Philip Kral

When you push or pull reversal film (E.g. Tri-x) can anyone tell me which developer do you perform the actual push/ pull process? For negatives it only goes through the developer once. But reversal you use the developer, then bleach then develop again. Which one do you alter the time/ temperature process? Or is it both?

Thanks Rob, that DVD idea sounds simple enough. I wouldn't be looking for scene to scene correction anyway, just a general look for the whole print (Crushed blacks, saturate colors, etc). Thanks again!

I was thinking of striking some prints of my negatives. I don't suppose there's anyway Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere or any other program has any reference files it can export that I can give to the colorist to obtain the adjustments I made to the digital copy? I know Avid could, but that's the one editing program I don't have access too.

I haven't used those particular lenses but I've been experimenting with other lenses adapted for my own U16 camera. The images should be pretty sharp assuming A)The image is coming more so through the middle "sweet spot" of the glass and B) Especially if you used the "sharpest aperture" (Under F.11 but 2 steps above widest open) and C) Although not the same as sharpness- using 35mm glass should insure (In theory) you won't have any vignette in the image.

If you go to Vimeo.com and type in "super 16 reala fuji 500d" or a combination of it- you'll see some samples. Here's one:

Hi everyone, it's been awhile. Recently I've become involved in a shoot where Fuji's Vivid 250D was used. I'm sending the stuff out to get transfered and apparently there was a few scenes shot under tungsten lighting with no color correcting filters. Now I've been told Vivid 250D does terrific under mixed lighting and I've even heard it color corrects nicely. I guess the question is, I can choose to have it transfered "best light" or "flat scan". There obviously is going to have to be some color correcting and I've usually requested best light and they usually do a good job. But can someone educate me a bit on the flat scan process? (Other then the fact that it's raw image files best suited for digital intermediates) Is it a good option for the indie/ low budget production? Could you work with it on lets say Final cut pro? Is it good for just color correcting or do you have more control over grain? Or would a best light be sufficient, just inform the colorist of the color correcting issues?

Ah, I see where the confusion came from. Interesting how the characteristics change from one format to the other. Thank you. As for the adaptor, it's not damaged. I'm wondering if mabye there's a coating of protective paint on it that's too thick or something. By eye it looks like the same threads as my other c mount lenses, but I need some way to measure the pitch and size of the threads to be sure.

I dunno, as the wikipedia article says there seems to be different variants (Such as that CS mount one- although it states it should fit.) Regardless, I remember other people having this issue and the box and the adapter is indeed marked "C mount" Are you sure there is not a crop factor? I asked this question before and people told me that the crop factor kicks in when you use a smaller gauge. But I'm sure you are correct about the digital side of things, my T2i and the 7D have a crop factor of 1.6x when you try to use 35mm lenses. I thought it would have been strange for that to translate to the film side of things but many S16 cameraman have sworn by it. Needless to say, this has only made me slightly more confused. What the heck kind of adapter do I have then?, lol. The company doesn't seem to respond to my E-mails, I fear they think I'm just some idiot who doesn't know how to use a C mount lens.

Hi, I have a feeling this topic has probably been discussed at one point but I cannot find the thread. If so please excuse me and perhaps link me to it? I've had a little accessory issue I was hoping someone here could help me with. Recently I've tried to adapt some of my 35mm Lenses to my 16mm cameras. (Yes I know there's a change in focal length/ crop issue when you do this.) The C mount adapter that I have recently stumbled upon does not fit entirely into my camera. The first thread or two does but then it doesn't go any farther, it doesn't fit any of my other C mount cameras either. I know that some of the video C mount cameras have slightly different threading so i'm assuming that's the core of the issue- It's probably a C mount video and not a C mount 16mm. Does anyone know how to resolve this issue? Is the difference with the thread pitch or is there some way I can modify it? How can I make sure which C mount adapter is which if I try to get another one?

Hi everyone! It's been awhile, I've had a little accessory issue I was hoping someone here could help me with. Recently I've tried to adapt some of my 35mm Lenses to my 16mm cameras. (Yes I know there's a change in focal length/ crop issue when you do this.) The C mount adapter that I have recently stumbled upon does not fit entirely into my camera. The first thread or two does but then it doesn't go any farther, it doesn't fit any of my other C mount cameras either. I know that some of the video C mount cameras have slightly different threading so i'm assuming that's the core of the issue- It's probably a C mount video and not a C mount 16mm. Does anyone know how to resolve this issue? Is the difference with the thread pitch or is there some way I can modify it? How can I make sure which C mount adapter is which if I try to get another one?

It's funny I remember the 8mm forums years ago used to be filled with people who used to swear up and down to try and save/ develop the film they found in used cameras. Mabye 16mm shooters being more business then hobby oriented aren't curious for that kind of stuff? Or mabye it's the fact that it's a good chunk of change that might be spent on nothing :P. ::shrugs:: Just a thought... tell me how it turns out!

Because although many people have made this point, the math doesn't add up: If i sell both the lens and the camera then I might get between 1500.00 to 2000.00 towards the sound sync super16 Arri or Aaton. I have yet to see any of these cameras under 5 grand so I still have to pay out of pocket 3,000.00 OR If I modify the camera that I have now after selling the lens, then the conversion will cost me around 2,000.00 (assuming i can get around a grand for the lens) If I sell the lens (Again assuming I can get a grand for that lens) and only focus on shooting 1.85 (Really, the only benefit to shooting Ultra16 when compared to Super16). Then I can get 2 cameras converted to Ultra16. I would gladly sell everything and purchase a super 16 camera if the price would come down to a grand or 2 for a sound sync camera. Or if I had enough outside work to justify the upgrade. Mabye in the near future? As for a 35mm MOS fun camera, I already Have a Konvas. Which is ironic I can dabble in 35mm but can't get my hands on a sound sync S16.

Thank you for your input. That was my thought after thinking on it for a day or two. The irony is the anamorphic adapter isn't cheap as it sells for about a thousand or more now. But it's made cheaply, and it's a hassle. I might as well sell it. As for Ultra16 I don't think it would help with 16:9, for 1.85 on the other hand I might consider in the future. But that's another story and mabye another argument i'd like to avoid. Thank you again! -Phil

I've been looking to see if any features have been made as well, the format is so new they're hard to find. There's 2 advertised on vimeo: "American cheese" and "Rockabilly High School" which i'm sure everyone here already knows about. Someone else was here on the boards awhile back said they where trying to make a feature as well. Frank Demarco who's done alot of well known pictures (Pi, Mad men) might have one flying around since he came up with the idea in the first place, although he's a cinematographer not much a director. As for recans they used to be easy to find, rawstock.com used to be the best place before the guy retired (Well he took a better job is what really happened). Ebay believe it or not from time to time sells fairly fresh film left over from other peoples shoots. I'm working with a director now who's also been asking me about the Ultra16 format so i've been looking into it as much as possible. As you probably already know there is alot of Super16 cinematographers who absolutley hate the idea of this format. In their defense Super16 is still higher resolution for 16:9. However, interestingly enough when super16 is cropped to 1.85 it almost takes up just as much Negative as Ultra16! Which is roughly 6.23mm x 11.8mm, Super16 gets a little more but it still stays within the 6mm x 11mm guidelines. I think if you use slow speed/ fine grain film, some quality glass and a good transfer it would come out fantastic (Although some on here would argue this same point if you stuck with R16). Love it or hate it more and more labs are opening up to this format. Anyway, I wish you luck. -Phil

Anamorphics are fun to experiment with but as you've probably already read, they're a hassle. If your filming a narrative it's not too bad because you're constantly aligning your shots anyway. From my experience there are 2 kinds of Ananamorphic lenses: The first type requires no refocusing on the anamorphic portion. Some of these are more appropriately referred to as "anamorphic adapters". These anamorphics are usually identified by their square glass (Although that rule of thumb isn't necessarily true for all Anamorphic lenses). The Panasonic Lens for the DVX100 that someone already mentioned on here is a good example, I actually own one myself and I can tell you it's a great lens. My only complaint about it, is that it's cheaply made for something your forced to pay almost a thousand dollars for new. I think the square front Konvas and Lomo anamorphics are like this but i can't confirm that, the price of these things skyrocketed and I can't get ahold of one. The second type of anamorphic lens is like the Kowa lenses that your looking at. These are the most common and nearly all the anamorphics I've seen that are from projectors or look like regular spherical lenses have the issue where you have to refocus. Both of these lenses are fine to use, the issue with all anamorphics are 1)You have to figure out how to attach/line up the darn thing and 2)You have to align the lens after every shot by eye. I personally steer clear of the projector lenses only because their rear barrels have no threads, which means you have to create your own device that holds the lens in place. Most non-projector Kowa lenses I know of (If I recall correctly) have threads in the rear end that you can use with a step-down or step-up ring to screw into the front of your camera (Assuming that the rear barrel of the anamorphic lens is slightly larger or pretty close to the diameter of the front barrel of the camera lens. Just be aware that it's a bad idea to just leave the adapter hanging on by itself for a period of time because the weight can royally destroy and cause issues with mounts or internal lens alignment (Arguably some would say you would STILL need a support system). If you can find the "adapters" that require no refocusing then it will usually have a system already in place for adapting it to your lens as shown in this post with the Panasonic adapter. Before purchasing one you should obviously check to see if you can get it onto your particular camera. For example the Delarama(sp?) anamorphic adapters I think are too small for the large super8 barrels since they where intended for the smaller diameter c-mount lenses. Last but not least also remember that not only do you have to refocus but you also have to REALIGN your frame everyshot besides refocusing. That is, you have to make sure that your anamorphic lens is situated the right way before you shoot. This will have to be measured by eye and it means making sure that the people in frame are tall and skinny (Not short and fat, other wise your squeezing the wrong way!). I think I've babbled enough, if your going to try and project it that's another discussion entirely. -Phil

Here's an interesting thought. I have a CP16 regular 16mm camera, with it an anamorphic 16:9 lens that i've used on a few shoots. A few years ago I figured this was a good compromise between paying for a super16 conversion or cropping the Regular 16 image (I didn't gain any resolution but I didn't really lose any either). As much as I like anamorphic lens's, they are somewhat of a hassle, from the looks of it the new ultra16 format seems like it would give similar results (Being that it's not much gain in resolution but none lost either) The theory seems sound (Not to mention i'd be getting the 1.85 frame yadda yadda yadda). I figure I can sell this annoying lens for the price it would take to convert it to ultra16. The question is, Would the ultra16 quality be just as good if not better then the R16 with the anamorphic lens? The anamorphic lens would save the verticle, but the ultra16 would cut the top and bottom but add to the sides. -Phil

Right, but you don't have to use a double perf camera or film for Ultra16. In theory yes, they only need to expand between the perfs. But if your camera could handle single perf film and you only added an area between the perfs then you would expose kind of a "+" sign. The verticle line would be from the regular 16 and the horizontal would be from the ultra16. That's just silly, open up the whole gate if you have a single perf camera! That's why i'm wondering/ asking if the people who've had an ultra16 conversion on a single perf camera had had their entire gate to the right opened PLUS the left area between the sprockets. I really wish i could find that picture... -Phil

Here's a stupid/odd question, I was just curious if anyone has or can provide a picture of their ultra 16 frames on the actual film stock. I once thought I saw a picture someone took where not only was the area between the sprocket holes exposed but also the super16 area. I'm unable to find that picture again, but I was just curious if the ultra16 modification of the gate included the super16 area as well? I was thinking "why not," I figure it would probably be easier opening the whole gate instead of just focusing on a small portion but what do I know. Again, might seem like a silly question but I was just curious, besides if the super16 area is open too then it just makes it easier for a conversion to it later when I'd have the money. That and there's always the small glimmer of hope that with the right lenses, mabye I can correctly expose the entire super16 area with limited vignetting and end up getting a 2 for one deal. ::shrugs:: -Phil

This reply may be a little late, but if your interested- Yes a super16 conversion for this camera is possible. I had purchased a super16 front plate from someone on ebay years ago, only to find out it was indeed hand done. The gate had been widened and as it was a double pulldown claw, one of the "hooks" had been cut off. There's someone on youtube who has a video of himself performing such a modification (Come to think of it, that's not you is it? ;) ). I took test footage at multiple focal lengths and noticed that there wasn't any vignetting! Some lenses would probably still vignette depending on how much light is coming through the rear end of your lenses (I used some lenses off of my beaulieu for this experiment). The only real issue I had with it is in telecine, I can't help but notice that filmo footage sometimes seems to "flicker." Other then that it was a good camera, I say "was" because one of my tripods decided to take a swan dive and the camera stopped working after that. These cameras where used in combat, meanwhile my camera takes a small bump and takes a dirt nap. Anyway I hope this helps. -Phil

Ditto, all the Bell and Howell users seemed to have dispersed after that group suddenly closed. I'm "friending" you guys too, it's a shame there isn't even any repair information on these things anymore let alone people to discuss about them.

Is it me, or has all the Bell and Howell Filmo repair men in the world dissapeared? Just an observation after trying to find my old repair guy. -Phil

I'd have to say it's the CP-16, at least in my experience. Mine was 500 bucks, more between 6-700 if you include the new belts and battery I purchased from whitehouse audio visual. On ebay earlier this week they where selling one for 200 bucks with no bids at the time! The price changes depending on if it's the reflex model(Cp16R) or the one with the TTL lens (CP16-CP16A). The Bell and Howell with the 400ft magazine is arguable. I used to have the military model of the 400' adaptable camera (The KHR I believe?), there are alot of jokers online that try and sell you the magazine and motors for more then what the camera itself would cost. Even then not only will it not be sync but I guarantee it'll be loud. Anyhoo, I love my Cp-16. After using an anamorphic 16:9 adapter on it for some projects, I think i'm going to just get it converted to Ultra16. That's my 2 cents. -Phil

There's a man named Martin Hill of Martin hill and associates who can be contacted at (704)455-8512 or (704)455-9345. Two years ago he helped me get a filmo converted to super 16 (Well, he supplied the parts) but he also talked my ear off about everything you wanted to know about Bell and Howell filmos. It was great, I tried calling him earlier this year, (as I had busted that camera previously mentioned). It turns out he's retired, as well as anyone else in existance who knew anything about these cameras (Including repair men unfortunatley for me) but he'd be your best shot. Followed by Alan Gordon who bought up the rest of the filmo supplies, however as i mentioned before- apparently their repair man for the filmos retired too so i don't know if there's anyone else who can tell you anything. It's a shame, there used to be Bell and Howell experts and enthusiasts everywhere. Where is everyone? Anyway I hope this helps

It seems evertime I turn around now I get more and more bad super 8 news. First they stopped making Super 8 Today magazine, then I found out I still had a roll of Kodachrome to be processed and it's screwed, now I hear they're stopping the production of DS8 film!? I'm having a hard time beleiving we're out of luck for DS8 in the future. Only a year or 2 ago after Kodachrome stopped being produced, Ektachrome 100D and Velvia 50D where popping up all over the place in super8 and Double super 8. Sure mabye spectra doesn't have a perf machine and was loading their super8 with the DS8 stock, pre-perfed from Kodak as someone on here had mentioned. But what about the Fuji velvia? There just has to still be labs out there that can help us out and cut down these stocks for the future! Damn I was thinking about trying a Max8 converstion on my Elmo tri-filmatic too. In the meantime I better start buying some filmstock. -Phil