Adam Garner

Huh?

I shot a roll of Tri-X and I'm noticing something buggy. At the end of the roll, maybe the last 20 seconds, the focus goes in and out every couple seconds. I've never seen this before. I'm shooting on a Canon 1014XL-S that's in great shape. So, I guess that leaves the cart/pressure plate. I hate to bring up such a sensitive subject, but I haven't seen blurring issues like this ever. Again, the behavior is a cycle of: a) totally normal shot, all in focus for about one second... then 2)blur out for about half a second ... repeat. I'm projecting this with my Elmo ST1200 which is rock solid as well. I think it's that the cart was acting up during the last several feet of film. Anyone experience this before? Anything I should be worried about? Please tell me it was a random pressure issue with the cart. Important to note: I'd had the film in the fridge for a while. I only say this because it SEEMS like when I cold store film the carts end up a little buggy. It's also exhibiting more scratching than normal. It's got white lines on the left side of the frame during a lot of the film. Not horrible, but more than I usually see with Tri-X in my camera. Sounds like I got a poorly molded cart. Agree?

I have a Nikon R10 and Canon 1014XL-S, which I bought the C-8 adaptor for. Unfortunately something in the R10 lens construction doesn't allow the C-8 to work. It only ends up giving you universal (infinity) focus. Not much help... and you have to VERY carefully focus it in macro to get a good sharp image. I'm not sure what the deal was with the R10 macro, but it's strange. You have to focus with the macro ring, right?... and that in turn changes your framing. It's sort of a sh*tty design compared to the 1014XL-S macro which lets you keep your framing and focus your shot. It's my guess that since the Nikon R10 Macro ring acts as the focus, and in turn changes the frame size, you might be outta luck shooting wide angle. I've always LOVED the R10, with this exception... the macro is just a strange design and causes lots of problems in "getting the right shot."

The negative comments may be centered around the fact U16 isn't a standard. It's difficult to find labs to process it correctly, telecine gates aren't widely available, 35mm blow ups are probably trickier. I think finding new ways to incorporate film into the digital workflow is awesome, and essential. If I can do a 2K scan of U16 footage (shot with relatively inexpensive 40 year old camera) in a DI workflow, why not?? It brings it within reach, and that's what counts. People complain about shooting film being so expensive... if we can find ways to make it affordable why knock it? I wouldn't call it the "cheap" solution to widescreen, but an elegant solution.

I think we're off topic here. NIST suggests that analog is the best long term storage. I certainly understand why. We can watch films that were shot 75 years ago because the format still exists. I can listen to a 50 year old vinyl record because the format still exists. I can look at a cave drawing in france because the format "drawing" still exists. Not to oversimplify though. Even analog media will deteriorate. That was the point of the topic. Why do films fade. The ultimate reason is that it was poor emulsions mixed with poor storage. Digitizing data is necessary. The thing is that it is a full time job to keep moving to the next digital technology that's "better" than the last. The artifacts are the issue here. If you put your super 8 movies on a DVD in mpeg 2 back in 80's when it was the best digital format the world had seen, well, you'd be f*cked for going to HD now. In another 20 years 4K TVs may well be the norm. Your ProRes4444 1080p scan will be poop then. The issue isn't that digital is bad. Digital is great. But it's ever changing and we're fitting more and more data in smaller and smaller spaces by coding them differently, encoding on different materials. It's supposed to change and get better. My home movies on film are digitized. But I'm keeping the originals so I can scan them in 20 years to 4K or whatever. Meaning - the original celluloid will outlast the HD 1080p scans I have. ProRes4444 will likely not be a very popular format in 10 years. The drive probably wont work and USB may be gone. It would be silly to take the ProRes4444 scans as the source for the next copy too. That's what Dominic was saying. You'll end up with artifacts. All digital media is run through math equations, of course, which drops data to make space. Compression format 1 compressed to compression format 2 will be compressed 1+2. Uncompressed is the only real safe way to archive footage and the cost of the space that requires means analog still wins as the best way to keep master material. Don't ya think so?

They talk about gold dvd's on page 5. I'm not sure what your saying Kent. The paper suggests that the National Institute of Standards and Technology doesn't consider digital media "long term" storage. "Neither optical discs nor magnetic tape, however, is as stable as microfilm or paper. With proper care, microfilm and non-acidic paper can last for centuries, while magnetic tape lasts only a few decades (Van Bogart 1995). Just as film types can vary in years of usefulness, one disc type can also last longer than another. Temperature and humidity conditions can markedly affect the useful life of a disc; extreme environmental fac- tors can render discs useless in as little as a few days." It goes on to say that digital technologies become obsolete in as few as 10-15 years. Point being : You don't archive your films on DVDs, at least in the NIST's opinion. I would agree with them.

Wow. Y'all have been at it! for your reading pleasure : http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.05/docs/CD...ndlingGuide.pdf

I notice that too. I think there's a shortage of 16mm footage that's been shot well. It does take a bit more knowledge to shoot 16. Additionally there's a shortage of footage online that's transferred correctly. I shot http://vimeo.com/5383179 with a well cared for scoopic (bought on eBay for 400 bucks and added a full CLA and ultra gate mod) and a good transfer. It KILLs 95% of what I see out there on 16, vimeo and youtube. I shoot film whenever I can, but video is key for corporate gigs, or long interviews etc. Video is a workhorse. I'd never buy a video camera though. The tech refresh is just too fast to get your money out of it at 5K for a good prosumer camera. I think that's the real key with film: you're not doing a tech refresh every 2 years, you're getting the next emulsion from Kodak... the equipment stays relevant.

I notice that too. I think there's a shortage of 16mm footage that's been shot well. It does take a bit more knowledge to shoot 16. Additionally there's a shortage of footage online that's transferred correctly. I shot http://vimeo.com/5383179 with a well cared for scoopic (bought on eBay for 400 bucks and added a full CLA and ultra gate mod) and a good transfer. It KILLs 95% of what I see out there on 16, vimeo and youtube. I shoot film whenever I can, but video is key for corporate gigs, or long interviews etc. Video is a workhorse. I'd never buy a video camera though. The tech refresh is just too fast to get your money out of it at 5K for a good prosumer camera. I think that's the real key with film: you're not doing a tech refresh every 2 years, you're getting the next emulsion from Kodak... the equipment stays relevant.

I've started building a collection of groovy old movies on super 8. I notice that a lot of films fade badly over time to red. Is this the result of those movie companies (like Castle Films) using low quality transfer film? Or is this the result of poor storage? Additionally, I'm curious why this doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with old home movies. My guess is that it's the film the companies used, which must have been poor chemicals/acetate etc, or whatever it was.

John: Look into a Zoom H4. I use one that captures good sound. It's got 2 XLR inputs, phantom power (if I'm remembering correctly), and can handle 96k/24bit, which is sweet. While it's digital it starts around US$299-ish.

Do you mean as in "Ultra 16?"

Pav: It's interesting you bring up the "look of super 8." I struggle with this when I work with clients who have seen old, scratched up, badly transferred home movies. It's a VERY different look when you shoot negative ona a great camera and transfer in HD. It ends up looking more like, well..... amazing, especially 200T or something with a fairly tight grain. So, to your point Pav, I think super 8 is -small format film- as opposed to an old gnarly film look. In regards to noise, my scoopic is pretty quiet camera after a full CLA. I know some run louder than others. It's sort of strange. I hear mixed reviews. I've shot sound on mine and it's not any worse than a super 8 camera. There is a striking difference in the sound though. Super 8 cams sound more tinny, like a small electric motor. A scoopic has more of a grumble. It's been MUCH easier to filter the sound of a scoopic in post with Soundtrack Pro or Pro Tools because of it's sound signature. It's less high pitched, and so doesn't require me to pull out the entire high-end spectrum. The main thing is that there's going to be camera sound, no matter what. So one needs to be creative with how one shoots. Long shots, barneys, re-takes without running cameras and dubbing, these will all be a good idea. I've also seen folks shoot through windows etc. If you're shooting inside small rooms, well, forget it. It's going to be a challenge to keep any small camera quiet enough unless you wrap it in 3 layers of moving blankets... which may be a good idea. :D Additionally, I did a breakdown for cost with 8mm vs 16mm. Smaller projects that are about 30 minutes of film have only a 20% cost difference. If you shoot 60 min, it's about 23% cost difference. It seems to flatten out at about 25% for projects larger than that. So, costing roughly 25% more isn't too bad of a jump compared to the 100% jump some folks assume. I also didn't assume a discount with 400' reels purchased, or buying short ends. That would bring the cost down for 16mm even more. Super 8 is a great way to add texture to interviews indeed. 16 is just a different look, but still adds a richness you won't get with a DV camera. As far as simplicity goes, I agree with Pav. 8mm is fool proof in most ways. Catridge in, pull trigger, cartridge out. You're more likely to mess up if you've never shot film before on a 16mm since they are less automated. You have to be more technically savvy. A scoopic is about as super8 as you can get with a 16mm camera which is why I've suggested it. Best of luck!

I'd shoot super 8 if you want the super 8 look. You can get great results syncing and such. Not too bad. I'd say that the post about 16 being 2x as much, though, isn't 100% in my experience. A great camera for super 8 is going to cost roughly 600-800 bucks, like a nikon r10 or a canon 1014xl-s. I got my scoopic for LESS but had to put $ into it for a full CLA/ultra16 gate mod/batteries. So, maybe in the cost of entry is a bit more, and maybe 2x as much if you do all that extra stuff to your camera. My scoopic is as quiet as my 1014XL-S and probably quieter than the Nikon. Now as far as film is concerned, film/lab is going to cost you slightly more than 8mm. I use a spreadsheet to do my film costs on projects and I'm always amazed that the final cost of a 16mm project isn't but only 100 bucks or so more each time. That's because my telecine jobs are the same price as 8. Yes, the cost of film is roughly 2x as much, but transfer time will be the same... so it's the same telecine cost. Even if you were going to shoot an hour of film, the difference is less than 400 bucks. That seems like a subtle difference to me compared to the quality difference you're getting. Again, my point is that you should shoot 8 if you want that look. Shoot 16 if you want THAT look. I really think for small scale projects that the price difference is negligible. 400 isn't a small amount, but you know what I mean.... So, maybe look at the numbers a bit more if you like 16. Don't assume it's just double the cost. Honestly the largest cost in most of my projects ends up being a good transfer. That price is constant across the formats if you transfer someplace like Cinelicious.

read through all the forums or do a search. There's a TON of ultra talk around. basically, get someone qualified to do the mod : Bernie O'Doherty at Super16 Inc (super16inc.com) Alphacine should do the labwork since their rollers wont touch between the perfs. Cinelicious does amazing ultra transfers. Bonolabs isn't ready for it yet, but they will be soon (so Tim says). They need to invest in a bit more eqipment. All in all Ultra saves a TON of money and achieves a great wide 16 image. If you want to shoot film, and want to shoot 16, Ultra is perfect. My results : http://vimeo.com/5383179

Indeed. OR, one could buy S8 sound film, which a guy on these boards occasionally posts about. They're all frozen... but cost a LOT. That's EASIEST, right? I think you can still get sound film developed, right?... if you can find it?

I capture sound with a Zoom H4. It's a really handy portable digital recorder with stereo mics. You'll have to sync sound with image in post. The easiest way to do that is with a clapboard. If you don't have an extra set of hands you can wild-sync it. Just listen for the faint clicking of your camera in the background and match up that way. Not easy for more than a few shots but it works. I've done it a few times.

Hey Paul: Call Bernie at Super16Inc. He can tell you more about cost. He did a great job! The conversion is a few hundred bucks or so. Much cheaper than a S16 conversion since you don't have to recenter the lens. www.Super16Inc.com There's some slight vignetting when at one certain focal length (maybe in macro). It's not a big deal. It's hard to notice. Search Vimeo for Ultra 16. A few of my clips are up there to see the results. Also read up on the workflow that Cinelicious offers. The scoopic is a great little camera for this conversion and the results are really nice!

That makes sense. I know Bernie doesn't like to do things unless they are 100% greatness, so I'm sure he stopped offering it. S'ok though. Like I said, I just have to use the right film for the right place. Like, no 500T for outdoors! It's a great little b-roll cam, agreed. I'd still like to challenge myself and shoot a short or a music-vid on it. When the time comes. The U16 is awesome though, and it makes for VERY pretty pictures.

Will: I guess I always felt like the scoopic got SO dark when the iris closes. I thought laser brighten would help anything higher than 5.6. Not a big deal since the scoopic M/MS has the aperture override button, but it does add an extra step during critical focusing. During a shot, while rolling, it's impossible to do any sort of critical focusing on the fly. Always bugged me. Because of this I've learned to use 50D outdoors, 250D inside so that the iris doesn't clamp down so much. Also have to use a bunch of ND filters from time to time. It's such a different workflow than Super8. I do love the fact that the light to the viewfinder is consistent with all my super8 cams.

Roger: Curious how you got Bernie to do Laser Brighten. He informed me a few months back that the mirror couldn't be removed since it was glued when I had it there for my U16 upgrade.

http://super8wiki.com/index.php/GAF_SC_102 Doesn't look like a terrifically advanced. Only 18fps too. I'd assume it doesn't meter too many of the modern stocks. You should see if you can find a manual online somewhere if you don't have one. It should tell you what it's capable of metering. If you can't find it, you can use this : http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Super_8_Ca...dge_Notch_Ruler Definately worth shooting a test reel. Not to totally rain on your parade, but it looks like it's about a $10 camera. Don't expect mind-blowing results as far as image clarity. In my experience the cheaper cameras tend to muddy images with lower-quality lenses. Still, it'll be fun to shoot. Tokyo!!

These are really magnificent transfers Freddy. The smoothcam has such a big impact on making it look so professional, among many other things you do. I decided to try and do this in FCP with a bunch of 16mm footage I have. I noticed that the workflow is pretty rough though. I'm not sure if anyone has tried this with telecine'd footage. In FCP smoothcam can only be applied to a full clip. This means that if you apply smoothcam to a telecined clip, it will attempt to analyze the entire reel that was transferred. Most (read: all) transfer houses just run the reel into one full quicktime. The rub is that even if you split up the shots and make subclips they still point to the original file. The only way to make seperate independent clips is to export them as quicktimes and make them selfcontained. The issue HERE is that you can't do this in batches. Only one at a time. SO, you're pretty screwed if you want to do more than a few shots. Freddy, does your program do all the footage at once or do you have to select specific scenes? Just curious if there's a different workflow I could use. Would it work with FCP? The other thing I guess one could do is make a full sequence of all the soothcam shots you want, and export the whole thing... then import it as a clip and analyze the whole thing. Crazy.

I agree. I'm tired of poor DP work on super 8. It's not hard get a good shot. Steady-hand. I think that the MOTION part of motion pictures should not be that the camera moves, but rather the images move within the frame. I see people do it (even friends) ALL the time and I reprimand them for not holding their shots still. I don't think they consider what it will actually feel like to watch the film. This is the difference between amateurs and film-makers. It's like, "hey if you want me to look at something, point to it and I'll look at it. Don't grab my head and move it around all over the place. I will punch you." The format doesn't even matter. I see plenty of poorly shot 16mm. The difference is that 16mm cameras are typically about 5-10 times the weight of a S8 camera and so the momentum is better for smooth shots.

Makes me sad to hear that it's hard to find a solid theater in such a great city. I moved from Boston to Austin about 6 years ago and we're SO lucky to have the Alamo Drafthouse theatres that are no-bullshit theaters run by movie lovers. They serve great food and beer, and have the best stadium seating and projectors ever. Really refreshing to go see movies without the riff-raff. I'd imagine the Brattle may be the best bet since it's run by movie lovers too. I remember them doing pretty groovy events too. I only saw one flick there, ever, and don't remember it sucking... and I'm tough to please. I saw a bunch of films at the Kenmore theater, but I think they were less mainstream... I remember seeing Monsoon Wedding a few years ago... those kinds of movies. There's a theater I used to go to occasionally out on RT. 9, on the right hand side going west. It was in a mall with a Neiman's or a Macy's or something. That was a reasonably good spot too, from what I recall. I feel ya.