Marty Hamrick

The closest thing to what you describe is the Elmo Trifilmatic that had changeable backs for S8, DS8 and standrad 8. Perhaps if you started with one of these and did some surgery on it, you could come close, but I'm pretty sure that much engineering would cost more than what you're asking here.

Damn, maybe I shouldn't have deleted those emails from the Eastern Euro babes,lol. I kinda figured something like that. Every other US and Canadian business is going overseas for cheap labor, why should the movies be any different? Can't really complain about production quality, I didn't see anything overtly bad about the production values, so can you really blame them? That's capitalism, what can you do?

Someone please explain this to me. I was watching one of those awful slasher movies, Wrong Turn 3 a while ago and was somewhat puzzled to see that it was filmed in Sofia, Bulgaria with an almost entirely Bulgarian crew. What's up with that? The film takes place in West Va., which doesn't look much like Bulgaria, from what I saw of the movie as well as my own travels through West Va.How can it be cheaper to shoot in Europe with travel expenses? Labor prices cheap there? I don't get it.It looked like it was shot on a RED or something similar, in one shot, a low angle out of the water shot of the rafts I could see some serious artifacts and I figured that particular shot was done on something expendable as it stuck out from the rest of the sequence. Anyone familiar with this? Just curious.

No I haven't price processing and transfer in a long time, I just assumed they went up like everything else.That's encouraging, thanks.I know raw stock and chemistry prices haven't dropped.I haven't shot 16mm since the 90's.

I've read about that, but never actually seen someone cut a film from it. Do they cut the scenes exactly where the editor made them or do they pull the scenes flash frame to flash frame and print(xfer to DI) accordingly? I used to cut in A and B rolls to hide splices and make transition effects, how is this done now? I'm still curious as to what neg cutters charge these days.

I'm curious, what are you paying for a neg cutter these days? I used to cut neg (actually about 50% of what I cut was reversal as ECO was still used quite a bit back then)and the lab charged 18 bucks an hour then(1978-80). When I freelanced, I charged by the job, averaging around the same as I counted per cut(average 10 cuts an hour,which calculated around 15 to 20 bucks depending on how big the entire project was, sometimes I charged more, some less). It amazes me that they can do it now without a film workprint, I wouldn't even begin to know how these days.

16mm camera prices may have nose dived, but the prices of film, processing and transfer continue to do nothing but rise. Sometimes I'm tempted to buy something that I would've loved to have 20 or 30 years ago because it's less than 1/5 what it used to cost, but what would be the point if film and lab work are still exhorbitantly expensive? A few years ago, my wife and I visited MGM studios in Oralndo and I saw a display of a couple of mannequins, one with a director's megaphone and the other behind an Arri S with a long zoom. It was out, exposed to the elements, getting rained on I couldn't help but cringe a bit. I hope that the falling prices will inspire some to shoot film, but I don't hold my breath.

All very enlightening, gentlemen, but seriously, how can one sell the format to such a degree to warrant the production of a new super 8 camera or even the retrofitting of one that already exists? As I see it, super 8 is one of those formats that's held on to by the avant garde crowd, the few big feature guys that want the signature look for a few shots (like Oliver Stone,seriously, how long will that last?) and the hobbyists who, by their own admission see it as an "addcition". My own interest in it is to shoot test rolls of various stocks to use as a template to manipulate digital HD originated footage to look as close to the signature stock as possible. No, it won't look exactly like E 100 D, Fuji Velvia or Kodachrome, but does the audience care? I admit, I get a little irate when I see "fake" film on TV, especially when the person doing it thinks that the film look means that it has to be jumpy and scratched, but if you really know what you're doing and what you want out of the image, you can get close enough to evoke the same visual mood, and isn't that what it's about anyway? Film is dying, we know this and we all have an emotional, almost romantic attachment to it that makes us drool over the 4008 ZM2's and sparkly Kodachrome images, but seriously, is anyone willing to fork out the $$$ needed to manufacture a camera that will never sell enough models to even justify the R and D on it? I've read on forums like filmshooting about the starving artist/techs who have deperately tried to slit and cart their own stocks or even darkroom soundstripe emulsions in a desparate attempt to keep the format alive and every time, they give up after almost going bankrupt, disrupting their family life and even harming their marriages by the strain. Somehow I feel attempting to produce a new super 8 camera would yield similar results. Enjoy the format for what it is now,as long as it lasts, a lovely art form, sort of the water color, pastel or impressionistic version of the moving images and don't worry about reiventing the wheel that's being replaced by anti gravity. There was a time when I said that I would give up my Bolex Rex or Canon 1014 when they pried it from my dead, cold hand, but watching them collect dust because the film stock and processing for a 5 minute short at a 4 to 1 ratio costs more than a mortgage payment on a house, was painful enough for me to consider other options.

Those are exactly my next long term plans and after 30 plus years I've finally got reasonably close to be able to pull it off.

All very good points, gentlemen, thank you for the responses and all things I've learned through experiences. Suffice to say, it's not just in our business that it all works this way, it's pretty much in everything whether you make movies or doughnuts. I've never begrudged anyone and I really have no regrets as I've had a blast doing news, commercials, industrials, etc and I look at it as just the way life steers you somestimes. I have a friend in Sacramento that spent years in school learning higher mathematics and computer science only to find his niche of success in his own pool cleaning business. My wife has two degrees in banking, finance and office management and so far has only been able to find work in fast food and at the drive in theatre I used to manage. My daughter just finished school to become a medical assistant and as yet there are no jobs available in her field, so she's doing retail. I told her not to worry, that may be her niche and she won't complain if she ends up making a decent living with it and having fun at the same time. Actually, I would like to think in many ways I've proved the mypoics wrong. I've transitioned between news and high end commercial production by proving that I could do it. My short stint in porn didn't black ball me like many warned about, indeed, I got the connections to get a lab job as my future boss was one of the biggest patrons. There's another transition I've done, from production to post production and back again.So I don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe that a news shooter can transition to docs, episodic TV and even movies. I have a very good friend in LA who worked as news shooter at one of the stations I also worked at and today he's a steadicam op on episodics. Stanley Kubrick, one of my early all time heroes in this business advised young filmmakers to get a camera and make any kind of films they can and that's what I did. Like I said I have no regrets. In my hiring practices though whenever I worked any kind of manegerial position, I've always made the effort to go against the grain of comfort and hire someone that showed enthusiasm and were looking for a break. I've never been burned doing that, in fact, it's been the opposite experience for me. If I ever got taken advantage of, it was when I hired friends, family and the familiar ("comfortable").I guess I'm the odd exception.Once I hired a former engineer at one of the stations I worked at who had been laid off when the station was sold. I didn't know her very well and she had no experience actually operating a camera, but yet could open one up and work on one if it crapped out.It was a multi camera gig on a big corporate seminar and I took a very big chance hiring her. At first her camera moves were rough and during a break, I coached her on how to follow a moving subject and pull her own focus and after a little practice she got it. Not long after that, one of the other cameras, a rental blew a power supply and she ended up rescuing the entire shoot by knowing how to fix it, as it stumped our staff engineer ( he knew alot about electronics but very little about cameras).Sometimes it pays to go against what comfort tells you.

It sounds to me like it's a lens made for 8mm optics and film plane, sort of like putting the zoom found on a Beaulieu 4008 ZM2 on an R16, so your test film may come out exactly like you see it in the finder. I really envy you at the stage you are now with such an impressive camera. My first cameras were an old Technicolor 8 (standard 8mm) and I thought I was really stepping up when I got a Kodak XL55 for a Christmas present in 1972. Some times were living in, right?

Of course it is, Chance and now that I'm 50 and had time to reflect on things, I can kinda understand it. One very successful commercial producer I knew, the one who hired his brother in law wanted someone he could sort of mold in his own image, so it makes sense that he would bring in someone a little green if it meant that he knew the person very intimately. He was known for firing people over seemingly strange, somewhat anal quirks. He might not hire you if he found out that on your time off ,you preffered to unwind with a doobie instead of three martinis or if you drove a Toyota instead of a Ford or Chevy.Of course he would never admit to those reasons, but it was well known. It's all about peace of mind and what you're comfortable with, and if you have that kind of successful track record, who can really argue with you?

Over in the 16mm subforum, Adam and I digressed a bit about hiring practices and what constitutes a "filmmaker". While we disagree on what constitues a filmmaker (my main disagreement over his definition is that I'm a little more liberal than he is. I feel that if I applied his definition to the term "musician", only those who had high end recording contracts and charging 200 dollars or more a ticket for their concerts would apply, thus leaving out the folks that play piano bar,entertain in night clubs or even play piano or organ for a church. I mean, what are they if not professional "musicians"?), we agree with professional discrimination (not myopia, more on that later)in that a producer is perfectly justified in not giving a break to the guy who shoots weddings or industrials for a living. Yet in my long,varied and checkered career behind a cine or video camera, I think I've learned what the difference is and what constitues the difference between general myopia and professional discrimination. Often the line between the two is blurred and the definition can be subjective. I will use my own carreer experiences to illustrate the difference. I've made my living with everything from TV news to industrials, sports analysis films, corporate sales and training films, commercials and even porn since 1976 when my internships while I was still in high school started paying me for my time instead of handing a broom to me and asking me to sweep up the editing room floor. While I don't expect to walk into Spielberg's office with a reel of commercials and expect to be hired to DP his next epic, I don't feel like I should be labelled as a "news shooter"(in spite of the fact that I've won awards on it and covered many major national and international events)an IMAG camera op (in spite of the fact that I've made some very good easy money with it)or certainly not a "pornographer" (in spite of the fact that at age 17 in '77 I put 5G in my savings account that summer and the connections led to my first "real" full time job at a film lab a year later). Here's some examples of what I feel to be myopia and some of the frustrations I have experienced. 1980: The film lab I worked for closed and I went to production companies and TV stations. I was labelled as a film cutter and none of them would even talk to me about part time work in the video editing departments despite the fact that I had taken several courses at the local cable company that used the same identical gear.Instead, one company hired a guy because he was the owner's high school chum and had been laid off. His only experience with video was retail sales at a department store.1987-91: My video production company folded due to the fact that my two biggest clients got hit with major financial problems. I could've recovered if it had happened to one of them at a time, but not both simultaneously so I went back to shooting news at one of the local TV stations. I had a reel of commercials and industrials to show besides news and during my tenure at this particular station,so I felt qualified to apply for a lateral move to the production/promotion department when the spot came open (which it did three times during those years). I was passed over 3 times for that position, they hired guys from other markets who had backgrounds as studio camera ops and some EFP, but having seen their reels, I didn't feel that they were any better than I was. I mean we're talking about the majority of spots being dollar a hollar used car dealerships and station promotions for their news department.Occasionally they got some fairly big production clents ,which they usually hired freelance help for some of the lighting and grip work, but pllllleeaaasssse, c'mon! Eventually in 1991, they hired me but only because I harrassed them every chance I got and by that time TV stations were scaling their production departments down so they hired me primarily because they could get me on a salary that was about 5% less than the out of town guys they had previously hired. Then there was a guy in my town who's background was in camera sales and somehow he ends up DP ing movies less than three years after he gets a job managing the AV department of a consumer grade camera store, mainly because he could talk a line of crap and played golf and went to church with the right people. I can't really begrudge him because he is good, but he has a reputation for seriously underbidding and basically "whoring" to get a foot in the door making it harder for anyone else to even get near the bidding process. Another guy who one of my stations used to hire to assist me on commercial shoots got a very secure position DP ing high budget commercials (he was offered slots on features but turned them down because he didn't want to be tied down on the long shooting schedules of movies)simply because his sister married a producer. Previously this guy had retired at age 38 when he sold his part of his family's printing business and spent a few years fishing, got bored and asked his brother in law for a job. Now while I understand that luck has much to do with any business, I have a problem with someone being turned down, who has some similar experience, but is labelled because it's not exactly the same thing, while someone with no experience gets a shot that others would kill for because they happened to be related to the right person or play golf at the right course. Also, if you cut your teeth on 16mm industrials, it's not that much of a stretch to doing big budget commercials and even movies. I remember when there were studios that cranked out 16mm films and they hired full and part time actors, directors, writers, camera crews, editors and such and production values and techniques were pretty much the same, except on a smaller scale. They used dollies, cranes, big lighting packages and the like and some of them even made a few successful features. With regard to features, I've seen DP's getting pigeonholed unfairly because of their success doing a particular genre for purely subjective reasons. "This guy does wonders with aging actresses, but do you want him to shoot your horror film?" are some of the arguments I've heard. What's up with that? I feel that if you don't understand the different requirements for different genres, then maybe you shouldn't be doing features in the first place.

Hey Adam, I think this is a good discussion here, but it's a digression from 16mm camera prices. You want to continue in general? We both have some salient points here from two distictively different points of view. See you there if you like.

Right, Adam, we really don't disagree. The only point I was trying to make (but apparently doing a poor job of it) was that the new technology has offered cheaper avenues because the exhorbitant lab costs are gone. Yes, I'll agee with you 100% about the fact that we live in an age when any schmuck with a few grand can win some jack leg festival( I sat through one evening of an awful festival in Toronto last year, quite painful) and stroke his ego while his work still sucks.Hell, we live in age when any schmuck with a mail order or online degree can hang a shingle on his door and call himself an expert at something and charge money for his quackery. Yet at the same token I have friends who WERE good at what they did. I know because I used to work with them and they gave up because no one gave them a break and getting money up for their own project was impossible, the same story of not getting a break applies to competent and incompetent as well (yes, I'll agree with producers who won't hire a grip for a DP, but by the same token,have you ever met a student filmmaker or very small budget producer who had such an ego that he expected to hire experienced talent for nothing? I have.). Now 30 years later, they bought a camera and started getting on the crews of small indie films of fairly decent merit. Shorts at first, then some features. I have a friend that did that, although eventually he switched from doing camera work to audio because he said that there was more demand for audio where he is becuase there was less competition. He's doing quite well now and in a short time of less than 3 years, he's managed to get himself a fairly decent list of credits.I also know several producer/director types who couldn't get a project off the ground before HD because broadcast video wasn't good enough and film, with it's high stock costs and lab fees was out of the question. My own definition of a filmmaker is anyone who makes films (or videos). This includes features, TV, shorts, docs, whatever. Some are good, many are garbage. Not everyone who makes films can or even wants to make theatrical features. Standards of quality vary depending on the avenue of distribution.To me filmmaking is an art form, a business and a means of communication. Some can manage all three, as in the case of "real" films like you're talking about, others only go for the small venue and that's fine. No, you won't find too many fiddlers playing Bach's Sinfonia to Cantata #29 in E flat major and you won't find too many concert violinists sawing out Orange Blossom Special, yet have you ever heard of Vasser Clements? He can do both and can even play Bluegrass in a classical style and classical in Bluegrass style.

HEREis a link to a Beaulieu R-16 users message board and HEREis a site with a downloadable version of the manual. Hope both helps.

I was wondering the same thing about the explosion. As a news cameraman, I've probably shot a couple of hundred fires, both day and night. The natural light from the fire at night is a great idea. I've gotten away without having to resort to the on camera batt light for talent with a small, handheld reflector bouncing off of the flames. If you catch it just right, the fire's movement makes for some interesting reflections in the talent's eyes. It can also make for a natural back light.

Have you shot any test footage yet? I've probably shot enough film on a Pathe and a Beaulieu R-16 to wrap around my block several times, they were my workhorses when I used to shoot sports analysis films. I saw the same vignetting on both cameras with a variety of lenses but the film always came out gorgeous. My bet would be the ground glass. Interesting , though it happenes on a wide angle lens as I usually saw vignetting on lenses 50mm or better. I had a 12 to 120 Angenieux that I saw vignetting on both the Beaulieu and the Pathe at different ends of the zoom.

Back to the OP as we digressed there. 16mm has never been cheap. I started out in the days of 16mm lore and up until just recently, camera prices held their own. An Arri S for example with 3 lenses, two mags, a VS motor and batts went for around 3500 USD and remained about that up until around two or three years ago when they started nosediving.I saw one fully loaded go for 500 bucks last week. They were prized possessions as were Bolex Rex's, Beaulieu R-16's, Eclair NPR's and ACL's, hell even an old Auricon in 1975 would set you back over 2 G. Proportionally speaking, however, film, processing, printing and such has always been expensive. In the 70's the avergae cost of having a 16mm production done (usually it was an industrial, corporate sales film,educational/training or promotional type production)started at 1000 bucks per production minute, thus a 20 minute film's budget STARTED at 25G and went up from there depending on how involved the production was. Your 25G usually got you a producer/director(who was also usually the editor or at least supervised the editing), cameraman/DP, soundman, grip/AC,as many as 3 or 4 main actors(it wasn't hard to get extras and non speaking parts for free), and as much help they could hire for minimum wage or less, stock ( usually shooting ratios were around 8 to 1 or slightly better)and lab work that took you to answer print stage, at which point you were at the lab's mercy for internegs and release prints. What do you suppose a production like that, all things being equal would go for now using prosumer HDV gear? Something to ponder. I know for a fact production values in these venues(which is why I can relate to Adam's lament/rant) dropped significantly over the last three decades. Yet in looking at the way business has changed, companies learned that they didn't need such high production values to get their messages across. When I had my production company in the 80's(16mm started dying fast, replaced by 3/4", sometimes 1 inch and later Betacam video and VHS release), most of my clients would say, "We don't need Hollywood, but we don't want home movies either".Now in most cases, if an industrial video is done with remotely similar production values, the average running time has dropped from 20-40 minutes to 3 to 5 minutes with the rest of the presentation being done with Power Point and IMAG.

All I'm saying is that electronic distribution has opened up and has the potential to open up more avenues of exhibition for filmmakers that stretch beyond the theatrical. Is the guy who makes avant garde films on super 8 not a "filmmaker"? Look at the number of documentaries that pop up from folks who just want to make a statement. Brian Fleming's "The God Who Wasn't There" comes to mind as well as "Zeitgeist" and a host of others. Granted there's a lot of crap out there, Hip Hop Gangsta comedies and such, but quality is a subjective on many of these venues as I mentioned before. Not yet, but who says to be defined as a "filmmaker", the person has to make feature narrative films? You got folks out there who just want to make a statement, grind an axe or preach a sermon and they use film (OK video) as a delivery medium. Yeah, much is crap, but some have won awards for their work such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. While I'm not saying I buy into his stuff, he has won film festival awards for his docs. I'm not disagreeing with you at all here. In fact I'll even go you one further and say there are alot of filmmakers out there who shouldn't call themselves filmmakers. Having worked on the distribution/exhibition end I've seen some junk hit the screen that should've never made as whoever did them were clearly unqualified. "Open Water" comes to mind, which wouldn't even have qualified as a student film in my opinion. I'll also agree with you that the technology revolution has given many an unrealistic view of the requirements of making a film. This has been going on since 16mm and small handheld 35mm cameras have existed. It's a glamorous business and it attracts more people than who are qualified to work in it or will have enough positions to satisfy those that want to work in it. That's just the reality. I'm just a little confused as to just where you draw the line on what constitutes a "filmmaker". Here again, we don't really disagree on that much and I wasn't accusing you of being myopic. Yet myopia is a part of the business, it's a part of every business because every business's main concern is the bottom line which makes it difficult for anyone to branch into it. I suppose the best analogy I can use here is the difference between a fiddler and a violinist. They are two entirely different discipines that stem from different roots and backgrounds, yet they both utilise exactly the same instrument. Both artists are equally talented and equally satisfy the demands of their customers and patrons.

I hear you. Yet in today's world, the word "filmmaker" can stretch beyond the Hollywood scene. This is, of course, due to the fact that distribution needs have changed radically since the days when movies had to be released on celluloid. While I hate to compare the small group with low cost HDV gear with a full fledged production facility, that doesn't necessarily mean the guy who makes his bread and butter on weddings or industrials doesn't have something to say artistically or even commercially. "Good" can be relative. A small production can have it's merits artistically, placing in film festivals and the guy who starts out shooting corporate IMAGS can branch out to feature films. Back in the 70's I interned for several 16mm production companies in Jacksonville, Florida. One was a company called Joyous Lakes that was light years ahead of it's time, making industrials that did well in film festivals, but unfortunately were misunderstood by their clients and eventually they folded. The guys who ran the small company eventually went separate ways and each found their niche in features in Hollywood because they were good at what they did. Another company, Barton Films who cranked out industrials and commercials from the late 40's to the 80's (they still exist today, a small family run group mainly doing work for a local hospital)made a campy,low budget monster film called "Zaat" that developed a kind of cult following and runs on Turner's Underground feature from time to time. Yeah, Zaat was no epic, but it did feature a few actors that developed careers in show business afterward and the DP, Jack McGowan ( "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" among many other credits)had a bit of noteriety of his own. My point is that there is too much myopia in show business and it stifles creativity and progress in my opinion. Yeah, I understand business, but how many actors,musicians, cinematographers, editors, whatever have been pigeon holed by what they did for a living, only later to prove their worth after years of beating their heads against the wall while the biz types screatched their heads and wondered,why the hell didn't we know about this person before? Myopia is never a good thing.

Need a match? A Bic lighter? Some accelerant? I can help!

Who says one can't do all of the above and more? One can do tests and practice stuff on youtube and partially or even completely fund a small film by doing weddings, commercials, corporate videos, industrials, news, sports, infomercials and basically anything that makes a buck. I've seen it done.

Family reasons. My wife is from Canada and her dad recently passed away and after she got her inheritance, she decided she had had enough of the USA after living there with me the past 7 years. I figure once I'm legal here I can work in both countries. :)

Thanks for the correction. Have you noticed what I have, though in the prices of super 16 cameras not dropping nearly as sharply? I saw an Arri SR go for under 4 G. So let's say you want to convert it to super 16, what are you talking for conversion along with the mags? I still see super 16 Aatons and Arri SR's holding at 8 to 12 G and up. Somebody still thinks 16mm is worth something. For now anyway.