Scott Pickering

I grew up in the 80s when Super 8mm was dying away for video formats. Im glad I stuck with film because the video of the time looks horrible, yet the film scanned today holds up rather well other then scratches and the grain it produces. Super 8 looks beautiful when projected. I agree with others in that a telecine doesn't hold up the image quality you get when projected. Its sharper by telecine, but the grain is more noticeable. That said I still have my Super 8 cameras and have a couple rolls of reversal for the day when I decide to break them out again. I shoot 4K video now because its easier to work with and image quality is excellent, but I still like the look of film over video. I had a 16mm Bolex so many years ago in the 90s, and sold it. I wish I kept it. I love 16mm too. I have been peeking on Ebay at 16mm cameras, but Im just looking. The only reason to shoot on film now is for its look, which Super 8 gives. That is unless you shoot 65mm, which can't be beat by anything right now. Even 35mm holds up well today in resolution.

That has been a consideration to shoot in color if all else fails. But getting a true B&W print still needs a 65mm B&W developer tank, which means we're back to where we started. And I'd really like to avoid a digital intermediate to get this look. Also many would argue the look of true B&W is hard to do on color film without digital manipulation. Things like grain, tones, etc are usually specific to the B&W film used. I know they did this for Pleasantville, which was color film shot with B&W lighting ratios, and done digitally in post to get B&W. It looked good, but if using 65mm, to retain the true film look, best to stick with the stocks intended for this purpose and not use a digital scan of the film which would reduce resolution.

Yes this is a narrative story. So people would be its focus. About 15 minutes of the film would be in color, and the rest B&W. IMAX scenes are limited, but are interspersed throughout. Some IMAX would be in B&W, but most IMAX shots are in color.

Ok. So I guess Im looking at $150,000 in film neg costs. A bit more substantial.

What shooting ratios of film stock used did you guys end up with? I was quoting 4:1. What is a more realistic figure for a 2 hour feature?

Certainly IMAX theaters that have retained their film projectors are held to the highest standards. Might be in my best interest to ditch the idea of having a 5 perf print made up and stick strictly with IMAX prints. I understand doing 70mm is not a road to success. Many 70mm movies shot on 65mm have actually been poor performers. My interest in this is retaining that film look (hence shooting on film) while getting the best image possible. Digital projection has a long way to go before it equals an IMAX film print. And it still looks like video instead of film. Even 4K isn't the equal of 5 perf. 8K maybe, but we're not there yet. That said I'd still like this to be on film. And for it to stand out from the other common films, it has to be 65mm originated. I figured out that if one were to shoot mostly in 5 perf, I'd need about 60,000 feet. At about a grand per 1000 feet, that brings the cost to only 60 grand for film stock. Certainly doable with most productions today. Of course there are other costs like lab costs, print costs, etc. But when a production is in the millions, 60 grand is not a lot of cash to shoot on film.

I would think if they were to fill color tanks with B&W chemicals, they could simply bypass the tanks not needed for the process. That said even though 5222 uses D96 to develop, the positive print 2302 Estar base uses D97. This means a second set of tanks would be needed for the positive print, and as such, introduces yet another problem. Even if they could develop the neg print, getting a projection positive print in B&W may prove to be difficult. Unless their POS machine for B&W has adjustable rollers, which I highly doubt. The end projection print may still have to be on color stock.

That's a good question I'd also like to know. I would have thought chemical tanks could be filled with what ever chemicals you pipe into it, whether color or B&W. Maybe they don't want to cross contaminate their color tanks, and by using a B&W specific tank, this may be achieved? Maybe its a temperature thing too or the way it handles certain base emulsions. Or it could be a time thing- maybe B&W tanks are designed for better processing due to time the film is in the tank per bath? Not sure.

I got a short email back from Andrew at Fotokem. He states they do have in their possession a decommissioned B&W 65mm processor that was used at IMAGICA up until 2004. Fotokem has never made it operational and said it would take some effort to do so. He said he'll get back to me on Monday to see if it is viable, with the amount of film my movie would use.

They will contact me on Monday, as they are not available during weekends.

I contacted Fotokem and asked them if they could do it. Also Kickstarter wants for more information to post my project, so I decided not to follow through with them at this time.

I think Kickstarter might not be the way I want to go on this. The income I'd receive would go into a personal account and not a business account, which means I'd have to pay taxes on that. And with that amount of cash, I'd get taxed so high that there wouldn't be much of the funds left for the project. So really a production company supporting this sounds like the better option.

I decided to post up a Kickstarter thing to get this going. Its currently being reviewed before being posted. If all goes well, it should be live in the next while. I asked for 15 million which is a lofty goal, but we'll see how well this does. I originally put 7 million, but I really don't think it would be feasible at that price with using IMAX and 2 hours long. If anyone wants to pledge me, I'd love that. I gave myself till the end of the year to do this. I really didn't like entering in a personal bank account, as I currently don't have a business account. My question is if the funds came to be 100% and it gets sent to one of my accounts, how would Canada Revenue look at that? I wonder if I could switch it to a business account before the thing ends, if I knew it was going to happen? But at 15 million, its a long shot, but I'm hopeful.

I was considering Kickstarter, but being millions of dollars would need to be involved with very little info on what the story they are giving it for, I'm not sure how successful that would be. It's still an option though.

The problem holding this all up is funding. I need to find funding for all this. Film would be shot in around Vancouver BC and an nearby city. I certainly see the excitement here for such a project, so maybe getting someone on board to help fund this project would be exciting. Its been 16 years in the making.

I have a proposal to do a film shot in both 5 perf 65mm (on Panavision System 65) and select shots and or scenes in IMAX 65mm. Basically using most scenes in 5 perf, and scenes with impact in IMAX. The majority of the film to use standard B&W film, with very select scenes in color for a hyper real effect (real life vs dream sequences, etc). My question is- would Kodak accept a special run of 5222 Double X to be cut into 65mm? And what lab doing a special processing run (obviously changing their tanks to B&W chemistry), would accept doing 65mm B&W film? Im sure an agreement could be setup to handle the chemistry, as long as they can still process 65mm film in general. Would CFI be able to do this? As for making a positive print from the B&W negatives, would using color stock POS film work, or would it still be suggested to stick with B&W again? I'm sure using proper filters would work printing to POS film if color is used. I'd like to retain the look of film (like Nolan does with his features) instead of digitally scanning the neg for editing purposes. How would B&W neg looked printed onto color positive film? Any issues with using B&W neg in IMAX or Super Panavsion 70 cameras? Film is around the 2 hour mark according to the script. Time period of 1990s with a short sequence in the 70s. Want to give the film a different look using B&W film, and frankly- who wouldn't love to see a 70mm B&W film on the big screen in IMAX at least once? 5 perf reduction prints could also be made (again another Nolan idea) from the IMAX scenes, so roadshow theaters could present it in 70mm 5 perf. Love to get this project off the ground before using film is completely taken away from cinematographers.

I have three places in North America I have looked into for getting Hi Def transfers off of 8mm and Super 8mm movie film. I need these to be at the correct speed of either 16 or 18 fps when transferred. The three labs I have looked into are: http://www.overseasvideolab.com/film.htm based in Toronto. I prefer to keep it in Canada if possible to save on duty taxes. Problem is their transfers seem the worst of these three with major film dirt showing and really washed out colors and brightness. I'm sure this could be fixed in editing, but its a lot of work to do so. http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Telecine.html Seems like the best option for quality based on their info on the telecine and getting full use of the 1920x1080 rez. Problem is I use a PC and can't read MAC files. Plus most expensive of the bunch. http://lightpress.tv/super-8mm Middle of the road transfer on a decent machine, but I question is if this lab is the one Spectra was talking about when it comes to fees and the film gate they use on the Da Vinci telecine? Plus they aren't much cheaper then Spectra. What I have is about 1200 feel of Super 8mm and 400 feet of Regular 8mm. I want this done right so as to not have to pay for a second transfer, but I'm delaying because of cost. Plus I'm not liking the idea of shipping my movies cross border and risk losing them in the mail. These films cannot be replaced if lost. So what are your recommendations on this of these 3 transfer houses?

I would guess finding such an element may be difficult. Most of these cameras seem to be used with spherical lenses. I checked pricing on some anamorphic lenses and wow- they go for some real money used. Way more then a 2C kit would cost.

I'm watching for now some auctions on Ebay to see what pricing is for 35mm Arri cameras. An inexpensive way to get into 35mm seems to be the Arri 2C camera. I'd really like to get something like a Arri BL2 or BL3, but pricing is much more for those and the cameras aren't often for sale. Anyway with both the 2C and BL2, which lens mount should I be looking for to use anamorphic lenses on these cams? I've seen the 2C with a few different mounts, one being a PL mount. Any ideas of what anamophic lenses I could use with either of these cameras? And where to purchase? Im not ready to buy yet, just gathering info now. Any word on using anamorphics with Arris? And is there a way to unsqueeze the image in the viewfinder, or should it just be left squeezed and live with it?

Just gathering information. If using an old style telecinecorder for 8mm movie film that has a lens attached, I'm told such a unit needs an additional lens that mounts to the end of the telecinecorder that hits the spiral lighting contraption, such as a Laird. First off can someone point me in the direction of that seperate lens and Laird unit of what they look like and where to get such pieces? Show pictures of what the setup would look like if possible. I'll have more info when I get it.