Tom Hepburn

HD still

Thanks for the responses gentleman. Karl, I sent the camera to be looked at because I bought it off of Ebay and wanted to make sure everything is working as designed. I'm not sure when it was successfully used last. Another reason is the motor has been hesitating @ 50 fps, (I don't want to water down this post here, making a list of the little things that I wanted checked). I can however add a link to an HD still which I'll do tomorrow. It seemed like there wasn't a obvious clear cut reason, and not just here. I have sent two of the film strips to Kodak so they can analyze it. They have been a HUGE help as well. One was from the Cine 100 and the other the Eclair. I didn't notice a ton of "fog," my main concern was the "blotching" grain which I thought really detracted from the focus and sharpness that I was hoping would be there. I did load it in the dark and it did have black tape around the seams. In a week or so, I hope to be able to post definitive results. Yes, Karl I agree with your outlook. I look at it like, at least at this point, the camera is a tool. I need to learn how to use the tool like it's a hammer or saw, before trying to build a house. I have a lot of post experience so at least I won't be starting from scratch there:) I'm happy to own "user error," but I want to be sure. " one more thing. I have a densitometer. If you can get the lab to process it for me (yes I could do it, but really don't want to), I will read and interpret densitometer readings *for you* *for free*." That's really nice of you Karl, you deserve a test named after you. Let me see what I learn in the next week or so. Thanks, Tom

Well Folks, Not that you're waiting for my response, but I've sent my camera to a tech (Bernie) to be looked at. I HAVE to start from the bottom up, to keep the variables at a minimum. I figure two more of these tests (film, processing, and scan or transfer) and I'm close to a repair bill. So what I've learned from this post is: * Make sure film is fresh (and shiny with a hint of lavender) * Overexpose up to ONE full stop when shooting black and white * Make sure the light meter is accurate. * Use a gray card at the beginning of each reel * Overexpose a bit more when zoomed in (at least during a test) * Conduct an eye focus test (as outlined by David) * If I'm still having problems, I move to the Karl test If I've missed anything or misinterpreted anything let me know. Again, all of your advice is priceless. Kind Regards, Tom

Hey Guys, I'm in "acceptance" mode and quickly moving to "fix it" mode. I thought I should clarify a couple of things: I had 14 rolls of 100 ft. (various stocks) film which were all sent to the lab here in Chicagoland on the same day. 11 of those were shot on my Cine 100 and 4 on my Eclair ACL Super16. The results of the (Spirit scanned) Eclair S16 shots were way grainy. So I shot 2 more and sent it to a different company to scan on a different Spirit. Same results as seen here: STILLS The variables here are (unless I'm missing something) : 2 different cameras (Eclair and Cine 100) 2 different formats (regular 16 and super 16) 2 different Telecine processes (regular SD and Spirit) Constants: Same stock Same processing company I'm going to say Saul that I don' t think it's the stock as all the rolls were processed at the same place. In would really be something if the 2 rolls that I randomly picked out of the refridge, both were substandard. BUT, maybe I'm wrong. When I loaded the film, I covered it will black tape, shot it, and removed, then sent to process within 24 hours. "I would suggest using (newer technology, low grain) Kodak B/W " In terms of a more modern stock, I believe there are only these choices in black and white: Negative 7231, 7222 Reversal 7265, 7266 All of the outdoor shots were using 7231 which I thought was supposed to have a reasonably fine grain. I have quite a bit of editing/post experience, so I could shoot color and remove it to appear black and white, but part of the reason for black and white is the cost. All of your input is really appreciated. Tom

Hi John, Thanks for the response. I just uploaded (the same link above) two stills that were taken with my Kodak Cine K-100 with the same film stock as the outdoor shots using the Eclair. To me they look different and much better in terms of smoother grain. Same stock. Thanks for the responses thus far. Tom

Thanks Saul, I'm sorry, I meant to say grainy or "chunky" not soft. In terms of processing, I used a place here in Illinois, but to be honest the results there have varied. It was not pushed or pulled as far as I know, I certainly didn't request that. It was transferred on a spirit in Downtown Chicago here and they were kind enough to comp me (just for prep) as they knew it was only a (200 ft) test. It was stock (factory sealed) ordered within the last few months and has been refrigerated since. And I agree with you on the quality. I have shot super 8 before and this seem comparable. It doesn't seem like it's benefiting from the larger format. I know it's a question of narrowing down the problem. I'll wait for a few more posts, but perhaps some more tests are in order. I'm shooting black and white so Vision 3 is a ways off yet. I've got to get some control on my skills and where it goes after it's shot. Tom

Hello All, I just got my film back from being transferred. I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in the results. They don't seem as clear or as sharp as I expected, almost out of focus. If you could take a look at them and give me your assessment I'd appreciate it. Eclair ACL II super16 camera (modified by Les Bosher). ANGENIEUX 17-68mm zoom (no fungus, appears in great shape) 200 ft magazine 24 fps I bought this off of Ebay and it has not been looked at by a camera technician. The indoor shots were 9' away and zoomed in and used 7222 Kodak black and white The outdoor shots were 25' away and zoomed in and used 7231 Kodak black and white I'm very confident in my distances as I used a tape measure. I measured from the film plane to the subject. The film was scanned at 1920 x 1080 and then sized down to 50% resulting in the images (960 x 540) here: Eclair Stills I was hoping that this Eclair and Angenieux combination would offer more professional results. Am I expecting too much here? I have a Cine 100 that seems to take crisper images with the same stock. Thanks in advance for any help. The only other variable I would add is that I'm close to a beginner. Tom

Another something to consider, I just had some super16 scanned high def (1920x1080). They used the HDV quicktime codec as it's a more reasonable file size (compared to an AVI). I live in Chicago and this film developing and transfers house, does very little HD transferring to formats that will be edited on a PC. This is not a small company either. It's been a real hassle to even look at this footage. I have yet to find a player to play this on a PC and will probably pull my old G4 back out and see if that can handle it. I've used both Macs and PCs and have edited with FCP, AVID, Media 100, and Premier Pro. I know it's expensive (which is why my fastest box is a PC), but I have run into more problems with the format issues lately. If I had the cash, I would go ahead and buy a Mac. My experience is that with a Mac, I can just work and forget about hardware, software, and format issues. I'm sure others have had better experiences with a PC, but this is mine. Good luck, Tom

Hey Adrian, I just wanted to add that this is one of the funniest (and honest) titles I've seen in a long while. I wish I could relate more ;) as was: "Nothing worse than waking up hungover with a ton of 'Order Confirmations' in your email in-box" Good times. Tom

It's funny how the sound recording world and film world have so much in common. I've done a fair share of audio recording and some people will pay top dollar for tube equipment (including me). The reason is, and here is another subjective term, that it sounds "warmer." Not that purely digital sounds (or looks) bad, it is actually quite "clean," but as in anything else, what kind of look (sound) are you going for. I think I prematurely limited my research to the Spirit. Since I have an older lens, the ANGENIEUX 17-68 (with myACL) and am shooting black and white almost all of the time, the Millenium may in fact be a better fit for me. So I have a few more calls to make. Thanks again. This post has been a great one for me and I appreciate each response. Tom

Hey Guys, Thanks for the info. I was actually hoping on getting some names of places with a Spirit and doing the leg work/price shopping from there. Since many have gone down this road here, I thought I could cut through the searches and separate the ones that have a Spirit from those that send the film to a place with a Spirit. Unfortunately, it seems when prices are given first, the names don't always follow. So if you know of places (like Bono) , by all means let me know. After some research it seems like with 1,000 feet it doesn't save much by going the SD (timecode), then HD route. Long live the name droppers! Thanks again, Tom

Hello, I'm in the process of shopping around for Super 16 scans to my hard drive (1920 by 1080P @ 24fps). I'm located in the Midwest, so I think I'm aware of the options around here. Where are Super 16 people getting theirs done (in the US)? Although I'd like the highest quality, money is a consideration (sound familiar?). All of the footage at this point will be black and white. It will be viewed at least for now on HDTV (16:9). Thanks in advance, Tom

Hey Tim, Thanks for the leg work. That's great info. I was squinting before reading the final number to lessen the shock. T

Hi Adam, I have the same camera and the same little piece is missing. As has been stated, I wouldn't go by that anyway. I think when the camera was made (1957-ish) they included that as a "general" form of light measurement. Obviously, they are subjective words and so not very accurate. I would grab an analog meter off of ebay. I would leave nothing to chance as it's quite costly if you end of with shots and or footage that is blow out or underexposed. Or the camera option is good as well. This is a nice camera though for the money. I have found that mine shoots extremely stable images. Good luck, Tom

OK, thanks. Standing by for Phil or Tyler. Paging Phil or Tyler :) Tom

Kristian, I have a K-100 and have run a decent amount of film through it. I would say mine sounds even and normal in terms of any clicking during filming. It does not vary in any way except when reaching the end of it's wind (which as you know lasts about a full minute). In other words the sound is the same at 5 seconds as it is at 25 seconds. The pitch and rhythm don't change. I just shot some footage of the Cubs vs. Sox. The strobe thing sounds interesting. I'd be interested in your results. Good luck, Tom

Hi Nick, I'm not sure that there is any one program that is best for syncing audio. I've used Final Cut Pro, Avid, AfterEffects, and more recently Premier Pro. All of those programs can sync audio. I would say that a large part depends of what you want to spend and what else you'll want to do with your footage. If all you want to do is sync, the above programs are probably more than you need. Tom

Hello Folks, I have some questions about getting to high definition TV from 16 mm film. Here is my workflow: Film on Eclair ALC Super16 mm camera (16x9). Transfer to hard drive, but not sure of all of the options yet. Take into AfterEffects or possibly Premiere Pro CS3 to edit Export from one of the above (trying to retain as much quality as possible) Encode for Blue Ray. Burn to Blue Ray Disk. I know that everyone doesn't have a blue ray burner/player at the moment. Most of what I'll be shooting we be more valuable to me (and my kids) in the years to come, not necessarily right now. What is high end at the moment will be considered standard before we all know it. So it's important that when I have my film transferred to Hard Drive it's the best quality as I can afford. I?m thinking 2K scans for the 16mm film. I want to be able to play this footage in the highest quality on HDTV in the near future. I can keep my raw 16 mm on a hard drive and as the technology advances, I'll be able to re-render and output again. It won?t be a long movie, most likely 20 minutes or so. My computer is a PC that is around 2 years old and has 2 gigs of RAM. I?m not sure of the processor at the moment, but I?m concerned it?s not going to have the stones to handle the 2K scans. I could use lower res compressed versions of my scans and substitute by proxy at rendering time in AfterEffects. So my two questions would be; is there anything I should be aware of in my workflow in terms of potential snags? What recommendations are there in terms of retaining the highest quality? I think the most variables lye in rendering, encoding at this point. Thanks in advance for any help tossed my way. Tom

Hello All, I know I've had a lot of posts the last few months. I've completed all of my purchases, much of it based on the input from this board. I can't put a value on the advice and friendly feedback of the users here. You've helped make expensive decisions easier to assess. In short I just wanted say thanks for your help and hope I return the favor in the same spirit. Tom

Never mind, I bought a different one. Tom

I should have mentioned that I'm shooting 1/2 black and white at this point in time. So I believe that takes Fuji out of the equation. Where would I buy the A-minima rolls? I haven't seen them before. Tom

Hi Saul, "I use short ends and 200' A-minima rolls with my 200' ACL mag" Are you saying that you are using short ends ON a A-minima roll or that you're using 200 ft shortends and in addition you are also using 200 foot A-minima rolls? Sorry, I think there are two ways to read that one. Doesn't the feed side of the ACL turn counterclockwise with the perforations down anyway? I normally buy film from Film Emporium, where would I buy those A-minima 200 foot rolls? Thanks again. Tom

Hello, In my limited 16mm experience I've shot with a camera that only held 100 ft loads. Now I've purchased an ACL, largely based on the advice of this board. I'm really pumped about it too! I have a 200 and a 400 ft. magazine. Obviously, the 400 footer is pretty straight forward. BUT, what are people doing with their 200 ft. mags? How are they loading them and with what size spools of film? If you're cutting down a 400 ft. spool could you be specific in terms of how you get from the 400 ft to the 200 ft? Thanks in advance, Tom

Has anyone used this mic? http://www.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=StereoVideoMic My budget is slim and was wondering if it's a decent value. I'd be running it into a Sony PCM D50 which has mini in (Stereo). Most of the time it will be on a boom. Thanks in advance, Tom