Giray Izcan

Unfortunately, u16 really limits you in terms of post. You are bound to one or two labs that handle the format.

Nikon r10 is great too.. I'm torn. I don't like the shutter angle on Beaulieus.

Yes... 2008s frame rate goes from 16 to 25fps instead of 24. 4008 model shoots 24fps. I might just go with a 4008 since I don't want to deal with flickering etc under hmi lighting. I want to use the camera as if it's a 16 or 35mm camera with well executed and lit shots.

I might be getting a Beaulieu 2008s with an Angenieux lens. 25fps aspect of it i dont like though.

As far as portability and convenience goes, you could shoot on Canon Scoopic with all its auto features and small size and a sharp lens. Just my opinion of course.

Here in the US, they scan them with same scanners so the cost is pretty much the same - maybe a hundred dollar difference. For only that much difference in price, unless that's the look you want, shooting s8 doesn't make a whole a lot of sense. Ironically, I am going to be shooting something experimental with my Minolta XL 84 to see how 7213 looks when it is 1 stop overexposed and properly lit. In case, a project calls for the format and there is enough traction for the format especially in fashion video world that it would be good to know what type of results I could get with the cameraI have when it's shot properly. 7219 is too grainy for s8.. Even s16 looks much crisper on 7213 than 19. I prefer to shoot on 13 for both s8 and s16 and over expose 2/3 - a stop. 19 is great on 35 though.

50d with a good camera/lens will be pretty sharp but other stocks shot indoors will be pretty grainy and soft. I am saying for what you pay though 16 is a much better option. I love the format but with these prices... I might as well shoot on 16mm and potentially get a broadcast ready footage. S8 looks like bad 16 on a good day as opposed to a classic s8 look. Tyler said this a while back and I agree with him on this. The prices should be lower.

That's extremely rude... wow...

Let's throw the football around haha

Sean, It was a joy to watch. Thank you.

At least the comments were fun to read...

I would say CP is probably the quietest out of all you mentioned. But all of them will cause issues in quiet places - even more so in quiet and small spaces. Even, Arricam LT is not all that quiet in small spaces. I am not comparing LT and the cameras above for clarification.

How was it? How did you like working with it? Did you use any of the textures?

Sync sound Pro8 conversions cost 3-4 thousand dollars. I understand that they are max 8 which is a tad larger than s8 with marginal increase in clarity and resolution. Also, since you are a student, you could get one light 16mm prints to truly judge your skills and detect errors as photochemical finish is a lot more crude next to DI - you have to nail the look in camera for the most part. With DaVinci, you can fix most things but then how do you learn? You can't get s8 prints any more. I just saw a s16 NPR package for 4500... imagine. Sync sound with super 8 sounds silly in my opinion. S8 cameras are too loud with their short loads to do sync sound. You say you have a 16 camera, I would shoot on that.. save the camera purchase money to shoot something with your 16.

It is not cheaper than 16. 16 gives you sharpness and film look as opposed to s8. S8 looks like a bad 16 at best on a good day. I like s8 but with these prices, it's a big silly in my opinion. Bolexes and Scoopics are almost just as portable as s8 cameras with image quality night and day between the two.

It never was... A wedding here and there and some home movie moments in some projects or some backyard music video productions or some hipster fashion videos... I would get a 16mm camera. I keep seeing Arriflex S for 6-800 dollars on eBay. You will not be spending any less for a decent s8 camera. The image you get from any s8 camera will look worse than even shooting expired high speed stock on 16. With the Beaulieu cameras, you can change lenses but even with some sharpest lenses, don't expect much of a jump in image quality but maybe some marginal difference at best. The format itself doesn't yield sharp and stable images regardless of the lens etc. Oh and it will cost you just as much as shooting on 16.

Regular tungsten all the way... oh wait it is dangerous to work with them because they run hot hahaha....

Telecine is fine. TV shows were doing telecine.. I believe the Walking Dead was transferred on Spirits for example.

Tyler has a point, sorry. Film will be very expensive and it adds up in the thousands fast. Your feature will suffer because most or nearly all the budget will go into purchasing film stock and getting processed etc. I did a no budget feature on s16 several years back where it was I and a friend of mine paid out of our pockets as a passion project. Of course, between stealing shots to accessing some terrible locations and horrid sound did not yield worthwhile results. Film only makes sense if there is a proper budget in place where only a percentage of it woild be allocated to film related expenses and still have money to hire a crew and get locations etc... otherwise, really it will be a waste of your money but of course this is just my opinion. I would shoot a short or a teaser for your feature and try to get funding. With a teaser, combining images, art work some stuff you shoot to convey the tone of the film, at least you could show something visual along with a strong script to investors and actor managers etc. Crunch numbers to estimate the budget, from locations to rentals to crew to catering and try the raise that much and then shoot.

I would much rather shoot 2 perf than s16 for 1:85 or a wider ratio.

Never mind.. wrong information on imdb. It was digital.

Apparently, it was both digital and film. I thought it was shot on 65mm film. How much film for what sequences, I'm not sure. If I were to guess, day time exteriors were shot on film and the rest was on digital.

Make sure you have appropriate hard mattes for your mattebox for different focal lengths to cut down the excess light from hitting the gate area to prevent ghosting, flares etc.

It looks like the shutter timing is off.

I agree... I just don't agree with shortchanging every department including the film itself by not getting better locations or better production design etc just to shoot on film. The end product you get after spending thousands of dollars is usually ok at best because of lacking in every department. Or you don't get enough coverage or enough takes so now you have to live with what you got. If there is budget in place, then of course... I prefer film; otherwise, it doesn't make sense to be slave to it.