Tim Carroll

Mitch knows the Eclairs much better than I do. I know the Bolex's quite well, having had a number of rather frustrating experiences with them. They are a really nice camera for what they are, which is to say, they are not a "pro" level camera, and to shoot sync sound with one can be a real series of challenges. There is also an excellent book out that would be well worth purchasing before you buy a camera. You can get it from Visual Products and it is titled: The 16mm Camera Book, second edition, by Douglas Underdahl. It will give you alot of good information to help you reach a decision. Visual Products also has a number of Eclair cameras for sale and they have all been overhauled and serviced, so should give you no trouble. You can see their web site here: http://www.visualproducts.com/ Hope that helps, -Tim

Kodak is trying to create interest in their new Vision 2 Super 16 film stock by giving some away in a drawing they are sponsoring. You can find out more about it at this web address: http://www.kodak.com/go/IGIMTAF -Tim PS: How does one go about getting these "Cinematographer Test Rolls" I have read about on this forum?

The Bolex is pretty noisy. And good barneys are harder to come by for the EL compared to the EBM. If you are seriously planning on doing sync sound, you will save yourself many headaches by going with the Eclair. -Tim

Mitch, Boy, that's humbling. I am the moderator (more like traffic cop) of the forum for that site. I should have know that was there. Oops. Thanks for the heads up. -Tim

Mitch, How exactly is that going to work. Are you going to be slapping a big hard drive on the back of the camera? I mean, those cards for still cameras hold next to nothing when you look at the video data size. Will folks be bringing three or four hard drives to each shoot, instead of tape? -Tim

Phil, Okay, before you go off on a tangent, I was talking about pro-sumer equipment. Now maybe you are in a totally different tax bracket than I am, but I would be hard pressed to describe a $22,000 DSR-570 as a pro-sumer camera. I assumed the original poster was also talking about pro-sumer equipment because he was talking about cameras in the $2000-$4000 range. The point I was trying to make is if you take any digital camera in that price range, within a year or two, it is worth next to nothing. Where as the Eclair or some of the others mentioned here will hold far more of their value for years to come. And I believe holding value has something to do with being "worth" such and such. That being said, I would still take 16mm film with it's DOF and latitude and look over a DSR-570, which I don't know, does it even shoot in 24P. I am not talking about the equipment we use regularly for the non narrative film work we do that pays the bills. For the narrative filmmaking we are doing, which is about one or two productions per year, I would much rather shoot on film, even with it's higher original costs, because if(which is a big if) we create what we have envisioned, it is worth more to the market having been originated on film than having been originated on DV, whether that be the DVX-100 or the DSR-570. -Tim

Another thing to keep in mind is how quickly pro-sumer DV equipment becomes obsolete. Talk to the thousands of folks who bought brand new DVX-100's last summer before the DVX-100A was anounced. Ask them what there three or four thousand dollar investment is worth today. We have used a Canon XL1S for two years now, and we were very lucky that it paid for itself in the first twelve months, because it's value now is pretty much nil. We will keep using that camera for every job where we can till it don't work no more because we would get nothing selling it. And all those DVX-100A's will drop rapidly just as soon as Canon or JVC or Sony anounces their new 24P camera. Heck, the DVX-100 was only sold for twelve months before the New and Improved version hit the market. Our Arri SR1 has been around for over twenty years and it will still create as beautiful of an image as a brand new SR3, which goes for tens of thousands of dollars more than what we invested in the SR1. -Tim

Rob, thanks for the reply but I think you misread my post. I am not using the lens that came with the camera, the autofocus lens, I am using the Canon 14x manual focus lens. There is no autofocus. It is an older lens, one from the Canon Pro line that they converted to work with the XL1. -Tim

Had the weirdest experience last night on a shoot. Using a Canon XL1S with a Canon 14x manual focus lens, camera locked down on a tripod, back focus set. Was at the telephoto end of the zoom range, focused on an actress on stage. Did fine focus, everything was cool. We are filming along (or videoing along I guess) and I started noticing the lens going slightly in and out of focus. No one was touching the camera or lens and the actress was not moving back and forth. It was really strange and the first time I have ever noticed that. Anyone have an idea what was causing that? Thanks, -Tim

Robert, I went to your website and downloaded the information. Looks very interesting. What type of prices are we talking about? Could not find price information on your site. Maybe I just missed it. Thanks, -Tim

Our experience last summer with shooting a 16mm film taught us alot. And the biggest lesson was "don't shoot with equipment that is not up for the job". We shot with a Bolex EBM and after months of trying to fix all the problems with the footage, etc. we barely have a finished short that is usable. Shooting even a short on film can cost at least a few thousand dollars with film purchases, processing, telecine, etc. Not to mention the time and talent of everyone involved in the production. We learned our lesson. We sold everything Bolex we had, and even my prized motorcycle, to scrape up the money to get an Arri SR1, and had Arri overhaul the camera. So now when we shoot our next production in a few months, we will know that the equipment will not let us down. If you ask me, buy or rent the better equipment. Unlike shooting video, when you are shooting film, many times you will not know that there was a problem until days or weeks later when you get the film processed and telecined. Good luck. -Tim

Mitch, Thanks for the input, what color temp meter do you have? I can see some stuff, but I know my eye is not that good yet. Also, when it comes to color balancing for tungsten film, then I am really at a loss. I can see the orange of tungsten lights and the sick green of flourescent, and even some of the blue and purple in certain halogens, but knowing how to balance any of that to a tungsten film stock is not something that I feel I could do looking through color gels. -Tim PS: Also doing some reading about color meters and it seems that the meter tells you what gels to put over your different lights to get them all the same color, to match the color temp of your film stock. Is that usually how you do it? For some reason I thought the color meter would tell you what filter to use in your matte box, in front of your lens to get the right color on the exposed film.

How can we do this without purchasing a color meter? We have shot many different flavors of DV and always used the manual white balance to obtain accurate color. We have been shooting 16mm Black and White and never had to worry about the color temperature. We are now embarking on a 16mm color film project and are very concerned with getting the color right. It looks like we will be shooting with Kodak Vision II, tungstan balanced, but we will be using a variety of lights. Some Lowel Pros, some chinese lanterns with varying bulbs, some natural light. I understand the different color temperatures for different bulbs and for nature, but besides getting in the rough ballpark, is there a way to figure filteration more accurately than purchasing a color meter like the Minolta, which is about a thousand dollars. Thanks for any and all input. -Tim

Hi A.J. Boy, I have a love/hate relationship with that camera. We used one last year for a short we shot. Mechanically it is like a Swiss watch. Electronically it is like a 1968 MG. If you get one with good electronics, you will be fine. We unfortunately did not get one with good electronics and getting them fixed is a nightmare, and can be very expensive. There are all kinds of issues with the crystal sync as well. Sometimes the Tobin Crystal Sync works better than the one that Bolex makes and some people swear they do not. We had an intermittant shutter bounce problem with ours, and it was going to be a few thousand dollars to get it fixed, so we bailed on it. If you get one that has no electronic problems, and no shutter bounce, and a Bolex or Tobin Crystal Sync that you can test with the camera and everything is fine, you should be in good shape. Now alot of people will also tell you that the Bolex EBM can only be used as an MOS camera, no sync sound recording. And that is true to a point. But, if you really want to use the camera for sound recording, there is a guy in California that makes a very good barney for the camera and magazine for $200. After you record your sync sound, if you have a Macintosh computer, you can use a program made by the company Bias, called SoundSoap, and it does a fairly good job of removing the camera noise of a Bolex EBM. The Switar lenses for the camera are very good. Do be aware that there is only one lens that Bolex sells that can be converted to Super 16 throughout it's whole zoom range. The newer 12-100mm lens, you can see it on the Bolex web site. The older Bolex lenses will only work in Super 16 above 26mm. The focal lengths below that will vingette. So the very common 16-100mm POE lens for the EBM can only be used from 26mm-100mm. Also make sure the 400 ft magazines that you would be getting with the camera have been converted to Super 16. Otherwise you will be getting film scratching problems. That's about it from what I remember using ours last summer. If you get a good one, you will be able to do some good things with it. Good Luck, -Tim

George, Great to hear you say that. With tons of help from Mitch Gross, we finally got an Arri SR1. Took about six months of looking and talking to lots of folks, selling off my motorcycle and a bunch of camera gear, but we are very excited about it. Having used a Bolex in the past, we are looking forward to the increase in quality. -Tim

Vivian, I am not sure which lenses you have for your EBM, but anything above 26mm will work with the EBM after it is converted to Super 16. And Andrew Alden can sell you an 8mm lens that will work with your EBM after it is converted. So you would have the cost of the conversion, and the cost to convert your mags, and the cost of a wide angle lens. Then you would be shooting in an industry standard. Last summer we shot a "widescreen" short film with a Standard 16mm EBM. We did it the "hard way", had a 4:3 telecine done and stretched and cropped it in FCP. The footage still looked far superior to 16:9 footage we shot with a Canon XL1s and a Panny DVX-100. And we have since found a telecine house right here in Chicago that will "widescreen" our telecine, so it will be native 16:9. And if we decide to finish on film, we will have them do it optically. It is not as good a Super 16, but it is a heck of a lot better than miniDV and even Super 8. And you can do this with your EBM, exactly how it is set up now. I agree with David and Mitch, I can not see why Kodak would want to spend money developing an Ultra 16 standard, when you can do almost as well with Standard 16, and better with Super 16. Can't see what would be in it for Kodak. -Tim

George, Franklin Film Labs does really good B&W 16mm for a good price. They are in California. I had a Kodak person inspect some stuff they did for me and she said the processing was top notch. I looked into the Pro8mm and I felt that there stuff was really expensive. Would love to see something like George is talking about, where you could do it yourself. -Tim

Jason, It depends on what you are looking to do. They still make the Bolex in Switzerland. The model SBM and EL. The SBM is a Spring wound, Bayonet mount, with a Magazine saddle, ergo the name SBM. The EL is an electric motorized camera which you can buy a crystal sync for to make it run at exactly 24 frames per second, or 25 frames per second if you are in Europe. A popular model is the older EBM, Electic motor, Bayonet mount, with a Magazine saddle. It is the precursor to the EL. You can also get a crystal sync for this model and you can get 400 ft magazines, as well as use 100 ft spools in camera. The most popular lens for this is the 16-100 POE lens by Kern Switar. Many of the EBMs on ebay come with this lens. Do a google search for Andrew Alden, who runs a Bolex web site in the UK. He has lots of information about the different models and he is a great guy to buy Bolex equipment from. The stuff you get from Andrew works, and he stands behind it if there are any problems. You can get lucky on ebay, but unfortunately you can also get burned. Good luck, and have fun. -Tim

IBL, I have talked to ICExpo quite a bit about what he is doing with the DVX100. He has sent me clips and we have swapped info. ICE is doing real good work with the DVX, with his soft screen and the anamorphic lens. He has even found ways of getting greater depth of field from the little camera. You give him an A-minama or a ARRI SR3 or Aaton XTR and he will make even better images. He has spent much time and effort studying how to create beautiful images. You are comparing some of the best images that can be created with the DVX camera, to some of the worst images created on 16mm. It seems you are more interested in convincing yourself that the DVX is the right choice for you. You should get that camera if it is what you want, we don't have to agree with you. And if you create something really wonderful, with a story that just captures people and won't let them go, you will probably have success with it. Just remember there are thousands of others out there that are calling themselves filmmakers because they had the $3500 to buy that camera. And when you submit to film festivals, and they ask you what was your acquasition format, when you put down DV, that will lump you in with all those thousands of others. So your story better be able to jump out there and grab them, or it will get lost in the crowd. Good Luck -Tim

George, You wrote "in a way it's also nice to know that something you worked so hard over is going to be recorded on such a solid medium. I'd hate to think that my people and I worked all this time for something on a little crummy mini DV tape that has such a limited quality when projected on even a small screen." I have to say that is really one of the biggest reasons we work in film now. I have been an actor and director for over twenty years. The films we work on now are labors of love for me and much of my crew. So many of the actors are folks I have known and worked with for years. There is something, for me anyway, in recording these perfomances on film. It is a way of respecting the work of these wonderful people, who are so giving of their time and talents to make these projects work. I realize that is not a very technical reason to work in film, and I realize it costs us more money, but it feels right. -Tim

You got to make the decision you are comfortable with. When faced with that same decision, we opted for 16mm. Why, because from the tests we did, the 16mm looked much better for what we wanted to do. Our films are quieter and more reflective than what most of the mainstream fare is today. Films like 28 Days Later and November are much more edgy, etc. than the type of work we do. So we opted for 16mm. Look at your story and figure out what look you want. Maybe the greater depth of field, less latitude and slightly softer image will convery what you are trying to convey better than 16mm would. It really comes down to the artist's choice of what he or she wants the image to look like. The best way to tell the story. As an asside, if you are looking at long term investment, IMO a 16mm film camera will hold it's value longer than the latest and greatest DV camera, which will be yesterdays news in a matter of months. Good luck with your decision and your film. -Tim

About a year and a half ago we got busted filming an EL train pulling into the station in Chicago. The authorities are really cracking down. Last summer we wanted to film on a University Campus and we decided to bite the bullet and get permission. It took us about a month and a half. We had to show them our script, and we had to show them our proof of insurance and jump through some hoops, but for us it was worth it to have something in writing that said we could use the images of their campus in our film. A couple of years ago we were working on a documentary of a legendary motorcycle racer, and we shot some footage of him in a race. Turns out that the Racing organization had sold the TV/Film rights to the race series to a Fox affiliate and they tried to sue us and charge us $1000 per minute to use our own footage. It got to be such a headache that the doc was eventually scrapped. We are much more careful now. -Tim

The Spirit is a high end telecine, and the outputs were 2k scans. Which is not a bad quality telecine, but there is definitely quality loss from 16mm negative. As far as "Blair Witch" goes, I do not know all the techical details, but I do not believe it was shot on 16mm, definitely not Super 16. And "Blair Witch" was deliberately made to look like low quality video, (which I think much of it was) which gave the story "real world" legitimacy. I did not see "Pi" so I cannot comment on it. From what I heard, and I do not know this for fact, "28 Days Later" though shot on an XL1, was shot on a PAL XL1, and PAL is 25fps and higher resolution than NTSC. So the footage would not have looked as good shot on an NTSC XL1. Soderbergh shot parts of "Full Frontal" on an XL1, but it too was a PAL version of the camera. If you like that look, then by all means shoot with that camera. If that look helps tell your story, then that is the camera to use. It is personal choice. But I do not think you will get far convincing anyone that footage shot by the same cinematographer, from a DVX100 looks "better" or even "as good" as footage shot in Super 16 with the A-Minma. But again, "better" for you may be more of a video look, if that helps tell your story. -Tim

IBL, You are missing a big point in the review you are quoting. If you want to have a final product that is film for projection, the difference is substantial. The way Jon Fauer (whom I respect enormously) set up the test is that he took the film and telecined it down to 2k. So already you are losing image quality from the original 16mm film. Then they "blew up" the DVX footage to 2K and printed film outs from both. If you compared the film out from the DVX to a print from the 16mm neg. then you have a realistic comparison. The print from the 16mm neg will be higher quality than the print from a 16mm neg. telecined to 2k, then film outted(is that a word). It is obviously cost effective to shoot with the DVX100 as opposed to shooting 16mm. But I do not believe you will get the same quality in depth of field, sharpness and latitude. Others may disagree. It will be interesting to see how the film "November" does, as it was shot with the DVX100. -Tim

IBL Boy, I could not disagree with you more. If you look at the archives, you will see a post I did late last year about this topic. We took footage from a DVX100, a Canon XL1s, and a Sony PD-150 and put it up against footage shot with a Bolex EBM in 16mm. The quality difference was astounding. And the Bolex footage was regular 16mm, not Super 16 like the A-minima. The 16mm footage was so much sharper, had so much more latitude, and had so much more depth of field. And again, this was shot with a Bolex that we picked up off of ebay for $1300. If you are looking for the DVX100 look, go with it. But for my money, 16mm and Super 16 is a far better image. -Tim