James Mehr

I shot a short film this weekend with the 7D, and was quite impressed with the image quality. I'm thinking about investing in a T2i, but was wondering what are the shortcomings of the camera in comparison with the 7D. Has anyone had experience with both cameras? What would I give up if I went with the T2i? Thanks!

I just saw the trailer for the Israeli film "Ajami," and it looks like it was shot, at least partly, on digital. Does anyone know the technical specs for that film? It looks interesting. Thanks!

I'm in the market for a small/portable 16mm editor/viewer to make some experimental shorts. Which 16mm viewer should I look for? Are there any 16mm equivalents to the Minette? Thanks!

I'm about to buy a K3 from someone. He says he's selling it for a friend. What should I look for in the camera to make sure it's all right? How should I test it? Thanks!

Thanks for the tip. I'm going to buy it right now.

I'm in the market for a super8 film viewer/editor. I'm itching to edit something on film again, and this is my most affordable option. I went to super8arena and they have a Bauer F20, but they're in Germany, and I imagine the shipping charge would be high. Are there any places in NYC that selling super8 editing equipment? Thanks!

Well, those who like and enjoy film will continue to use that medium until it is really gone. There's something to be said that in the age of portable HD cameras that you can still buy Super8mm. In the end, it's not the technology that matters, it's what you do with it. I personally love the work of Nuri Bilge Ceylan, and I think he's shown the artistic potential of HD. I would imagine he enjoys the intimacy the technology affords. I would too, but then again I would miss working with film. It should be clear that this is a subjective topic, and I don't really think the pro-film posters are trying to persuade the digital lovers to go back to film. We are simply stating our preference. Being a gamer, I know what it's like to fall in love with technology, and I know when such a love gets out of hand... With film, you're working on a medium that's been in use for decades. There's something to say for that. Most of us will have to learn how to use digital, how to calibrate them, how to expose for them, what their quirks are, etc. I guess you can call this "embracing." But, it's just not the same.

That's kind of like asking a sculptor to embrace 3D Studio Max..... ;)

While I think a 4K scan and projection look better than a 2K scan and projection, you are going analog-digital, and anyone can tell you that there is always a loss in the conversion. True, prints wear down, but then again, in a cynical mode, are films generally in the theatres long enough to weather such erosion? To answer another response, sure you can create a pretty picture in digital. But to me it is a cold image. It's like seeing white noise. It's too rigid. It's dead. Nothing will bring it back. Digital is calculus - the measurement of a curve. Analog is the curve. I was a Film Studies Major in College, so I watched a lot of movies on print. I studied them this way. When I saw the first footage I ever shot on film, 16mm, to see what I saw rendered by celluloid, excited. Here I am, watching a rendering of the world I had studied and examined for the last two years. Here I am, potentially participating in that art. To hell with the technology. Film is beautiful. Film is alive. I don't think this will be a flame war. It's just that, gee, on a forum devoted to Cinematography, you're finding people who actually LIKE film. Who would have guessed?

I argue that the art and passion and creativity come from shooting on film. Personally, it annoys me when people all of a sudden become "pragmatic" about shooting on HD. When I shoot on Digital, the camera is a just a tool to me, and while you can certainly still be creative on a shoot, the experience is diminished. When I shoot on film, I feel like a filmmaker. I think there are a lot of young filmmakers who are discovering film, and realizing the threat HD has over it all. It certainly concerns me. At first, when I watch footage from an HD shoot, I think "Wow, that looks pretty good." Then after a while, I realize that I'm just looking at ones and zeroes, a rigidly defined image that really be no more than that. I think film will be around because it is such a solid recording medium. I may be wrong, but don't they burn Movies/TV shows onto flim for archival purposes? I was always taught that with digital archiving, you constantly have to be upgrading your hardware and making sure to migrate your data regularly. With film, you keep it in a can and in a cool place. Of course it's all subjective. But should we be so dismissive or blase of a medium that holds over 100 years of our cultural history?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll keep my eye on it in ebay. Does anyone know of any other portable options as good or better than the Kodascope?

David, I was always told that when you shoot on small formats like 16mm or Super8, you lose latitude. For example, when you shoot on 16/Super16, you typically lose a stop in latitude. And in my experience, that's typically true. Am I confusing latitude with Dynamic Range? If so, what is the exact definition of both terms? Thanks!

I just watched the Orson Welles documentary "One Man Band", and I'm now interested in finding a portable 16mm editing machine like the one Orson Welles used. I've used a Steenbeck before, but what kind of portable or semi-portable options are there in terms on 16mm editing? Are there any places in NYC or online that sell them? Thanks!

Hey Todd, It's nice to see a film-medium lover on the boards. I don't think film will go away as quickly as people expect, or want it to. The whole HD craze reminds me of what happened when BetaSP came out. People were transferring there shows and films onto Beta and then throwing away the negatives... only to find ten years later that they look kinda bad. Technology always moves ahead, and rapidly in the digital world, so those who say 2K, or even 4K is "awesome" now will say that it sucks ten years from now. NHK has all ready planned the successor to the HD standard, which is roughly 7K, and it's supposed to be introduced by 2015. It doesn't mean that it will be adopted so quickly, but it gives you an idea where this is going. Are companies going to embroil themselves in megapixel wars in the future, like with still cameras? Probably not. There needs to be a standardization for the HD/Digital realm. Working with all these different codecs and equipment is not an efficient way of doing things. It reminds me of the early days of home computers, when you had IBM PC, Apple, Amiga, etc... There's a lot to say for film, and I think it shows ignorance when people vault towards these cameras and declare that film is dead. If you like the look of Digital, then you like the look of Digital. If you like the ease and cost of it, then it's yours to behold. But there's a reason people and independant filmmakers save up more money to shoot on film. Because to be a filmmaker and not shoot on film means you've neglected half your namesake :)

This might be non-sequitur and even stupid, but are you shooting anything for Nuri Bilge Ceylan? I love his films, and am eagerly waiting for "3 Monkeys" to come to NYC. Yes, I'm aware it's a popular camera, but it doesn't hurt to ask... :)

Also remember that if you want to get the most out of your TV, whether SD or HD, you should calibrate it. Joe Kane Productions makes a diagnostic tool called Digital Video Essentials, or DVE. I have copies in Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and SD DVD for calibrating my different inputs on my HDTV. I was lucky enough to get a Samsung HDTV and after calibrating it, am quite happy with it. But, CRT HDTVs are heavy - mine weighs 120 lbs....

Just wondering, does anyone know what the upcoming film "Me and Orson Welles" was shot on? IMDB is vague, but I'm guessing HD. Thanks!

I'm itching to edit something again on a flatbed, and I would like to buy a flatbed editor, preferably a Steenbeck. Does anyone know a good place to find one in Manhattan?

I just got a copy of the American Cinematographer's Manual. In looking at the depth of field chart, I have a few questions: 1. How does the Circle of Confusion correlate to DoF? Is CoC related to film size (16mm, 35mm)? Or is it independent of it? 2. How accurate are the charts in the ACM? I used dofmaster.com's online calculator and got totally different measurements. I tried changing the CoC to .00125mm, but still the numbers were different. I also looked two columns left of the current fStop as per the manual's instructions. 3. In all honesty, what is the best way to calculate DoF if you want the smallest CoC and want to make sure that you subject is in acceptable focus for Super16mm? Thanks in advance. I'd like to know how you guys calculate DoF.

Hey All, Are there any good Depth of Field Charts or Calculators for 16mm/Super16mm? I've found some online, but I was wondering what you guys use to calculate DoF for 16mm/Super16. Thanks!

I didn't realize you needed to post your name. I don't know if I can change my avatar or if I have to start a new one. If you go to the link, you'll find my name, which is James Mehr. I can't remember which Cooke lens - it was a zoom. I remember he mentioned it used to 9.5- something, but it was modified to super16, so it is now 10-something. They were selling it for around $5000 if that helps. As I mentioned before, DuAll Camera, in NYC, did my conversion. I went to Postworks in NYC to do the transfer. I guess you can kind of tell I live in New York :) Honestly, Super16 is new to me. I've worked with 16mm and 35, but never Super16. I like film all the way, but I used to find Super16 a bit cheating : you really can't print dailies, and it's mostly used as an intermediate either in blowup or video. But Super16 is what I can afford, and I'll make the best of it. It's not exactly a poor choice - it's film. And after working on video for so long, it's nice to be back to using an organic medium. Martin, I've seen your postings with your NPR. How is yours configured? What mounts do you have? Do you have any suggestions or tips about the camera? Is the ACL better or worse than the NPR?

Duall Camera (www.duallcamera.com). I'm quite happy with the conversion. While it looks 1.85, it's 1.66. I transferred at Postworks and specified 1.85. The ground glass is marked 1.66, but has markings for both regular and super 16. While it's centered for regular 16, it's not hard to center for super. In terms of focusing....yeah, my bad. The test was purely to see if the mounts were working. I just put on a tripod at the shop and shot the roll. It's really not so much of a test, rather than a check, I suppose.

I posted some test footage I shot on my modified NPR on Vimeo: http://www.vimeo.com/735941 The test was just to see if the camera was in working order and the mounts were done properly. The CA mount was left centered to 16mm while the Bayo mount was re-centered the super16. I was curious to see the new Vision3 stock, so I shot with a daylight spool of Vision3 500T. Please excuse the focus. It's a boring video, but now I'm certain the camera's functioning properly. They did a good job converting it. And even with the CA mount and Angenieux lens, it could cover the Super16 gate, which I find interesting. Basically, for the modification you're turning a square into a rectangle. (It's more complicated I know, but still....) Any comments or questions would be appreciated. There's probably not much to say. Suffice to say, I will be doing more in-depth tests - this is just a basic one.

Thanks for the reply. I'll think I'll go with 1.66 then. My concern was that it wouldn't be possible for them to blow it up on 35mm at that ratio.

Hey all, I'm shooting a short at the end of March, and I recently have my NPR converted to Super16. The ground glass is only marked for 1.66:1 . I was wondering what aspect ratio I should shoot for : I think I can estimate the other aspect ratios using a director's viewfinder. I'm looking to do a 35mm blowup for the festivals. Should I go for a 1.85 ratio? 1.78? I heard that Europe uses 1.66. I figure that since I want to do an optical blowup, 1.66 would be ideal because you're using the most film space. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!