Robert Hughes

From what I'm reading here, I'm getting the impression that this fancy footwork with filtering does not have to be limited to the RED, but may be a more general algorithm for improving resolution with any image gathering device. I can see it now, running my Super 8 footage through the RED algorithm once, I get 16mm, run it throug again, and get 35mm, a third time IMAX! Now we're talking serious resolution. Isn't software amazing?

Black and white film lasts a long time and is relatively impervious to storage. I've bought lots of 16 and 35 negative and reversal stock used without problem (as long as it's less than 20 years out of date). Color-you can shoot with it, but don't expect it to look as good as new film stock.

I got interested about 1982, did film school for a few years, eventually ran outta cash. My instructor told our class to save our money and go shoot video for awhile. Fast forward to 2004-I was in a post house editing a video and saw some Pro8 film transferred to DigiBeta, and thought "wow, that looks great!" Nowadays it's video for money, film for love.

What is "film look"? Refer to the Kodak site to see the difference: Super 16 intro Exposure latitude can be controlled by proper lighting.

Matthew, even though you're just a teenager you've read and written enough posts by now to know that film production is very expensive. Stick with Super 8 , get it telecined to DigiBeta if you can and cut on your home computer for video/internet release. That's your best bang for the buck; anything fancier is orders of magnitude more expensive.

I've just bought a 50's era 4x5" press camera (Busch Pressman D) and a Polaroid back. This should not only provide me with almost instant exposure check, but will double as a dynamite publicity photo camera. All for less than a consumer digital still camera.

No, I like Adam Paul's idea better. Come to think of it, I've got a 10x microscope lens to stick on the front of my Super 8 camera, so I can shoot Imax without all the extra cost! :D

Perhaps they mixed up the Queen / Blair / 35 / 16 footage so as to acclimate the audience to texture changes. That way the video news footage would not look as out of context to the studio footage. Interesting observation about the Queen's emotional repression venting with the deer. Who knows what was going through Her Majesty's royal noggin? Of course, there was reportedly little love lost between Diana and the royals; she referred to them as "lizards". How about that, Illuminati aficiandos?

Of course, you shouldn't be shooting 16mm at all anymore - BBC said so, remember? :huh: But Java Photo in Atlanta has about 1800 units of the old Alan Gordon-loaded Plus-X negative cartridges for about $20 apiece, I believe. And as long as big K or Fuji make dual perf film you can reload the carts with new stock at home. Yes, the cartridges have sliding dark plates which protect the film from light streaking, so you can swap carts as you please. And the B&H 200 uses the same C-mount lenses the Filmos use, so depending on your lens selection you can get middling good B-roll shots. No registration pin, of course, and the film plane is determined by a hook that juts out from the camera body into the cartridge gate, but if your camera and carts are in good shape you'll be fine.

Eyemos are still fairly common and turn up on eBay regularly. From what I've seen they come in three common configurations: the single lens turret 71K, the "spider" 3-lens turret 71Q, and the Army Air Force bomb sighting camera 71Z with the attached rewind crank. They all take the Eyemo 1 1/2" lens mount.

My experience with the new Plus-X and Tri-X and the new process is that the two films look more alike, and the new Tri-X is significantly finer grain than the old. Your mileage may differ...

Get a Bell & Howell 200. It's not Super8 (it takes 16mm 50' cartridges) but it's smaller than most S8 cameras and takes that great Ektachrome 100D without a need for cutting down. And you can buy 'em on eBay for about $20.

Rewind a bit. The film is ruined? Or just your 2 hour edit of it? (2 hours??? come on, you've got enough time for that before lunch). Now you know what you want to do, you can probably reedit the material in less time than before (as long as you still have the original camera elements). Fire the editor and do it again yourself.

Thanks, I guess. Why don't you put it up as a 20KB HTML file instead of two 3MB bitmaps? I can't even read them.

I'd bet this is ortho sound film, I've got a couple thousand feet of Agfa. It doesn't have an antihalation layer, so all highlights have a blurry halo-images look like they were taken thru a dirty lens. But you'll see no grain whatsoever. Don't pay a lot for it.

Just keep in mind the costs involved in any 90 minute feature length production. It's expensive! Any self-producing filmmaker will need pretty deep pockets to bring a feature film to completion.

Cinesound in Minneapolis has a couple in storage since the death of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke this summer. His widow sure would like to move them on to a good home: www.cinesound.net

Ack-choo-ally, I didn't SAY 16mm was obsolete, I was asking others' opinions. I guess Karl thinks it's still viable. I hope he's right. If you can find it, Ilford made a 16mm surveillance film with extended red characteristics (SPX 200 I believe) which can see into the near infrared. It also makes an interesting general use stock, like Tri-X. I saw lots of it around on eBay a couple years back and bought about a mile of the stuff.

The old 50' magazines take dual-perf film (because the advance sprocket uses one perf and the claw the other). Film runs "bi-pack" style past the advance sprocket, and loops are left on either side of the gate. Loading is not dead-simple and it must be done in total darkness; you'll need to practise loading in light with dud film a half-dozen times before you get the hang of it: Feed reel > advance sprocket > supply (top) loop > gate > takeup (bottom) loop > advance sprocket > takeup reel Remember, when putting the top cover back on, hold the footage counter spring back, otherwise you won't get the cover closed. Or you can buy NOS loaded (7231) magazines from Java Photo in Atlanta for about $20 apiece - they had about 1800 of them at last count.

They have origination format requirements for their HD programs; there was a thread here about this a couple months back. From what I recall, Discovery requires that less than 25% (?) of new camera origination material may be S16, and no R16; 35mm is the only film format they accept as source material for a new HD program. Note also they don't accept VHS or Hi-8 either. The reason, as pointed out by a contributor here, was that Discovery HD must bandwidth compress their transmitted signals (via Mpeg 2), and the random grain of film gives their codecs fits - almost every frame must be a keyframe because of the noise. So, if S16 is "too noisy" for HD, is there any point to produce S16 originated shows for HD? Sounds like the current answer may be "no". Keep in mind that the issue is in HD compression codecs, which may be replaced in the future with more "film friendly" versions. Also, film remains a preferred archival medium (if you have the space and the patience to deal with it).

Your gate masking plan should work fine. Kodak provided a half-frame gate on their Cine Special cameras in the 40's for accomplishing (on dual perf stock) the equivalent of your 2-perf idea. You may however run into a problem if you ever want to conform the original negative. Which end is up?

I recently read that BBC is backing the Varicam as their HD image acquisition tool of choice. This announcement, coupled with the Discovery Channel's restrictive S16mm requirements, leads me to wonder if there is much point in shooting S16 or refurbishing existing S16 gear, if the HD channels won't show programs originating on it. Any perspectives from inside the industry?

I've got an Eyemo that must have been used as a crash cam in a former life, as its "spider" only has one arm rather than its original 3, and it was bent when I first received it. I had to use a little body English on the spider arm to get the lens mount to seat properly. Now it works just fine and with its old Eyemax and Baltar lenses it shoots wonderfully retro looking footage.

I've had good luck with both D-76 and D-19 developers. Keep in mind it's easier to increase contrast in telecine than to recover highlights or shadows in overly contrasty negatives. If you intend to print you probably should stick with D-76. Sodium thiosulfate is fixer - I don't know why anyone would use it during the developer stage, as it removes undeveloped silver. Home processed film can look as good or better than lab processed film; it can also be creatively degraded in a number of ways. Try D-19 at 105 degrees for 3 minutes for a wild xerox-like look (but beware, sometimes it eats the emulsion right of the film stock).

From the Kodak website on Plus X: Plus-X 7265 Technical Specs "Negative Processing "Although designed for reversal processing, this film is capable of yielding useful negative images or conventional quality and contrast if developed in a developer such as KODAK Developer D-96 and them fixed. When a developer of this type is used, the speed is not more than 1- 1/2 to 1- 2/3 that is normally obtained in reversal processing (using KODAK B&W Reversal First Developer and Replenisher (D-94A)). "If negatives are required, it is preferable to use films designed for that purpose." From my experience, that means that 100 ASA reversal film processed as negative has an effective sensitivity of about 50 ASA. I home process b&w negative film in D76, stop with dilute vinegar, fix in rapid fixer, wash and dry.