Matt Wells

You could ask Soho images for a reel. If you want to buy film, then the best deal I have found in the UK is direct from Fuji - phone them and say you are a low budget / small time / student or whatever and you want some film. They have some great emulsions. http://www.motion.fuji.co.uk/homepage/index.html When you want to process speak to Len Thornton at Soho images in London and ask for his best price to process what you have. http://www.sohoimages.com Matt.

Try www.filmshooting.com - the forum there would be very helpful, as will this forum too. You do not have to have an electric motor, but forget about hand cranking - this went out in about 1920. You should be able to sync it up very easily after you have transferred you film to tape and are editing it on your computer. With your budget, you should acquire either a Bolex H16 (they come in a variety of forms, some with clockwork motor others with electric motor) or a Beaulieu R16, or a Canon Scoopic. I have a Beaulieu so would be biased. There are nice examples of these cameras around, and there are also nasty ones - just like cars. take time to find the right one. You can crop no problem. There will be some loss of resolution and increased grain (NB grain, not pixles), but it will still look like a cracking video. IMHO it is really not difficult to get great looking images from 16mm for music videos, especially with the latest film stocks available from Kodak and Fuji. It is however very difficult to stop video looking like video. Have fun Matt

OK, in response to the other thread about CGI and minitures, I though it would be interesting to hear form people which minitures and CGI in films most stick in their minds as their favourite. For me, I think that there are two Bond films that really stand out. First, The Spy who Loved Me. There is an enourmous super tanker that swallows submarines. They wanted to rent an empty tanker from Shell and use it to shoot the deck scenes and aerial shots. Shell told them that they had a tanker leaving South Africa and they could use it for free, provided they insured it - this sounded great until they discovered that it would be £50,000 a DAY to insure. Derek Meddings therefore set to work and made a 20 odd foot replica and mounted an outboard engine inside. It looks amazing, especially the areial shots. So good infact that the Shell executives invited to an early screening wanted to know where they had got the real tanker from. Second, Moonraker, even with a budget of $38m in 1978, they had to think of a way of shooting the laser space fight scene at the end of the film that was economical. Derek Meddings, again, built a big model of the space station at Pinewood, and floated actors on cables and continiously back wound the film in camera - I think one stip of negative had passed through 98 times. At the end they got a pair of shot guns and blew loads of holes in the model whilst filming it.

Dollar is certainly in our favour for those of us in the UK almost 2 to the £ at the moment, but looking at, for example, the prices listed at 3516 to be honest the saving is marginal over what I can get here in London / Birmingham. For example they quote $0.18 per foot for 16mm colour neg process only. I can get it for £0.10p in London fully prepped for telecine, so there is basically no saving, and then you have to factor in shipping cost and risk. Obviously they might negotiate. It is something I have considered though in the past. Matt

I put in a call to Soho images a few months ago and I can still remember the professional and prompt response. Len Thornton phoned me back within 10 minutes to quote me on some 16mm. He had never spoken to me before and I had never dealt with Soho Images before. I wont post the price here so as not to intrude on any discussion of prices others may have with them, but suffice to say I thought it was keen and they did the work for me - and it was only 600ft (which he knew before phoning me) I don't care how many calls they have each hour - (and they probably don't have that many) they are interested. If you are getting a blank response you need to assert yourself more. You need to sound business like and serious - unfortunately if you sound all arty and like you couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery (which I'm afraid most small time filmsmakers couldn't) then nobody will be interested be they a lab or any other business - and understandably. (by the way I'm not insinuating you are like the above description as I don't know you - I'm just speaking hyperthetically) Matt

Not it is not that grainy - but the still is heavily compressed. The grain is not as bad as some make out - although I think that the 7218 is where the real improvement has come in terms of grain - it is not all that grainer than the 7217, which makes the 18 a really versative stock. Of course there is grain, but then this is Super8 :D John - I can't remember the exposue - I would have taken a quick incident reading, but I made no notes. Shortly after this point I locked my keys in the car, and had to break in - everything was rather manic. Cheers, Matt

For a bit more detail: is an excerpt from an e-mail from the Lab. Matt

Just received a response from the lab - they tell me it is a processing fault. There were a couple of days when something was not right with the machine. For a bit more detail: is an excerpt from an e-mail from the Lab. The is good news, because at least I now know the camera is OK, and I'm planning to use it over Christmas. Matt

Thanks for that - I don't think I would ever want to shoot weddings professionally - just a total nightmare responsibility - the stuff above was for free for a friend so they can't really complain. Matt.

Thats right - the 8 was for an alternative look and is to cut with the 16 and some DV. However the Lab have now apologised and confirmed to me that they had a problem with their machine for a couple of days around the time when this was processed. Looks like it's going to have to look like an "effect" I knew I shouldn't have agreed to shoot at a wedding. Matt

Many thanks for that Dominic, very helpful. The wide mark on the right is constant throughout the 400ft = 8 rolls of Super8 of course. It does not alter near camera stops. Also, having examined the negative with a magnifing glass, the mark weaves on and off the frame area appearing on the frame area for about 10 frames and then off for 10 frames - with the same frequency throughout the footage. The marks on the right are pretty much present all the time, but with varying degree of intensity. They appear as just vertical "scratches" without any weave. Does anyone know if there is any way of removing the marks? Probably quite a job I know :( Cheers, Matt

Thanks for that John, I hoped you were around with some ideas. I will examine the camera, although these marks are present for the entire 400ft, and not with a previous batch of negative shot a couple of months earlier. Many thanks, Matt

Thanks for the advice - I will certainly follow it. Cheers Matt

The above is a super8 frame of 7217 vision2 200T negative. Had a call from my Telecine guy yesterday "The 16mm you gave me [the 7212 100T] that looks great, but the Super8 - there seems to be a serious problem - blue marks for pretty much the duration of the 400ft." I go down and we examined the footage - Basically there are all these blue marks, a wide one continiously weaves in and out every other second (about) on the right, and the second are continious blue "scratches" that are on the left half of the frame. In examining the negative with a magnifing glass the marks can be seen clearly too. The camera was my recently overhauled (by Bjorn Andersson in Sweden) 4008ZM which has previously performed fine with K40 as well as Vision negative. All of this 400ft is either Vision2 200T or V2 500T, all processed and prepped for telecine at the same time by Andec in Berlin. Have a look at the frame I have posted. The blue mark on the right is the one that weaves around on and off the frame, and on the left are some more continious lines, again blue. I would be most grateful for some input. My personal feeling is that this is a processing problem. When I look at the negative the marks look "liquid" The whole situation is made worse because the footage is of a friends wedding I had agreed to film - and other than the marks I am really pleased with the results, especially some stuff in very low light with the 500. Cheers, Matt

The above is a super8 frame of 7217 vision2 200T negative. Had a call from my Telecine guy yesterday "The 16mm you gave me [the 7212 100T] that looks great, but the Super8 - there seems to be a serious problem - blue marks for pretty much the duration of the 400ft." I go down and we examined the footage - Basically there are all these blue marks, a wide one continiously weaves in and out every other second (about) on the right, and the second are continious blue "scratches" that are on the left half of the frame. In examining the negative with a magnifing glass the marks can be seen clearly too. The camera was my recently overhauled (by Bjorn Andersson in Sweden) 4008ZM which has previously performed fine with K40 as well as Vision negative. All of this 400ft is either Vision2 200T or V2 500T, all processed and prepped for telecine at the same time by Andec in Berlin. Have a look at the frame I have posted. The blue mark on the right is the one that weaves around on and off the frame, and on the left are some more continious lines, again blue. I would be most grateful for some input. My personal feeling is that this is a processing problem. When I look at the negative the marks look "liquid" The whole situation is made worse because the footage is of a friends wedding I had agreed to film - and other than the marks I am really pleased with the results, especially some stuff in very low light with the 500. Cheers, Matt

Thanks for that David

Just some opinion wanted. In terms of exposing the super8 negative stocks, I tend to overexpose by say half a stop minimum, which helps to reduce grain. Sometimes when I have underexposed the results are horrid excessive grain. Does anyone else have any experiences here? Matt

Super8 is what it is - I love it because it is fun to use and the quality and distinctive look are what I want sometimes. The question should not be EITHER 16mm OR Super8 - the choice is sometimes economic and sometimes (probably most of the time) artistic. It is also the simplest and quickest way of shooting motion picture film - I have shot super8 where 16mm gear would have been very impractical - eg whilst snowboarding with the camera hanging from my neck. Often in these debates people forget of the ease of loading and compactness of super8 equipment. The format has its place, and in terms of quality it can be excellent, but 16mm will always show more detail and greater clarity because the negative is so much larger. It just depends what you want. Super8 cut with DV can give an excellent effect. Matt

I get so bored with people talking about 28 days later. They didn't just shoot the footage and blow it straight up to 35mm. A lot of cash was spent doctoring and improving the images. The end result suited the movie Super16 would have suited it much better. Standard 16 would have suited it better. 16mm would have been easier to light 16mm would have blown up better. 16mm cameras are cooler B) Matt

I shot a couple of rolls of the Fuji Reala as a test in low, mixed lighting, which included, chiefly, a city street, lined with shops, after dark. Every shop emiting different light levels / colour temperature. I was shooting std.16mm. I have to say I was impressed with the low level of grain, and in particular the ability to cope with the multitude of different light sources - the results looked superb and I think you would have to try hard to expose such a stock wrongly. Ideal for shooting "off the hip". I think that the Kodak 7218 is worth a good look - I'm just waiting for some of this back from telecine - but in Super8. Have fun Matt

Hi there, Just to say, I am moderating the Beaulieu R16 forum now and, whilst it is never likely to be the busiest forum on the web, it would be great to see some more posts, and not just about the camera itself but also any topic connected with the R16. http://p205.ezboard.com/fbeaulieur16usersfrm1 Many thanks, Matt

I'm sorry but you are just talking utter rubbish. Telecine houses stay in business because the work is there. Please try telephoning somewhere like Soho Images and tell them you are making a low budget short / music video and you want some 16mm processed, prepped, and transfered. You will be able to negotiate a very keen deal. If you cant then you arn't trying very hard. Soho even have a person dedicated to dealing with the "low budgeters". I regularly use a telecine facility in Birmingham. The last stuff he did for me consisted of: - 1 hour running time in super8: £120 - tape £included - and they currently have some more 8 and some 16mm - they use a Rank Cintel of course. I would say for everything else there's Mastercard, but you don't need one. I'm sorry to be so blunt. Matt

Fuji have told me that they offer to load MP into 35mm still cartridges for DP's to test the stocks. Simply haveing the same ASA will not yield the same results, apart from the emulsion's sensitivity to light. Perfs are the same Matt

There are a couple of thing you can try here. First, check that there is not a light on on the side of the camera indicating that it is ready to perform a transition such as a fade or dissolve. With these Nizo's it is easy to accidentally push the button within the rotating transition switch and this then puts this light on and the comera will not function until you depress the trigger and this button at the same time - making you think the camera is dead. Whats more it 'remembers' if the button has been depressed, even if you take the batteries out (I think). The next think you could try is to check the battery box is seating correctly - there are two little spikes protruding from the top. take a look at the contacts down the handle that these spikes have to touch and make sure they are clean and correctly positioned. Also, as a matter of course, buy new batteries if you have not already done so, ideally the 1.2v rechargeables as they produce a constant 1.2v as opposed to the 1.5v disposables that gradually wither away. Hope this is of some help, Matt

There is so much "widescreen" around, I think that 4X3 will, become fashionable at some point, not for everything, but in certain circumstances. Matt