Gautam Valluri

3 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Vision3 is indeed a terrific b&w stock! But its latitude is 15 stops at best, whereas a multi-layer b&w stock could give you 20+ stops.

Very interesting! Have there been any tests done or is it still just theoretical at this point?

This makes a lot of sense for the modern DI workflow.

5 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I would like to see Kodak release a b&w film with several layers, which would give a huge amount of latitude - more than any digital sensor today. Who knows if they will even bother thinking about it.

I personally think the BW stocks are interesting exactly for their limited latitude. With 95% or more films going through the DI process, if anyone wanted more latitude in their BW stocks, they could just shoot Vision3 and colour grade to greyscale like "The White Ribbon" or "Good Night and Good Luck".

Business-wise, having one BW negative stock and one BW reversal in 16mm/ Super 8 is a solid strategy to cater to such a small demand. Having a new BW stock might make sense if Kodak wants to replace Double-X with a cheaper, easier to manufacture stock.

I only wish the ORWOs were more reliable in usage. I've heard fellow filmmakers claim the UN54 approaches the Plus-X realm but they wouldn't dare use it on a serious project due to its well-known camera transport issues.

It looks very unlikely. Kodak decided to hold onto Double-X and to a lesser extent Tri-X mostly as a single option for BW neg and reversal each. Double-X is faster speed stock than Plus-X and with its signature grain looks more obviously like "film" especially for the Super8 market.

With the possibility of shooting Vision 3 stocks and then desaturating the colours in post coming close to the "Plus-X" kind-of image, I seriously doubt Kodak will invest in bringing it back.

Ektachrome probably was brought back because of the Super 8 market, at least that's what I've understood.

1 hour ago, Paco Sweetman said:

More importantly would that be a stock that cinematographers would like to see back in availability?

I think almost everyone here would be on board with seeing Plus-X back. It just doesn't look like its going to happen.

I would recommend using a spot meter to measure the light coming from the projector to see if you need to push the 500T by a stop or two.

1. If theres natural light coming in through the windows, you need to meter that and see if its too much for the pushed 500T. In which case you might want to use some curtains or gels to cover the light coming in through the windows (if doable) or simply close the windows.

2. For this you need to figure out what kind of a digital projector you are dealing with. Here are some threads from the forums that might help:

If at all possible, I would simply go in with a 30m roll of 500T and shoot some tests, maybe even two rolls (one pushed and one normal processing) and see the results. But if tests are not possible, meter everything, eliminate possible problematic elements (the windows), figure out the math of the projector's refresh rate/ frame rate and prepare to accept any imperfect results.

Hello Everyone,

I was just wondering if the lens size matters in 16mm?

For example, how is an image shot with a 25mm Kern-Switar C-mount lens (which is tiny) differ from an image shot on a PL-mount 25mm Zeiss Superspeed MK III (which is considerably bigger)?

Besides the obvious sharpness from the quality of glass, I'm wondering if it affects the FOV in anyway by having a lens with a larger diameter?

Any thoughts, diagrams or examples would be welcome.

Thanks!

Bumping this as I'm also looking for more info on the technical specs on this film.

Such an extraordinary film, so relentlessly puts us in the perspective of the lead character!

51 minutes ago, Stephen Perera said:

excellent advice thank you, I had not thought about recording the Aaton only in the room to 'profile' it.....can you explain how this is done?

Once you have a sample of only the camera noise, you can feed it as a noise 'profile' in software like Adobe Audition. It's usually under the "noise reduction" menu. Once the software has the profile, you can remove it from the entire sound recording by doing "Apply profile to entire file" option.

Stephen, don't forget to record some room tone and if possible, also a few seconds of your Aaton running without any other sounds. This is so you can profile it in sound editing software to remove camera noise if needed.

Good luck with the shoot!

Also I'd like to know if these were direct filmouts from a Digital file (is that even possible on 70mm?) or was there a 15-perf and 5-perf "internegative" made for contact printing these projection prints?

The film's duration is 2 hours 46 minutes, roughly 18,675 feet of 70mm.

$20,000 / 18,675 = $1.07 per foot. Sounds kind of low to me?

Congratulations David! Thank you for all that you do on these forums, this is amazing news!

Thanks for the tip, I will do another test roll at 50 ASA to see what it does.

Excellent work Kamran! Thanks for sharing.

You could perhaps consider putting this up on https://sixteenmillimeter.com/

and perhaps also on https://www.filmlabs.org/

to reach a wider user base...

Yes The Lighthouse was shot entirely on the Double-X but Jarin had done extensive tests with 16mm Tri-X as well. There are some of his posts from that period on these forums somewhere.

Understandably, he couldn't share the results with us but he did mention exposing 7266 (Tri-X) at 80 ISO and then developing as negative yeilded much better results compared to traditional 7222 (Double-X).

They went with the 7266 with a bit of desaturated 7219 mixed in, exactly like The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Maki, the finnish boxing film from 2016. I remember reading an interview with the filmmakers back then where they said they bought out the entire European supply of Tri-X from Kodak, and had to even ship some from North America. Could've been exagerrated.

I did get a 122m roll of 7266 shipped from Kodak last year, it took them a few weeks to deliver and it seemed like it was made to order.

The film also looks like it has the Guy Maddin / Bertrand Mandico vibe, which could be a bit much for a feature-length film.

As Jon mentioned above, always a pleasure to see Tri-X and SR3 features.

Also, I remember Jarin Blaschke doing tests of 7266 as a negative during The Lighthouse pre-production. He claimed 7266 at 80 ISO was a far superior 16mm negative than 7222.

Thanks Robert!

Greetings!

Last summer I did some tests on some old 7217 stock where I exposed at box speed (200 ASA) and push-processed the footage 1-stop. I was pleased with the results, especially with exterior shots.

I'm wondering if I can technically get the same kind of image if I simply expose the stock at 100 ASA and process normally? Considering push-processing pretty much doubles the per meter costs of development.

Also, this stock is easily 15+ years old.

Thanks in advance for your views,

G

EDIT: Just adding that I went through some other posts on the forums already and I couldn't find any specific responses to push-processing comparisons with overexposing pertaining to expired stock.

On 10/27/2023 at 1:25 PM, Tommy Lau Madsen said:

Hi Gautam,

Thanks for chiming into the conversation.

We are currently actively pursuing 6505 and 6515 platforms while also "semi-actively" working on the Gentoo 8mm camera as a "backburner" for rental companies only. We decided to park our 16mm cameras for the time being due to resource constraints (rather than monetary, it's more about the fact that there's just not enough time in the day to work on yet another platform)

Our 65/05 platform is finally shaping up to be production worthy aiming at first movies shot on it in Q1-24

Our 65/15 platform is in active R&D today with a prototype being worked on and evaluated.
Our aim with 15-perf is to create the world's first non-mos 65/15 allowing it to be used for dialog scenes without dubbing.

What is your end goal / mission statement?

We aim to create world-class cameras offering unsurpassable image quality through the use of our own IP.

How do we turn a profit for our investors? 

Through rental of 65mm cameras and sale of IP design services.
We have yet to generate a profit for our investors however, but foresee a healthy ROI from 2024 onwards.

Hi Tommy,

Thanks for taking time out to respond to my queries. I was previously unaware of the work you guys were doing on the S16 cameras. Hoping you guys will find the resources to pick it up again soon!

In the meantime, wishing you the best for the 65mm camera systems development.

Best,
Gautam

On 10/14/2023 at 12:29 AM, Pablo Cruz Villalba said:

Yes, It comes out not very easily

What ASA did you rate the 125T?

ADOX used to have the Pan-X 100 ASA Super 8 film. Could this be a repackaged version of it?

14 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

they proposed this and designed something. many members on this forum piled on with criticisms of the design, such that it seemed to convince them to abandon the idea. 

its also worth noting there does not appear to be a way of making a quick change magazine s16 camera for under $40k USD. Ditch the quick change mag, you're probably still at 25-30k USD (this has been discussed at length on this forum). you can get an SR3 Advanced with mags for 20k USD right now, and those are known to be bullet proof. Logmar had even designed a new Max 8 camera, but didnt get enough pre orders despite only costing around $5k USD. All of these camera designs Logmar had published were modular.

to make a new, SR3 Advanced or 416 compatible camera with spare parts would be a massive investment even if all the fabrication and assembly was done in china. This basically would require buy in from some major rental houses for it to work. The vast majority of 16 shooters on the low end dont want to spend more than 10k for a camera, and at the high end they only trust the Arris or late Aatons. 

Ultimately if the community wants these cameras, we actually have to buy in when someone puts out a design and is taking pre orders. The only other option would be to press Arri to start making more spare parts if not full film cameras again, and by all indications that is extremely unlikely (they may not even have the tooling anymore)

Robin, I wasn't aware that Logmar proposed S16 cameras. I just found out about their cancelled Rockhopper and Galapagos cameras. I stand corrected!

Looking at the specs now they looked promising, except the lack of 400ft loads, and I'm sorry they never got it off the ground.

4 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

Have to chime in because this "low cost, lightweight, ultra silent portable s16 camera" has been talked before so many times.

Pretty much everything else can be done, but "affordable" is in practice impossible to do in today's world because one would need to pre-sell an insanely large batch of cameras to fund the project. The cost would be AT LEAST hundreds of thousands of dollars, most of it going to the precise mechanics engineering and manufacturing.

I mean, the customer base is just not there. people talk a lot about how they would shoot so much stuff if just having cameras available but in real life there is not that many people who could afford to shoot film in first place, even if the cameras would be free... and out of them, only so many even have actually something real to shoot (other than "home movies" and "camera test type of content").

As seen with Logmar and other companies and even based on my own experiences: it is very challenging to design new filmmaking gear, but that is NOTHING compared to the difficulties of actually selling them in large enough quantities to even get the developing money back.

For charity project the s16 super cool hobby camera would work, but not if it needs to be paid for with orders instead of just burning money for fun (and still risking no one buying the end product)

Something over 15k a piece could probably be done but it would still be mechanically inferior to the "gold standard" indie cameras like Eclairs, Arris and Aatons (one would need something like 30k to 40k a piece to get even near the mechanics quality of them) .

Electronics are actually cheaper to make than mechanics so something could be figured out for crystal electronics if the mechanics are just got from somewhere for free

Considering the costs of developing 5/65mm and 15/65mm that pretty much three people will use, isn't it better to be spending all that money and time in developing S16 cameras?

What's Logmar's end-goal? How do they plan to turn a profit for their investors?

It's great that Logmar is making the 5/65mm and 15/65mm camreras but apart from Christopher Nolan and a couple of other filmmakers, no one else will use these.

Why not make an affordable, lightweight, ultrasilent Super16 camera body? This is the most demanded market currently and the cost of owning a second-hand SR3, XTR Prod or a 416 is no longer possible for most independent filmmakers. Logmar could be doing what the early RED cameras did for digital filmmakers- offer professional quality, modulable camera bodies at affordable prices.

An ACL-style multi-lens mount system with adapters, 12-48 fps crystal sync speeds, a basic video tap, a basic timecode with light weight, easy to load co-axial magazines is enough. Supported by the possibility of spare parts and servicing, this could be a very profitable market.

Logmar already must have done a lot of research and testing for their S8 cameras that they could transpose to a S16 system.

Thank you Frederick for the info. This is really worrying.

Over at some of the analog photo forums, members have started compiling lists of all airports currently using CT scanners for hand-baggage. Perhaps we could also compile a list to sticky-post on these forums?

Copy-pasting some of the info here:

HOW TO IDENTIFY THE CT TYPE X-RAY SCANNERS

The following machines are currently on the market;

Smiths – CTIX

L3 – Clearscan

Rapiscan - 920CT / Connect CT

IDSS - Detect 1000

Nuctech - Kylin

Analogic Cobra

These US airports currently use CT scanning technology:

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)
Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI)
Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD)
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (CVG)
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW)
Houston Hobby Airport (HOU)
Indianapolis International Airport (IND)
John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK)
Logan International Airport (BOS)
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
Miami International Airport (MIA)
Oakland International Airport (OAK)
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX)
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA)
St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL)
Tampa International Airport (TPA)
Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD)

European airports

Amsterdam Schiphol
Rome-Fiumicino International
Leonardo da Vinci International Airport
Stockholm Arlanda Airport (in progress)
Shannon Airport in County Clare, Ireland
Donegal Airport, Ireland

source: https://www.thenationalnews.com/travel/2023/04/05/airports-where-travellers-dont-need-to-remove-liquids-and-laptops/

Please add on more airports if anybody can confirm.

Info on how to contact these airports beforehand would also be useful.

And also perhaps fake "ISO 3200 film" stickers?

Here's a 'freewheeling' test roll of 16mm Fuji Eterna 250D I shot back in late-2018. I reckoned this stock was about 5-7 years old at the time of filming this test so I just metered it mostly normally and just overexposed it a bit in-camera here and there for some shots.

I processed it myself normally and didn't have any remjet issues.

I used the rest of this batch of Fuji Eterna to make a film in 2019, which I contact printed onto 16mm 3383 and everything came out nicely.

Seeing that the last Eterna stocks were rolled out by Fuji in 2013, I'm guessing your stock is atleast a decade old. I think some people on this forum suggested overexposing by 1 stop per decade?

I would probably do two test rolls:

1- rate the stock at box speed for the -3 to +3 exposure tests and process normally.

2-rate the stock at box speed for the -3 to +3 exposure tests and push process +1.

If possible, please share your results with us when you have them.

Also, more recently, a friend shot some Fuji Super F 250T and had remjet issues. This predates the Eterna stocks and was probably about 20 years in a freezer. Might be worth giving a heads-up to your lab before you send these in.