the early 1970’s and some probably started predicting the death of film before then. I think for artists to get embroiled in discussing this further and intellectualising it deeper makes little sense. Film is still a viable option for filmmakers and it will be used for a long time yet, though its role is changing constantly, the only certainty we have is change. Many feel that the future of film lies with Kodak, I don’t think the future of film is inextricably tied to the future of Kodak, a few days ago I heard that the Italian company Ferrania will start to manufacture new film, so far from being dead it's very much alive and provides a great option for filmmakers to tell their stories. Pav

I always say filmmaking is a unique blend of art and commerce. In many ways independent filmmaking is a medium of constraints which should force the filmmaker to think in different ways and be creative at all stages in order to produce quality films. Films that are 'art' or 'entertainment' and sometimes both, but films that have a magical quality and that have great appeal and appreciation beyond family and friends. Films that are meticulously made by professional actors and crew who are respected for their craft and are properly paid. In almost all independent filmmaking the accepted professional rules and conventions are broken to some degree, however when people work with film many of the conventions are adhered to. As technology is so accessible these days picking up a camera pointing and shooting is all to common, of course this is filmmaking and storytelling, but at a different level and people need to understand this. This type of filmmaking used to be called amateur filmmaking, these days we are all professional, no one shouts out that they are an amateur filmmaker. Today, in this type of filmmaking quite often a lot of the creative decisions are made in the computer, regarding look, cinematography, lighting, set design etc and then put out on sites like Youtube for family and friends to view. This type of filmmaking is a growing phenomena, where all not only conventional rules of story telling are broken but artists are quite often exploited. Perhaps we shouldn't discuss this type of filmmaking in the same manner as filmmaking which is more of a professional commitment and in independent filmmaking is often a personal and creative crusade, a huge financial endaveour, we have heard stories for years of people who are financially struggling mortgaging their homes, taking out a loans to bring their vision to the screen. Pav

　 I still don't get it! Why some feel the need to criticize film at every opportunity. I feel that this perpetual cynicism towards celluloid a bit tiresome. I don't think creative people should be overly critical about any of the tools which contribute to storytelling. I think filmmakers today are lucky as we have a choice, we can shoot film or digital. Many fear film as being too expensive, which it is, but it doesn't always have to be and I don't think creative people should dismiss it because of it's costs. I do feel that these constraints can add to the creativity to ones storytelling techniques, I do believe that film is challenging and fun. Digital is perceived to be cheap but it's not always the case, in the scheme of things there are all sorts of costs in filmmaking which apply equally when working with film and digital. As a filmmaker I more concerned with how I am going to tell my story and how that story will look and sound. choose film for a number of reasons, I believe it's the best way to tell visually stimulating stories. One can still buy film, cameras are much simpler to understand and with film you don't just point and shoot, I feel I care about every shot. Pav

Most labs are having a difficult time. I am having my films processed by Bucks and they have been very helpful. I feel they are very supportive of independent filmmakers and hope this continues. Pav

I like this stock, there's a nice look to it, a unique realness, something that's missing in most modern stocks especially digital. I am definitely going to use it, buying it from Germany shouldn't really be an issue. My only concern is how to get it processed here in the UK, now that will be difficult. Pav

I agree it does have an old world look 'warm' about it, but I don't think it looked flat, I think the colours were punchy and was surprised at how well the reds looked. Pav

This is very impressive, the colours and texture look great. I am going to use this stock in 16mm very soon. Where did you have the film processed and scanned? Pav

I have an Ikonoskop SP 16 and have had this issue, it is shutter timing, it's out of sync. Did you remove the front plate? That can throw the shutter out of sync. PM I have a diagram of what the shutter should position b.e. Pav

It seems that Bucks Film Labs have been bought by Cinelabs. I wonder what this means for the independent filmmaker, I hope it's good news. Pav

There's lots of cheap processing gear out there, whatever method you adopt I think C41 is very easy, especially if you're just developing negatives, but it gets a bit if you're doing prints you need to get a colour enlarger, I find it's fun and therapeutic when processing and developing your own prints and encourage everyone to do it. Pav

I am hopeful that prices will get better, but at the moment shooting Super 8 is not as cheap as it was, currently 16mm is working out a lot cheaper. P

I am selling a lot of my Super 8 equipment; cameras and lenses, please message me or email me for specific details. All my gear is in very good condition, it has been used recently and has been tested with film. Pav

It's been discussed many times and I know that most people will stay away from video lenses. I know that traditionally video and film lenses have been seen as different, but still I wanted to try since video lenses, especially CCTV lenses are so small and there's a lot of cheap CCTV lenses out there and it seemed silly not to try them. It's a widely known fact that most SD video lenses don't need to reach anywhere near the quality that film lenses would need to for Super 16. Despite this I have been using lenses that were originally designed for CCTV cameras on my C mount Super 16 camera. I have tried many lenses and the two zoom lenses that produce extremely sharp and great images are the Fujinon TV zoom lens 12.5-75mm and a Computar 12.5-75mm. I don't know if these lenses were designed for 1" or a 2/3"sensor, but both work extremely well on my Super 16 and have become my favourite zoom lenses. I have tried a Cosmicar zoom lens the 12.5mm - 75, which I'm sure is a lens for a 2/3" sensor, but this lens vignettes far too much and doesn't produce a decent image. P