Tom Ballard

I just bought these on ebay. Take a look and you'll see what rewinds are. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1 Tom Ballard

I have a Scoopic MS and couldn't be more pleased with its reliability and the imagery it provides. On the other hand, I've been through a couple of the older gray Scoopics and in my opinion, they're junk- bad glass. I had one K-3. I'll not have another. I believe those that understand the limitations of the Scoopic and won't try to make it something it isn't, will be very happy with it. Good luck. Tom Ballard

There's no more uncertainty shooting film than there is shooting video. Film cameras fail. Video cameras fail. It's not taste and practice. It's talent, competence and patience. Those are the prerequisites for quality assurance in any endeavor. I see the wreckless manner in which some drivers operate their automobiles and wonder how people insure them. Such drivers are likely to kill themselves, someone else, or both, yet they manage to get insurance. Personally, I love the little 'trrrr-ing' sound my cameras make. I can tell when they're well lubricated and functioning properly because I know my equipment and if the occasion should arise that the cameras aren't 'trrrr-ing' the way they should, then I know something's awry. I don't own one that makes the "Skrink, skrink skrink" sound to which you refer, so I can't comment on that. We manage to deal quite nicely with the sound our cameras make. It's something we have to live with to obtain quality imagery and so we live with it. It's part of the job. I have a friend who shot several important scenes on video, played them back on a monitor and all was good, so she broke down the set and sent everyone home. Upon attempting to firewire the video to her NLE system, all she got was a blue screen. She replayed the video in the cam and a deck- blue screen. Those who point and shoot can't necessarily state "I shoot video, therefore, I have instant proof of what I've shot." Video cams can be quite fickle when not regularly serviced or improperly operated or they can simply fail. Film travels at a predetermined speed past the film plane and light hits the film at a predetermined shutter speed. It doesn't get much simpler than that. I still believe filmshooters are of the majority. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a post entitled "How can I video-look my film?". Having stated that, if video is the answer, why are so many trying to give it the 'filmlook' (which by the way is atrocious)? It wasn't my intent to hijack this post and turn it into a film vs video war and for that I apologize. If video gives you the results you want, by all means, shoot it. As someone has already posted, those who know how to shoot film will know how it's going to look before the magazine is unloaded. Good luck. Tom

This is a great topic. I abhore the look of low-end video, which is what many videographers shoot. The higher end video cams are wonderful and I do believe in using the medium that best fits the mood. All things considered, however, the compression, dynamic range and DOF of video provide too many restrictions when compared to negative filmstock. And I believe film is easier to shoot than video. Yes, you have to learn to loop the film and yes, it's a good idea to have someone pull focus. But in the end, what are we striving for if not good imagery? Plainly spoken, video can only compete with film in a limited number of situations. One can visit Kodak's website and get the EI for any of their filmstocks by clicking on the technical data link for a given stock. Those EIs are what's considered ideal exposure, but the latitude film provides enables us to create the look we want. Try that with video, even broadcast quality cams and creativity is very limited because of the never-ending DOF and lack of dynamic range. If one is shooting an interview in perfectly controlled conditions, fine, shoot DV. One point that was made about metering I would respectfully disagree with was to point the light meter at the sky to get your exposure. That would be great if the sky was the subject. It's going to show up in frame, but the subject is what we're shooting, not the sky. I'd get a reading in the areas where the subject will be, based upon the light hitting the subject and expose accordingly. If the proper filmstock is used, the subject will appear as it should and the sky becomes incidental. The gentleman that began this post was going to be shooting skateboarders, so if the sky's a little bright but the subjects properly exposed, so be it. I realize there are so many scenarios, a metering discussion could go on forever, but I want my subjects properly exposed and if I'm in a controlled situation, I can block or add light to create the look I want. If shooting in ambient light and the shots aren't critical, I still want the subject properly exposed, will meter for the subject and ignore the rest. If the shots are critical, either put the subject under a tent or shoot early or late when the sun is low, making it less of a factor. Tom

Removed from the environment they need in which to survive (cool and damp), many fungi will die. This could still leave a blemish on the lens, which may or may not show up on film, depending upon the density and distance from the film plane. I agree with keeping the lens in a dry area exposed to lots of sunlight, as well as leaving the cleaning to a professional. Good luck. Tom

I've watched "The Shield" and while it may have been transferred to and edited in HD, it appears to have been shot in Super 16. Just an opinion, I don't know this to be factual. Tom

Does anyone know what happened to these guys? I've been trying to contact them for nearly two weeks and get an answering machine, no return calls and no response to emails. Are they still in business? Thanks.

16mm sound stock was discontinued years ago. Crystal sync is recommended regardless of how you're recording audio, unless your cam runs at a constant speed very, very close to 24fps, in which case you can increase/decrease audio speed in post. Don't stray too far from 24fps or you'll find adjusting the audio speed will effect the pitch. Good luck. Tom

Freya, HTTK's Tri-X film came out nicely and the speed of that filmstock exceeds the limitations of the cam's electric eye. But, as he posted, he metered and set the aperture manually. I can see no reason one couldn't shoot any filmstock they wanted in that cam, including fast Vision 2, providing it's done in manual mode. Many cameras have a film speed limitation suited for their 'automatic' modes, be it exposure or something else. I have an old gray Scoopic that only registers 320ASA, but that's for the internal light meter. Although that model Scoopic doesn't have very good glass, I've shot 500T with good results, but I didn't use the internal meter or the film would've been over exposed. I also have a Canon 1014 XL-S Super 8 that only registers 400ASA. Again, this is for factoring in the internal meter. I've shot 500 speed film with that cam as well, using an incident meter. I have the 240-T with the Super Comat f/1.9 20mm lens. According to the manual, this was one of two lenses that came with the camera new. The 240-T accepts C mount lenses. If it stops raining, I'm going to shoot some Vision 2 200T today and Vision 2 500T tonight. Good luck. Tom

I believe "Arrested Development" is video. I've not watched more than a couple of minutes of it, so I could be mistaken. Tom

Matt- You brought up some very good issues. I hadn't given any consideration to the different sound frequencies. I'm sure it'll take some experimenting, but I'm going to try to quieten this camera a little. I'll let you know how it goes. Thank you. Tom

One of the fellows at filmshooting.com directed me to the material found here: http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cf...tnumber=260-535 I'm going to create a pattern and weave together two layers of this material and see how it works. I'll post the results here. I know a lot of people don't like the Scoopics, but I've had very good luck with them. Tom

I'll stick to my guns on my opinon that converting that cam to Super 16 is a bit "ambitious". Each to their own, of course. The shutter speed of the 240-T at 24fps is 1/65th sec. Good luck.

While the 240 is a neat little camera, the thought of converting it to Super 16 is a bit ambitious. Shoot with a better camera, something like a CP-16R (not the best, but far from the worst) and you'll understand what I mean. It's sync sound and quiet as a mouse. You could never shoot sync sound with the 240. It's far too noisey and to my knowledge, no crystal motor exists for it. S16 conversion is simply not practical. Enjoy the camera for what it is and you'll have fun. Good luck.

Has anyone here successfully blimped a Scoopic MS? I recall someone selling an MS several months ago on ebay with the 400 foot mags. If memory serves me accurately, it was blimped. I'm wondering if the blimp enabled this user (or any other) to shoot MS. Also, any direction to where a blimp can be found/made and recommended would be appreciated. My MS does not and will not have the 400' mags. Thank you in advance for your responses.