Robert Houllahan

I do not see any likely possibility where you could destroy 100,000 feet of film, unless you happen to be working with a film processor which runs 100k at a time :D This is why you run multiple tests like scratch film, twist leader, sensi's etc. on your processor before you run film which is worthwhile to someone. Mechanical failure of the leader or drive in a old-new setup film processor would be a more pressing area to pay close attention to things like drive shafts/chains and bearings especially submerged ones will all have to be examined and those Tires! lots and lots of tires. Being mechanically inclined is a necessity but if you are there is no reason why you can not get the mechanics of the machine running smoothly again. -Rob-

I have to second Dominic here, I am making two pictures right now (a short which I am making a 16mil print with sound and I am cutting it on a flatbed and i am cutting the negative and making the print, an educational like experience) and a feature length film shot mostly in NYC and NJ we are shooting 90 or 100k feet of Super16 and some 35mil with my eyemo and a konvas. I started working at Cinelab about 4 years ago as my day job we are a small regional lab which has been in business since 1948. I feel lucky to be working with some really great people like Bob Hum who has been running film since the 70's in Boston. Bob keeps our kodak ECN-2 process survey results very right. I don't know how he does it exactly but I am learning. I thought I was crazy and did not sleep much and all that. We are in a beautiful mill built in 1880 and occupy much of the top floor. Running ECN-2 is possible in mill conditions! We have a good big commercial water heater and I am thinking about the possibility of augmenting this with some solar on our roof. We have a nice digital water temp controller but Bob had run with a 2 handle manual mixer and a temp gauge in the past so your water temp can be controlled without spending 10K or more on hot water. A densitometer is your best friend and your second best friend is cubes of chemicals from Kodak. I would suggest trying to get into the kodak process control survey which will give you benchmarks to strive for and show you scientifically where you are having problems. Your third best friend will be a dust free drybox and there are allot of tricks to this a set of large surgical grade hepa filters and a enclosed film takeup wiith a set of large PTR's will give you film which does not necessarily need to be post cleaned. We do recover enough silver every month to pay for our silver collectors and more! -Rob-

I mentioned it because we are making several 16mm print dupes for an archive this week and I made Dvcam transfers from the dupe-negs. I think some telecine equipment like the Cintel I was using has an easier time with negative stock than with print. I was able to get a very nice looking transfer out of the neg, of course a low con master would be better.... One of our guys made a feature length 16mm pic last year and he made a master-positive print (specifically for video xfer) which was amazingly sharp and good looking in transfer. -rob-

You might want to look at the gate guides on the emulsion side if the rail on the S16 side has not been milled to the S16 dimensions it will likely scratch the emulsion because of the pressure being applied by the pressure plate. The other culprits might be the clip in rollers which hold the film around the center ssprocket. -Rob-

Did they do a full super16 mod to this camera, there seems to be an emulsion mark in the super16 area of the footage. When converting a camera to Super you have to mill all of the surfaces which come into contact with the area of the film just widening the gate will not assure a scratch free negative. -Rob- BTW I use my Peleng 8mm lens in a nikon mount on my eyemo, now thats wide! O

You might want to consider having a duplicate negative made of your print and then transfer that. This is a more expensive method that a straight transfer from the Print but can yield very good results. That said I have seen some very good looking transfers from 35mm print from new modern telecine(s) like the Spirit, DSX, etc. -Rob-

Mr Kubrick seemed to like having all or most of his lighting in frame in some scenes of his pictures. Look at the Korova or the cat-womans house and there are tons of exposed practical bulbs in frame or the moonbase board meeting in 2001 with the large lit walls or the ball scenes in Eyes wide shut with the Christmas tree lights. Rob "my aunt worked for SK on "killers Kiss" Houllahan

Check out edgewisemedia.com they have panasonic minidv's for as little as 2.60 ish per tape in quantity. i would, however, strongly recommend spending that 4 or 5 bucks you are currently spending by getting pro grade tapes which seem to be less prone to dropout which plagues dv when reused (and sometimes when fresh) -Rob-

I have a liquid silver and I was a beta tester back when it was a Fast product. As far as I know liquid does not have a single frame timelapse style capture tool i.e. to work with a workprinter, etc. Any telecine house using a real telecine (rank, BTS, Spirit, etc.) can transfer to PAL and either do 25fps to 25fps or set the film speed to 24fps and record PAL 25fps. We can do it with our rank turbo with metaspeed servo. -Rob-

It was late I meant to say that a 35mm photochemical finish will beat out 90% of the "Budget" DI work and I bet if you look into everything as a total package the "straight" 35mm job from stock through prints will be pretty even with either a HD or S-16 or esp. 35 with a Di of some flavor (is a Spirit/2k grade to D5-HD, assemble and filmout a DI??) and furthermore just having every possible option does not mean you will do anything competent with them. That said I have a film we are working on which is 90% S-16 and a good 100,000 feet and the post path is a mess and that is my own fault :angry: -Rob- Oh and that is a film I am co-producing and shooting I do not want to give the impression I messed up a Cinelab customers film, just my own. Not that there is anything really wrong with it I just could have made it easier on myself if I had put a little more planning into the post path when I started shooting it. :angry: :angry: -Rob-

Phil there are many things that you can do in a color finishing system (scratch to baselight) which you cannot do in a NLE or are ridiculously hampered in a compositing package. I know of no nle system which can do self calibrated color management from scans to final print stock and account for the viewing enviornment in such a way that it will be consistent. Furthermore all of the color grading systems do work in real time with 2K files and the Baselight will work in real time with 4K files all of these systems will play proxies but if you have a Baselight 8 why would you? esp. if you are working on finishing a 4K project. -Rob-

Well there is the crux but as a part owner of a lab and a filmmaker working on a feature project I feel I need to look. Furthermore a 35mm photochemical finish will look better than 90% of the DI work out there I really feel that we should not be lowering the bar for quality. Take scanning if it is a commodity what kind of scanner is the price based on, I have seen Northlight scans and Spirit scans and the spirit loses hands down but it is the bench mark right? The same applies in other areas. Don't take this as a business plan :D because I do not know if we can justify getting into the DI business there are many factors and very heavy weights in this segment. -Rob-

After Effects is a compositor and while it has color correction tools they would feel slow and cumbersome if you were accustomed to using a DaVinci or Pogle (RT hardware, nice interfaces) or the above mentioned software based color tools. -Rob-

Assimilate Scratch is used by many facilities worldwide, from large to small. It is used for everything from playback of full resolution files for visual effects purposes to DI conforming to color correction. We have been looking at software color grading systems and I had a Scratch system here for a while, I thought it was a good stable capable system for 2K and although in my opinion it seems to lack some of the more mature color grading tools found in a Baselight or Lustre it is more than useable and has impressive performance. I would think that a properly calibrated viewing enviornment (esp if you are going back to film) would be a more pressing concern. I really wish assimilate would find a better name for this product as it matures, what were they thinking? Here let me put your film on this scratch machine! It detracts IMO from what is otherwise a fine product. -Rob-

Kodak has a chemical sieve and fungicide available in the catalog a can (they come in a paint can, I do not remember exactly the quantity but it is a fair amount) is available for less than $100.00 this product or some similar dessicant might be a good idea if you cannot control the storage conditions or find another place to store your materials. -Rob-

Not to go off topic here but I have recently seen allot of Super-8 optically blown up to 16mm on a JK optical printer and it looked great. -Rob-

I guess when I say "release" print it means a print you would want to "release" to the (limited) public :D as opposed to a slot print (for sound check) or check print (to adjust color) We also commonly call a "release" print a "Answer" print which I will stick to in the future here perhaps that is a good one because it is a answer to whatever the filmmakers question is...... -Rob-

I just want to make sure that Steve Hyde is not under some impression that you can nationally distribute 16mm release prints to theaters for a feature, because it is unlikely. I agree that it is not likely, I just wanted to point out that 16mm print is still alive and there are many people using this form for their personal work. Technical limitations like the optical soundtrack can be considered a plus if that is the aesthetic you are looking for. I would not advocate a std16 print as a route to national distro in multiplexes :blink: but I did like what I saw of the film we printed that was played in a fairly big theater as this is not the normal venue for 99% of the 16mm print work we do. -Rob-

I have one of these kits which I bought new last year for my eyemo. It is a fairly simple procedure to take the front of the eyemo off and swap out the shutter disc. I bought this kit from From patrick loungway Email: <pokomoke@yahoo.com> -Rob- 

I have done this many,many times with no adverse reactions, I would not put the mags in the fridge, nor would I leave them out in the sun, etc. a nice cool dry place for the camera gear and mags should be fine. -Rob-

Most labs will run 35mm & 16mm ECN in the same machine so if their chemistry and consistency is good with 35mm (it better be) it will be the same with 16mm. From there it is a handling issue after the roll is removed from the film processor, i.e. Super16 has to be handled with regard to the extended negative area. Assuming that you are shooting Color Negative I would move towards a lab with a great 35mm reputation because it will carry over to Super16 as well. -Rob-

i came across Cinelab which is based in New York as well, anyone had a good experienc with this lab? We are actually based in Massachusetts, we have a drop at the Standby Program www.standby.org, There are many excellent labs in NYC. -Rob-