Tyler Purcell

You can get them to record direct to pro res and if you send them a drive, they won't charge you that tape fee. Also... that HD transfer fee includes audio sync IF you use a timecode slate matching the audio recorder. That's a critical and HUGE time saver in post production if you plan on using production audio at all. The other prep fee's are generally included with process and transfer, but FotoKem separates them. You should be able to work the prices better, those are full retail prices.

Hey Luke, I'm actually starting a business all around this knowledge called Celluloid Dreaming. Once operational, it will give you answers to these questions. Right now, the numbers I'm quoting are retail, I'm sure if one showed up with a batch of film, they'd make a deal, that's without question. However, their pricing is a bit on the high side even for retail. Most films use one facility like FotoKem to do all that work. Nothing is done "in house" (assuming studio) anymore, those days are long gone.

Well yea, I mean my LTR is super quiet, but it's a big/heavy camera. My EBM by contrast is a lot lighter, much smaller and uses those great c mount lenses, which are a lot of fun.

I was referring to FotoKem being a one stop shop. Drop film off and get a finished product. Nobody does that anymore, so they do have a monopoly over that business model, where in the past many places did it and that competition kept prices down. I would love to find a more competitive price place in L.A. but I have yet to find one. Everyone seems to be the same pricing OR MORE! Which gets me a bit frustrated.

Ohh no doubt. Super 8 has nothing to do with production. Heck, even my blackmagic pocket camera is pretty much impossible to use on a production. It's great for having fun and making little projects, but for bigger things it's worthless. That's true, but it makes A LOT of noise, so there goes any audio recording. Also, you won't want to keep switching loads ever 2 minutes, that's really annoying for cast and crew. It's great for that one C camera insert shot, but most productions require a follow focus, mattebox, video tap and sound recording. I've seen eyemo's with some of those things including reflex, but honestly, it's like trying to force a camera that wasn't designed to do something, into doing it because you don't want a real camera. I mean, you can get super 35mm sound cameras for peanuts today, sometimes less then an Eyemo! Crazy! If you're thinking about home movies, the Bolex EBM with super 16 mod is absolutely the best. 3 minute loads, it's pretty quiet (not sync sound quiet, but quiet enough) and has all the bells and whistles built in. Honestly I've shot A LOT of stuff with Bolexes and love'em.

That's FotoKem's rate for a single 4k still image scanned. It blows my mind how much they charge. They want $750/hr for a colorist on top of that and think it will take 60 - 80hrs to color a feature. Ohh did I also mention they want $250 per hour for 1920x1080 Pro Res 422 telecine and it's a 3:1 ratio. So for every 3hrs you get 1hr of processed material. FotoKem is outrageously expensive and because they have a monopoly, they can charge anything they want.

Hey Perry, I think he was using my number from FotoKem which is .11/frame @ 4k. We'd scan selects, so 6000 feet roughly.

Eyemo's are fun and all, but they aren't practical for production. I got a beautiful Aaton LTR-54 Super 16mm camera, zeiss zoom lens and Optar primes for $4500. So why someone would buy a $5000 super 8 camera, is beyond me. I mean, glass and stock are your biggest expenses and horizontal super 8 would cost close to S16 and be a very specialized format with zero industry support. 35mm is everyone's dream of course, 2 perf makes it practical but glass is still the expense. So even if you buy a 2 perf 35mm camera for sub 5k, it will cost around $15k to buy decent glass. Plus compared to super 16, it's a lot more money to shoot due to stock cost and ancillary things like support, weight, portability (no on-board batteries) etc. If a 2 perf conversion kit was cheap and installable by the user or local camera technician, it would probably raise the values of certain camera bodies substantially. I still think it would be a good thing in the long run, especially if focused on standard cameras like the BL4.

Well, making a good camera is expensive and honestly, I don't see a market for a new camera since so many cameras already exist. It's not like digital, where you're constantly innovating since digital technology holds no bounds. With film technology, there is already an extremely limited market and within that market, there are very few people willing to experiment. Most of those people are the super 8 clan. However, Super 8 in of itself, wasn't designed for quality work. It's very much a consumer format and will always be that way, no matter what fancy camera or format change you make. So developing a new special super 8 format, isn't really helping the industry really. What does help is the ability for people who already own cameras, to do something special/unique with them. So cheap lenses, alternative lens mounts, lens mount conversions, better video taps, better battery systems, better viewfinders and as I said earlier, movements. P+S already does the lens stuff, but nobody has really made the other accessories. I mean in my eyes some sort of a standard HD video tap would be great. I also think movement updates would be a cost-effective sell because there is a much bigger market for them, then super 8 cameras. Just my .02 cents from a Hollywood cinematographer/director's point of view.

3 perf is 14min per 1000 feet. So for a 28 minute film (easier math) @ a 3:1 ratio (which is tight, but doable) you'd be looking at 6000 feet. So you're looking at: $2800 for stock. $1300 for processing. $2000 for 2k RAW transfer and audio sync So around $6200 for everything. If you switched to Super 16mm the pricing would look like this: $1200 for stock. $756 for processing. $1000 for 2k RAW transfer and audio sync So around $3000 for everything. I recently did a study that showed, 2 perf 35mm was only a tiny bit more money then Super 16mm. So if you can get a 2 perf camera to rent (depends on where you live) then you'll be in pretty good shape with 35mm outside of the extra stock cost per foot. Now, those numbers don't include a 4k finish, which is where MOST of your expense will come from. Scanning negative is expensive and even with the help of our great members cutting you deals, it will be an added expense. Honestly, I'd telecine in 2k and leave it at that unless you need something higher res.

For a film school student, the pocket is perfect. It will teach all of the right things and it's a cheap investment. Most of the similar priced camcorders are toys and won't really prep someone for filmmaking. I'd buy a pocket, Nikon to 4/3rds adaptor and get some old Nikon still glass off ebay. You can build a package for cheap money going that way vs the EOS/EF Canon mount lenses and Rokinon cine primes like I did.

If you want one or two rolls, they probably won't be able to help. If you're shooting a feature and need ten thousand feet or more, that's when they perk up and be interested in talking with you. If you PM me, I can give you the reps direct contact info for your area.

I just got a Moviecam Super 35mm camera for peanuts. I can see how challenging it would be to covert from 4 perf to 2 perf. The gate, ground glass and pressure plate are easy. The movement is a lot harder, plus the drive sprocket speed would need to be decreased substantially. I haven't pulled the camera apart yet to determine if everything runs off one motor. If it does, that makes things very complex because now you're dealing with the shutter speed as well. What I do know is that most cameras can do 3 perf without many mod's, so that gives me some hope. I'll take the camera apart soon and see what's in side. I'd really love to make my camera 2 perf. Ohh and I think it's too costly to build an all new camera. You can get 35mm cameras for peanuts, less then 5k. It's the conversion that you should be focused on.

What is your budget and what are you going to do with the camera?

Yea, I can't see much advantage to 2 perf super 8 with anamorphic lenses. Purchasing appropriate anamorphic lenses can get expensive and shooting costs have doubled, making the whole purpose of shooting Super 8 (low cost) not matter. By contrast super 16mm would be a similar image size. Since 16mm has lots of other advantages, I don't really see the need for a super 8 camera that mimics something that already exists.

I personally would buy a BOLEX EBM and start shooting 100ft daylight spools for practice. I think you'll gain more knowledge for shooting on film then you will with any digital camera. Going from digital to film is a huge shift because you don't know what you've got until a few days later which means, you've gotta have the skills on set to get the image. Now, if you wish to learn about lighting, composition and practice without the cost of film and processing, the closest inexpensive camera is actually the camera I use, the Blackmagic Pocket. You can buy cinema glass for cheap money these days from Rokinon. I'd even buy a light meter and learn how to expose using that vs the histogram and zebra's. Plus, the file sizes aren't so huge like a 4k camera. So you aren't wasting card's and hard drive space. Plus, you'll learn how to work with RAW material in post, which is how your film will come back from the lab after it's scanned. So you can learn how to shoot in a film way without shooting film, which is pretty cool. Most of the other still cameras that shoot video like the GH4, they're just toys and won't really teach you much outside of composition. Plus, none of them are very cinematic. I've used the A7S, GH4, 5D, 7D, and none of them really impressed me. Sure the A7S has amazing low light capabilities, but at the cost of horrible rolling shutter and harsh white/highlight clipping. If you wish to learn more about the pocket camera, check out my video about it.

As David said, it's good to get the cinematographer involved with the storyboards because it's wise to understand where you're going visually and what can be done within your budget. A lot of filmmakers (especially young ones) don't understand some of the limitations on set. An experienced cinematographer will and if you take them to locations prior to shooting to work out camera angles, it helps even more because they can decide where the lighting will go, which in a lot of cases leads to the decisions of angle.

So it doesn't have film magazine at all? If not, ebay has them.

Hey Wooda, You could easily cut it down to fit with Kodak's super 8 challenge. You just need some clever editing with the old man stuff. Most of his story can be told in 2 minutes. The rest could be the arrival of the visitors. I think it's doable and worth it.

I dug it! Can you talk more about production? How many rolls did you shoot, what camera, 4, 3, 2 perf? lenses, stock, etc.

Maybe they are... but why would they make a 2 perf matted gate? Seems strange to leave so much negative unexposed.

The only evidence I have is in the owners manual. It shows ground glass and gates for 3 perf and 2 perf. It doesn't have model numbers, but the gates exist. So I assume the movement exists, but its just an assumption. Arri has given up all support for older film products. I was just hoping someone may have some parts lying around ya know? Ohh yea, I've been to rental houses. Nobody has anything for those cameras in L.A. anymore. They have some SL parts, but no movements.

Cool film, I liked the concept a lot and cinematography wise it worked well. Few things I caught whilst I watched. I'm not a fan of low shutter speed CMOS motion blur, I tend to run my cameras up at the higher shutter speeds (lower shutter angles) to combat that. It adds intensity to the material and makes it look a bit more cinematic, especially during action scenes. I also felt there was a lack of closeup's during the fight scene as well. I thought the fan blade scene was overly staged. Part of that was the lack of a multi-layer audio mix. The other part was being confused on where people were in the room because the border's of it weren't defined. I always throw a shaft of light in door frames, windows or anywhere else, to help define the edges of the room. In your case, you may not have been able to, but I would have tried to work something out. The corner with the construction plastic was clever, it filled in ONE corner, but the other side of the room didn't have much. The construction lights helped a little bit, but they seemed way overly staged. Anyway, I still enjoyed the final result. Even though I would have done things a bit differently with the script, directing, editing, sound mix and coloring, I felt the music, stunts and cinematography were the strong points.

So happy 'The Knick' started back up again. The sets/locations, acting, story and cinematography are pretty good. It's unfortunate we can't watch it in 4k because 1080i broadcast doesn't do it justice.

This is the problem... filmmakers shouldn't care what audiences want to see. They should create a unique and interesting piece of art that will find a home of it's own. Just look at the last two P.T. Anderson films; 'The Master' and 'Inherent Vice' neither one did well at the box office, but holy poop were they interesting stories. Made in America, decent sized budgets, top cast, 65mm origination on 'The Master' I mean, all the elements were there.