Tyler Purcell

Meh, C200 is passe. The Raw files it creates are the only good thing about it and even then, it's a very limited camera compared to the C300MKII which doesn't do raw, but shoots a more standard XAVC-I codec. They'll both be out of date cameras by the time you can afford to buy either one sadly. They're already long in the tooth.

They'll have models out soon. I have a feeling they're getting close to fulfilling the orders. The flippy screens snap off very easily with one minor mistake. Plus, they're a compromised design because they need to put so much mechanics into them. The pocket 4k doesn't have those issues, it has a beautiful and large display. Plus it's recessed from the camera housing, where the A7SMKIII display is not and can easily be damaged. I thought you were going to sell some film stuff to buy a camera?

I agree with Isaac, the only model's which are selling currently for decent money are the most modern cameras. I sold a beautiful, rebuilt 4 perf 535A with anamorphic viewfinder, 5 magazines and dozens of accessories for $3500 bux last year around this time. I don't think the price on a package like that will go up anytime soon, it's pretty much flatlined. Even Arricam's have pretty much flatlined. The camera's that hold the most value these days are the Super 16's, SR3's, XTR Prod's, 416's. Super 16 has taken off as a shooting format and 35mm has kinda slowed down honestly. I only got 2 rentals last year for 35mm cameras and we only scanned 4 projects. My 16mm package has been booked nearly every weekend for 8 straight months and we had over two dozen other scan-only projects during the same time. Heck, even I have started shooting it again!

I absolutely despise the GH5, I'm shocked anyone uses them. They create such a plastic-like image with horrible incomprehensible menus, that have every key function buried 7 layers deep. Audio issues up the whazoo even with the XLR input box. The codec is unrecognizable in anything but Adobe Premiere or Media Encoder. The Panasonic lens selection blows, the auto focus does not work at all. The lenses are impossible to use outside of stills. I could create a 20 page diatribe on why the camera is garbage, but IDK if you wanna hear that. Again, I don't know why you don't contemplate the Pocket Cinema 4k. At this very unusual time to choose a new camera (before NAB 2019), honestly it's the only camera on the market that checks all the boxes in my book. Why is it being discounted in yours? Availability?

Yea, the technician issue is going to be a problem. I wish I wasn't a creative because I'd love to be a tech, but sadly that career path takes a long time to really bloom and I can't start all over again. I know enough to be dangerous and that's all I need to know for now hahaha. I mean there will be trickle down because the current service techs do know how important it is to keep things alive. My concern is how GOOD the trickle down will be. If we look at a different industry... Steam engines for instance. Nearly everyone who made or serviced steam engines in the US dead, yet the skills have been handed down through the generations there are so many young people involved. Yes, film is different as it's more of a niche, but I'm not TOO fearful. Ohh and yes, the 435, Arricam's and 416's are a big problem. All electronically controlled and so prone to minor electronic glitches.

Jon is right on the nose.

My .02 cents are worthless because 1) I absolutely hate autofocus and electronic lenses. Nearly all of them are made specifically for stills, not video. So they don't do what YOU want them to do. Plus, unless you spend a lot of money on lenses, nearly all of the mid-grade and lower-end lenses are very slow at focusing. 2) iFrame non-mpeg cameras are the only one's I even contemplate owning. Give me Pro Res, DNXHR, Jpeg2000, Blackmagic Raw, Pro Res Raw, Red Code or Arri Code any day of the week. Outside of Go Pro, which there is no alternative for, any camera I do work with must be a real codec. .h264/.h265, doesn't matter how good they CAN be, I can still see the compression and I absolutely hate that look. XAVC- I is OK, but Sony's support in Mac OS is horrible, they're still 32bit drivers, so it's just very slow to manipulate the footage. 3) I wouldn't own a camera that doesn't have some serious sound capabilities anymore, after owning the pocket cinema cameras and learning it's possible to buy shitty preamp's these days. The new Pocket Cinema 4k has excellent pre-amp's and mini-XLR input. It's the only camera of that size to have anything like that. 4) Where full-frame imagers are nice for those wide shots, they also limit what glass you can use. 5) Double ISO for the win. I don't understand why everyone isn't double ISO these days. It's a very clever design and it allows for a cleaner, more dynamic range image in the lower ISO's and higher ISO's without much compromise. Cameras like the A7SMKIII have a HUGE compromise in the normal ISO range, to get a decent high dynamic range image out of them, you have to use tuns of ND. They're really great for super dark tens of thousands of ISO stuff, but outside of that the A7SMKII and MKIII are just toys. I know a lot of people swear by them, but that's because they have the large imager look. They also have crappy .h264 8 bit 4:2:0 internal capture, which is so subpar these days. 6) Outside of PL, I'm so tired of the strict lens systems that most name-brand camera manufacturers require today. It's way better to buy a camera with a short flange distance that can adapt to ANY glass, then a camera with a fixed lens system. You spend all this money buying into a system and then 2 years down the road when the camera body is worthless and the manufacturer doesn't make anything good, you're stuck with it. I've run Arri B, PL, Nikon, Canon and C mount glass on my Pocket camera. Plus, nearly all of the modern glass made for those name-brand systems, aren't designed for cinema in any way. You NEED CINEMA GLASS TO SHOOT VIDEO! 7) There is a happy medium that Panasonic figured out years ago in imager size. Full frame imagers require a lot of power, so the full frame still cameras always have some sort of got-ya's when it comes to shooting video. Poor codec's, poor audio, shorter recording times, etc. If you reduce the size of the imager, you can decrease the amount of processing power it takes to drive it. Panasonic was the first to come to market with a hybrid still/video camera using the 17.3x13 imager size (the blackmagic 4k is 18.9x10 imager size) and it's a great size because it doesn't use up a lot of power, so the manufacturer can add a lot of functionality. Obviously, if you have a lot of money, you can buy an Alexa mini and not worry about most of these issues. However, when you're like me, broke and just trying to buy a cheap camera and lenses, you have to be very mindful about these things. You have to wave each issue I pointed out above and see which ones have the most merit to you. These are the things I care most about, notice how slow-mo or camera size aren't in there. Some people need slow-mo, some people need a super small camera. For me, these are things I need based on my experiences.

1) I'm unaware of any program in the country that is entirely film, like it was when I was going to school. There are a few colleges and high schools for that matter, who offer credit for classes related to film. The program I ran at LACHSA was one of two in So Cal and I was told, there were three others country wide, but not sure where. Most of the colleges have switched to digital as their mainstay and have shelved the film cameras, if they still have them at all. I know some of the recent students who have moved from other places to Los Angeles, talk about their recent experiences at college and how it was difficult to get knowledge AND working equipment from many of the film schools in the US. Thus, the moment they get the money together, they find someone like me, who can train them up and get them ready to shoot film. 2) I hate to say it, but the days of free 16mm cameras are over. 10 years ago, if you had a 501c3 charity, you may have been donated a lot of equipment like I did. However, today people are holding onto their film cameras like they're made of gold and one day they'll be worth a fortune. I've spent quite a lot of money building my camera fleet and honestly, I have more rentals/work for those cameras, then I could ever imagine. Last year my rental business shot over 60 rolls of 16mm and over 100 rolls of 35mm on short fillm's. This year alone, my 16mm kit has been out nearly every weekend and it's been on TWO features! Talk about an uptick in the amount of film shot. Coming from Boston and doing all my education there, I gotta say Massachusetts does have quite a few resources. There are film cameras for rent, there are film workshop classes for both still and motion picture. The east coast's premier flatbed editing table shop. The country's premier projection provider AND the most comprehensive lab facility on the east coast. Heck, the city even has some very cool theaters that still show film prints. Amherst is not that far away from the city, I spent much of my childhood out there visiting relatives. So you shouldn't have any resource issues. I also have taught motion picture film classes on the college level AND spent two years teaching at the high school level full-time. What I have learned is quite interesting and for sure not what I expected. Students these days are not as interested in the 'retro' aspects as you'd think. Showing 16mm prints will probably not get anyone interested in shooting film. What does get everyone's attention is first; showing how good film can be and how easy it is to shoot. This is hard to do with a Bolex, but with my XTR Prod package, you don't even need a light meter. If you bring film to a level where students find it easy to use, then they will be intrigued. Put a monitor on it, shoot modern color film, process and transfer it well. You'll find a lot of eyeballs on that screen getting excited about shooting on film. If you make it look like some "old fashioned" way to make movies, using black and white stock, processing by hand and shooting with old equipment, I'm afraid it will just turn most people off. Sure you'll get the nerds in the class who would like it, but I doubt anyone will consider using it outside of your class. I work with a few professors at two of the biggest film schools in LA. They send students to me for camera rentals and we have a pretty good business going on, getting students into packages, film, processing and transfer for WAY less than the competition. Our goal has been to provide a one stop service, like Pro 8mm, but at a cost that's more receptive to the student projects being shot. Sadly due to financial reasons, we've had to put the program on hold, hopefully it will only be a year or two as we re-build our infrastructure. However, what I've learned during the time we were operational was basically what I said above. Most students are into the film look because it differs from digital, but they care greatly about quality. All of the students wanted 4k scans and a crisp/clean image. Where I rarely get to see results, I have scanned some of the students work myself and what they've shot was great and you can see how excited they were pre shooting and post shooting about using film. Cost was always an element, but somehow they made it work out. My cameras are currently booked out 2 months in advance, that's how many students and other filmmakers are wanting/needing film cameras to rent. I found the high school students enjoyed editing film a lot. I never tried it with the college level, but at the high school level they were really into holding the film in their hands, seeing the image on the viewer and cutting it. I bought a bunch of splicers and two sets of rewinds/viewing screens from a friend of mine for cheap and that's what I used in the class. We shot negative, got prints made and simply cut the prints up so the negative would stay un-harmed. The goal was to cut the negative, but nobody was willing to work me a deal on the price, so we just used the print as our final. I already had the cameras and projectors, so the cost was simply the editing supplies and film stock/processing. No matter what you will need to have some sort of budget to deal with those things. I hope some of this was insightful and not too negative. Please let me know if you have any questions!

Robin, I think you may not understand what I'm talking about. We're referring to stock footage only here, not broadcast, not sync-sound material, just those filler shots that you can't afford to get for whatever reason. The goal of having stock footage online is to "sell" said stock footage. So if your footage doesn't fit the specs properly, then you won't sell it. If you have a 23.98, 24, or 25fps clip, it's impossible to use it in a 29.97, 30, 59.94 or 60fps environment without adding cadence to the file. This makes it look bad, especially from 25 to 29.97 which is the most common conversion. If you have a 30 fps clip, you can very easily make it work for 29.97, 59.94 and 60fps. Plus with a very simple header flag change on the file, you can make it playback at whatever FPS you want LOWER then 30fps. So if you have a 25fps sequence, you can easily get 30fps media to work, all be it at a slightly slower frame rate. This generally isn't an issue for stock footage, as it's very easy to manipulate frame rate in the NLE system and add frame blending instead of cadence. If I were to sell stock footage, I would shoot everything in 4k and at either 30fps or 60fps so that no matter what, it's convertible to any other media standard.

Yea I would agree with those! As someone who shoots AND edits! 😛

Yea there are issues for sure, I had issues mounting them to the IIC because the mirror angle is more steep then the other cameras evidently. Some other lenses have issues with iris adjuster hitting the PL mount and on the SR's, they hit the viewfinder of course.

Here ya go! This is MOSTLY Rokinon:

I've used the CP2's with film cameras, but I'm not much of a fan due to the cost. It really depends on what features you're looking for in a lens? If you want a fast wide angle lens, that's going to cost a lot of money vs a slow longer or standard 24, 35, 50mm lens. I could only afford what I bought, which were the Rokinon Xeen's and let me tell ya, nobody can tell what they are with the final footage on film. People spend so much time focused on glass, they kinda forget that most glass is fine. I had some college kid argue with me about my recently serviced Optar primes "not being good enough" for his student film. It's that kind of attitude which kills me. I'd rather have three lenses that work, for the price of 1 lens that doesn't do anything better, but has a more recognizable brand name on the side.

Sadly Final Cut was never designed to work with film. There were a few plugin's made by Automatic Duck that helped that a bit, but getting a flex file out of Final Cut 7 is impossible. So the only way is to work with a burn in, but honestly that doesn't help because you still can't create the file required for the negative cutter. For a negative cut, you need to use Avid. Any version will work really and for $199 you can get a year subscription. It's a bit of work to get functioning, but it does work way better than FCP7 and all of these "film" issues are solved. It has so many options for film it's kinda crazy. On a side note, negative cuts on 16mm kinda suck for many reasons. The big one is that it's a multi-reel A/B/C standard. They do this to cover up the splices and it works well, but it's really annoying to cut AND to print, using a multi-pass system. You would not only need to do a negative cut, but also make an IP for archival reasons. This means, you'd have to spend the time and money to do a color pass and dissolves on film, which lowers the quality of the final output. Far better to scan all your negative at 2k using a lower-end system. Then simply re-scan the sections you need at 4k for the final cut. Then you can laser back your film onto 35mm with soundtrack and use that as your archive.

It's gonna be hard to find a good working SR of any kind for $1200. Most of those sub $2k sync sound cameras of any brand are in rough shape, either missing things like batteries, chargers, magazines and usually are "untested" which means you'll probably need to send it in somewhere for a re-build. SR's are workhorses, but when they wear out, they create a very wobbly image (registration issues) until serviced. Also the vast majority of SR's are Arri B mount, which is a good thing if you wish to own your own glass, but a bad thing if you wish to rent glass as most rental houses only have PL mount 16mm glass. So be very careful what you get because it can easily turn your film future career into a nightmare.