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.

HTTK, I emailed Sean, he replied and told me that the top and bottom framegrabs were shot with Kodak 250D and the middle strip was shot with Vision 2 500T. Thought you might like to know. Tom.

HTTK, Nice job! What filmstock and lens did you use? I have only the 25mm lens on the B&H 240 (not the electric eye) and have been anxious to try it out. At 24fps without film the motor seems to run about 52 seconds on one wind. How much time did you get before having to rewind? Do you know the max ASA this cam will register? Once again, nice job with framing and imagery and the little slapstick film was entertaining as well. Thanks. Tom Ballard

Based upon your description of the camera, I'm guessing you're referring to the one Visual Products has for sale. Have you actually seen one of these cameras? They're big. Quite big. If you'll note the films this cam was used for when Paramount owned it, you'll see that it was all work done in studio. If that's all you want it for, it would be a great camera. You're right, regarding the lens though. The Angenieux isn't the greatest. You're not going to get the imagery you'd get with a nice set of primes, which would cost you many times more than the camera. If the lens quality is acceptable, better to take a step up (three times the cost) and go with a more modern camera. I don't think you'd be happy with this one because of its lack of maneuverability. The people at Visual Products are quite helpful. Talk to Mike Casey and tell him what you want to use the camera for. I believe he'll be honest with you and tell you whether it will suit your needs. Good luck.

Steve- No, I didn't put it on the spools myself. Although it's fairly easy to do, I'd rather pay the $10 than transfer several thousand feet of film from cores to spools. Regardless of what you were told in an email, call Film Emporium and speak to Dennis. I just spoke to him about an order and they'll put it on 100' daylight spools for $10US, as I posted earlier. I don't know that they'd do this for a very small order, but you'll have to call and ask. Good luck. Tom

Short ends are available on daylight spools. I've purchased 16mm stock from Film Emporium and if the available lengths are over 100' there's an associate/afilliate of theirs that will, for $10, make as many cuts as you want to any length you want (I would assume 100'). If you only want 100', your cost would increase by $0.10 per foot, but if you want 1000' (ten rolls), then your cost is only increased by $0.01 per foot. I don't work for Film Emporium, so this isn't a plug for them... but then again, I suppose it is. I'd imagine other filmstock suppliers would have the same capability. Call them and see.

The cost to transfer video to film is nearly, if not as expensive as originating on film. Costs range from $250-$500US per minute, depending upon whether you're transferring to 16mm or 35mm. There are times when that method makes sense, but more often than not, it makes better sense to shoot film than transfer video to film. If you're certain that your production's destination is film and no circumstances exist that would require it be shot on video, then I'd recommend finding someone to shoot it for you on film. This is strictly my opinion, but I've never seen video that looked like film. I realize that's the selling point for the prosumer cams like the DVX100A and the XL2, as it was for their predecessors, but it still looks like video to me. You can use the cine-gamma effect, add grain, a gaussian blur and 24p certainly helps, but if you plan to blow it up to 35mm, don't expect it to look like it was shot in 35mm. It won't. I've seen 28 Days and November and a number of other movies shot with the low-end Pannys and Canons then transferred to 35mm for projection and they all looked like video. If your intent is to go direct to video, shoot film if you can afford it, video if you can't. If you're going theatrical, shoot film. If you want the inexpensive way out, shoot video, but remember- you only get what you pay for. Go to google and do a search for "film to video transfer" or "telecine". That's the best place to begin learning. Then talk to the people at the transfer houses. The Kodak people are friendly as well, but they're not going to spend the necessary time to educate you in the film arena. Educate yourself. Learn about costs, terminology, theory and most importantly, practical applications of a camera. Buy one. Learn its capabilities and its limitations. Consider what you expect of the camera and test it- see if it's capable of doing what you need it to do. If it is, do it. Good luck in your adventure.

There's nothing wrong with being a novice. www.kodak.com is a good place to start. This board is a good source of information as is http://8mm.filmshooting.com/ In 16mm, 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps. Considering this is your first film, to be safe, figure a 12:1 shooting ratio. That means you'll have to shoot 36 minutes to get 3. Anything better than that ratio is a bonus. A seasoned cinematographer will spend $10k-$12k for filmstock, processing and transfer for a 90 minute feature. Generally, around $0.70 per foot is a good number to use as a rule of thumb for budgeting. 30 minutes (10*108) = 1080 x 12:1 shooting ratio = 12,960 feet @ $0.70 per foot = $9,072 16mm- 108 feet = 3 minutes @ 24fps. Opinions on the best camera to rent will bring various responses. I have a couple of older Scoopics and a CP-16R converted to Super 16, so I haven't rented in some time. Probably an Aaton or an Arri, though, with a crystal sync motor. Shooting any gauge of film is different than shooting any video format. With film, the latitude is greater, meaning it's more forgiving in that regard. With video, it's considerably less expensive to shoot, so it's more forgiving on your wallet. What you decide to do depends upon what you can afford and just how dedicated you are to learning about film. If I were starting over, I'd do just what I did- start with an old Super 8, learn about film and lightmeters and as much else as I could, then go on to 16mm & 35mm. Or, you could start with 16mm and make short films. I don't think I'd recommend shooting a 30 minute film for starters, considering the cost involved. But, that's just how my wallet sees it. Good luck.

John- Give these guys a try: http://www.alangordon.com/ Good luck. Tom

John- I can't find the name of the company that works on the Scoopics. I had the occasion to speak to Rick at Visual Products last week and he confirmed that there is a place in Burbank and he's going to try to find a number for me. I'm going in to see him on the 4th, so hopefully he'll have the info you need and I'll post it. I apologize for not being able to help you more. I have two Scoopics, both in good shape, but one had some deterioration of the foam around the inside of the viewfinder threads that was causing some problems, so I bought the repair manual from ebay, took the cam apart and repaired it myself. Any repair you make to a Scoopic is going to cost more than what they're selling for unless you do it yourself. This, I know to be true. I'll keep trying to get that number for you. Good luck. Tom

There's a place in Burbank that still works on them and I'll post it as soon as I can remember the name, but the Scoopics are selling for so little now you could probably replace it for less than the cost to have it repaired- unless it's an M or MS.