Philip Kral

I for one found the news from RED really surprising. There is still a community of die hard film users sticking with their medium even in the face of possibility of chapter 11 ending their film supply. Meanwhile, the people involved with RED who still have a large die-hard community are backing down from a little insecurity? I've never been a RED fan, but I still think they're a powerhouse in the industry and should be confident of their companies future. Saying that, If RED is on the down trend I don't believe it's because of film as much as I think it's their own fault. From the beginning they've been pushing the end the film and the idea that they're camera is the last that you would have to buy. But it's as Mr Tomlinson said: You have to keep updating your gear and RED makes you do just that. It wasn't enough to have the RED one.. but then you had to upgrade to the MX chip... then the EPIC.. and now the Dragon. Maybe people wouldn't switch to an ALEXA if they didn't add fuel to the constant "upgrade" ideology. Suddenly they aren't the next best upgrade. On a personal level, I always felt the ALEXA was designed for filmmakers and the RED for engineers. My first experience with the RED was that it was an awkward brick with a lens and the thing kept overheating (RED ONE mind you), reminded me when i was in the Army when you tested out a new device that had all the bells and whistles but the engineer never figured you needed it to not break when you dove for cover or got sand on it. I totally agree with Pav Deep, film and digital shouldn't be trying to replace each other. They're 2 different mediums. I've been focusing on allot of film related projects at the moment (It's funny- I also shot some 16mm film used in a Project Imagination short). Not only is it my format of choice, but I also want to enjoy it in case it does disappear in the future. But otherwise, I hope it stays on this uptrend, it is indeed a relevant medium.

Wow, I remember reading this article 15 years ago. Around the late 90's at earliest, some of it still rings true. In 2005 I went to the intro summer session for the film program at NYU and sure enough there was a person or two who did the "struggling artist" film. To add to it, there always seemed to be the "abortion film," especially in the abstract style (Black and white footage of a girl looking sad, with intercuts of a bloody clothes hanger). The audio is always an issue. It's a totally different world from the visual art skills. I always tell people to get a dedicated and experienced sound person if they can. Its always surprising starting out when we all think we have the sound down pat, then realize how crappy it is in post. Over the summer I helped someone with their project for the 48 hour film festival in the city, and I was surprised how awe full the sound was on 90% of the entries.

Does anyone know what Nikon lenses the adapter for GSMO takes? Am I too assume it's for the Nikon-F mount? It would be nice if it was the Nikon-1... there's a PL mount that adapts to Nikon-1 :\.

I hate to sound like a hard headed film guy, but are you sure you cannot afford film prices? The discussion comes up time to time about how expensive it really is (There was just one 2 days ago somewhere else on this forum). If your renting everything, sometimes Arri ALexa rentals cost the same in film stock. Then again, if you have a killer deal (or know someone to borrow the Alexa from), and you do 20 takes a scene and your shooting in a weekend, maybe your right. It all depends on your situation, I apologize in advance if you already calculated the cost a hundred times and can't make it work. I'm just speaking from the experience that many people are surprised to learn that the costs equal out sometimes (or are even cheaper). Just food for thought.

Really? Your kidding me, the last I checked- I thought wittner only had the magnetic strip and only for certain machines. I'll have to check them again for sure. I don't think I ever seen FFR's site. Thank you so much for showing me this!

Personally, I find it kind of a let down noone figured out a way to continue any sound striping service. Either providing a service, even to strip film in post, or even providing the materials. I have a sound strip machine, but the magnetic tape and glue are impossible to find. Is it really that hard to make cut down magnetic tape (Heck, slit cassette tape ribbons) and pull up the old patents for the glue (or find any glue that'll work for that matter)? It may be not worth it today, but I remember when sound film stopped in 1997 and people went nuts wondering what they could do.

I have to agree with you in some respects. One 16mm camera can last you a lifetime (assuming they'll keep making the film), and the cost of film usually won't cost more then renting or buying the REDs or the ALEXAs. However, if you buy one of these digital monsters and you make so many projects with it that it would of costed you more if shot on film, then it would have indeed been cheaper to shoot digitally. One film shot on film would be cheaper on film, but 20 projects would be cheaper using the same digital camera. That's If you get that much work out of that digital camera. As digital photographers, we find ourselves stuck in the electronic "gadget trend." First it's the HVX, then you have to upgrade to an EX-1, then it's the RED ONE, then it's the RED EPIC, then it's the ALEXA. Unless your a rental house, Hollywood studio, or a DP who owns their own rig and obtain constant work, it's not worth it to buy something your going to replace relativity soon at the same cost to stick with film. Although It looks like the digital camera production may have plateaued with the EPIC and ALEXA and found an in between camera price wise in the Blackmagic. Then there's Dslr's, which are priced nicely for their quality but take an awefull bit of post production to look like film. At the price of a 5D, many are going to probably switch to the Blackmagic. But the DSLR loses it's cost benefit with the accessories you have to buy. DSLRs aren't exactly hand held worthy, and many are caught spending hundreds (If not thousands) on rigs and accessories to get it under the control they want. The Blackmagic I feel will have the same issues, even the RED line of cameras have that issue- they're basically big black boxes with a lens. Not exactly something you can put on your shoulder. I could go on, but then I'd be on my way on writing a novel- this is already long enough. I personally hate the "Film versus Digital" debate. One shouldn't replace the other. They're both different mediums really, we should be choosing them based upon their aesthetics and what they can do for our stories. When a director I work with wants something super bright, sharp and clean, or a documentary- I recommend digital. When they want something organic and the cinematic feel- I push for film. It's like the painting versus film debate or Live Orchestra versus Gramophone.... except no ones debating they're just "going with it."

I have an early model R16 Beaulieu, the one that's spring wound. It has a rewind crank, which happens to be snapped off. But I noticed when I keep the shutter button pressed, I can also run it forwards as well as backwards. Right next to the rewind crank is an opening where you could add an electric motor (Which no one to my knowledge has ever seen in person apparently). I was curious, does anyone know if it's "bad" if I decide to try hand cranking the camera with the rewind crank? (To experiment/ get a particular look) Normally I wouldn't even think about it, but for one the electric motor attachment point may connect to the same set of gears in the first place. Not to mention I have all the original instructions and nowhere does it say NOT to do this. We're talking about a time where there's warnings everywhere about how not to break your camera. Besides I figured if it wasn't safe to do, they'd engineer it the same way they engineered the crank for the spring motor- it would disengage if you turned it the wrong way. Just curious if anyone knows for sure, otherwise I obviously probably shouldn't.

I just watched The worlds end, after looking it up on IMDB, I have learning some of it was shot on 16mm. As well as 3 perf 35mm and digital. Interesting.

If you could, I'd try shooting after a rainfall (Or wet the area if you had the ability). But that might not be one of your options. I'd also say to try and overexpose the 500T a bit.... but chances are you'll be shooting wide open anyway. Just my 2 cents.

It's tough, not too many super16 cameras are in C mount I would assume. I don't know if they're "the best," but I had 2 lenses that where 16mm for a bell and howell filmo that was converted to super16 by hand. The camera has since been broke, but I don't remember ever getting any vignette from these lenses (Unless the operator doing the transfer covered it up somehow). The lenses where a Super Comat Bell and howell and a Kern-paillard Yvar in 16mm. The Kern-Paillard was great because it has these orange dots that appear to tell you what your depth of field was for "acceptable" focus. A good feature considering the filmo was a parallax view camera. What's strange to me is that even at 16mm, there wasn't any vignette although the rear element was really small. Especially since, I also have three bell howell angenieux c mount lenses. Although I didn't get a chance to test on the super16 filmo, I have tested it on Ultra16 and the wide angle (10mm) does vignette pretty bad- even though the rear element is much much larger. Go figure. Again, I don't know if you would consider these the "best" lenses (I liked them, but everyone has their different sensitivities), the 25mm Bell and Howell Angenieux looked great on Ultra 16. If I had to make a guess, you might be able to use one in 16mm if they make it. That would be one of the "best" lenses in C mount in my humble opinion. :)

The Russian Konvas cameras have a hand crank adapter, I've seen the footage from one floating around vimeo.

I agree with Reuel, I felt it was better then the first. I also felt it took a more "serious" view on things sometimes (Especially the fathers death), probably because the plot focused on the "coming of age" and of personal responsibilities. I don't know why Carrey refused to do any publicities, I think it's one of his best roles- some people don't even recognize him.

B&H in NYC still had some the last I checked.

I own an Ultra16 modified CP-16A, it's the older model with the fixed viewfinder on the lens. But If I had to recommend one to someone else, I agree with Mr. MacPherson and recommend the reflex model: the CP-16R. Despite the dogleg lens, I've actually enjoyed the camera very much and use it as a backup camera whenever my super16 isn't available or when I could get away with regular 16mm (just for fun). I originally bought it because it was the cheapest sound-sync camera at the time for 500 bucks on ebay. Although, I had to replace the belts (Which was easy and I could do it myself) and buy a new battery, so it was really around 700.00 maybe. The good: Sound Sync camera, VERY quiet, plenty of accessories (Especially for the reflex model), plenty of parts and technical support for these cameras around, built tough, great all around workhorse camera. The Bad: Heavy, No bells and whistles (Only one speed, no co-axe magazines, no reverse, etc), scary looking loading procedure (These cameras used to have single system sound built into them, so there's extra sprockets you have to maneuver for the sound head), and as Mr. Repo said... many other cameras with the extra features may be around the same price nowadays. Heck, I bought my Super16 for 1500.00 myself.

I've always been impressed with The Rum Diary as far as what they did with Super16mm.

Funny you should mention The Director, that's one of the scanners we're going to sample. I'm also curious what the big "Hollywood/ Independent" films I've seen on the big digital projection /DVD/ Blue-ray, do in order to solve this issue. Yes, they have a bigger budget, but I'm just curious about the workflow. If they use heavy de-graining tools, what tools? What did they use to get rid of the excessive grain, but retain the picture sharpness? What do they use to get rid of the blue fuzz? Does the Dust busting take care of that? How come the colorists and staff can't tell me how either, from any of these places?

I'd have to agree with you David, one of my pet peeves is that my footage always has more noticeable noise and/ or grain on a digital transfer then I believe it should have. Don't get me wrong, I love grain (Hell, that's one of the reasons I shoot film!). But I always felt every transfer house I've tried enhances it a bit, the insult to injury being that when you post it online it tends to do all kinds of wacky things due to compression. All footage transferred digitally also has those annoying blue dots/ fuzz. The faster films having it more noticeable then the slower ones obviously, over/ underexposing too much in certain conditions can cause it too. I'm always told that the blue noise is "Normal" to some extent, buy why isn't it in prints? To prove to myself that I wasn't going crazy, last month I had 100ft of 16mm printed. Before that, I had the same footage transferred to HD. The prints where clean, no exaggerated grain and more important- not blue dots/ fuzz. The blacks where solid black. The digital footage had the same dynamic range and detail, but it had a lot more grain and that blue noise. I'm working with a director now who wants a 2k-4k scan of super16mm, I still have been seeing some of the same issues you have (One 4k scan looked to me like super8!). At the moment I'd like to try out the XENA that Cinelab has, I actually thought the samples I've seen so far looked pretty good even after being compressed. Now I just have to film my own test. On a personal level, this issue also makes it hard for me to sell film as an option. Many other directors/ small crews see the muddy images and snowstorm grain compression when they look at samples on vimeo and Youtube, and get scared away. Btw, I've always enjoyed projected color reversal better then the telecine or scanned versions :) (Although, some of the homemade scanner experiments on vimeo are pretty damned close).

Thank you! It's looking pretty good! What filmstock did you use?

The Video isn't loading.

I heard that the new 2K-4K DCS: Xena scanner at Cinelab is now operational and taking orders. Does anyone know of any examples in Super16mm? (Other then the one that Robert himself provided a few months back?). Just curious if there's a sample of other film stocks, ASA's, etc, before I send some stuff for a test myself :).

I just finished a test using the formula that someone back in March used on this very forum: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=59181&hl=%2Bsodium+%2Bbisulfate (Maybe I should have checked that first eh?) ...and It worked! Now I just have to tweak/ experiment a bit with times or mixture ratios (Such as the 275 grams you advised). Truth be told, I should be using the mixture your recommending. Using Potassium dichromate would definitely be a smaller and simple solution in theory. The problem is both are equally a pain to get in the United States, with Dichromate seeming to be slightly more toxic both for myself in my home lab and for the environment. Sodium Bisulfate on the other hand I can get literally down the road for cheap. I guess for now I'll stick with this, but I'll keep the dichromate in mind when I run out of the permanganate. Thank you for your help.

Sorry, for some reason I have a hard time figuring how to describe my problem. I guess it's both- I'm getting a negative as an end result and after bleaching I'm still seeing black metalilic silver. (Although, in trying to figure out what the problem was, I tried different things and at least twice ended up with a blank image!) I remember watching someone else do the reversal process and If I recall: after bleaching, the silver halide was there but the black matalic silver was gone- leaving clear sections where the negative was. Your probably right, perhaps I have to raise the bisulphate. I was using 55grams to a liter of water but maybe I should try 100 grams or more? Thank you for your help/ response. Phil

I'm trying to process tri-x as a reversal for the first time. I decided using a permanganate and Sodium Bisulfate mixture for the bleach instead of sulfuric acid because it's easier to find/ handle. When I test the bleach out by itself with a film already developed the silver is bleached out entirely within a minute. However, when I go to use it after developing it I still see an image where it should be clear. I tried 2 different developers and get the same result. It seems that no matter how long I keep it in the bleach (Even a fresh batch) the silver doesn't bleach out. I either get a negative still, or worse a black image or blank one! I'm doing quick snippet tests to just see if it's on the right track of working. Doing so I sometimes skip a clearing bath and go straight to washing. Could that be the culprit? It never did when testing things before (But that was negative). Needless to say, I'm lost in the sauce when it comes to reversal.

Thank you! ....Now I'm curious if diafine will work in a reversal process.....that would perhaps allow an additional stop or 2 without must increase in grain theoretically.