Marty Hamrick

I never did any 35mm at home,but I've done 16/16,16 to super 8 and standard 8mm to super 8.I used to work at a lab that had an optical printer that used a Mitchell 16 as the camera head.We did 16/16 and used it for optical effects such as freeze frames and step printing.I've used versions of the J/K optical printer as well as some home built setups using a Beaulieu super 8 as the camera head as well as a Bolex Rex IV and Rex V 16. Never worked with negative stocks or neg originals on one of these setups though.

That's interesting.What part of the process would be modified for that?I remember flashing the stock to reduce contrast.

Back in the ASA 8 days they used a lot of carbon arc lights.Actually back when we shot alot of ECO,if there was a lighting issue such as what you describe,the faster Ektachromes like 7242or 7240 or 50 were used.Often we flashed it at the lab to lower contrast.

I remember the VP-1.Weren't there two models,the VP-1 and the VPX?

That would make really good sense there,David.Maybe something like a digital optical printer.Each frame scanned and stored.Someone mentioned this before,such exists now doesn't it,but only in labs as it's very expensive right?Something like a digital version of the old J/K optical printers.I'm surprised no one has built a low budget prototype,that's kind of like what the Workprinter reminds me of.

I hadn't thought about it in awhile until I saw it posted earlier and I got to thinking about the folks who are using the Workprinter.I looked on some of their forums and their looking for something to fill the gap between Kodachrome and negative.There are some out there experimenting with transfering negative on the workprinter and they're having some minor success.The orange masking is giving them problems.They love the Kodachrome look,but don't like the high contrast.A low con reversal would seem to fill the need for them,but like you say,there probably isn't enough of a mass market to make it profitable.

When I was first learning the craft,those who were actively pursiung cinematography in my area were either working in LA or NY with TV and theatrical stuff,35mm for the most part or they were working on industrials,educational films,commercials and the like mostly released on 16mm optical sound prints or super 8 cartridge prints for Technicolor,MPO or Fairchild projectors.The last time for me was about 1984.The market is pretty dead unless any of you know where it's still being done.I've shot a few things in 16mm and 35mm since then but it's all gone straight to video.Just curious.I also get calls now and then to pull apart old original material that's been sitting in closets and vaults to salvage the more historically valueable stuff.It never ceases to amaze me how well film holds up even when it's been stored in poor environments.

George Selinsky brought up an excellent question on the super 8 forum about a low con reversal for super 8 and 16mm.I'm curious about how much demand could there be and if there is a possibility we could see this in the not too distant future.John P.what do you think?Any possibility of a "born again ECO?"Could open open up some possibilities for the small independent using super 8 and 16mm with a workprinter.

I have often said that a new version of ECO was needed in 16mm and super 8.It did exist in double super 8,but it wasn't the answer to super 8 printing problems as it tended to be a bit grainy,or so that's what I heard,I never used it. If someone would come out with a low contrast color reversal in 16mm and super 8 I think it would generate more interest in the format among the younger generation of experimental and independent filmmakers who want to use super 8 and do their own transfers via the Workprinter.It needs to be faster than the old ECO though.I remember learning to light with the stuff..ASA 25 for tungsten was pretty hateful to work with.

I used Turkish towells and an finally made something with an old military parka.Trouble with the Beaulieu is,it makes a high pitched whine which I found to be more difficult to blimp than the low pitched grumble of the Bolexes and Arri S and Arri M that I was also using at the time.By the time I got to where I could afford a self blimped camera,the market I was shooting for went to video.

I worked for several years with the very system you're talking about and never saw such a problem.It sounds like the master control switch may have a problem somewhere as well as the coupling between the sync pulse generator shaft and the motor.If memory serves me (I had a much older R-16 by the way),this is going back some 25 or so years,there are two motors inside the camera.One for variable and one for constant (24/25 fps).I had mine worked on by Bel Air in LA,don't know if they still exist or not,but they had a guy that specialized in Beaulieus.Have you shot any test footage this way to see if it's running at proper speed?If the torque motor is running and the camera motor isn't,how is it able to run film through the sprockets and gate?You would need the camera motor running to drive the film,wouldn't you? By the way,how do you intend to blimp your Beaulieu for sync?That was a main source of agravation for me when I shot with one for sync sound.

I actually heard of one in existence on this forum,perhaps a search in the archives may help.Converting an old Siemens or Sonorex interlock projector might be worth looking into.

An old Siemens or Sonorex interlock projector might be worth looking into conversion to S-16.

Just saw a trailer for Sin City.The black and white with added color highlights is quite striking.Anyone know where there are articles about the production and about what was used for that look?

The problems with Kodachrome in the telecine are very similar to that of trying to make a print from a Kodachrome original.Detail in shadows,contrast,oversaturated and bleeding colors,etc. can all be controlled if you know that going in.You can keep your lighting and contrast ratio down,add a little more fill light in places and keep the highlights down.When I shot a couple of super 8 TV commercials as well as an industrial that was for super 8 cart projection (this was back in the early 80's).The commercials went straight to tape(The place I used at the time was called Windsor Total Video,don't remember what they used but this was before there were s-8 neg stocks and Rank transfers for s-8)and contact s-8 to s-8 prints were struck from the Kodachrome original.At that time,Kodachrome was the only recommended choice for s-8 to print or telecine as any Ektachrome,including ECO 7252,which at that time existed in double super 8 as well 16mm,was considered too grainy. I was perfectly happy with the results of the Kodachrome for what the projects ended up on.The TV screen and the small screen of a Technicolor cart projector.I feel pretty certain after that experience that super 8 would work well for a feature as long as you were going straight to video.After seeing it printed one generation away and projected on a pretty big screen before we carted it,I don't think it's suitable for theatrical presentation unless the look was for a certain effect.

Many films have a "signature" look to them,yet it's often unclear who is really responsible.I'm sure it all depends on a number of variables,styles of certain directors,DP?director relationships,etc.,but I would like to hear from you working DP's out there on how much of a "signature" are you able to put in and how much "signature" is the director's input.Hitchcock was supposed to be known for having alot of control over what his DP did and it's always easy to spot a Kubrick film by the cinematography.When I caught "Eyes Wide Shut" in the middle on Cinemax one night,I didn't need to see Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman to know I was watching one of Kubrick's later films. Marty

Are there any current projects being done on this stock?I would love to see some clips.I thought Buffalo 66 had a unique look shot on 5239 Ektachrome.I'll miss the high speed 7250 and 7251.There are some music video projects I've come across where that look would work well.

Thank you folks.It's just that I have free access to this camera and I'm trying to save it from the auction block.I've always loved the Arri S for MOS work. Marty

I did a registration test with a Canon 1014 a Nikon R-8 and a Beaulieu 4000 series as well as the earlier 2000S.All of the cameras showed slight jitter but no worse than a lot of 16mm cameras.In fact the super 8 cameras fared better (and consider this is using a Craven backwinder to do the test with a super 8 cart)than a Bell and Howell 70 DR and one of my Bolexes I was using at the time.

I have a friend who has an Arri S that in the past I've used for some projects.He is looking to sell it along with all of his 16mm gear.He has alot of old stuff like I used to until I got tired of hauling it everywhere I moved.He has the Arri S,a couple of Auricons a Nagra 3 with a Kudelski unit and some mag film recorders and a Steenbeck.He doesn't seem to be in a hurry to sell it and I'm thinking of trying to talk him into holding on to at least the Arri S and maybe converting it to super 16.Does anyone know of a place that can convert an Arri S and is it worth it.I mean for the cost of converting the Arri,could I buy an Eclair or an Aaton LTR already converted?I get about 3 calls a year for 16mm.I could probably get more if I went out and hustled,but right now I have all the video and stills work I can handle that keeps the roof over my head. Marty

The Nikon R-8 is not crystal but I have read where a kind of cable sync can be done using the camera's flash sync input.It fires one burst each frame which can be used to record on one channel of audio for later sync resolving.I've never used this,but I haers of it working OK. Marty

It certainly wouldn't be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super 16,yet I am reminded of an optical printer I used that utilized a 32mm (?) print stock that was slit in half after processing.I forget what make of machine it was,but we used it to make 16mm internegs from 35mm originals. Marty

David, Do you generally work with the same crew on all of your films?Or do you customize your crew to the specifics of a given project? Marty

Took my 9 year old daughter to see this one.Cute kid's movie.There were some imaginitive sequences showing kid's mind's eye perception of a story she was hearing.They were extremely grainy,looked like old Ektachrome pushed a few stops or even old Polavision blown up to 35mm (as was done in the documentary, Imagine where some of John Lennon's home movie sequences were used).Anyone know the scoop on what was used? Marty