Josh Gladstone

Just an update: I've scaled this up to 16mm and started this thread on the 16mm forum.

This is sort of a continuation of this thread, but it's 16mm so I wanted to post it here. I'd previously built myself a super 8 scanner using a firewire machine vision camera, an arduino, a stepper motor, and an old projector. I'd been meaning to scale it up to 16mm for a while and finally got around to doing it. It took a few hours of tinkering, but here's my first test footage! The source material is obviously not mine, it's from an old Castle Films "Chimp the Sailor" that I had lying around. This is literally the first thing I've scanned so far, I JUST got it working, so it's not perfect. But not bad for a first try on a very very sub $500 setup, right? Comments/questions are of course are welcomed!

I like the one-sheet, too. Who did that?

Looks great!

Lot of questions, so I'll try to answer a bunch in no particular order. A lot of factors go into camera prices. Built quality, feature set, lens quality and rarity all effect the demand, and therefore the price. Which camera you want might depend on what factors you find most important. It seems like you want to do more "studio" type work. Pretty much the top-of-the-line with that regard would be the Leicina Special, Nikon R10, Nizo 6080, and Bauer A512. I personally own a Nikon R10, Nizo 6080, and Bauer A512 (although I just got the Bauer working), and of all of them I'd say the R10 is the most versatile, well built, and with the nicest lens. If I could only have one super 8 camera, it'd probably be that one. The Nizo 6080 is by FAR the quietest, so if you want to be able to record sound, that would be the camera to choose (even if it isn't crystal sync). The Bauer A512 has an external low-light meter and a unique long-exposure timelapse feature that I really dig. (A few other upper-end Bauers have the same feature). I believe the Nizo s800 also has a long-exposure feature as well, although it's more traditional than the Bauer's. Then there are other cameras like the Canon 310xl. This one is not rare, and can be found pretty inexpensively. It might not be what you're looking for, since it only shoots 18fps and single frame, but it's very compact and has an f/1.0 lens, so you can get some nice super low-light stuff. I also have a Beaulieu 1008xl which is pretty nice, has a decent lens, and has a form factor similar to the Nizo 6080, but isn't as quiet. Still, I wouldn't discount it. I've also got a Chinon Pocket 8, which like the 310xl only shoots 18fps, but it also fits in your pocket and weighs only 450g. There are so many cameras and they all have their purposes, so really it all depends on what kind of shooting you want to be doing. As for ASA or ISO, those numbers tell you how sensitive the film is to light. Every time the number doubles, the film is twice as fast -- meaning it needs half as much light to get the same exposure. So 100 speed film is half as fast as 200 speed film, 200 is half as fast as 400 speed, 400 is half as fast as 800, etc. The D or T after the number indicates that the film is color balanced for either Daylight or Tungsten light. Tri-x is black and white film, so it is not balanced for either (although you will notice that Kodak recommends you rate it differently if you're in daylight or tungsten. As I understand it, this is to compensate for how the film reacts to blue.) Manual exposure. This depends on the camera, but most of the higher end cameras, and a lot of the lower end cameras actually have manual exposure. Assuming you know how to use a light meter and your camera is working properly, it is exceedingly consistent. Like, scientifically consistent! Really it's kind of remarkable. Thanks, Kodak! Tips for Tri-x. Expose properly? The general rule of thumb for getting the most information on your film when shooting negative is to overexpose just a little. For reversal film, it's the opposite. But I wouldn't go overboard underexposing your film since Tri-x doesn't have the latitude that Vision3 has. Generally I just expose as recommended on the box and everything comes out lovely. Developing yourself is very possible and really fun. Developing Tri-x as a negative is very easy. I do it in D-76, but I've also done Caffenol with great results. The reversal step requires mixing up a special type of bleach, so it's more involved and there are more hazardous chemicals. Keep in mind, if you want to process as a negative, Tri-x comes out contrastier and grainier than if you'd done the reversal step. Here's a Youtube playlist with some of my films if you're interested. Generally I put what camera, filmstock, and developer I used in the description. (keep in mind these are all scanned on a homemade scanner that I'm constantly trying to improve) https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6E414828ACB06EE9 Hope that helps!

Cool, sounds interesting! Don't kill yourself looking for it or anything though.

As for your second question: yes you can put a daylight spool into the 200 foot mag. I just tried it. I mean, I didn't run film through it or anything, but it did fit. Keep in mind, the 200 foot mag has a separate motor, so not only will your battery drain quicker, it's much louder too! And a 100' spool fits in the camera itself, so I'm not sure I see the point. Unless you're thinking about respooling 200' onto a 100' daylight spool in a darkroom and letting the last 80 or 100 feet just spin about freely in the mag?

For filming with an Auricon? It's a regular 16mm aspect ratio camera because it records sound information optically on the side of the film, in the area now utilized for picture information in super16. There is a separate exciter lamp inside the camera that exposes sound information onto the film a few frames after the picture is shot. This ends up looking like a waveform on the side of the negative. You can shoot on any type of film and process at any lab, although as Simon noted above, some stocks are intended for recording sound information, whereas the stocks we usually put in cameras is optimized for picture information. Any transfer house should be able to get the audio track. Or you could also just run it through a 16mm sound projector and watch it that way. If you shoot Tri-x, like in the video I posted earlier, you could even conceivably pull the film out of the camera, process it at home, and run that very same film through a projector a few hours later and have a sync-sound film. I'm sure the kit was a miracle back in the day for being able to record synchronized sound motion pictures portably and without a studio full of equipment, but by today's standards it's pretty massive in size and weight. In addition to the heavy 50s era camera, there is a separate box for the tube amplifier, which controls the mic levels as well as the exposure setting for the lamp in the camera that makes the waveform exposures on the film. They do come up on ebay now and again, and I've even seen a few whole kits in spectacular condition go for a few hundred dollars. I've been tempted to get one just for the heck of it, and to be able to shoot and project synchronized picture and sound, but it's not something I really need. Especially for the space. And I know for a fact they are difficult to repair. Here's an example to give you and idea of the size: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auricon-Pro-600-Special-16mm-Sound-Camera-outfit-good-condition-/251598462149?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item3a946fdcc5 Here's one that went for $200 buy it now. Who knows if it works or not, but they do can be bought cheap: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auricon-Pro-600-Special-16mm-Sound-Camera-outfit-good-condition-/251598462149?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item3a946fdcc5

Interesting. I'd love to see some of those stocks put through an Auricon. I wonder what that would look/sound like.

I also want to add that there are 16mm cameras that record audio directly on the film optically: Auricons! However, these cameras and the audio equipment that accompanies them are very out of date and exceedingly cumbersome. Plus the audio quality is very very muddy, so I really doubt it's something you or anyone who wants to do a narrative sort of project would be interested in. But there are people who are just into vintage filmmaking equipment, and I really like that stuff. Here's a film someone shot earlier this year with an Auricon 600 and Kodak Tri-x. I think this is just super cool:

Film is film, so exposing it is the same regardless of whether you're shooting 35, 16, super 8, still cameras, etc. Shooting 35 will be more expensive than shooting 16. The camera package will be more expensive, and so will the lenses and other accessories. Not to mention that film will be more expensive, and you will shoot more of it. Where 400 feet of 16mm will get you 11 minutes of footage, in 35mm you'd need 1000 feet. 16mm cameras are also generally smaller, lighter, and more portable.

Wind-up cameras only shoot for 30 seconds or so at a time. But those motors are exceedingly uneven, meaning as the spring that powers the camera loses tension, the motor slows down. But even still, with cameras with electric powered motors, when you set them to 24 fps they actually turn at about 24 fps -- sometimes it's a little more, sometimes a little less. For picture, this isn't a problem as the change in framerate is so small it doesn't really effect motion. But for audio being recorded at a constant sample rate, those small changes cause the sound to drift around inconsistently. That makes it a real task to sync audio by eye, and mathematically impossible to get a hard sync. The solution to this is "crystal-sync". This uses a quartz crystal (like in a watch) to keep time and control the motor, keeping it spinning at a constant rate, and thus keeping any audio in hard sync. All you need to sync up the audio is to synchronize one point, usually a clapper slate at the beginning of the take. Slip the audio of the clap to the frame where the clappers meet, and the rest of the take will be in hard sync as well. Some crystal speed controllers only allow 24 or 25 fps, others allow control down to decimal points. That all depends on the camera. There are a lot of posts on the forum for camera recommendations. I'll list a few that I recommend here, but I won't go detail about which is better or has which features because there are already tons of threads about that and they tend to go on for days. One thing to note, non-sync cameras tend to be smaller/more handheld and much cheaper, but also much louder since nobody expects to record sound with them running. Non-sync cameras: Arri S, Bealieu R16, Bolex H16 Sync cameras: Eclair ACL, Eclair NPR, Arri SR (I, II, III), Aaton XTR, CP16

Not to dispute anything you're saying David, but a childhood friend of mine's father was the 2nd unit camera operator and actually took the helicopter shots. He told me about it once and said despite what everyone says about Kubrick, he was actually very hands-off and they were sort of told to do whatever they wanted. Edit: I actually googled his name and "The Shining" and this article came up: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0114.html

Film is not susceptible to x-rays after it has been processed. It is susceptible before that, so before exposure and after exposure, but once it's processed there's no risk from x-rays whatsoever. Having film hand checked to bypass x-rays is very possible in the US, but from what I have heard, it is fairly unlikely in other countries. But that depends on the country. And again, this is only for unprocessed film. Processed film can go through x-rays, be exposed to light, etc.

You're right, he must have meant Arris in general. That's interesting about Disney, though. Do you know if I could read more about that anywhere?

I agree it's better than cutting stocks, but it does make it that much harder to justify shooting film over digital. Especially to a producer. I was just reading today that there's going to be a Walking Dead spinoff show. I wonder if they'll be shooting super16....

I do not have experience with Chinese labs, but I'm sure there are some good ones. Sorry I can't help with that. Arri Ss are amazing cameras. They're solid, built like tanks. An old teacher of mine told me they used to attach them to airplane wings during WWII. So, wonderful cameras, but they are very loud. You would have a hard time getting clean dialogue with one running nearby, but yes it is technically possibly to get short pieces of dialogue and then sync it by eyeball during editorial. But again, unless the camera is far away from the actors, the camera is going to be audible. If you really want to be able to shoot sync sound and stay small and handheld, I'd recommend an Eclair ACL. I actually just bought one myself at an unbelievably low price (plus it's super16, has a video tap, crystal speed controller, custom rail supports and even an old wired remote follow focus!!). It didn't come with any lenses (which can easily be the expensive part these days), but it was well within your budget. Each Eclair package is different with respect to its features and accessories, but if you're willing to wait for a while and look around, they do come up now and then for very reasonable prices. So I'd keep that in mind. You should be able to find a nice Arri S with a decent zoom lens, or couple primes, and possibly with the external magazine for your budget. In fact, here is one from an very reputable seller with two magazine and mattebox for $1000 OBO. (No lens though, so it isn't a steal or anything although he is open to lower offers. Just showing you that it's within your budget.) Edit: I've decided to give away my secret backup Eclair since I already bought one: http://www.igorcamera.com/motion_picture_equipment.htm I've never bought anything from Igor Camera so I can't vouch for him or his services, but he has an Eclair ACL with Angenieux 12-120mm zoom lens, with two mags and battery listed for $875.

Here's a good article about how a Hazeltine color timer works: http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/September2006/DigiPrinterLights/page1.php I took a tour of Fotokem probably 10 years ago, and this was the color timer they were still using for photochemical prints. I'd imagine that hasn't changed, except far fewer people use it now. And here's the sales brochure from 1969. Pretty neat stuff: https://archive.org/stream/bitsavers_hazeltineHalyzerBrochureSep69_2848682/Hazeltine_Color_Film_Analyzer_Brochure_Sep69#page/n0/mode/2up

Oh yes, the El Cap is a beautiful theater, but since it's owned by Disney now they only show Disney movies. Plus they can be pretty expensive, since there's usually some sort of opening show as well. But it is a great theater and a nice piece of history. I also forgot to mention, if you're looking for a weird underground microcinema, definitely check out the Echo Park Film Center!! I can't talk that place up enough. It's really something special. http://www.echoparkfilmcenter.org/

No problem! Have a good trip!!

Indoor stuff should be shot on tungsten anyway, unless it's during the daytime and a lot of daylight is coming through the windows. But you're talking low-light, so I'm assuming you mostly want to shoot nighttime stuff / Christmas dinner / etc, so that should be tungsten anyway. If you want to stop down a bit, you can always compensate by pushing a stop during processing.

See something at the Egyptian Theater. That would be my #1. Also, there's the Arclight / Cineramadome, the New Beverly, and the Silent Movie Theater / The Cinefamily all in Hollywood (plus of course the Chinese Theater). And another pretty spectacular theater is at the Ace Hotel downtown (google pictures of it, it's gorgeous). Charlie Chaplin's old studio (today it's Henson Studios) is on La Brea. You can't get a tour, but it's pretty neat to see. Buster Keaton's old studio isn't there any more, so it's probably not worth it to go over there. It's a special effects shop now, but there's a plaque on the sidewalk if you want to see it / feel the connection. I used to live right there, so I always liked to walk by and say hi to Buster. You can go see the Bronson Caves very easily. That's where the batmobile exited the batcave from the old Batman tv show. It's also where Woody Allen finds the old VW bug in Sleeper, as well as tons of other movies. If you want to hike further up, you can get to the Hollywood sign, although it is a bit of a trek. The Griffith Observatory is nearby too (you can hike there from Bronson, but it's far) There's the Kodak building on Santa Monica and Las Palmas if that interests you, but of course it's empty now. If you had been coming a few months ago, I would have recommended picking up some movie film direct from Kodak at their will-call, but you can't do that anymore unfortunately. (Unless you want to travel out to the Pro-tek vaults in Burbank, but I have yet to do that so I can't speak to how easy it is) You could always visit Spectra Film and Video in Burbank. You can even take the subway; it drops you off like one block away from Spectra. LACMA might not necessarily be film-related, although they do show films, but I certainly would recommend going. Great museum. If you're into cars, there's the Petersen Automotive Museum across the street. I haven't been in a decade, but they had the James Bond Astin Martin DB5 at one time. I can't imagine it's still there, though. I'm sure there's a ton more stuff, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head at the moment. And I didn't even get into places to eat...

I actually like FCPX (I may be the only professional editor who does), but they've been improving it and cutting in it is very nice. HOWEVER, it is severely lacking in some departments. For example, because it doesn't have traditional tracks, you can't really mix audio. You can adjust levels with keyframes manually, but there is no way to ride faders while the picture plays, and of course there are no audio mixing surfaces that are compatible with it. Beyond that, working collaboratively in a studio setting can be a huge pain. With FCPX, they intend that you stay within FCP to do everything -- color correction, audio mixing, compositing, etc. If you need to export or conform with any of that stuff, you end up having to figure out a workaround, or purchase third-party apps (which don't work perfectly). When you work with AVID or FCP7, you end up relying heavily on keyboard shortcuts to do things quickly. That can make it feel faster, or like you're getting more work done, but I actually think that FCPX is more efficient in some ways. Finally, let me just say that I've had countless total nightmares trying to get FCPX to work properly. Most of those issues have been addressed in updates, but it certainly has its quirks.

Haha. Awesome.

Check the Kodak Lab Directory to find labs near you. (Make sure to check off Color Negative to find labs that process Vision 3) http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Support/Laboratories_Directory/index.htm