Alan Hill

Dom, Thanks for the info from Australia none the less. We managed to build a battery pack and get the old beast up and running. Even at high speed. With everyone bailing out on film here in Los Angeles a few of us are still having some fun getting that "Film Look" by actually shooting film. It still looks great and you don't have everyone on the set second guessing you on the flatscreen. No need for a tent city either. I don't mind the extra expense of processing and transfer. It seems to keep talent on their toes when they know we are filming and not shooting video. With video there always seems to be that, "Oh well, we can always just do another take, after all it's free" attitude. I'll be sad to see film go. But I'm sure people waxed poetic about B&W film too. Thanks, Alan

Congrats to James Cameron for finally discovering Showscan!!! A process that has been around since the mid 1980s. Finally Douglas Trumbull is vindicated, YES! And it only took 25 years for James to see it, next thing he'll be declaring widescreen or 3-strip to be the future...stay tuned...

Having just seen an HDNet broadcast of a Charlie's Angels episode, one thing regarding resolution comes to mind. Had ABC chosen to shoot that show digital in the 1970s they would have locked in those shows with 1970s technologies, namely NTSC and video tape. Thanks to some money spent by ABC, Farrah, Kate, Jaclyn & Cheryl in HD have never looked better. Man, those women were beautiful. Sadly any discussion of resolution seems odd, considering that the primary demographic that advertisers want to buy (18-34, or is it 13-18) are mostly viewing content on their phones. I used to calibrate my brother's large screen TV so that it accurately represented reality, as best as possible across the thousand or so satellite channels he had the option to watch. Only to come over a few weeks later and find that one of this young daughters had put the TV back into Vivid mode again. Claiming that the picture was looking dull and washed out. So much for all that hard work that went into filming those programs. Not to mention what Satellite compression does to resolution...

I'm looking at building some battery packs for a 35-3 and I had just a few odd questions: 1. Is the 12v battery really just that? In that I mean that certain systems that say they are 12v actually are more like 13v fully charged and by the time they are passing 12v, you don't have much power left. 2. Would there be any advantage, or danger of using 13.2 volt batteries? I know there wouldn't be a problem with one battery hooked up, since the camera can be powered up to 24v for highspeed photography. But would 26.4v harm any of the electronics, or is it close enough not to do any harm? Anyone know the working range of the 35-3? Thanks, Shoot Film! It really gives you that "Film" look!

Hello, Yes, I agree. I just finished watching The Informant and it really bugged me. I know they filtered it a lot, but the highlights seemed not existent. Sure it was sharp, almost too sharp in a lot of areas. But overall the "Look" of the film just didn't agree with me. So, at least this generation of RED isn't quite there for me right now. If I buy the SR I, I will most likely shoot Reg 16mm and have it scanned for the digital world. Clearly the days of flatbed editing are long gone. There is a guy here in town selling a flatbed system cheap. Fire sale cheap. I tried to find comparison sales for the SR online and all I could find were people looking to sell their cameras, but their ads had been up, in some cases for 2 years with no action. It really does, unfortunately look like the 16mm market is dwindling fast. Sad to see.

Thanks for the quick response. I watched the clips you linked to. Very interesting. What was the process that was used? Were these done using the anamorphic squeeze you mentioned earlier? Which I'm still more than a little fuzzy on. I saw one lab that was bragging about a new ARRI scanner that they now had. I guess it might be getting tougher and tougher to find someone who is willing to go the extra mile to get great images out of standard 16mm on a budget. Sure anythings is possible if you have an unlimited budget. But I haven't won the lottery yet? Maybe I should actually buy a ticket. Nah. Thanks, Any details on the process for the transfer to video would be great. I'm looking into film scanners and ProRes 422 as a way to get from Regular 16mm into the digital realm. Alan

Hello, I am able to buy a 16sr I, with German Electronics, 10-100mm Ziess (f2.9) T3.1 lens, 2 magazines, 2 batteries an the usual grips, rings, matte box. The question is: What is it worth paying for this camera given that it is setup for 1.33 regular 16? I know that it can be converted to Super 16 for about $4000, but then the question becomes: What is an Arri SR16 Super 16 worth? More than $5,000, $6,000? With the German electronics, it's pretty close to being an SRII. But is it worth it? It seems like it might be a big risk to invest the money to upgrade, what with digital seemingly barking at the door (Yeah, I know HD has been "on the verge of taking over since the early 1980s). The RED camera people seem to be getting to within about 5-10 years of replacing the usefulness of a nice 16mm camera. Besides the sentimental/artistic reasons, does it make economical sense at this point in the game? Does anyone know of a lab that could do telecine on regular 16mm and crop the top and bottom to make a 16:9 transfer? I know this method wastes a lot of the negative, but $4,000 (Conversion charge) would buy a lot of film and processing... What do you guys think? Alan Sorry for double posting, but I wasn't sure if this subject belonged in the marketplace or camera discussion boards...

Hello, I am able to buy a 16sr I, with German Electronics, 10-100mm Ziess (f2.9) T3.1 lens, 2 magazines, 2 batteries an the usual grips, rings, matte box. The question is: What is it worth paying for this camera given that it is setup for 1.33 regular 16? I know that it can be converted to Super 16 for about $4000, but then the question becomes: What is an Arri SR16 Super 16 worth? More than $5,000, $6,000? With the German electronics, it's pretty close to being an SRII. But is it worth it? It seems like it might be a big risk to invest the money to upgrade, what with digital seemingly barking at the door (Yeah, I know HD has been "on the verge of taking over since the early 1980s). The RED camera people seem to be getting to within about 5-10 years of replacing the usefulness of a nice 16mm camera. Besides the sentimental/artistic reasons, does it make economical sense at this point in the game? Does anyone know of a lab that could do telecine on regular 16mm and crop the top and bottom to make a 16:9 transfer? I know this method wastes a lot of the negative, but $4,000 (Conversion charge) would buy a lot of film and processing... What do you guys think? Alan