Pavan Deep

For me the whole issue of frame rate is an interesting one, I know that 24 frames per second has been standard ever since the arrival of sound films in the 1920's. When using film most will film things at 24fps because that's how it's done professionally, but most of us don't ask the question why. Why is 24fps the standard? The standard speed could have been 20fps, 23 fps 26 fps etc. I wonder if 24 fps was chosen due to the infancy of the earlier sound recording devices? Maybe film needed to run fast enougth to produce decent quality of sound. I know that the faster the film runs it produces much smoother and more fluid and natural movement, some say that with a faster fps the grain is less visible, others say it adds to more realism. I have shot a lot of Super 8 at 24fps but I have also shot a lot at 18fps, the only difference I have noticed is that 24fps is better with handheld cameras whilst filming fast movement. Slowing footage in NLE shouldn't be an issue as long as you've had a HD telecine, try and see. I have reently shot Super 16 at 18 fps and have had a 2k transfer and the slowed it down in NLE to 18fps and then synced my footage. The difference of my 18fps footage when compared to my 24fps footage isn't an issue for me as I hardley notice it and doubt that many would either. P

From personal experience I can say that the motion at 18fps is not always as fluid as that of 24fps, but then it's not bad either. I don't think that 16mm negative film gives that 'home movie' look either, I think 18fps can add a unique feel to 16mm. If there's a lot of movement 24fps is better it's also better for scanning etc. I don't think sync sound is an issue at any speed as long as you project at the same speed the sound would match, of course it depends on how accurate the speed of the camera is and whether it's speed is crystal controlled. If you film at 18fps then you must scan at 18fps because, if you scan your 18fps footage to 24fps it will be faster, you will need to slow it down in the NLE to match the audio.

Personally I think that a lot of bad imagery is due to a combination of things, such as direction, lighting, framing and so on and it happens with both film and digital. I do know when an inexperienced person uses film to capture lets say a group of people hanging around a busy street chatting, kicking around a ball and so on provided that film is loaded, focused, exposed, processed and scanned properly, the results will be amazing, the same is true with digital. But in my experience when people who rarely shoot film use it quite often the final results exceeds their expectations by far, which makes the cost and hard work worth it. Pav

It is still possible to get Fujifilm here in England until [i suppose] it runs out. Re-cans and shortends are still selling quite cheaply. If you shop around for film the actual costs of using 35mm aren't as high as many believe. For instance I recently bought several rolls Vision 3 50D in 400ft rolls from a production company that had film left over. I intend to cut it into 100ft rolls, the processing and HD telecine works out at about £36.00 for each 100ft roll. I plan on using it as two perf this will give me about two minutes the total cost is a little over £47.00. P

The big labs; Technicolor - London [ECN2] [about to close] I Labs - London ECN2 Bucks Media - London [ECN 2] Prestech Film Labs - London [black and white] Film and Photo - London [E6 and Black and white] Smaller labs; No.w.here - London [black and white] Gaugefilm - Dudley [black and white and E6 16mm and Super 8] SPS - Birmingham [super 8 only special order] There maybe a few more. P

I have an issue with the title of such articles making a clear assumption that 35mm film is dead. I feel that such titles are innacurate, misleading and are sensationalist, a sign of bad grammar and irresponsible journalism. Death is such a strong metaphor, and to me it really is the end, it's so final. As far as I know film is still being made and I can buy it - so it's not dead - Is it? Maybe I need to brush up on my English skills? I can see that film's role in the motion picture industry is being affected. I recently saw a workshop about making film emulsion at home in the kitchen, as far as I know you can't do this with a digital sensor, but again I could be wrong. Digital is great, film is great then why the need for people to joyfully denigrating film? P

Hi Thanks, I have never done green screen before and am very reluctant, but do see that I might get better performances in a controlled environment. Are there any 16mm green screen examplesd on Youtube or Vimeo? P

I am using Super 16, Fuji 64D and trying to film a scene in a small room which is difficult to work in. So I am thinking of filming it in two seperate stages. Stage 1 - I would light the room and film it for a few seconds using various angles. I would have more conrol over the lighting. Stage 2 - I would film ther actors in a studio infront of a green screen. In adobe CS4 I will blend the two stages together. Would this work? Thanks P

It is difficult when only a few people in a production has experience of working with film and know what it can do, whilst the majority of the crew have digital experience only. In such a situation it's quite a bit of pressure on the few who advocate film. P

I think as writer/director you shouldn't underestimate your role and don't over esitimate the power of the producers either. Of course the money men have power, they always do. But as the writer/director the look of the piece, the workflow is down to you, as the creative manager it is your decision. Film is difficult but not always as expensive as people make out, I think at the moment working with 16mm is very cheap, digital is easier but not always as cheap as people work out, but you need to go with your gut if it is film the go for it, argue the case, if it's digital go for it. As a filmmaker I prefer to shoot film while I can as I feel soon everyone will be shooting digital, but I like the look, the workflow and am comfortable with film and find working with it easier than digital. . P

In short, it is economical to shoot on 16mm in todays environment, I am shooting my film on Super 16, the best way is to keep the shooting ratio low, I find when working with film [any format] this happens naturally as most regard shooting with film special [which it is], less time is wasted in the shoot and the edit. Digital is the buzzword, it's current, it's new and it may seem simple and cheaper, but this isn't always the case as I found out and my producers al agreed to go Super 16. P

I just sent some film for processing to Technicolor and spoke to them, they didn't say their labs are closed or do they send them to another lab? P

Where can you buy this Gigabitfilm 40 film from? P

More and more people are saying that film is dead and are talking about the rise of digital technology. There have been many such articles recently. I believe such titles are somewhat sensational, mostly misleading and as a designed to provoke. I had to write this, maybe I am wrong, but when we say something is dead I think it means it is the absolute end, it is no more and has finally gone. Despite this film is still being manufactured and people are using it in still photography, though mainly professionals, students and artists. Film is used on television, though less and many recent releases are shot with this technology, using film is still a viable choice. With the rise of digital these days people have more choices and possibilities and as a result the role of film as we know it is changing, but it’s not dead yet despite what we hear and read.

There are still quite a few choices with 16mm here in England. Fuji Film is easier to buy and cheaper than Kodak. Fuji has a clearance section, where they sell short-dated stock cheaply too. Although this will change in the middle of next year, but I'm sure Fuji stock will be available throughout next year and even well into 2014. Then there's 'That's a Wrap', they sell Fuji and Kodak Re-cans and Short Ends. There are other places too like Panavision, Stanley's Productions and many others that sell stock, I think Stanley's have the best deals. As for processing I know of Technicolor, Deluxe and both of these offer good service and price, there are others too and then there's specialist labs and individuals that process E6 and black and white film. While television use of 16mm is decreasing it seems that for first time independent filmmakers feel they can to now realistically afford buy professional 16mm cameras that were out of their reach a few years ago and shoot their films on 16mm and get to work with real film before it's gone. It's an interesting time as more independent filmmakers are seeing Super 16mm as a viable choice. In an odd way it seems that 16mm is returning to its humble origins – to the amateur and the independent filmmaker who is working on a small budget. The role of 16mm has changed dramatically as we see a huge shift in the broadcasting industry to produce work on digital. I feel that in British broadcasting even 35mm isn't safe. The simple fact is that broadcasting is full of people who don't like film, they think it's messy, old fashioned and they don't understand it as easily as they can understand digital. I feel I must say this, though I'm sure everyone here is well aware that until the late 1980's and early 1990's broadcasters in England had 'Film Units', almost everything that was shot on location was done on 16mm, from documentaries and dramas. Material was shot on film, processed, cutting copies were made and stuff was edited on editing tables such as Steenbecks and a final edited print would be made, which [in my opinion] was usually very badly telecined. Many will recall the many programmes where when the characters walked outside, the look changed as the outdoor [location] work was filmed on 16mm. Even popular programmes like Coronation Street made use of Film Units for location work, documentaries like 'The South Bank Show' were filmed entirely on 16mm. Things changed as cheaper, better and more portable video equipment emerged by the end of the 1980's. This signalled the end of the Film Units and by the early 1990's they were gone and everyone started talking about the favourite 'old' subject - the end of film, this was a hot topic well before the Internet, one that had been discussed [to death] throughout the 1980's. Film Units had an interesting culture - from experience they weren't a much liked bunch within broadcasting, they were seen as a group of elite middle class snobs and I remember people saying things like - 'the sooner they're gone the better…' I don't think broadcasters used film because they liked it or because of quality; the simple fact was the equipment was cheaper and far more portable than studio video equipment. In contrast to video working with 16mm was easy. As far as I remember the stock that was used a lot was Agfa [because it was cheap], when the Film Units disappeared they must have lost a lot of business. In a similar way I think Fuji is feeling the impact of the current changes within television and digital cinemas. Agfa was gone, but new improved stocks and better workflows emerged and 16mm was once again in favour by the late 1990's, this time for high end dramas, this trend has continued with widescreen television and Super 16. In recent years 16mm's role has been challenged again as now digital is the buzzword and 16mm is once again not in favour. Is this the end of 16mm? In television I believe it is for a while anyway and as a result a lot of professional services for 16mm will be affected. However something interesting is happening as independent and low budget filmmakers are now realising they can afford to shoot on 16mm. Incredibly sophisticated and professional 16mm equipment has devalued in price tremendously. Many are realising that when working with film they can change the look as they can change their sensors, [stock] to suite the mood and situation of what's needed. You can shoot daylight stock, or tungsten, low light etc. With digital you can't change your sensor, your stuck with the kit you have. P

Things change we all know that, nothing stays constant. To assume that all manufacturers will keep producing the vast range of motion picture film is idyllic, but not realistic. Lets not get swept away by rumours, rather than speculating I think we should use as much film as we can while it’s still here. P

People have expressed all kinds of views regarding the news the Fuji will cease manufacturing its motion picture stock. In many ways I can’t believe we buying into this as a genuine news piece. How do we know that this ‘news’ is real? Do we believe it just because it’s printed? Do we just believe things without evidence? There is no evidence in the article, instead it’s speculative and as far as I know only one source has printed this story. Do they have insider knowledge? Who are they? Are we believing this because we are used to making assumptions based on our own personal knowledge of what we see as the realities in the filmmaking world, where we are regularly told that film is used less particularly for HD television and low budget work. If there is truth in this news then it really is very, very sad news as it limits the creative choices for filmmakers, as someone’s pointed out film is not just a capture medium. But until other news agencies report this and there’s more substance to the story and until Fuji makes a statement this is not really news, it’s a rumour, some of it, or all of it may become true, but then it may not. We are in the middle of September and stopping manufacture by the end of the year seems far to soon,. If they were stopping manufacture a more realistic approach would be to cease manufacture in six months time. But if the rumour has any truth behind it and Fuji do stop manufacture of motion picture film by the end of the year, surely there would be plenty of stock made to last until 2014 even 2015. P

I think the promo looks great, it does show that has a lot more colours, depth and texture, unfortunately there is a preferrnce these days for ultra clean - 'perefct' but soulless imagery. I use Kodak Super 8 a lot and love their stocks. But I think Fuji are more supportive to their customers than Kodak are, in my experience. Their stocks work particularly well with the natural light we have in England, I know that a lot of DP’s here say that Fuji stocks work much better here. P

This video really shows the versitilty of Super 16 and the Complete b16 package is so good, I think everyone should try it. Probably another point but are broadcasters still accepting material on Super 16, I remember them being a bit funny about it for HD. P

Hi I need help! I’ve got an old Stewart Warner 16mm wind up camera. I can’t figure out how to open it so that I can clean and lubricate it. I don’t think there’s a repair manual for it, or is there? Would anyone know what the shutter angle on this camera is? I think it’s 135 but I’m not sure. Thanks P

I have used Super 8 cameras for years and I use them because they are easy and fun. I used to own a Scoopic 16mm, it was simple, but it wasn’t fun. I like the idea of using something simple, basic and making it fun. I also like a challenge, I know these cameras are old and basic and most professionals would just laugh at them, but when they work properly and used with modern film they can help you crate wonderful imagery. I read somewhere that the design is a basic sardine can, I don’t know if this is true. P

Hi I haven’t used 16mm for a while and I hope you can help, I am in the UK. I might use Keystone A9 16mm camera. I want to convert mine [when I get it, still waiting for it] to Super 16 can someone tell me if that’s possible and I don’t know if it’s double perf, if it is can it be converted to single perf. Thanks P

Hi What do you mean by "Pj hardly posts after milking all information."? It's a bit negative! If you mean by learning and trying to understand the whole nature of processing and scanning Super 8 from these forums, well these forums are very, very helpful, but to do things right and to really understand you have to do more research, ask people, read and experiment, which all takes time, there's nothing wrong with that. Many people from these forums have helped and I have travelled across Europe to see some of these people for advice and guidance, I've been grateful to them. Setting up a Super 8 lab has been very difficult especially for a very small market. I am a lecturer and don't always have time to come and post, but I always share ideas and information when someone emails me and asks me somethiing I always respond and try to give as much useful information, when someone posts a queery on forums I respond if I can help. I really don't understand your 'issue'. I operate a small lab which I originally started for own students. I just don't have a lot of time to enter into the many great debates and discussions here. P

I have used this lens with a Beaulieu 6008 S and it fits and works. As far as I know c-mount lenses for 1/2" sensor work perfectly for theSuper 8 frame. P

What camera/s are you using? From experience the Vision 3 200T will produce perfect results in almost all super 8 cameras that will auto expose it as 160, look on Vimeo and Youtube for examples, here is a friends film; The vision stock is one of the easiest Super 8 stocks. Normally I use the cameras internal filter when using the 200T and have the filter setting on the camera to the 'sun'; sometimes I do use an external filter [number 85b] and have the camera filter switch to the 'bulb' setting. I have found that the Ektachrome 100D colour reversal film can be a bit tricky, some cameras will under expose this by ½ stop while some expose it correctly, you need to test your camera first to find out. During your testing you need to try the backlight button [if your camera has one]. My Bauer cameras underexpose the film, but when I press the backlight button I get perfect results, some of my cameras expose the 100D perfectly without the need for backlight button, like the Canon 1014 XLS I used, it produced perfect results with the 100D. It's weird because I have a Minolta XL 64 and XL 84, the XL 64 under-exposes the film but when the backlight button is pressed I get perfect results, but with the XL 84 I get perfect results but when I press the backlight button the picture is over-exposed. P