Tyler Purcell

Have you ever used one? It's a real hunk of junk. Yes, the image is stable, but as I said earlier, it's loud so forget sync sound work, it's expensive (far more then a used S16 package) and worst off, the only way to see the image is through a video feed or the crappy internal monitor. Forget about the stupid menu system and audio recorder, what were they thinking! What the super 8 market needs, isn't a $5000 camera without a viewfinder. They need a sub $500 camera WITH the same stable mechanics and without all the digital gadgets. Unfortunately the Kodak camera is nothing to write home about and it will not be the re-birth of Super 8. What Kodak is doing with the mail in service, THAT will be the big savior for super 8 in the long term. In terms of "excitement", the only people who knew the Logmar existed are those who are heavily involved in the super 8 industry and spend time on internet forums like this... so basically .01% of filmmakers. I also wouldn't call the new Kodak a "logmar" camera, as it shares none of the very important, mechanically critical components with their previous camera. Without those components, it's just an over-priced toy that will draw some attention like the Digital Bolex did. I also think it will go away just like the digital bolex did, due to non-interest. You can't enter a market that's already saturated with products which are WAY less then yours, unless you offer something critical that nobody else offers. I can get a mirrored reflex Beaulieu for $200 on ebay, that's half the size of a Logmar and can be held up to my face for hand-held shots. I don't really think people who shoot Super 8 really care about stability. In fact, I've been working on two features that are incorporating super 8 right now and they wanted the most out of calibration camera possible, to get that "look" because unfortunately, that's what people use super 8 for today. To me, a "success" would be making more then 50 examples of a product. They never really ramped up manufacturing, all of them were hand-made. I mean, from what I've been told, they didn't make any profit off them. So how is that "success" in any way?

Yea, I've used the Blackmagic scanner many times, it's really nice. It's not quite 4k though, which is unfortunate. However, it works like a telecine and can capture in real time with audio, keycode and does all the variations 2, 3, 4 perf no problem. It's not a great machine, but it's a GOOD machine for the price point and features.

Well, someone is doing it because Nolans new movie is all 70mm and processed in the UK. I believe iDailies was bought by Kodak and they're a 70mm lab.

Hey Robino, there is going to be an awesome scanning solution coming to LA very soon. They're currently looking for a building and when it's found, you'll have killer low-rates on scanning. The lasergraphics scanner is HUGE and the software can get a bit complicated. You would also need a place to put it, which costs even more money then buying the box to begin with. It's not a bad idea to bring a bunch of people together, especially since scanning is so much of the cost today. You'd just need to find people looking for a long-term investment.

I started shooting film back when 16mm and 35mm cameras were too expensive to own. My first camera was super 8 and I've owned 5 of them over the years. I also had a B&H Filmo and Kodak Model C 16mm cameras, both of which I've used to shoot stuff over the years for fun. My Super 16 Aaton LTR is the first "real" film camera I've owned. Prior, I always rented/borrowed equipment. Since I run a film school AND teach filmmaking on motion picture film to high school students, I needed some equipment. So I bought the Aaton, Moviecam Super America and Bolex EBM. I've done quite a bit of market research here in California on shooting film. There is a camera for every market right now. The Super 16 K3's, when modified properly, work fine for the low-end sup $300 market. The straight 16 single perf Bolex models aren't much more money. My EBM was $400 bux with a brand new battery and lots of accessories including lens and case. That's a pretty fair market price, even on ebay they aren't worth much more. For sync sound cameras, there are plenty of Eclair's, CP16's, Aaton LTR's, Arri BL's and SRI/II's on the market. All of which can take B mount lenses, which are very inexpensive to purchase today, especially if you only need straight 16 coverage. Sure, all of those cameras will need a tune-up and new batteries. Yet, they're very inexpensive for what they are. You CAN NOT make a better camera then an SR with a $1500 price tag. Just look at the Logmar Super 8 camera, $5000 for a non-sync sound camera without a viewfinder. It was a complete failure in my mind as I was told they only made 50 units. The great new is, with the dropping of prices on these cameras, you can buy a camera, make your movie and resell it, without loosing too much money. People don't want to own gear if they aren't using it all the time. Since film is extremely cost prohibitive to use compared to digital, having that camera body sitting around isn't smart. This new mentality has really helped young filmmakers experiment with film in a way that hasn't happened in years. So personally, I don't see any reason for a low-cost Super 16 camera. There are literally thousands of cameras circulating around the world every year, being bought and sold on a regular basis. The idea that a "new" camera would somehow draw attention, even at a price point LESS then the average $1500 price tag, is kinda silly. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to make a camera today for the low pricing of those used cameras I listed above. The only way to make a "new" super 16 camera is to compete with the 416 and make something better. Good luck with that! Honestly, having studied this market, the only thing really missing is a 2 perf 35mm camera. Aaton only made two dozen Penelope's and they're no longer for rent in the US, thanks to Abel cine selling their inventory recently. To me, building a camera like the Penelope that's 3 perf, 2 perf, super lightweight, super quiet 400ft or 1000ft magazines and high definition video tap that doesn't use a ground glass, those are the features people want and I think one could sell some if the design was right. Yet, the amount of research and development required to make two cameras in one like that, is astronomical. Aaton spent decades developing their 35mm cameras to eventually wind up with the Penelope, but it was a long road. I also think 35mm has more money associated to it, unlike S16 which is very quickly turning into a consumer/play format, 35mm is still strong in cinema and even some tv shows. I'd say there is a need for an inexpensive but very modern film camera that can do most of what a digital cinema camera can do. Loose your shirt on development and help save film? Maybe? ;) Finally, low cost NEW cameras, don't help anyone with anything. People buy cameras all the time and forget how expensive it is to use them. That paradigm doesn't change with lower cost cameras. People will still buy equipment and let it sit in a box until they can raise the money to make a movie and eventually sell everything on craigslist when their project fails to come to fruition. I then buy everything up and put it in my freezer, like I've done a dozen times this year alone. People have grand ideas, even if they have the equipment and film stock, they generally forget about processing and transfer expenses which lead them to give up. It's a real shame, but it's the truth. When you have the money to really make a film, the last thing you want is cheap equipment. So you'll pay for good stuff, bypassing the low-cost option all together. So there are two filmmakers, the low-end which has dozens of good cameras available and the high end, which also has dozens of cameras available. Super 16 in my opinion, is a pretty packed market with excellent pricing vs performance, that doesn't need any intrusion from another manufacturer who will eventually find out how difficult it is to design, sell and SUPPORT equipment that's already outdated before it hits the market.

Silent? Mirrored reflex? 400ft loads? Super small and light? There are many affordable super 16 cameras from the K3 to used Aaton and Arris. I got my LTR for 1500 USD and it's super 16. I personally don't thing you can make a camera and sell it for anything near the price of a used camera.

I think it wouldn't be too difficult to take a Go Pro and make a tap out of it. The case would need to be split of course and different lenses used for different cameras, but it's very possible for not much money. It's just development cost and of course if anyone cares/needs an HD tap.

I haven't found a recorder with a built in monitor that does composite to an SD recorder. I was recently borrowing an Arricam LT from a friend and he doesn't have batteries, just AC adaptors. I'm like what good is that! I need a camera to be an entire package, not a bunch of ancillary things combined together to create a camera. That's why I dislike all the wiring and cabling of a modern setup. Wireless video adds a whole other can of worms and for a 16mm shoot, you might as well be shooting 35mm by the time you add all the crap. I had to setup my LTR for wireless video/focus control not long ago and that whole kit alone weighed as much as the camera did with film! As I tell young filmmakers who want to work with film, looking through the viewfinder is the only way to shoot with film. Where it's nice to have instant replay, you really don't know what you've got until it's been processed and transferred.

The LTR/XTR taps are FAR worse quality then the 416 tap. They're analog cameras, the 416 is a digital camera. You really have to calibrate the tap properly, I've never had a single problem with the 416 tap in bright situations. It works flawlessly. The $40 box is composite to HDMI I assume, which adds quite a bit of noise and delay to the signal. I have a few of those boxes in storage because they're garbage. There are HUGE benefits to running an all-analog system cost wise. The DV clamshells work flawlessly because they're practically free and you can re-use the tapes over and over again since nobody is trying to edit with the material. Yes it's true, you'll need old school analog composite monitors, but they are a dime a dozen. People literally throw them away and they work great for composing shots, which all the tap is good for anyway. Anyway, MY suggestion is don't bother going digital because I've been forced to do it several times and it sucks. I personally would never deal with all that crap hanging around my rig.

IMAX runs horizontal through the camera and projector, so the sprockets are on the top and bottom. That's generally people's confusion about the format compared to ALL THE OTHER formats, which -outside of vistavision- run vertical. A standard 4 perf (cinemascope) print is around 5 megapixel. Where an IMAX 15/70 print is 56 megapixel.

The other option is to record on tape. Sony made a great little monitor/deck combo in both DV and Digital 8. This way there is no reason for any conversion, keep everything composite on set. The conversion process from analog to digital is a mess, it also takes up a lot of electricity, requiring a special power system on the XTR. You can also run audio into the recorder so you can have both bits together for "real" playback on set. I still have my entire DV kit for capturing on set, but the stupid monitor blew up a few years ago. This also means you can use lower-end LCD monitors on set, instead of digital one's, which are kinda pricy. As Kenny points out, the video tap is only really good for framing and reference. Until the 416, taps kinda looked like crap and none of them have any bearing on "color" of the shot. The XTR battery system can power other 12v sources. I have D taps all over my camera thanks to Abel Cine and I've run many devices off the Aaton battery no problem, though it does drain them quicker. I've also used Anton Bauer battery systems on the Aaton, hanging them from the follow focus rails. With the modern lithium batteries, it doesn't add much weight if you're on a tripod or steadicam.

Well yes, it fits all those categories. Remember, most movies are finished in 2k anyway, so the 1920x1080 resolution of the pocket camera is a few pixels away from 2k. I suggest a pocket with real cinema lenses, they really make the camera sing.

Still looking for film! I'm pretty close to having enough for a feature, but not quite there. I have lots of 64D, but not enough faster stock. Ideally, I'd like to find Eterna 500T, that would be the best because I need tungsten stock to augment the bunch of slow daytime stuff I've got. I sent you a PM Peter, thanks! :)

We just got two Mini 4.6k's at my work, but no viewfinders or shoulder adaptors! I'm furious with them because I wanted to shoot a short film ASAP, but no way is the camera usable with JUST the LCD display.

Kirby has a full-time job outside of the industry today. So it will take him time to get back to you. He apologizes in advance. :)

Here is their contact info: kirby.morrow@metricsplicer.com

The firmware of your camera was out of date. Blackmagic have made some HUGE updates in the last few months, all of which remedy those issues. Currently, the camera can run higher then 800 without fixed pattern noise. The camera doesn't come with the required accessories to shoot hand held. Blackmagic has a beautiful shoulder mount and OLED viewfinder which bolt straight onto the camera. Without those, the camera is "studio-only", as the big display is only worthwhile indoors in dark environments. Well again, sounds like you're using the first software revision, which makes the cameras look like crap. The newest revision which just came out, solves almost all of the problems. Of course, none of these cameras are shoulder mount ready out of the box.

Yea, that's just one example.

It's cool for sure, but it's wrong quite a bit and there is a lot of missing information.

Sure, but in my mind that's a pretty healthy format. Even when 16mm was at it's height in the 70's and 80's, there were only a hand-full of 16mm films with huge stars and wide releases. I'd beg to say, 16mm became more popular when stocks got better in the 2000's, but even then there were huge gaps between movies. Think of it a different way, how many movies are in the theaters shot with a Blackmagic URSA 4.6k? Maybe one? There are literally thousands of that very capable camera on the market today, yet we don't see any of them producing big movies, like we do with 16mm. Mind you, none of the 3 S16 movies released this year that I know of are "American", they're all foreign investment films, with American actors. So sure, those three mass-released theatrical films don't amount to much for Kodak and the lab's, but there are another dozen or so S16 features that won't be in the theaters here in the US. So there is a pretty healthy market on the low-budget side. I do see a day on the horizon where Kodak decides to invest in making a new stock once more. Lets all hope when they do, it can re-vitalize the narrow gauge formats once again.

Where it's true the higher resolution cameras have less of an issue, it's always an issue if you re-scale the image, either in camera or in post. I work mostly in post and I see moire issues constantly with re-scaled content that didn't exist in the high resolution camera original. So yes it's nice to have a nice big high resolution imager, but distribution is still setup for 4k or below. This is why I vastly prefer the 3.2k of the Alexa with a an up-scaled 4k finish, rather then a 6k camera which is down-scaled to 4k.

Yep, sure is. I'm sure my gaffer would build some crazy rig out of c stands, a bunch of clips and black duvetine. :P

It's around 50db with film. So it's not quite as loud as the original Arri 1, 2 and 3. I wanna say the 235 is slightly quieter, but I haven't had both on set at the same time to test that. The 435 is a bit too loud for sound recording, even with some sort of cover. Where the 235 with a cover, maybe quiet enough.

Right, I thought 500+ as in (more then 500) would be drum cameras. I didn't know a typical 16mm movement could shuttle 500FPS without destroying the film. I thought they were capped at around 200 ish.

Not necessarily. Because the CP16 was designed specifically for "quiet" operation which includes sound on film, it was a single perf camera from the very beginning. Where it's true, single perf is required for super 16, it's only one of two things to look at when determining frame size. The gate size is an instant give away.