Tyler Purcell

That's right, the film era lenses don't have the same resolution as the current digital era lenses, like the one's I'm using. I do use the same lenses on S35 sized imagers all the time and they look much better. So that's really the only testing I've done, mostly with high resolution stills, rather then moving images so it's easier to test. Not saying the Zeiss 10 - 120 is a bad lens, I think it's a fantastic lens.

Observation based on experience with both the lens and the camera in question. I use Super 35mm glass on my Pocket camera and most of it isn't sharp enough. Out of my 5 lens kit, only two lenses have a crisp enough center for a small imager like the pocket camera has. It's not like film which already has softness to it. You will absolutely notice the lens being a bit softer with a 2x extender. Maybe not on film, but with the pocket camera, absolutely.

HA! Probably not VHS... lowest quality "analog" video I'd ever use is Betacam SP. At least you have separate color channels. Tho, I was never a fan of VHS. I was more of a betamax, Hi8 guy... turned Betacam SP/Digibeta. :) Some of those three tube cameras are very cool looking though. I'd plug one of those into a portable 3/4" SP recorder, that would make an interesting combo! I did a whole documentary series on one as a kid, looked pretty cool actually.

All modern digital content watched on your home television blends together. There is nothing really separating well made television from theatrical content. This is one of the huge points about the whole 120/240hz televisions which come from the factory with image smoothing turned on. People are use to that look today, they don't know it looks like crap. I'll say this much... an old school analog Sony XBR television and laserdisc source, looked pretty darn good. It looked far better then a digital representation of standard definition. In fact, I've tried to copy laserdisc's to my computer and never once have gotten them to look anywhere near the quality of the ol' analog CRT. Until the last decade, CRT's were the industry standard in image quality and ya know what, I'd go so far as to say those HD broadcast monitors are probably the best looking analog viewing devices ever made. Today's monitors are so inferior, they have to rely on high definition sources to even look remotely acceptable due to the low-end scalers used to up-scale and convert analog to digital and display it on an HD set. It's the same with film. It's superior to digital in so many ways, not just because it's an exact representation of the light on set, but it doesn't go through nearly the same translation/manipulation. As I've said may times, we're analog creatures, digital doesn't exist without specialized devices to convert analog to digital and back again. There is a great deal of loss in this process from light source through projection. Today's artists manipulate that loss into something that looks generally hyper reality, rather then a piece of art. What's lacking is education, it's that simple. I personally could care less if people shoot film. I shoot most of my stuff digitally because nobody cares on broadcast television or video streaming. Television today is such a disposable product, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to spend money on film unless the show is something that has serious social impact/meaning. What I care about is the ability for film to exist as a complete workflow from image capture through distribution without digital manipulation. This requires cameras, stock, labs and projectors, to exist indefinitely. The problem we have today is that filmmakers who would like to do a complete photochemical workflow and distribution, have no way to accomplish that. A good example of this was a recent conversation I had with Fotokem about shooting 2 perf and doing an optical to 4 perf anamorphic for projection. They had zero interest in getting me a budget on that. I asked three times, sent e-mails and even though I gave them all my numbers, they just ignored me. How is that a reliable workflow? Where is the online interactive worksheet where I can select my workflow and it spits out a number on the back end? Why did 'The Revenant' not shoot film? Because they didn't have a reliable lab. Why didn't 'Beasts of No Nation' shoot 16 like they were slated to? Because there was no lab. These are very easy problems to solve, but nobody is solving them. Nobody is standing with the filmmakers between them and the labs trying to work the deal/workflow to make it happen. Finally, film projectors should be a necessity and projectionists should be trained on their use. There is no excuse for film prints of movies made on film, shouldn't be projected on film. These are just a few of the things I see and that's why I'm starting Celluloid Dreaming. We are going to solve these problems one by one and tackle the very difficult task of making a difference. First starting with education of young filmmakers. Teaching them the ropes of 16 and 35mm filmmaking on celluloid. The format in general needs to be a lot easier to deal with as well, there is no excuse for not getting back to someone on pricing. There are great labs out there, Cinelab in Boston for one of them. I call those guys and I get answers in 10 seconds with a huge smile on their faces loving the fact I still shoot film. I'm 2800 miles away and THEY care, yet here in California, nobody appears to give a poop. It's frustrating and I'm trying my best to make a difference.

Yep and the S16 version exists, but are prohibitively expensive. I did the math, it would cost LESS to shoot 2 perf 35mm on a 3 week shoot with a camera deal through panavision, then it would to shoot S16 and V-lite anamorphic's.

But digital prints never look anywhere near as good as photochemical ones. "crisper" for sure, but doesn't look nearly as good color wise as an actual print. The problem is, we haven't made "decent" prints for a long time now. I saw The Force Awakens on 35mm and it looked like crap, real disappointment. It's exactly what I expected, it was simply not done right and a lot of digital prints in the mid 2000's up till today, were done the same way. In the grand scheme of things, it was a great big conspiracy to keep people moving towards digital distribution. It's all about money and the studio heads wanted to save money, so the pawned off digital upgrades to the theaters so the studio's could make more money. So far every year since the move to digital has been more and more PROFITABLE for the studio's, even with the HUGE flops. Why? Because the theaters now charge more money then ever for digital distribution and they don't need to pay top projectionists or film prints or shipping those prints. Today's distribution model is practically free compared to the days of photochemical filmmaking and all that savings goes directly into the pockets of the studio's and the theaters pay for all the constant never-ending upgrades. Film projectors run forever and digital projectors? They're being replaced and serviced constantly. It's just really sad... and it pains me to think that we've been watching crappy prints since around 2000 when people started pushing DI and digital film-out's. How amazing those films could have been if done photochemically.

The difference is crispness. 2k digital on a big screen is soft and things like aliasing are ever present. That just doesn't exist in the film world. A proper 4 perf anamorphic print of that movie would look a lot better because it would still have crispness in the grain. So it would appear to be sharp even though it was soft. That is one of the nice things about prints, they kinda blur that line. One side note, 4 perf 35 frame @ 50asa resolves closer to 4k according to a multitude of tests. Prints are more like 2.5k when dealing with a square frame. So you do loose about half the resolution between camera negative and release print. With that said, prints made off the negative retain much of the resolution.

The film puts a lot of drag on the system, so you have to test it with film. If the film on the spool comes off smoothly and isn't getting stuck from sitting from a few decades, then you should be fine. If it doesn't come off smoothly, that could be your problem. Yea, the very early H16's were double perf. Double perf film has been phased out over the last two decades. Kodak still makes a B&W reversal with double perf, but that's about it. All of the color negative stocks are single perf today. This is simply because there is no reason to use double perf anymore. The only reason to even produce the stock is for pre sound cameras, which had double perf's. Single perf is what you'd use for Super 16 and sound on film. If you have sprockets on both sides of the pulleys, then yea you have a double perf camera. Unfortunately, there really isn't a lot of film made for double perf anymore. That's probably why someone sold the camera so cheaply, it's almost a dinosaur in the world of film. It's very easy to convert though, just need to send Bolex an e-mail or simply call them. They can ship you out a kit with sprockets.

Yep, Mark's right. Sounds like the camera does have a problem. It should run smooth as butter with film threaded. That actually requires MORE out of the spring then no film. So if you stress it and it has problems, then there is clearly something wrong. You can try adjusting the speed knob on the side to see if perhaps it's just related to that. I've seen that knob get all sorts of messed up and cause speed problems.

The Aaton grip has two functions run and single frame. So I assume they run the ground on the outside of the connector and pin 1 is run and pin 2 is single frame. The Arri grip is only start stop, so it's quite different.

It would for sure look soft.

Yea, most of the channels I frequent are from Europe.

Ok so mine has a 3 pin LOMO connector for the trigger in the front of the body. It's probably an easy conversion, just need to know the pin outs.

Honestly, lighting in of itself is only part of the problem. That's why I tend to rent a complete grip truck when working on anything with a budget. There are so many other things you need when shooting, trying to have a complete inventory of gear can be somewhat crazy. Here in LA there are gaffers with trucks who will work for $350 - $500 a day no problem. That's a STEAL in the grand scheme of things and well worth not bothering to own anything. Obviously, if you're shooting your own stuff constantly for no money, well then there maybe a need. But for the simple fact of owning (stockpiling) gear so you can maybe get more jobs? Not worth the effort in my opinion.

Hmm... I'll have a look.

I have an older moviecam and LTR, the trigger connectors are totally different. Also, aaton has their own rosette mount, so it won't fit to the camera directly without an adaptor to "Arri" mount. Very strange I know....

I mean we do have 2 perf 35mm, which saves 50% over 4 perf and 16mm is half the price already. Saving money on film is all about shooting ratio's, rather then simply knocking 16% off the top. I don't think anyone working on film would shoot at a lower frame rate then the current film standard to save 16%. For digital shooting, we already have higher compression standard which knock the data rate down substantially, whilst retaining quality. So if you are hard up for storage space, a few seconds in the camera menu solves those problems. You could argue that it would even be smaller at 20fps, but I argue, people on big features could care less on saving a few dollars in storage cost. In terms of camera processors... well, that wouldn't change at all. Since most cameras have over-cranking, it's become more and more imperative to have decent processors. You may note, the smaller cameras that shoot camera raw to SD cards, struggle for bandwidth and can't do over cranking. The bigger cameras that use SSD cards and have faster processors, don't have those problems. So the idea of 20fps being a "lighter weight" system, doesn't really work. The difference in bandwidth is negligible in the long run. Example would be Pro Res XQ which is 1697Mbps @ 4k and 24p. Shooting at 20fps is 1440Mbps. So we're not talking a huge savings to drop down to 20fps. Now I know it's just a theoretical conversation, but if you look at cinema history, there were really only 30 years of 16 and 18fps films shown in theaters. We've been shooting and presenting in 24fps for roughly 75 years! Our whole industry's workflow is setup for 24fps. The new 48fps standard was a complete failure, not just because it looked like broadcast TV, but also because it was not a normal workflow. People want to work with standards and changing those standards takes decades, as we learned with the whole SD to HD thing. So why can't we change it back? Because nobody cares! LOL :)

Yea, I was gonna suggest a 2x extender. The only problem is the loss of wide angle.

I'd like to see Lawrence Of Arabia 10 bit UHD BluRay. If I ever get a 4k projector and player, that would be the first title I'd watch. :)

It's kinda funny because there is a great article on Arri's site about people who shoot in extreme conditions relying on film cameras vs digital. Film cameras are generally lubricated with a light-weight lubricant that won't be too thick when running in freezing conditions. I've shot quite a bit in below freezing temps with an Arri SR, CP16 and Bolex, no problems. I agree about things like film being brittle lenses getting stiff. Also remember that going from cold to warm and back to cold can cause a fog up.

Yea, the problem at 16/18fps with digital is that the frames stay on much longer then 24, so it has more of a stutter effect then 18fps projected through a projector where your cutting off the light between frames. 18fps actually doesn't look bad projected, but with digital it looks wrong. I guess you could blur the frames together, which is what 18 to 24 conversions do, that looks more pleasing, but now you're dealing with blurring and the crispness of each frame is kinda of lost. Also... I don't think shooting a compromised 20fps will make that much of a difference for "eco" friendliness. We're talking 4 frames less per second? Converting cinema to 20fps would probably be the final nail in the coffin for theaters. With modern televisions that make content look like it's running at 48fps, people are so accustom to that smooth picture. If you give them something that looks looks staccato at the cinema, they just won't go anymore. Digital cinema actually removed the flicker, but there would for sure be an odd look to 20fps. If there was something to change that WOULD make a difference, it's broadcasting frame rates world-wide being changed to 24. Almost all of the digital gear can work with 24fps. Most single camera shows are 24fps, but they still run 3:2 pulldown in order to get 30 out of them. Why can't we just switch over to 24fps world wide? HD uses the same color standards throughout the world, so why not the same frame rate? Now that would save a lot of man hours and probably a decent amount of space as well.

I've had at least 10 super 8 cameras in my lifetime. First one was a sears model, with a non-adjustable lens, pretty much point and shoot. My dad bought that at a garage sale for me when I was 6 or 7 years old, can't remember. Second one was a Eumig which was a real piece of junk. I remember having that little round Agfa deal, I think it was called the Family, I even had the matching viewer. I had a few Yashica's, some sound, some silent. My last camera was an Elmo Super 8 sound that I got brand new. I shot almost all of my sound films with that, but it was 18fps. Not a big deal when you're projecting, but a small problem for digital. Wish I knew where all those cameras wound up, over the years they seemed to all disappear! I also had a B&H Filmo that I so wish I hadn't gotten rid of. As a kid, I always wanted a Nizo, but in Boston pre-internet days, they were really rare. I somehow miraculously still have one o the Yashica's and the Elmo Super 8 sound. Funny though, for all those years I've had a bunch of pre-WWII film and still cameras, which I still have today. Anyway, I think you're right about the F1.8 labeled on the lens, but I was basing my measurements on the light meters lowest setting inside the camera. The Yashica is like 5.6 and I'm like what? Maybe that's why the lens looks pretty decent. It's a honkin' lens thou, goes into the camera quite far and is removable as well, which is pretty sweet. Love the electric zoom, it's a sound of my childhood! Little green battery check light is so bright, it could probably be a fill light in a shot! LOL ;)

Hmm... so why couldn't you use that trick on standard lamp projectors? Also, all the mirrors do is reflect the light, so how does adding more mirrors achieve this? I'd love to learn more about it, but there don't seem to be very many technical documents around.

Man, I wish I had a "versatile" super 8 camera. I just acquired a Beaulieu 4008, but it hasn't run in years and the special rechargeable batteries are toast. So I gotta invest in batteries and doing a camera test. I was hoping to use it to shoot my friends stuff, but for the time being he's just going to use the camera we tested few weeks ago and verified to be working. What kills me is not having complete control over the exposure.

I wish there was a home processing system for Super 8 and 16mm that actually worked well. Every one I've seen is very meager and is nearly impossible to get perfect results from. I love the guys who show video's of their home processing kits and pull film out with all sorts of issues like left over coating on the film and areas that aren't processed. They're like "lets put it back in the soup" and I'm like, hold on a sec, you just exposed it to light!!! Anyway, one would think for a grand or two, you could make a pretty serious home processing machine to do small runs of motion picture film. Do you know of any developments in that arena?