Philip Kral

The things I miss when I don't check in, in awhile. Thank you Erkan!

I've been in your shoes many times and i completely understand the feeling. Every once and awhile a lab "gets me' with a hidden cost that at a second glance - wasn't actually hidden. The minimum feet charge is always one of them (it also makes it frustrating when you really just want to do a test roll). Another that always used to get me is with another lab, they have an .08 per foot cleaning fee they automatically tack onto the processing before they scan it. It's enough of a jump to give you a shock, but you can't blame them - it's right there in the fine print! I've had similar communications hiccups with Cinelab where if something didn't seem clear, or if they didn't get my memo - they would indeed make assumptions. The one I remember is asking for a DPX sequence and getting a different codec altogether with a note citing "Not enough space". I remember being kind of irked that they didnt call or email: If it was important enough I would of sent another drive or even at least chosen my preference of file format! It was no big deal, it was still a damn good scan and Robert and his team do awesome work and always have but it does tend to give the shady feeling your describing. Especially when in a worse case scenario - A client could be a real jerk about it and demanded a new scan, and I'm sure some people do. I remember this was around the time Cinelab got the clientele from Pac Lab when they shut down. I know that includes a few film schools, so I wondered if there was a sudden surge of work that may have produced communication issues. But truth be told I always have these moments with labs, from Cinelab, Colorlab, Metro lab, Pro8mm, etc. They all have that "hidden cost factor" where you realize it's your own fault for not reading the fine print whether it be to charge you a fee for using your own hard drive, or to prep the film for scan, or a minumum amount of feet. That "shady feeling" for me is "why couldn't they just have added that to the per foot price to begin with" but again... that's not on them. As for the other issues. I'm under the impression that with the amount of work these labs get, sometimes they're more concerned with getting it back out the door. If the lab honestly screwed up, they've all been honest with me if it's on their end (to include cinelab) if you want to present a case. The latest lab I worked with (not cinelab) I had bring to their attention in two different occasions where they charged me completely different prices they agreed upon (one of which was regarding the minimum feet). But they've always corrected it, as naive as this may sound - I really don't think any of them are trying to scam anyone on purpose. Sorry for the book.

Does anyone have any word on the new Ektachrome in 16mm? Kodak boasted its usage in Paul McCartney s recent music video but still no release.

I agree with Nicholas. Even if you make a limited run, they're sure to sell out. This reminds me a lot of the Logmar S8 camera. The first few where 3500.00 dollars, which seemed expensive, but after seeing that Kodak's new camera at nearly the same price with less features- it may be the best deal. Maybe even best price still when the logmar jumped to the 5,000.00 price. The other thing your camera has going for it, is the mechanical viewfinder. If I'm going to spend a few thousand on a super8 camera, it's going to be the last camera I ever buy in that format. I have to know the thing's going to last. I've had enough digital screens die out on me to fear a camera where that's the only view finding option, I could probably find a way to re cell the batteries in the next 20 years, but that screen and the internal sensor? Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But your camera seems like a solid idea, limited run or not. To include the Y16. Speaking of which, I have an Optar Illumina in 25mm, I got the back end protruding 35mm but not 36mm. Yours appears to be in PL mount, mine is in Arri B if that makes a difference.

For some reason I never enjoyed color reversal scanned. It never came out right to my eye. But projected, you just can't beat it! I just got word today that there are some beta testers out there playing with the stock already. It's good to know I no longer have to horde my leftover Ektachrome stock, or struggle to keep up who's cutting the next batch of Fuji slide film... or wait for ferrannia. The question now is will the stock bring in any new film makers to the format. Reversal film (particularly color) was a key part for drawing me in. On a technical level, it was a great way to learn proper exposure and technique without the additional cost of a digital transfer. On an emotional one, it was always special to get that film back and project it. With a lack of accessible projectors out there (or affordable working ones since every seller thinks they have a collectors item), I wonder If newer generations of filmmakers just "won't get it."

It may need lubrication. When I got mine 10+ years ago, I had to replace the belts. I'm not sure why it would start and stop like that. If it's not a lubrication issue, then it may have something to do with the crystal. I hate to say it, but this may not be a problem you can fix yourself. I would call whitehouse AV, they know almost everything about cinema product cameras. I'd give him a call.

I was always a fan of DS8 myself. I have the Elmo tri-filmatic . But as everyone has already mentioned: finding the film is almost non existent. I have but one last roll of Ektachrome and I don't suppose anyone is going to cut down anymore stock even with new Ektachrome around the corner.

Last summer I pulled my ultra 16 modified CP16 out of storage to use as a "b" cam and a good chunk of the footage came back with what appears to be a light leak shown here: Does anyone have any idea where it's coming from? It's an old cp16 with the dogleg lens. I can't seem to figure out where the leak could of come from. The camera is put together pretty tight. I noticed it didn't show up all the time, it slowly reappears within zooms. I'm wondering since this was converted to ultra 16 that perhaps it's leaking out side the parameters of the shutter. But I've used this camera before and this is the first time i've seen this. My second guess is that the cp16-A has what is essentially a C mount thread hidden under the "cup" that the dogleg lens is attached too, this was a tad loose and I had to tighten it later. Is it possible light could have leaked from there? The light is leaking from the bottom left of my camera obviously but I'd be damned if I knew where it was. It almost feels like it's coming from the lens itself. I don't think it's leaking from the body or where the magazine attaches because the leak would look different. Usually I'd shine a light through something and looks for leaks but I'm getting nothing..... Any ideas?

Strange question for those members who own and/ or work in motion picture film labs: How does the film get agitated during development? When one develops still film at home, you must "agitate" the film by either shaking, stirring or inverting the container containing the film and the developer. The process is supposed to be crucial to ensure the film is constantly being exposed to fresh developer. Naturally, the jumbo processing machines must use a different method. Does the processing machine used for movie film utilize some way of doing this? Or because the film strip is constantly moving through the developer, that itself provides constant re-exposure to fresh(er) developer?

Bernie won't touch them anymore because he's worried about the tricky electronics. Visual products never got back to me, so I should give them a follow up call. I think they (visual products) said they would contact Whitehouse AV for parts, I should give them a call too just to touch all my bases. I think i already called Du-All and they said to try visual products. I got into contact with Les Bosher about the other option: lens mount adapters. They informed me that they can only make Arri-B, M42 and Nikon lens adapters for CP. However, when I try to order them, they never return my messages. I'm assuming they won't answer my PL question either. On a side note, I already have an M42 adapter. But mine seems to be a macro adapter, I was wondering if someone could cut it down to make it a "normal" lens adapter. The "smudges" are definitely on the mirror and not the viewfinder.

The mirror was like that when I got the camera. Honestly, I usually just ignored it- I can focus all the same. Recently I used a friends Super16mm camera and I must admit, it was nice having a cleaner mirror- especially when using the video assist. It has some light scratching, but overall I think the mirror is either really filthy or the silvering is wearing down. There's this smudge that when you look through the viewfinder, looks like a streak when you slide your finder across a dirty windshield. I tried applying some cleaner over it, but nothing seems to happen, making me realize it's obviously much more then dirt that's the problem. Now that I think about it, perhaps the work that needs to be done is more then just a polish-but it needs work just the same. I'm in the NY area, but considering the job(s), I'm willing to send it out.

Someone correct me if there was a more appropriate board to put this under, I have a Super 16mm converted GSMO with a video tap and a repaired/ upgraded circuit board. Lately I've been thinking of either upgrading it to a PL mount or at the very least having the reflex mirror polished/ cleaned. However, I seem to be having issues with finding anyone to do either. I realize it's a rare camera and hard to find- for example- spare parts... but I assumed either polishing a mirror or fitting in a mount housing would be generally a straight forward process (Albeit the hard labor with micro measurements obviously). One I could see an issue with, but both? Anyone have any ideas who may be able to perform this service?

I've actually become a camera collecting fanatic. Thankfully this is asking just for cinema cameras. Digital GH4 This isn't my only digital camera, I have many others to include DV cams and and old T2i rebel. But this is my "latest" camera. The cropped sensor was better for my super16 lenses and honestly, this camera does all I need for my digital work-flow. I pull out an external recorder when needed. Yes, it doesn't really have RAW or a flat picture profile (They released an S-LOG upgrade, but it's not perfect- bands too much for my taste). Over the last year, I've really missed working with film and find it hard to invest anymore in digital cameras that i'm simply buying for freelance work (After clients want the "next big thing", that camera rots, never to be used.) From now on, I just rent for a project. Film Super8- I have too many to mention (When i was a kid in the 90's, you could get one for around 5-$10.00 a piece at a garage sale or flea market. If it had a feature my other cameras didn't have, I'd grab it.) But the ones I currently have on my shelf are the Canon 514XL (I've modified to MAX8) and a Minolta xl-400 that i'm currently testing it's interval meter. I also own a DS8 Elmo Tri-filmatic camera, currently loaded with the last of the 100D Ektachrome :) 16mm Beaulieu R16 (Ultra 16) This is actually the wind up model, wonderful replacement for my old B&H Filmo which I managed to destroy. Cp-16 (Ultra 16) My first sound sync camera, I use it as a "b cam" sometimes. GSMO (Super16) Love this camera, if only it where easier to find more support for it. Had it converted to a better circuit board and a video tap. ...and a 35mm Konvas. Just for fun, as they are dirt cheap for a 35mm cinema camera. :p

Thank you! That explains a lot. I would have assumed pixel density would have been more important. I thought smaller pixels sharpen the image, to improve the signal to noise ratio, couldn't just more light be added (Especially without a bayer filter)?

I was just curious, what makes the KAI-16070 a better sensor? It doesn't seem to have more mega-pixels, does it have a better pixel density? More latitude? Or it just appears to deliver a better performance in tests?

I can vouch for Fotokem, I remember their prices being low and their quality for a one light print high. I didn't even see my tape splices. Funny, I've been thinking of making another print recently, there is nothing quite like the feeling of it- that is- the process of shooting, printing then projecting. Strangely, it doesn't feel the same for me as when I shoot and project a reversal color film.... go figure.

Peter, as coincidence would have it... I've done all three options....... on my own CP16. The only difference is mine is the original CP16A (with the dogleg lens) and not the CP16R. The best anamorphic lens to use with the CP16 4:3 to get a 16:9 ratio would be to use the Panasonic Anamorphic LA7200 adapter. It's a 1.33x squeeze (it was originally intended for DV cameras to bridge the gap between the industry switching over the standard of 4:3 to 16:9) it is literally an adapter so there is no need to headache double focusing (as the case with projector lenses) and the adapter has a filter screw so you can screw it onto the lens....focus... then realign the adapter without rails. The best part was, the threads to the adapter just happened to be the 72mm threads that the Ang dogleg lens already has. The only real con was that there was a bit of focus vignette at the corners but nothing distracting, that and the housing was very cheaply made, there's no support from the company if you break it. Abelcine in NYC repaired and refurbished mine at one point. I've compared footage taken with it to my Super16 footage, no one seems to notice much of a difference of quality with the exception of the anamorphic artifacts. Later I sold the adapter and had the camera modified by Bernie to Ultra16. It's not a bad idea (especially since CP16s aren't easy to do a super16 conversion) 4 years ago, I did a really quick and dirty test comparing Ultra16 to regular and super16 here https://vimeo.com/49814371 now that I look back at it, it makes me cringe a little. In the end, I think it was a decent investment, I've since upgraded to Super16 and I use it as a B-cam from time to time. But personally I'd rather keep it in mind for the ratio it was intended for: 1.85, since it's so close to the 1.85 crop of Super16. I'm not totally sold on the idea that it's good for 16:9. When Ultra16 and Super16 discussions ran rampant years ago, quite a few cinematographers on here would agree it's not a bad idea to shoot low ASA stock and just re frame. It's been said that if shot well enough, it can be mistaken for Super16 and even 35mm. I tried it many years ago, but my eyes where too inexperienced for me to tell you what i could compare it as, I just know it didn't become the grain storm I was afraid of. I've played around with older film stocks however, I can only say that I wouldn't re framing with old stock. In fact, I can tell you personally that unless you can verify that it was all purchased around the same time and under the same conditions that you probably shouldn't try shooting it and matching it together at all. Unless of course, as you said, it's for a dream sequence or a scene with a viable reason for a visual shift in quality. Bill makes a good point with 4:3 (if you think it fits with the films storyline somehow), I saw American Honey this year and couldn't help notice they got away with filming in 4:3 too.

I Didn't know you guys where involved with Mono No Aware. I've gone to some of their events here in Brooklyn, they're good people. They've hit 50% of their goal, I hope they can pull it off in a week. Seeing as another film lab would also be a big film moral booster around here too. As for ECO stock, is that the stock many low budget classic 16mm movies where shot on? I recall many cinematographers for films such as The Texas Chainsaw massacre, mentioned using a stock that was preferred because it kept a tight grain structure for the 35mm blow up. I remember it was some extremely low ASA (around 25) and I think i even recall the term "E-C-O", even the time frame for these movies (60-70's) is correct. Could this be it? Regardless, I would love to shoot a decent stock of 16mm color reversal again, or even in Super8.

I know i'm late to this party, but if i'm correct- all CP16's where regular 16 with single sprocket since their original intention was for news camera work that utilized single system soundtrack. Which means the soundtrack portion had to be free in all models. As for conversions, I've been told it's almost impossible since the shutter had to be "extended" to cover the super16 from on top of the gate and mounting to be modified. Although, i've been told they solved the mount location problem by slightly realigning the guts of the camera to cover it. The shutter would have to be custom made. At least this was what I was told when I had mine converted to Ultra 16. Super16 models exist, but they're somewhat rare and expensive to have the conversion done. Otherwise, as others have already said above, the easy way to identify it as a super 16 camera is that the gate has more of a "widescreen" look to it.

My first 16mm camera was a B&H Filmo (50.00 on ebay), my first sound sync camera was a CP16 (Model A with the dogleg lens) for 500.00 and I spent probably another 1-200.00 on a new battery and belt, my Super16mm camera is a converted GSMO for 1500.00. Actually, my first super16 camera was also a filmo. I bought a converted plate on ebay and I was surprised that it worked just fine, it never actually vignetted. The Filmo doesn't have any through the lens focusing at all, looking back, I'm kind of bummed I probably no longer have the skill to judge focusing distance based from experience. My CP16 camera since it was converted to Ultra 16 vignettes sometimes depending on the available light and the focal length of the zoom lens. My GSMO has a slight vignette on my 9mm Ultra T that is barely visible in one corner. The Zeiss Zoom lens I have has a pretty bad vignette that wobbles in and out to 50mm. However it's fine after that so I use the lens as a telephoto prime lens. Other then that, I love my GSMO. I have 2 mags (which i'm assuming also had to be modified) and even a video tap for it. The only thing that's kind of crummy about it, is that I'm limited to CP and b mount lenses whose choices actually aren't that vast. There's a Nikon mount that's impossible to find. If I had the money to burn, I would get it modified to have a PL mount. But the lenses I have are actually very good- it's just a small restriction that sticks to the back of my mind. I've never done a time lapse in 16mm, I don't have the motorized unit to allow me to do so. Stop motion- yes, plenty of times. Come to think of it, I also have a Beaulieu R16 (The early wind up model) modified in Ultra 16. It has a single frame option and it would be fantastic for stop motion.

I believe it's the standard 1/48 180 degree shutter angle. I've owned 2 of these cameras, they where great. Unlike you however, I could never get them to work right when I put the front plate back on. Kudos to you sir! Almost all the professional 3rd party filmo support disappeared around 5-10 years ago. All the camera techs who where familiar with this camera seemed to retire around the same time. Which is kind of a bummer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't someone already try this? I vaguely remember a nofilmschool article and even a failed kickstarter attempt. Kudos on getting a working prototype though.

Have you tried asking Bernie O Doherty at www.super16inc.com? He's serviced my R16 and he's known for his lens work.

I Purchased the GH4 and I have friends who have the A7S whom I was able to play with the camera a bit and looked over the shoulder to see how their ideas about production changed. For me the choice came down to the GH4 because I wanted to use my Super16mm glass, as Mr. Berneker said, I wasn't to thrilled about buying all new glass for a full frame camera (My 35mm glass is OK, but nothing I'd consider "cinema" quality.) The one feature I knew I would miss out on is the low light capabilities, the reason why I overlooked them is because I believed most of the time I would be using the camera is when I have total control of the light anyway. I have to do it for film, I had to do it to keep the ISO down for the past digital cameras, I figure I could live with doing it some more. But I'm well aware I'm going to wish I had the A7S the next time I may have to use the GH4 at another wedding reception or location where no one thought about bringing lights. In fact I was on a shoot last month where a DP with an A7S shot a camping scene at night and it was amazing what the A7S could do, we didn't even bring any lights (E.g. battery operated LED panels) but shot it all naturally (Lighting from just the camp fire and lanterns around the camp!) But for shooting live events you should probably get a dedicated video camera as Mr. Rhodes has said, which is why I dismissed it as a reason to get an A7S. I just don't shoot that many events anymore and I can usually get away with faster glass. There is one important thing I want to mention about the GH4: It's going to need "tweeking" before you shoot with it. Out of the box, the camera is naturally noisy and does have quite a bit of artifacts. The camera has many options to alter the latitude and exposure and many of these features actually makes the artifacts worse. If you do your tests and go online and compare them with what other people have discovered through their own, you can actually shoot clean images that hold a candle to a majority of the other cameras on the market. I can even alter the image quite a bit in post now, regardless of the fact that there's no "true" RAW feature that some people complain about. Noise is almost non existent now. I'm not making a case against the A7S, just explaining why I bought a GH4 and my experience with it since. The truth is, I believe both of these cameras would be a good choice depending on your workflow and what you can do with it. Cameras are just the tools, it's up to the DP to know how to use them to their advantage.

I think we're overcomplicating the question, I don't think he meant to be going on the offense, I think he was asking a personal opinion on why we like to shoot super8. I personally shoot a lot of (super) 16mm, and digital from my GH4. But time to time I still shoot super 8. Particularly reversal film, I only shoot negative if I'm shooting super8 for a gig (E.g., A wedding, short film, etc). I personally shoot reversal film super8 (color if I can find it) because I actually choose NOT to telecine it (Again, unless it's negative film). I not only save money that way, but I find joy and satisfaction in projecting super8, there's nothing quite like it. For one- it's actually not that bad quality when you project it and see it in person. Good, well exposed footage actually looks like... well... a film. Reversal film that is telecine'd for some reason never comes out right in my opinion, it always looks like the quality takes a nosedive when color reversal is scanned. Which brings us to two, I like shooting super8 because it's a different skill set and getting well exposed footage is part of the craft that makes it rewarding. If I shoot strictly digital for a few months, or even 16mm, I feel like I have to break out the super8 to mix things up a bit. Part of the skill is since you only have those 50 feet (and at the cost), every shot you take is well thought of and has some relevance. Which brings us to a third reason why I shoot super8, I prefer to still shoot my memories/ homes movies on the format. I've been shooting the stuff since the 1990's, I constantly splice the newer reels onto the older ones. When I play them back, my life literally unfolds before my eyes. On 16mm, it's not small and handy enough and digital and video formats just aren't stable. I know that sounds weird and to some backwards, but I've gone through VHS, Vhs-c, DV cam, etc.... super8 is the only handy format that's stayed consistent and supported through the years. Unless it gets physically damaged (E.g. A flood or fire), my film will last my entire life and I'll have a reliable archive into my old age. I consider the slightly higher amount of money I pay a "front-load" to archival costs- you're paying for something solid. Overall it's different aesthetic choice, just my humble opinion. :)