Bill DiPietra

I've said it many times before... PLUS-X!!!

Definitely one of the softer lenses I've used in the past, but it looked really nice on your test.

Correct! Your turn...

Sorry...the photo wasn't showing up when I first checked.

Correct. Yup, this is a tough one...

Photo?...

Couldn't find the very first frame, but this is in the opening sequence. And the image should be much more cyanotic...

Snow Falling on Cedars?...

You're up, Justin...

I would just check the specifications for the barndoors that fit the Mole fresnels you have, and then see if any other manufacturers make barndoors in the same dimensions. You should be able to find all of this information online rather easily.

You are correct that the internet can cause a plethora of misunderstandings. Robin and I have caught each other in them before, but no harm done. The point is that everyone in this forum means well. We try to help people. If one person doesn't have the answer, another will. And now that you seem to have toned it down...welcome. We welcome your experience & knowledge, as well. As to your initial question... Since I have my own 16mm camera and I shoot almost exclusive on that format (but I hope to move onto others, soon.) I really can't speak to just how much film production there is going on in NYC, so I would listen to Kenny. But when Robin suggested you look for AC jobs on digital shoots, I believe he was simply trying to give you more job opportunities. Obviously, I love film. But I think a lot of people in this thread feel that you are limiting yourself by looking only for film loading jobs - especially if this is your sole source of income. As you know, the majority of the industry - as well as a big part of the independent realm - has gone digital. Yes, I'm sure there are film loading jobs out there, but I doubt there are enough to make a living on. I'm really not sure what the extent of your skill-set is, but my personally opinion is that you need to widen the scope of your job skills in order to make a living where you can pay bills. Best of luck.

Then maybe you should show some respect - especially since you just joined this forum and are looking for assistance. Dom is one of the most helpful and easy-going of members. And he was able to pinpoint your attitude problem quite eloquently. So you may want to start over with a bit more respect and a lot less attitude. You have know idea how many valuable opinions you're missing out on simply because you got off to a bad start.

As always, that's a matter of taste. You - and others - may see it as "better." Others, quite rightly so, will not see it as a look that should be applying to every project. If the same aesthetic & technical attributes were applied to every project, the medium would be quite dull.

Agreed. I've had mine for 10 years and its served me very well. It you're only looking to experiment with film, a Bolex may be even more along your price range. Keep an eye on ebay.

This is simple math which your friend could probably calculate better herself, since she knows how she works better than anyone else. Have her reference The Kodak Motion Picture Catalog and crunch the numbers. Using the numbers you provided, this is a very rough estimate: Regular 16mm (color) x 400ft. = approx. 11 minutes of screen-time 11 rolls of Regular 16mm (color) film x 400ft. = 121 minutes of screen-time 4:1 ratio = 44 rolls of Regular 16mm (color) film x 400ft. 44 rolls of Regular 16mm (color) film x 400ft. = $7,782.72 Of course, this all changes if she gets any discounts or deals, uses black & white instead of color, etc. Otherwise, I think those numbers are correct.

Gorgeous!

Exactly. The majority of what I invested in consists primarily of lighting and grip equipment. The only reason I purchased a 16mm camera and a Steenbeck were to shoot and edit my own films. Then again, everything I purchase I do so with the intention of using on one of my own projects. And it usually comes in handy for something else down road, as well. Go with the ARRI lighting kit. You can't go wrong.

Cool. Be sure to post something when you're ready. I'll be curious to see the results.

No one ever said anything disrespectful about the Super8 format or Super8 film-makers, Carl. I personally feel people should be given the choice of shooting on whatever format they what. But my point is that if one's desire is to shoot Super8, you can use a much cheaper camera than the Logmar. You really don't need all the bells & whistles. Economics may not be what drives Super8 but the economic standing of the person wishing to purchase a Super8 camera certainly plays an important factor. So this begs the question, "Are those who are purchasing the Logmar doing so simply because they want to shoot Super8 or because they want a cool toy?" If the answer to the former of these two questions is "Yes," then this goes back to my argument of there being cheaper options available. I shot Super8 20 years ago in college - basically with an internal light meter and a fixed lens - and I came away with some very nice images (for a student.) I had an old Bell & Howell and one summer I shot a short, in-camera, as I was walking around during the day. So yes...I believe Super8 can stand on its own two feet - just like any other format. But at the end of the day, if you can afford the camera and want to shoot with it...more power to you.

Not having followed the Super8 market for some years, I was shocked to see that Pro8mm sells the Logmar for $5,995! I'm sure it's a good camera, but that seems really excessive for a Super8 camera. Tyler is right. I bought my Arriflex 16 S/B with three Zeiss primes and accessories for around $4,500. And that was 10 years ago. Now things have really come down to the point that you can get a S16 package for less than the price of the Logmar. Super8 has always been a very low-budget format which is what has made it so accessible to so many people over the years. I'm puzzled as to why Logmar would they price themselves out of the game. Just seems rather foolish.

I completely agree. I thought that film was excellent and I'm just glad I got to see it in the theater.

Great pictures, Sat!

Is it anything like this?...

Very nice! I scrolled through the thread so quickly from the bottom up, I thought that was a still from an old classic. Nicely done.

Manu, In fairness, I understand what Tyler is saying about "switching off one's brain." Sometimes that's a good thing and, actually, everyone needs to go watch a popcorn movie every now and then in order to mentally decompress. As much I prefer to sit down and watch a Kubrick, Tarvkovsky or Bergman film, if I'm dealing with some real-life, personally stressful situation, the last thing I'm going throw in my DVD player is The Virgin Spring. Plus, sometimes it's fun to just sit back and enjoy the ride rather than analyze every single thing in the frame. I just didn't enjoy this particular ride. It's back to what I said in the "Hateful Eight Experience" thread: everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and that is ultimately what the critics you cited are giving. It just comes down to a matter of different tastes and if we all preferred the same films, this board would be pretty boring.