Mark A. Leuchter

I've heard the same from several people, Will. And I have seen lots of really good stuff from the BMPCC. Adrian (see earlier in this thread) made a good case for it. BUT...I will probably be renting, not buying, my camera. The BMPCC seems to require a ton of accessories to be production-ready, and the footage I've seen from it doesn't really look **better** (though this is a subjective term, I know...)than what I've seen out of the Ikonoskop or the Bolex. That being the case...simplicity is a very big motivation for me. My experience as a DP has been with Super 16mm film exclusively, and that was 15 years ago (I became a professor in the interim in a field not related at all to filmmaking!), so I am finding myself very attracted to the devices that are fairly streamlined and (partially) idiot-proof. Moreover, as a director...I like wide angle shooting with few closeups. On the last film I made, our "normal" lens was the Optar 9.5mm or, sometimes, the Optar 12mm. From what I gather, I can use the oldie-but-goodie Kern Switar 10mm on the Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop or even the newer, very nice Kinoptik 9mm, and get what I'm after that way and still go handheld quite easily. On the BMPCC -- and correct me if I'm wrong! -- I would need to outfit the camera with quite a bit of support accessories to get a wide angle lens on it. I think we're talking a Super 35 sized sensor, so it would be an 18mm or so, but still...it seems like it would require more gear to get that to happen, which is an expense I want to avoid. Finally, the BMPCC isn't so great on recording audio, and the Bolex and Ikonoskop seem to be much better that way...a nice way to simplify things further when on location.

All of this has been very helpful for me -- so I thank everyone for contributing their perspectives. I am no longer considering B&W...after giving it a lot of thought, color (with subtle tones, a little desaturated) will work better for my project. After doing a lot of reading and research, it seems like I have three really good options, determined by a combination of factors, chief among them being cost-efficiency and handheld viability (a lot of shots will be handheld/MOS and require a low-profile camera so as not to draw too much attention): Option 1 - use the Digital Bolex D-16, equipped with a few good but small c-mount primes (maybe the Kinoptic 9mm, and a few Switars?) and a small external viewfinder. The test footage I've seen looks REALLY nice, it's small and good for handheld, and the reports are that it is good for recording audio as well so I could use it for my sync-sound dialogue scenes. An alternate option for the same purposes would be to use the Ikonoskop A-Cam Dii, which looks to me like it produces images of equal quality to the Digital Bolex, and it is obviously also a low-profile machine. Post-shoot workflow still is a new thing for me to wrap my head around, but the discussions I've seen lead me to believe it's not overwhelming to learn. Option 2 - use the Canon EOS C300. These seem to be more available from rental houses. it's not tiny like the Bolex or Ikonoskop...but it's not big, either, and equipped with a prime, it could be mobile/low profile enough. The imagery it can produce is beautiful. but I am concerned also about accessories, and the post-shoot workflow options aren't crystal clear to me....and even though they are more available to rent, they ain't cheap. Option 3 - shoot Super 16. I've got access to Aaton cameras and good lenses, as well as a Super-16 Bolex for low profile/MOS stuff, virtually for free (through my university), and I've shot in that format years ago and am confident with doing so again. And it seems that scanning the neg to hi res (2K, yes?) then results in exactly the same media files that the digitial cameras produce, so workflow from that point onward is effectively the same. BUT -- everyone I've spoken to, and several of you out here, have noted that stock and processing might be cost-prohibitive (I guess even with trying to compete against digital, a lower demand leads to fewer resources for folks still shooting on film, so costs haven't really decreased since I last made a film...)Plus -- having separate audio recording is one more little headache to worry about, and I like the idea of streamlining these things while shooting. As far as I am concerned, all three options would produce the sort of imagery/image quality I'm looking for. Super 16mm certainly would, and the tests from the digital cameras mentioned above prove that they'd do just as nice a job for what I'm after. Of all the options, actually, Option 1 (Digital Bolex/Ikonoskop) is the most appealing to me...but it doesn't look like there are many places in the Philly/NJ/NY area where I could manage to get a hold of one to rent for a few weekends next fall. I'd be appreciative if any of you could suggest places or even individuals who might have those resources.

After reading through this thread and seeing "BMPCC", I had no idea what you folks were referring to. Well, I figured it out, and...wow. From the samples I've seen, it is quite an excellent device in so many respects. Though the entire process of color grading is a little intimidating to me -- when I used to shoot on S16, that was something that the genuises at the transfer/post house used to do for me, and the software for the BMPCC looks complicated. But, from what I can tell, the image quality potential is superb and with the right lighting and lenses, rivals a lot of the S16 footage I've seen. Given its tiny size and features, I might have to go with this BMPCC to make my short in terms of capturing raw footage. But I am still sort of overwhelmed by what I can do with it...i.e., how to get it from the camera memory card into a system that can do some color correction and then into the editing software (Avid? Do people still use Avid??). It seems to me to be between the BMPCC and shooting on standard 16 and then transferring that to digital (since I can run around guerrilla-style with a Bolex and simple tripod for most of my footage rather than lugging around an Aaton, SR, and related hardware). The BMPCC would actually be easier to do that with, as far as I can tell, though I can wrap my head around post-production with a 16mm camera negative and the post process with the BMPCC still seems mysterious to me. Any opinions on one or the other here?

Bill -- was that in Standard 16mm? Got a clip available online? Would love to see how it turned out!

So, even if the image is getting scanned in hi-res on Standard 16, the resolution loss compared to a Super 16 neg is noticable? My curiosity about using standard 16 is mostly because I can sneak a Bolex pretty much anywhere and get almost all of my MOS shots (and the film will not have a lot of dialogue, so much of what happens is MOS. I could actually get about 70% of the film shot that way, which would minimize the crew I would require, the space I would need, and the time it would take to set up shots and work through the shotlist. Obviously, this is very appealing when working on a shoestring (and my budget is REALLY tiny), and I wouldn't be able to do it if I went with solely the Super 16 option...I'd have to use the XTR or Arri SR for that, and schlep along all the stuff one needs with those things. T So, if the loss of resolution/sharpness in the digital process with Standard 16 is only minor or relatively negligible compared to Super 16, but can still yield nice results superior to digital...it might be the right compromise for this project. Given what I've just said above, I wonder if you would agree. But I am definitely getting the sense from you folks that digital is not the best option here.

Thanks again, everyone, for sharing your opinions. David, I want to follow up on a point you made, as it's something I was thinking about. If I'm transferring film footage into a really good system like ProRes...then why not just shoot in STANDARD 16mm? Since I'll be finishing in a digital format and screening it in a digital format (I don't plan on striking a print for a festival-bound short film), couldn't I just shoot on standard 16mm framed for 16 x 9, and have THAT scanned at really high resolution into the digital format without losing a lot of resolution or sharpness during the process? This is opposed to doing a blow up from a cropped standard 16 frame, where image degradation would really suffer as opposed to an original Super 16 negative. But if it's going into a digital transfer process, wouldn't the image quality of a good standard 16mm image translate well?

Brian and Adrian...thanks for the tips. I am a professor at Temple University in Philly, and they have both S16 equipment and digital equipment at the film school that I can secure essentially for free. But of course, their cameras are not the Red or Alexa. Basically, I could use their Aaton A-Minima or XTR if I go S16, or use their Sony HVR-Z1U or Panasonic DVX 100a if I go digital. I've used the Aatons in the past and am confident with them and the S16 format...but then, we're talking some pretty big bucks in terms of budget for stock, transfer, sound-synching, etc., As for the Sony or Panasonic options -- I genuinely have no idea what sort of beasts they are. I am sure it would be easier/more economical to shoot with them, but I don't know what the end result will look like. Unless those Philly/Jersey rental houses will let me use stuff for ridiculously cheap or work on the barter system (I make custom fuzz pedals and very good chocolate chip cookies, but...I'm a realist...) I will have to go with the free resources at the university. So, I might be able to get S16 cameras for free, but end up with pretty high related costs. I might be able to get digital cameras for free and have lower related costs, but with really "video-y" looking imagery. Unless the Sony and Panasonic options noted above are actually good options, in your opinions. Finally, in response to your comment, Brian, about the story I am going to tell...it's a small domestic story, mostly about a 10 year old kid, his single mother, his accidental discovery that she has a sex life, and the way this shakes up his world. Sort of a "chamber" piece with few characters and locations. I initially thought of this as a black and white sort of thing (a la Bergman's The Silence), which is why I immediately thought film was the best option. But if the Sony/Panasocnic cameras are suitable, I'm open to using them.

Hello everyone, I'm going to be making a short film in the fall, and it's been a LONG time since I've shot anything...about 14 years. So I am certain a LOT has changed. My short film will be about 10-11 minutes, and will probably be something made for film festival screenings. I spoke with a NY based producer the other day, and he was adamant that I should shoot the project on digitial rather than on standard 16 or Super 16. He argued that it would save tremendous amounts of money, offer much greater flexibility during shooting and editing, and the cameras and lenses have gotten so good that they yield high resolution, professional-grade imagery that approaches the 16/S 16 film format. Now, I KNOW, empirically, that film imagery is better than digitial imagery, so you don't have to sell me on how a project carefully produced on Super-16 will look better than the same project carefully produced on HD-digital. However, I am clueless about how far digital has advanced in the last several years. So, factoring in cost, flexibility, final screening format, etc., does it make sense for me to plan to shoot my short on digital? When I was last in the filmmaking world, projects shot on digital didn't command attention or respect on the festival circuit, and certainly couldn't hold a candle to a well-shot S16 project on the visual level. But are things different now? I know an HD-digital short film won't win a cinematography award when going up against S16 or 35mm projects, but I am not too concerned with that -- I'm more concerned with the imagery being good enough to not impede the storytelling. Are people doing this and are HD projects able to command the same attention as S16 projects at festivals?