Giray Izcan

I would go with double x. Tri-x is rated at 160 under tungsten and 200 under daylight. Double x is rated at 200 under tungsten and 250 under daylight. Also, double x will scan better than tri-x for sure. With reversal, you have to be dead on exposure wise. With double x you don't want to overexpose actually but rather expose it at box speed.

It was hand held.

It should cover it but on the wide end it may vignette a bit as 12-120 barely covers r16. Check out the link I posted up named Suffragette as it was shot on that lens at 2.8. It was scanned at 4k. Good luck with your purchase and happy holidays to you and to your family. 15-150 version will cover for sure as it covers s16.

Why can't you recommend Les Bosher anymore?

Angenieux 12-120 wide open will do the trick i believe. 12-120 wide open will yield all sorts of flaws or as hipsters call it awesomeness haha..

Here is another example. Again 7219, rated it at 250. This time I shot it on Angenieux 12-120 at t/2.8. 4k scan was done from 1 light lowcon print. The password is suffragette

Well the Zeiss lens I use is I believe Arri b mount so I am not sure about he standard mount lenses. You could get a very nice one made at Les though honestly. Also, call Visual Products as they are selling one CP package and they may have one laying around. Congratulations with your purchase.

Here is an example from this little music video I shot for a friend. I shot this on 7219 stock rated at 250 with a Zeiss 10-100 t/3.1 lens obviously on r16. The one light lowcon print, or the imitation of it i should say, was scanned at 4k. Essentially, Fotokem puts the regular print stock through ECN 2 to lower the contrast to make it more scanner friendly. I put it through DaVinci to convert the DPX files to prores 422. That's straight up from one light print so no digital corrections etc.. as is. I shot this on an Eclair NPR but camera body shouldn't matter.

It seems like a good camera except for the bowtie shutter. It is known for smearing issues when shooting into light. It may be ok though. I may be exaggerating a bit but something to keep in mind. I hope it helps. Other than that, I think well maintained CP's are very robust and quiet running cameras. I think it is a good buy. 16mm is a lot more affordable than 35 any day of the week so I think you will be able to shoot a lot more with it than you could with a 35. As you know, Cinelab offers great quality for unbeatable prices so yea... Also, as for the CP mount dilemma, you could get an adapter made for not that expensive to whatever mount you want at Les Bosher I am pretty sure but of course, check with him. With a good lens and a well maintained CP, I think you will be more than happy.

Everytime i hear someone saying stuff like, my 35mm short or my 16mm feature, I begin worrying because those films usually tend to suck but hey it's on film - the acting, the script, locations or lack of coverage just shows that the format takes precedence over the story and the production. 7:1 ratio and stuff sounds doable but you need coverage. Lets say you're shooting a dialog scene where you need to have coverage for reactions etc. You need to shoot your singles etc during the entirety of a dialog for editorial purposes. This way you can cut to non speaking actor's reactions while the other actor is delivering his or her lines. These little things bring the whole picture together. In order to be able to properly run the camera for coverage you NEED money and film. Otherwise, you will end up with shortcomings during editing like I wish I had more coverage to cut to some reactions and stuff. I am a hard core film lover but I will not be dillusional about the cost of it. You can save up all the film in the world, but one stock to the next, are they going to match? During coverage, you change out a roll to another roll from God know what batch and all of a sudden the look changes to fogged up piece of film look or shifted colors etc. At the end of that tunnel, you will still spend the same thousands at the lab so it isn't even cute anymore. You know what I mean?

The news about Orwo sounds exciting. I shot their bw stock and really enjoyed it but next to kodak, it is still a ma and pa shop in a way... I am not sure if they will be able to keep up with professional production demands.. For instance, I couldn't even get a hold of someone for a long time when I was trying to get stock. When I did get a hold of them however, they seemed very nice. They didn't have 1000 ft rolls. As for Ebay, I agree with Matthew... people demand thousands for their pos cameras that once cost a few hundred - Canon Scoopic... I'm looking at you. It is an ok camera but check out those prices... 1500-4k... haha 4k for an unstable camera with a fixed lens that is like a toy camera. Or thousands for some hand wound bolex...

So you shot 8:1 ratio? You need to have money if you really want to shoot comfortably without compromising from the product quality in terms of performance, angles etc. You should see how many takes we do on commercials... you could easily burn through 30k plus ft of film per day. When you do the math.. it comes up to 100 dollars a minute or so after all processing and scanning etc. Bmd scanner is ok for dailies but is certainly not a finishing type scanner.

After sending thousands, I better get perfect results... not good enough. Sorry.

Just to shoot a 5 pager, just the stock itself costs nearly 5k.. not to mention the lab costs... I love film and as you are aware I even do photochemical finish but at some point though, I mean the film image is good but is it thousands and thousands of dollars better?

But that film you are planning on acquiring will not stay fresh for 2 years. Essentially yoj will end up spending thousands ag the lab for less than ideal image quality you would get from a fresh roll.

Recans are fine for some tests but for a narrative... you need fresh from Kodak, from the same batch etc...

At some point, the prices will only allow big pictures to be on film. Noone will pay 1000 fpr 1000ft of 35 film... Even now, with shipping etc, it costs nearly 900... i guess s16 is more affordable but s16 look isn't right for every project. I am located in la so it isn't some remote place either.

At some point, people will just stop shooting film altogether with these prices. Kodak is pricing itself out of the game... it is sort of out of the game but with this price escalation, I dont know....

Image inside the sprocket hole haha... hipsters..

Or just buy another one instead of dealing with headache...

Also, though it's been a few years since I worked with an f55, I remember it being surprisingly lightweight despite its full size. It is actually balanced well on your shoulder. It feels like, with shoulder rigs etc., cameras don't sit as right on my shoulder as with full size cameras. And also the vf is very good on the Sony which is a delight to operate as opposed to monitors etc on c300 as their own viewfinder on the back is a joke...

I would take the Sony. I worked with the f55s on quite a few commercials. I can guarantee you that the f55 has a better dynamic range than the c300s. And for the ergonomics, with the Sony, you could just lens the camera and put it on your shoulder; whereas, with Canon, you would have to build it to be able to put the camera on your shoulder. I personally prefer full size cameras under most circumstances - also a little bit of weight to cameras for better hand-held shots. Also, during their heyday, bigger productions would opt for an f55 as opposed to a c300. All my C300 shoots were low budget productions - mostly documentaries.

I would get 50d for sunny days and exteriors and 200t for studio lit environments and 500t for lowlight situations. As for a camera, this may sound like overreaching as a beginner but I would get a Nikon r10, if not, a Canon 1014xl and would get it refurbished. At the end, you'd be spending 800 or so but you would have afully refurbished and one of the most highly regarded s8 cameras - you would get the best possible picture in this format... more or less. It would be like a one time investment. I hope it helps.

For color grading, yes, but for editing, I woukd go with Avid. Edit on Avid and color it on davinci afterwards.

It is called snip test.