Tyler Purcell

Sorry for lacking clarity... was referring to the Eclair NPR. I always forget about the ACL, it's such an unusual camera to see here in the states. I'm also not a big fan of either camera, I'm not a fan of the ACL's oscillating mirror reflex design. Plus... since they were really used for news gathering, they're lacking a lot of the critical "cinematography" features for cinema. On of which of course is the video tap, another one is a integrated rail system. The integrated battery is also pretty nice, I can't stand battery belts. Yes, the ACLII does solve a few of those problems, but I have never seen one in person, they're so rare. The ACL's short flange distance is a pro of that camera. I also don't think they ever came as Super 16, only had available modifications to make it work, where the later generation Aaton and Arri cameras were made S16 from the factory. With all that said, I haven't personally shot with the NPR/ACL (I'm an Arri/Aaton/Bolex guy) but I have been schooled on them so I've held them, I've run them and I've loaded the magazines and such. To me, they seem very old-school in their design, where Aaton and Arri seem much more modern with the LTR/XTR and SR series cameras. That's why I 'discount' what the Eclair's are capable of. Not to say they aren't a good camera (double negative must mean positive eh?), but if you're going to spend the money, why not buy the camera which is more widely used so there is some essence of support? Everyone knows how to use/service Aaton or Arri cameras, they're the Ford and Chevy of the Super 16mm market. Even the Bolex has HUGE support throughout the world with even a small branch of the company still in existence in Switzerland.

The big problem isn't a camera body, that's actually easy today. It's the lenses which will kill you because most of the good ones fit on digital cameras as well. So the pricing is still very high, unless you buy a camera that uses more unusual film-oriented mount like C or Arri B. A REALLY GOOD zoom lens can solve some problems, but they can be pretty expensive as well. So the first step in my opinion, is to solve the glass issue. Bolex C mount and Arri B mount, solve a lot of problems. However, finding glass that covers S16 is more expensive and finding camera bodies which take those types of lenses that are S16 can be also hard. Also, a lot of those older Bolex and Arri cameras are pretty loud, so recording sound can be a problem as well. If you're OK with ADR or a film without sync sound and are ok with straight 16... the BOLEX EBM is a great choice. Glass is pretty cheap and the lens mount will enable you to use pretty much anything in the future. I've seen Nikon to EBM mounts before, they're rare, but out there. You can get Bolex EBM's for around $600 USD. If you want sync sound (quiet) camera, but are OK with straight 16, perhaps an original Arri SRI. Arri B mount glass is all over the place for coverage of a straight 16 frame. You can get Arri SRI's for around $1200 - $1500 USD. If you want to go Super 16, Aaton LTR/XTR is the way to go for sure. The Aaton mount has a smaller flange distance then the Arri's, which allow you to run Nikon still glass if you want. That's a HUGE bonus because you can get cheap still camera glass which covers 35mm and it's sharp in the center. You can get Aaton LTR's for around $1500 USD. Aaton XTR's are a lot more money because they have a proper video tap, which is nice. I don't have any other recommendation outside of those three cameras. The Arri SR series, Aaton LTR/XTR and Bolex EBM are pretty much the "heavyweights" of used 16mm cameras. Yes, there are other ones out there, but each one of them has it's own issues. The Eclair isn't elegant, doesn't have a nice battery system and isn't as portable. The CP16R's are tanks, hand-treading and don't have the reversible viewfinder or battery system. The older Arri's (S/B/M) again, don't have the modern viewfinder system or battery system. Sure they're cheap, but that's for a very good reason! Ohh and to the point of Digital vs film? I mean do what you wanna do. I shoot film with no money, you can do it. Just need to be very careful on what you shoot. I get old film locally or through ebay. I do a fog test and determine if it's any good and then shoot it! Sometimes that's what it takes to get your vision on the format of choice. Honestly, I've done a lot of budgeting for shooting a feature on 16 and it's pretty good, around $38k for EVERYTHING using RETAIL pricing... assuming you buy a decent camera. So IDK, seems totally doable to me!

It's for sure an interesting idea however, you still need the film to stop for a moment, that's the only way to get a nice crisp image on screen. It's that starting and stopping motion that causes the noise. The only way around that is through a prism assembly, like what's used on a flatbed editing system, which is very effective, but not so crisp. So the advantages of using an electronic shutter are pretty limited in the grand scheme of things.

I use to Satsuki, years ago... wish I was still on the east coast! :)

Blackmagic 2.5k Cinema camera ($2000 used) Blackmagic 4k Cinema camera ($2500 used) Blackmagic Pocket cinema camera ($850 used) AJA Cion (prores only and new only) Less then 10k Blackmagic URSA and URSA mini 4k/4.6k Red Raven

That's the tricky part. Sony has many versions of the camera. The F3K and F3L are the one's which can spit out 10 bit 422 and 444. If you have a standard original model, it's an 8 bit camcorder. Well, the FS7 has nothing to do with the F3. They are made for different purposes entirely. When I look at the F3... I see a 1080p camera that really doesn't have any special features like the FS7. It's pretty outdated today, yet Sony still believes that imager size is the reason people buy cameras. The price drop is simply because nobody wants to shoot in 1080p anymore. There are FAR better options today as well, my pocket camera being one of them for 1/4th the price.

But still... the external output doesn't offer full dynamic range RAW recording. So sure, it's a step above the horrible internal recording, but not much. 50Mbps 8 bit 422 MPEG 2 long gop recording is still SUBSTANDARD in today's world of sub $10k cameras which record 12 and 14 bit RAW/Pro Res 4444. I'm editing a documentary shot with the C300 right now and sure the imager looks great, but the files are full of MPEG noise. So yet again, you're using an external recorder on a VERY expensive camera.

I guess my point is... why own/use a camera that uses a recording format which is substandard to the imager's quality? It's one thing to have options... it's another to have zero options and be stuck with a decent imager and no way to get that signal to a recording device. It's more of a principal then anything else. With extremely powerful coloring tools today, everyone wants to re-touch their work in post. Limiting that ability in the long run is extremely frustrating and delivers substandard images compared to a camera that does shoot better recording formats, but maybe doesn't have as good of an imager.

Which was the right decision of course. :)

Ohh it's absolutely noticeable. In fact, 4:2:2 vs 4:4:4 is noticeable as well. You'll see it on the transition between solid colors. So if there is something red in your shot that mates up against any other color, there will be jagged (aliasing) lines. In 4:2:2 you still see that problem, but not quite as heavily. The other big differences are of course the internal recording is 8 bit and HEAVILY compressed. The long gop internal recording smears the blacks and highlights. It has limited dynamic range even in S-log recording mode. Remember, high definition broadcast television is 8 bit 4:2:0. So if you're OK with what that looks like, then you'll be fine.

Ohh, they were posing for pictures. :)

Well, it's been a solid few months since I started Celluloid Dreaming with the hope and desire to get student filmmakers on board. We had a lot of false starts on various shoots, but in the last few weeks we've really gained some traction. We have back to back shoots for the next three weeks, with potential to go into March as well. This past weekend was our first "real" shoot. Working with the students from LACHSA, a local creative arts high school, a bunch of students from the junior year film class wanted to shoot something on S16. Thanks to Kodak donating stock, my extremely low-priced rental gear and free on-site support/mentoring, they were able to shoot something very nice. It was a tough shoot though, wrangling 6 teenagers is hard enough, getting them to focus on doing ONE THING was even harder. They struggled the first day, but after a long meeting after the shoot, day two went much better. They learned what each position on a film set actually does and seeing them work as a more professional group was very nice. It was also very rewarding to teach the cinematographer Charlie a few tricks about lighting. His grandfather is a cinematographer (forgot his name) and he's learned quite a bit up to now, though even he admits it was mostly theory. I tried to hang back, only giving him pointers here and there. It was great just chatting with him about different concepts and then showing him some magic to make them happen. We had some pretty complex lighting setups for his first movie shot on film. He was so esthetic to run a film camera finally, it was fun seeing him learn how to load the mags and run the camera. The smile on his face the first take, listening to the whirr of the camera was priceless. Here are some pix from the shoot. If all goes well, I'll post a video of the final product when done. :) We did some training outside of the school to test some of the wireless focus/video assist products they needed for some steadicam shots. Our main interior location with smoke and 2 1k's illuminating from outside The director Harry, first time using the Aaton The food table, 3 1k's with smoke and beautiful streaks. Our cinematographer Charles, he really fell in love with the Aaton by the end of the shoot. He can't wait to shoot more film at 15 years of age! :) Final setup of the shoot, we wanted light facing the camera, so I figured out a way to make it streak through clothing, I think it will look pretty sweet! Harry does the final slate of the shoot.

I personally don't think you can shoot a narrative feature for less then a 5:1 ratio. You still need those medium and close-up coverage shots AND of course enough film to cover for flubs. The minimal ratio I'd use is 7:1 and even that is REALLY pushing it. All of my films we budget for 10:1 because it's what makes the most sense in the long run. It allows you to cover scenes in a more traditional theatrical way, making your movie look more like a professional production, rather then long takes with the occasional close-up. I've budgeted for MANY feature films, most of them on S16 and 2 perf 35mm because they are the best bang for the buck. For a 90 minute movie (which is a decent average) stock and processing with a 10:1 ratio is $18,700 RETAIL. So we're not talking much money at all. It's the transfer from digital to film which is the expensive part. A decent scan of all the material would cost an additional $20k. This would give you a decent 2k image to work from and you never have to touch the film again. So all in all, doing it RIGHT would be around $38,000.

Well, I mean the A7S doesn't shoot raw and unless you use an external recorder, it doesn't record 10 bit 422 either. So watching footage online doesn't do anything. In fact, I have yet to make any of my blackmagic footage look "acceptable" online. When you shoot in raw, process for DCP export and project using a modern digital cinema projector, the blackmagic cameras blow the doors off the A7S. I work in post production, I've had to color from shots captured with every camera you can imagine. So I know what the sony MPEG cameras can do in post production and honestly, I'm completely unimpressed. That's why I bought the blackmagic and swear by their workflow. They make "cinema" cameras and like film cameras, they are very limited in their feature set, but that's because they've focused all their energy on developing a camera that does one thing really good... capture a 24fps image at 800ASA. That's what the camera does very well and it does it in a very cinematic way. If you don't want a cinematic looking image, then you can buy a Sony MPEG camera all you want.

Ohh and yes I'm willing to sell each can separately. So let me know what you want and we'll work out a deal.

How about cinelab?

I've got some! :) http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=70336

The DVX100A was one of the first cameras that looked decent. I shot two short films years ago with one and am still impressed with the results today... for a video camera that is. Yet... as you know... it's still VERY much a video camera. It looks NOTHING like a modern digital cinema camera.

To me Video is REC709 color space and "broadcast" standard frame/bit rate using a Tube or CCD imager(s) no bigger then 2/3's of an inch. Video cameras also have decent built-in audio recording, zoom lenses of some sort, integrated monitoring, Timecode I/O, Sync and Analog or digital output. They also have a Tally light and some sort of proprietary connection for CCU remote control. Modern digital cinema cameras are literally camera heads, like film cameras and are pretty far from (video) broadcast spec. Most of them are 2k or more resolution, have huge imagers (bigger then 2/3"), use CMOS technology vs CCD, shoot raw color space (TRUE RGB), have 12 bit per channel and generally people tend to shoot "film" frame rate (23.98 or 24p). In fact, we even organize media like film with a "camera reel" and numbers that match throughout production built-into the camera's functionality. I know Christopher Nolan calls modern digital cinema cameras "video" cameras and Quentin call's digital cinema "TV" which I get. But I'm not that much of a hater. Some digital cinema cameras are great and putting them anywhere near the "classic" definition of a "video" device isn't doing them justice. Grab a Sony F900 and a F65, do a back to back comparison and I think you'll find they don't work or look anything a like.

WOW Congrats Richard! Very exciting! :)

Sure, and as a special effect Super 8 works great.

Well, lets be frank here... modern digital cinema cameras are not really "video" cameras. So today, if you don't have any digital cinema material on your demo reel, if it's all 16/35, you may not get hired. Trust me I know because I came to hollywood with a 16/35 reel and didn't get hired until I put some digital stuff on there.

If you're getting reimbursed financially, then yes it's important to have numbers even if you own all the equipment. If you aren't getting reimbursed, then it really doesn't matter.

So since I'm selling my 35mm camera, I'm also selling all the film I bought. This is the "new" sealed stuff (400ft loads each): (2) Kodak Vision 3 5219 500T (2) Kodak Vision 2 5201 50D (2) Fuji Eterna 8547 500T (2) Fuji Eterna 8522 64D This is the "old" recan stuff (400ft loads each): (5) Kodak Vision 2 5299 500T (telecine stock) $1000 + shipping takes everything.

Can't wait to see it! Been struggling to find time! :(