Jon Kukla

Can you test? I'd borrow an old 16mm camera and just run maybe 100 feet total and test different exposure levels. Also, can you affordably push the film? How fast will your lens set be? My hunch is that you're probably fine with the lamp flicker issue in that they're probably running on mains. Just make certain that your Hz-fps-shutter angle relationship is solid. What speed are you planning on shooting at?

Depends what you want to do. Loading and running an older and smaller 16mm camera like the Arri S or the K3 is very easy as far as loading and running. If you're in the market for larger pro-cameras like the Aatons and Arri SR or 416, you probably will need a run-through on the loading and some of the basic functions, although I don't think that either are particularly difficult. Operation-wise, the first two I mentioned are very lightweight and only take 100' spools (although neither is silent). The Aaton was specifically designed for shoulder-usage, as was the 416. The SR is slightly less handheld-friendly, but you can easily rent out a shoulder extension piece for that purpose. (The total weight will be more than the other cameras, though.) If you really want to get down and dirty with the cameras just for familiarity's sake, save your money and find a rental house that will let you sit down and learn the equipment on a day when you and they are both free. They won't take kindly to your wanting to use the opportunity to shoot a short for free, but if you just wanna roll a smallish quantity of film for test purposes and can supply your own, you probably won't incite anyone's wrath. (Also, don't buy fresh film for practicing loading - the rental house should be able to provide you junk stock for free.)

One thing that was mentioned in the GBCT Techs magazine maybe a year ago was that 35mm format lenses sometimes have a problem in 16mm cameras in that the extra width of the image circle creates more light bouncing around the mount, which may have some veiling effect in the gate. It was all very circumstantial and controversial even there, but apparently it was noted by the rental houses and there were some minor but important modifications made to counteract this. To what extent this knowledge has circulated around the rental houses and so forth, I'm not certain. I'll try to look up the issue so as to provide a scan of the article.

That is a fair point. It looks like the MB16 and 18 can't quite make it (8mm and 7mm, respectively). However, the LMB5 can just make 6mm. Oftentimes, though, the superwide lenses come with their own clip-on hoods. Depends on the rental house.

Truthfully, I'd find an editing forum and ask there first! :P After all, those guys deal with this stuff everyday for a living. Plenty of us here do dabble in editing, but I'm guessing not enough to deal with complex plug-in issues. Or maybe that's just me.

What about just using a lower-contrast stock like the Kodak 500T Expression or the Fuji 400T? Surely this is the easiest option because you don't have to worry about the additional costs of forced processing and the stock has more latitude to play around with in post anyway. I don't know the specifics of your project, so there might be a good reason NOT to do this, but given no information otherwise, I'd definitely look into it. The biggest difference in theory should be that the pulled film has less grain, but this may not actually be perceptible by the time it works its way through the video transfer, especially if you've already done a bit of grading on the image, which can introduce noise anyway...

The Cooke S4 lenses only go to 12mm. All of them are 110mm diameter except the 12mm, which is 156mm and thus needs the MB14 (6.6x6.6). However, if you're shooting on S16 and can get the SK4 primes, they include 6mm, 9.5mm, and 12mm, and all of them are 110mm diameter, so you'd be fine for an MB16 (4x4) or MB18 (4x5.65). So the question is - are you on 35mm or 16? And...if 16, are you sure that you're using SK4s for the wide end?

Also almost always shot Super 35 whether 3 or 4 perf - there's no need to reserve space for a married print soundtrack.

This is a bad idea - many places do deals on a case-by-case basis, and generally don't take kindly to someone saying "but you did film X for price Y! Not fair!" I mean, I'm not against recommending places that you feel did a good deal, but I wouldn't try to create price comparison charts, because pricing is always a fluid thing. As for posthouse.com (CinePost), they farm out their processing to CineFilm in Atlanta. I've no idea if they do package deals or if it would be cheaper to go directly with the lab and then go to CP for transfer, though. They have a Rank Mk 3. You can also get a much better price if you're willing to do a standby transfer (slower turnaround).

I used to project lots of classic b/w films at a rep theater on a changeover system, and sometimes it's just the difference in color between the lamps - usually on the magenta/green axis. The thing is that your color perception will adapt until the image appears completely monochrome - which is a combination of the Abney effect and color opposition. When the reel change occurs, this sudden shift will highlight your perceptive "color bias". In other words, your mind will time a slightly magenta b/w image by adding green. When the reel shifts to a neutral balance, this reel will briefly appear greenish. But even if it were slightly green, you'd also cognitively shift it back to b/w anyway. Does that make sense?

If you're doing tests for an upcoming shoot which will send the lab/telecine facility a bit of business their way, then it shouldn't be difficult to get them to handle some tests for free. Just make certain to run how much you're planning on shooting for test through them first, so there's no hard feelings either way. Another thing with tests is that generally when dealing with smaller quantities of film, it can be about the same cost if not cheaper to actually get a film print back. Since telecine has fixed minimum setup and transfer time costs, sometimes the per-foot economics of printing work in your favor. This has the advantage of higher quality and precise inspection on a big screen. If you don't have access to a 16mm projector, most places should have the facility to screen it for you at their location. Anyway, good luck and hope all goes well!

If you already know you're going through Clairmont, then I'd call them up and discuss the options, preferences, and pros/cons there first. You can always call in a third party if you find that they can't assuage you.

If it's not too late, I'd also advise to hold off shooting until you've got a lightmeter, unless you have compelling reasons otherwise. Film is too expensive to be used blindly - if things work (or don't work), you're gonna want to know why. Minimizing potential for error is essential. I'm not saying don't experiment - quite the opposite - but there's no point in the exercise if you have no real idea what's going on.

I may not be as familiar with Spielberg's earlier work, but tell me where evidence exists that Spielberg is a competent lighting cameraman? I'm sure he has awareness of technique and technical issues to a fair degree - much as many great directors do - but to compare his involvement to Kubrick's? I question that.

Just as a general answer to the question, I'd say get something on the more affordable side of the spectrum - you tend not to need most of the bells and whistles that get added on successively costlier models. My current one has pliers, a knife, scissors, philips head and two different sized flat heads, and a bottle opener. I use everything but the opener, but don't really find myself needing much else. My model is the Fuse, IIRC. I know some people who regularly use the serrated blade/mini-saw, but I've never had cause to, and if you really have something that tough, probably best to go get the real tools. But that's all just my $120 meds (5 cents in Cuba).

With an anamorphic lens, you have - essentially - two lenses: a prime lens and an anamorphic lens, which are used together in conjunction. (In the early days, some of the anamorphic lenses actually were primes with anamorphosers that needed to be added and calibrated by hand everytime a lens was changed.) In short, you have your spherical focus and your anamorphism "focus" for the power of the anamorphic element. The old CinemaScope lenses simply set the anamorphic element's focus to maximum "DoF" (I'm putting quotes around these terms bc the technical optical concepts are slightly different) - which is why they restricted subjects from approaching closer than about six feet. Panavision's unique concept was to use dual rotating anamorphic elements to maintain a constant 2x anamorphic power which could also track with the focal plane. This eliminated the so-called mumps problem of close subject matter, but also made the falloff more pronounced. The vertical oval bokeh is thus the result of the out of focus background being subjected to a higher than 2x anamorphic power, which makes it look over-squeezed. Make sense?

How much magenta did you add with the Varicon? I'm just curious bc I've been sitting in on some telecine work on very old faded prints, and it's really amazing just how pink/magenta the prints are. Luckily the colorist was very good and was able to bring back most of the yellow/green/blue spectrum, but of course it's not quite what the original was.

He was a very nice guy by all accounts. I only had the fortune to speak to him once briefly at the BSC show last year, but it was a pleasure. (We talked a bit about Hamlet.) Btw, it's Thomson, IIRC.

Good luck finding companies (at every step of the way) willing to handle nitrate.

I'd love to help you, as I'm staying in Atlanta for a couple of months. Unfortunately I have a family commitment up the East Coast right during those dates. However, just a general question which I'm certain will be informative for other potential candidates, too: is there a budget for equipment? Specifically, the first things I'd want to get would be lights, grips, and lenses (w/adapter). Not necessarily an 18-wheeler full or anything, but maybe a carload's worth would be enough to "do the job right".

The reason that lenses tend not to dip much below T1.3 has less to do with transmission factors and more to do with the image falling apart at such potential apertures bc of general optics principles. It's not that they can't/haven't been made before, but more what you have to trade-off for that. And with modern emulsions and fast lenses, there's less need to pursue such a target.

Cross processed or with E6 development?

Yes...in theory. The reality is that there are as many horror stories as not about airport hand inspections - sometimes from places that really should know better. If you have to do it, you have to, but I would always avoid taking undeveloped film on a plane if possible. (And word to the wise: in hand luggage - they will fog the hell out of everything checked.)

If it's three years old, even with ideal storage conditions, it's still going to be subjected to a lot of gamma radiation (unavoidable), which will raise the base fog and increase graininess. 200T should be okay, but not fabulous. I would overexpose a full stop - half a stop for the aging and half a stop as per normal overexposure protection. And I also agree - pulling is a bad idea - you're overexposing to counteract the effects of the aging. If you don't fully develop, it defeats the purpose, unless you were intending to pull for aesthetic reasons (in which case I'd advise overexposing two stops and pulling one - but DEFINITELY test that first).

Given the weights you're working with, if you want a handheld look without the pain, I'd suggest putting the camera on a fluid head on top of a vibration isolator. You can actually use the isolator to introduce some random movement, in conjunction with the fluid head. If you want the camera to track, there's no reason why it can't all be placed on a dolly. That's my two cents. Of course, I have no idea of your specific context. Good luck in any case! :)