David Cunningham

You definitely want to go with a multiflash HDR scan on the Director at MetroPost in NYC. That's the best solution out there to get the complete density of Kodachrome without adding noise. The Director uses a proper gate but is optically pin registered so it's safe for warped or seubken film. See metpostny.com

Yes. You will have an easier time getting the color, lighting,exposure, grain level and quality scan from negative. It won't look like projected super 8 home movies. It will look more like 16mm cinema from the 70s. But it will be far easier to work with. If you want that Kodachrome home movie look, reversal is the only way to go. Unfortunately, there isn't any out there right now of any quality. All the E100D out there now is getting old and unpredictable and Agfa 200 is horrible.

Although true that reversal looks "better" when scanned properly, it's actually hard to do and get right due to the density of the film and the still not amazing sensors out there. T he solution to the problem is multiflash HDR where the sensor takes 2 or even 3 pictures of each frame. Each exposure with a different exposure level to ensure proper resolving of the brightest highlights and darkest shadows. My only personal experience with a scanner and operator where this actually works is metro post in NYC with their LaserGraphics director. Unfortunately this cannot due super 8. The best but still imperfect solution for super8 is the ScanStation at gamma ray digital. Until someone develops an HDR system that works with super 8 negative will be the best medium for a digital result.

Right... the VNF stuff will process in E6 but the color will not be right (most likely magenta) for a number of reasons, the most important being age. If you plan to scan it, you MAY be able to correct it in post... but there might not be enough of the other colors left. You can process em-26 as E6 as well as long as you remove the remjet first with some borax in total darkness... always a challenge to get it all of AND not scratch the emulsion. You'll feel it coming off in your hands. Just go slow. This gives you a pretty good idea of what various forms of processing will look like with old EM-26: And this give you a good idea of VNF: Note that this example is MUCH newer than the one you have. It will likely NOT be as good. Dave

Actually... Quite a few of the ektachrome stocks from the 70s, 80s and 90s had remjet. All the em-26 stocks like the type g e160 had rem jet. Kodachrome had rem jet as well. The VNF stocks did NOT have rem jet as it was built for speed and ease of processing for quick broadcast later in the news day.

Can you post footage from this camera? How is the stability of the frames?

Nice... yeah, you sure can tell the difference between the Beaulieu and the Canon. :) The 16mm is more expensive but not finding it TOO much more expensive. Now 35mm... especially 4-perf... forget about it. Way out of my league!

Thanks Bill... trust me. Looks way better on this end. :) Thanks for the compliments though. Yeah... mine... I drive my wife nuts with home movies. :)

Unfortunately it is going to be very hard to find 2R (thats the designation you want) 16mm film. Your best bet would be old Plus-X stock off eBay. In fact, even more than 2R you need 2R-2994 (the camera stock). The only 2R camera stock still produced by Kodak is 7219 Vision3 500T and it's special order only with minimum quantities. Your only source for new stock would be someone with a perforating machine. I'm not sure there is anyone out there. This is some old Plus-X 2R 2994 B&W negative film on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/KODAK-16MM-X-400FT-X-2-PLUS-X-NEGATIVE-FILM-7231-READ-DESCRIPTION-187259-/141949739706?hash=item210cdd22ba:g:SUIAAOSw6wRXAuFp http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-Plus-X-Negative-film-7231-Sealed-400-Rolls-Rare-Find-16mm-Stock-/301909331343?hash=item464b32cd8f:g:SDwAAOSwG-1Wyicp As long as they were decently stored the second listing should definitely be good. It's dated 2002 which means it was from after that. Even if it was room temp stored it should still give you a "decent" image. If it was freezer stored, it will be almost like new. You might also try: http://www.filmemporium.com/ and http://www.reelgoodfilm.com/ Both sell NOS, short ends and recans and likely sometimes get 2R stuff. Good luck! Dave

Wowa... just watched that again and it doesn't even come close to holding a candle to the 4K Prores4444 master I have on my editing computer. I'll try to find time to redo this and get a 4K upload to Vimeo and/or Facebook. But, the very end closeup give you a good idea of just how nice an image you can get with just a simple Switar 25mm (non RX) lens on Vision3 50D. My favorite part is the beautiful shadow detail in my wife's black coat while also preserving every detail of the bright white snow. This was a fun day.

So, my 2 cents on this is that your footage actually looks pretty good. I think a lot of the softness is a combination of the scan, the lighting, and streaming video compression. I bet that footage would look a lot better in the original format. I agree that if you want the "cleanest" possible 16mm look you need to keep your ISO as low as possible. If I am outdoors I try to use 50D at all times. I actually find the trade off of increased softness due to a wider aperture in the shade worth the finer grain. I find 250D to be pretty grainy. The same is true for controlled lighting indoors. If you can control the light, 200T all the way over 500T. The 500 is great when you cannot control the lighting but far to grainy for me otherwise. Please please please do not denoise. It completely takes away from the look of the film. The best way to get the tightest grain and sharpest image is to over sample as much as possible. I have all my 16mm (and Super 8) footage scanned at 5K by Cinelab or Gamma Ray Digital or 4K on the Director at MetoPost. They provide these scans in Prores4444 (flat) at 4K. I then master everything in 4K and then export to HD (for 16mm/16:9) or 2K (for Super 8/4:3). Although, lately I have been uploading 4K to Vimeo and Youtube not so much for the actual resolution as much as to "fake out" the compression/bit rates on these sites to force higher bit rates despite the display they are being watched on being HD or less. All these things yield a much tighter grain despite the fact that there is "not 5K worth of information" on the film... assuming you don't consider the grain itself to be "information". In fact, the slow the speed the film and thus the smaller and tighter the grain the more important I feel it to be to scan as high as possible to render the grain correctly. Embrace the grain... or shoot raw in digital and then grade in post to get your "film look"... that's what I say. I am still a newbie myself when it comes to lighting, for sure. It is KEY and possible the most important part of the production. It's hard to get a good image from direct sunlight/spotlight as it is to get a good image in ultra low light/no light. You need something to soften and diffuse the light source... some nice reflectors/diffusers, etc. That's the end of my rant. Sorry this example is not particularly good due to youtube, only HD and not he best upload in the fist place. So, don't go full screen. But, DO do HD and you will get a pretty good idea of what a good overscan and 50D can do in extremely contrasty lighting in a simple home movie setting/production: Dave

Thanks for the compliments and suggestions Will. I do have to admit, I'm having a hard time balancing my desire to make "good" films and the rough stylings of a the real "home movie" look. I've slowly been transitioning to far more "cinematic". I like your idea of handing out the AF310XL to guests to get more of that rough footage. I might try that. I'm actually working on a project of 3D printing replacement gears for the Kodak XL320/330 series of cameras all of which have plastic gears that are shredded from being dried out cheep plastic. If I can cheaply get a bunch of them refurbed it would literally be point and shoot for guests. I would just hard set the iris to wide open (for indoors) so they don't get back lighting issues and there ya go. I have definitely never thought of that tilting kit. Very good idea. But yea... all this has me trying to break into the more "cinematic" Super/Ultra16 market. One taker so far for this wedding season so we'll see how that goes! Dave

YES... PM Sent.

All this I'm sure is true. But, I'm not trying to copy protect these discs. It's just weddings and they are welcome to copy them if they want. There must be an open source system out there somewhere. The problem is that I like the menu themes so I don't have to design my own menus and backgrounds. rounds.

The 16SR sold?

Yeah, agreement with everyone above... to expound on the subject: 1.) The bolex is a far better camera than that first video shows. That camera clearly has a problem. I have found the 2 Bolex cameras I have owned to be the most stable cameras without an actual registration pin. 2.) All those Russian cameras are junk and a nightmare. Stay away from them! There is a reason they are so cheap! 3.) Your best bet is likely an Eclair (ACL or NPR) or an Arri 16SR. But, both are going to run you at or over $1000 for a complete kit that is ready-to-go. And, they are going to be regular 16 (4x3) not Super or Ultra 16 (16x9 widescreen). In my opinion, unless you are using Vision3 50D, all 16mm film stock is too grainy if you intend to zoom in on the frame to crop out a 16x9 image. Ultra16 is the cheapest route. Super16 is better but not probably enough to justify the thousands of dollars for the conversions. No matter how much you spend on the camera, I guarantee that to have a properly running and reliable machine you will spend another $500-1000 in maintenance/checkups on a machine with 2 or more 400ft magazines and over $1000 if you want an ultra16 mod. Forget Super 16. That will be $2500+. Dave

Mark, you're right. In hind sight I should have thought about that. Sorry about that everyone. Forgot I wasn't in an informational post.

Bump

Bump

Wowa. I googled a lot of that film and much of it is very old and not even processable anymore. The so118 can be done E6 it would seem but I doubt anyone would put it through their E6 machine. It would probably have to be a home process job. The 7242 cannot be done as E6 without a bad result and definitely not in a commercial lab. The 7291 and 7255 are likely from the 60s and therefor likely junk and not lab processable. The 7254 is early 80s negative and can be done ecn2 but will likely be very fogged. The 7240 can be done E6. I actually have some and have had it lab processed. But, it's all been very magenta shifted due to age. The rest of the film is probably all "good". But if I buy your stock, which I might, i'd likely have you keep all the boxed stuff except the so-118.

Very interesting. Do you happen to have a scan of any of it?

Can you tell me more about SO-118? I cannot find much info on it. Thanks!

Ditto the director at MetroPost.

I'd be interested in the plus X. How much. Feel free to PM me.

I would take the Xena over the other two with superior dynamic range and likely lower noise. Also, the Xena should be capable of a higher resolution should you choose to go higher than 2K. I believe it can now do 6K.