Pavan Deep

I don't know much about Eclair cameras, but they seem to be more common here in England than the CP-16 or the Scoopics. Pav

In a practical sense, look at Frame 24, processing facilities in England and cameras such as Eclair, Arri or Aaton, even some Bolexes are Super 16, to look for cameras you can ask rental companies, go online, you'll soon work out the costs for yourself. Pav

It's not as simple as that, it's quite common to keep saying that film is expensive, working with film doesn't have to be expensive, you can shoot Super 16 and get very good results, have a great experience for very little money these days, like this; http://htl.li/Ywy9p Pav

I have decided to sell 4 fresh 16mm Daylight spools of Ektachrome 100D film, I also have some 100ft spools of 16mm high speed VNF colour reversal film. I'm not sure how much I should sell them for. Pav

If the film is silent any MOS camera would do, if Super 16 isn’t a major need then any working standard 16mm camera would do. This opens up more camera possibilities, such as simple clockwork 16mm cameras, a Bolex, a Beaulieu R6 or a Cannon Scoopic. Éclair ACL’s are very good ‘professional’ level cameras and in standard 16 they are cheaper, standard 16 lenses are also cheaper than Super 16 lenses. It always makes me wonder when budgets are shown the cost for using either film or digital is higher than other things. In my experience actors and crew personal are much costlier than the acquisition costs, unless everyone’s working for free, followed by the food and travel. Then there are costs such as insurances, logistics and locations these can be expensive too. Pav

I have used both the Aaton Minima and the A-Cam SP-16, both are modern Super 16 cameras and they both have their advantages and disadvantages. The Aaton Minima is a small camera that is portable and light, it accepts ‘special’ 200ft loads of film, totalling 5 minutes and it has a great prismatic viewfinder, the camera accepts Aaton time-code, its crystal synced and very quiet making it ideal for sound work. For me the only issue is that it usually comes with a PL lens mount, though it can come with a Nikon mount, PL lenses are some of the best professional lenses available. PL lenses are expensive they are usually rented; they can be big and heavy, making the outfit cumbersome. The biggest factor to consider with this camera is the specially wound 200ft loads of film, the film is wound emulsion out, Kodak no longer sells the special loads for the Minima, making the camera ‘defunct’ for many, but you can load film yourself in a darkroom, although you need to be careful with those special 200ft spools, alternatively film labs will do this for you. A-Cam SP-16 This camera is smaller and lighter than the Minima as it takes 100ft daylight loads which last 2 minutes 30 seconds. It’s tiny and the design is like a handle thus holding it is easy. It has a c mount for lenses, c mount lenses aren’t very expensive and there are many from high quality cine lenses to CCTV lenses, they all tend to be very small. The camera has crystal speed control, but it is noisy and earlier versions tend to be very loud, the small 100ft is not that easy to load as the film needs to be loaded through a complicated coaxial path in the camera, plus the 100ft finishes very quickly, the loud noise and short runs make it unsuitable for most dialogue work. The biggest disadvantage of this camera is its lack of a ‘real' viewfinder, I believe that for any sort of work you need a proper reflex viewfinder. Pav

They are all great cameras; for lenses the most versatile off them is the NPR, but the NPR is old, the CP-16 is a good camera not to heavy and ideal for sound work, I’d go for it especially if it’s Super 16, the viewfinder’s pretty good too in fact the NPR and the CP-16 have similar viewfinders. Like many have already said; perhaps renting is a better and cheaper option. If renting I’d go for an Aaton or Arri. Most Bolex H16s are non sync and standard 16mm and have clockwork motors, but a Super 16 Bolex EBM is a very good camera, it’s lenses are smaller and cheaper too. If you are not bothered by standard 16mm you could go for a Canon Scoopic, it has a great lens, it’s small and pretty cheap. Pav

This is a long thread and covers all sorts of things. I do agree with a lot of what Phil has said here, his words however harsh do bear the realities of the ‘little’ British film industry. I would like to add that Britain is a very class orientated country and most people who seem to get ahead and are ‘successfully working’ tend to be middle class. Pav

This sound like a great project. I’d just like to say that in this digital age ‘film’ is not just an ‘aesthetic choice’. I feel that film is also more practical and more affordable, thus it is a more sensible choice, there have been many discussions on the forum as to why people choose to use film. Unless given to use for free a RED or an ALEXA Package [including all the necessary accessories and lenses] will cost far more than the costs of 16mm stock, processing and scanning, renting and buying a Super a 16mm package. Pav

Building a decent scanner is difficult, time consuming and expensive, but it's entirely possible, there are many threads here and elsewhere on the net where people have built frame by frame scanners for transferring Super 8 and 16mm film, look at them. I have built a scanner and it's taken me five years to get it to work the way I want, getting perfect registration and stability, accurately and automatically triggering, getting good macro lens, consistent and even light are just some of the issues. Pav

I have done workshops where I used an Aaton Minima with the Kodak spools; I’ve got some Minima spools, but haven’t got the camera, though I might buy one, there’s one nearby that I might buy and I’ve been to see it, it looks a bit over used but functions well, I'd be happier to get hold of a service manual I asked Aaton but haven’t heard back. I’m worried about the emulsion out thing as loading film onto the spools isn’t that straight forward because the spool flanges need to be slightly forced open to when spooling the film. I might be wrong, but I believe that film which is ‘emulsion in’ needs to settle and not all ‘emulsion in’ stocks work well when wound [at home for the Minima] as ‘emulsion out’, I believe most film is 'emulsion in'. Pav

That is clever and simple, I can now see the potential strain on the spools. I just had a closer look at the Minima and you’re right I can now see how take up spool is driven, it is the ‘tires’ from the sprocket drive that turn the take up spool. I am still puzzled as to why the film is wound emulsion out. Pav

Okay I will look. How do these rollers turn? Is the feed spool turning them? Thanks Pav

What roller? Where is it? I have been looking at how the camera turns the take up spool and I can't see how it does, I can't see any connection where the camera turns the take up spool. I have recently handled an Aaton Minima and it seems that the feed spool locks onto the take up spool, as the film is pulled out by the camera claw the feed spool rotates and because it's locked to the take up spool it turns it in the same direction. Is this why the Aaton Minima requires film to be wound emulsion out? Pav

Hi Can anyone here please tell me where I can get a service manual for the Aaton Minima. Thanks Pav

The stock was fresh, I am not sure what the telecine was, I know it was done on a Spirit, I got Pro res file it looks fine on my machine but not as good when I upload it, I'm going to try Youtube. Pav

Some of my Super 16, not sure that I’ve quite got the hang of uploading to Vimeo, as the clips tend to loose quite a bit of sharpness. https://vimeo.com/140026957 https://vimeo.com/139978641 https://vimeo.com/139317066 Pav

From my own experiences I have found that shooting Super 16 these days is certainly a lot easier and cheaper, despite the doom and gloom of lab closures and a lot of the old infrastructure disappearing, I find that for the small independent filmmaker it's actually become easier to work with Super 16. The other important thing is 'shooting ratio', film costs will always be dependent on how much film you shoot and process and then how you get that film scanned. Personally I've never understood 'shooting ratios' [realistically I am not going to shoot every shot 10 times, may be some shots but not all], for my own work 'shooting ratios' are tight, this is not because I don't want to shoot more film but mainly due to time, the longer it takes the more 'everything' [not just film] costs. Pav

That's a really nice test, really shows the flexibility of Super 16. I am told that Youtube is better these days. Pav

Yes that's true, it's all about how much you shoot, how much is processed and scanned. Recently I went on a trip and took my Super 16 camera with me, every shot looks great and worth keeping. On a narrative short I did re-take shots, mainly because of dialogue scenes and other reasons, but still I kept the number of takes very low, shooting carefully, saving on stock. Pav

It's trendy to say that film 'expensive', it's what students say to me all the time and none of them have looked at the costs, it's just something people say these days to legitimize their reasoning for abandoning film. I keep hearing people saying '... I would love to use film, but it's too expensive...' . Film is 'expensive' if we just look at how many minutes there are in a single 50ft, 100ft or 400ft reel, but that's not how costs are measured in film-making, film becomes slightly complicated if we look at processing and scanning, but still it's not too expensive as it always depends on how much you've shot. Pav

I can't believe I am reading this! If you search the net you'll see that quite a few companies make film and Kodak is still making film. Pav

The Alexa is a very good camera, but I'm not sure what you mean by it 'beating film'. Are you talking about 70mm, 35mm, or 16mm? There are several practical reasons why people choose to shoot film, here are some of mine; 1) Film gives you that authentic film look effortlessly 2) There's a certain way you work when shooting film, you are more decisive and more certain 3) High end digital systems are expensive to rent, whereas film cameras are very cheap, film can be expensive but it depends on your shooting ratio 4) Most of the time digital shoots take longer and therefore are most costly, especially in narrative film-making 5) With film you spend less time in the edit or with computers trying to 'fix' the images, digital images need a lot more work in post Pav

It’s a question that is asked all too often. A novel idea but why not use film? Have you worked out how much working with 16mm will cost? I believe the visual characteristics - the look and feel 16mm/Super 16 is unique to the format. They still make 16mm film, so why not use it, at least try it and explore its real workflow before dismissing it; you’ll be surprised as 16mm film is not that expensive. Cameras are ridiculously cheap, film stock can be cheap too, depending on how it’s bought, processing and scanning isn’t too much either, depending on how much film there is, in my experience the most costly part of 16mm is usually professional PL lenses, you can get deals on camera rental, film stock processing and scanning. Pav

Other than shooting actual film it might be too costly as I'm sure you've discovered unless someone lets you use one of these software options for free. Borrowing a 16mm camera for free and getting stock and processing may be much easier than you think. Pav