Gabe Agoado

Thanks for the info, seems like you had fun with this. A bit over the top for what I am looking for now, If I decide I want the VHS look I will probably try flipping through some VHS tapes to a look that I like and then try to replicate it with a plugin in editing software. I really hated Kung Fury so I don't know if I want to go that route though :p

Yea I'd be interested to know about that.

That seems like a good idea. I'll try running my phone through the line input and playing a music file and see if it will record onto a tape.

The microphones I have are brand new. They're mid-range Audio Technica shotgun mics that I bought last year, don't remember model number. The only thing that is old is the cassette recorder itself, which is a Sony TC-D5M. I got it specifically because I wanted the sound of analog recording with the cassette tape "hiss" and "crackle" in the background.

For using the 2 mono tracks as stereo would I be doing something like splitting the track in audio software and then panning each track to left and right?

I have this old cassette recorder I would like to test with a couple of microphones. It has left and right mirophone inputs (1/4" inch jacks) which I have read are mono and line inputs (1/8" jacks) which I have read are stereo. I assume if I were using 1 mic I could use a cable splitter and combine the left and right mono tracks onto 1 stereo track. However if I wanted to record with 2 separate microphones at the same time, could I record into the stereo line inputs, manually raise the levels enough to get close to 0db and get feasibly good results? I also considered using 1/4" stereo jacks into the mono inputs, but I imagine that doesn't work?

There's a fix for the blackmagic "black spot" problem in the updated firmware.

+1 to this post. If you feel like waiting for a time when it's on sale, the BMPCC will only cost you $500

Thanks guys.

I have been planning to shoot my senior thesis on Ultra 16mm with an anamorphic adapter so I can get top prize at my school's film festival. I just happened to come upon this clip shot with max8 and an anamorphic adapter, and I really like it. It got me thinking:1. Don't have to worry about inexperienced AC messing up film loading / don't need an AC at all. 2. Faster film changing. 3. Easier handheld work / smaller rig. 4. Lower film cost. 5. Super 8 camera with XL/variable shutter is helpful for low light. 6. With the grading it seems to hold up well against graded 16mm footage I've shot. I'm just curious what other people think about Max8, if it's worth it or not, and where I might be able to get a conversion done (I know Pro8mm can do it to a few cameras). For a point of reference, I was planning to shoot with a converted Scoopic MS and if I switched to Max8 I'd be looking to convert a Bauer A512 or Bealieu 4008 zm2

If you can pick up a used c100 at a discount, it's a great camera. Even at retail price it is a great camera. One of those cameras you technically don't need accessories for (other than lenses) to just go out and shoot with it. I would highly recommend the JVC LS-300. It's another type of camera you can just "grab and go" with. I find the color rendition to be nicer to my taste than the c100, and it can also shoot 4k whereas the c100 can only do 1080p and you can choose to shoot in rec709 or Log mode with the firmware update. It is a Super-35 sensor, but you can also crop the image in-camera in case you are using a lens on it that vignettes. It's only $400-$500 more than the C-100, so if money is no object then definitely something to take a look into imo. Then again, for $400 you could deck out a c100 with plenty of accessories.

I partially expected this thread to turn into a war of "digital vs. film", my fault for titling it what I did. I think what's missing in the argument is the perspective of a student, like me. As a kid I grew up using video cameras. My dad had his big shoulder-mount VHS camera he would use for shooting our talent shows and us doing stuff around the house. When we started to travel my dad would bring the handy-cam mini-DV camera and let us use it occasionally if we saw something we wanted to shoot. I shot my first attempts at movie-making on this same camera, edited them in windows movie-maker. To some of you, shooting VHS and Mini-DV is far from "digital". Digital is defined as this thing that is cold and sterile, and for some reason, having a physical tape in your hand makes the experience warmer. I used to rent VHS videos with my dad from our local Blockbuster all the time, but when DVD's became a thing, we switched to DVD. When I was 10 years old, I had know idea what the difference between "analog" or "digital" was, but I miss VHS because I associate VHS with the memory of spending time with my dad, but not because it's VHS. Fast forward to my first year of college. I went from no experience with film to shooting with film in every class. Despite the fact that we would eventually get the film digitized, I still noticed a distinct difference between what was shot on film and what was shot on digital. I still shoot on film now even though this is still a completely new thing to me, because I grew up watching old science fiction, fantasy and action movies and serials with my dad. I get it digitized because it means I don't have to walk around with an 8mm projector everywhere just to show people what I have done. But I also understand that the number of people hiring directors, DP's or camera operators for shooting professional projects on film is low compared to the number of people hiring for digital projects. To those who say there is no "film look" after the film is digitized, that is bullshit. I can walk into any movie in any theater with a digital projector and immediately be able to tell what is what. I don't think that makes one format superior to the other, it's just based on what the **(obscenity removed)** you want your movie to look like.

Tyler - Your video was great, superior in terms of content and explanation than anything I have found on youtube. I hope Blackmagic is giving you something for your effort, because you nearly have me sold on the BMPCC. David - Thank you for your explanation of log vs 709. This helped clarify the difference for me that I was seeing in the colors/image quality. You also seem to be making a strong case for BMPCC or cameras that shoot log in general, so another point goes to the BMPCC. Chris - After I read your post I did a lot of looking through reviews and footage comparisons of the GH4 to the BMPCC. The GH4 seems to bring a more complete package while the Blackmagic has the benefit of recording in raw. I can't know for sure which one I like better until I can get my hands on a GH4 from the school's equipment room, so definitely will do my own testing with it. Robin - You made good points as well, more positives for the blackmagic/log image style. You're right, on a more professional production with some money behind it I'd probably be looking more at renting an epic or an alexa for digital shooting. For my purposes right now I just want a camera that I can use to get really good footage and sell myself to directors/studios etc. For my thesis I'm actually shooting on 16mm film with a scoopic, but I want to have a digital camera going at the same time to have as a backup in case their are issues with the film in post.

I have the option of buying either a JVC GY-HM170u or a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera for my student thesis and beyond. I have gotten a chance to test the JVC but not the Blackmagic. The JVC seems to be more of a documentary-style camera. I really like that it can shoot 4k and makes you into a 1-man production with the top-handle addition. However I will probably always be recording sound separately on real productions. I want something that can offer a cinematic look. I am STUPID when it comes to digital cameras. All of my training has been on film. I am leaning towards the blackmagic, however I don't really understand the difference between the CMOS and the super-16 sensor and why the blackmagic footage on youtube always looks crisp and dynamic and the footage I've shot with the JVC (while beautiful) has a lot more digital noise and looks flat (despite tweaking settings to try and get a better look) I know this is probably an easy question to answer for most of you (and once again, I am S-T-U-P-I-D when it comes to digital, so please explain in baby terms), but is it just a matter of the color-grading and adding filters in post (I didn't do any color grading to the JVC footage), or is it just that the Blackmagic is a better designed camera for the purposes of shooting with a cinematic/film style (super-16mm sensor w/ external lens vs CMOS sensor with built-in lens)?

I have one of the Du-All battery packs that puts out 12v and comes with 4-pin XLR connector. I've seen plenty of Canon 4 pin plugs online. I would like to make a cable that could connect the 4 pin XLR connector to the 4 pin canon plug. Has anyone done something like this, and if so, what were the result? If not, does anyone know of a company that can make these? I know that Du-All and Film Group can do them for like $80, but I thought maybe a surplus store might be able to wire them up for me for a lower cost.

365 USD and you have a deal.

I am actually in need of the crystal-sync motor as well. I'd be happy to buy that along with 2 of the 60m magazines. Give me your price for the motor + Magazines Thanks.

how much would you be wanting for 2 of the 60m magazines?

Looking to buy: 1. Elmo C-300 with the DS-8 Magazine back and eyepiece extender, etc. 2. A Konvas 2M Lens and Magazines (OCT/OST-19 Mount); Looking for a decent used lens to start me off and some used magazines, don't have to be in great condition. 3. A battery charger for the Scoopic MS 12v battery. Thanks for reading/replying to my post.

Cool beans. Thanks ^

Curious if DS8 film would project on a Super-8 projector, for DIY telecine. Anyone tried this?

If you're looking for a simple point-and-shoot, the bell and howell T20 XL is a good choice. It runs at 18fps with a f1.4 10-20 zoom lens, auto exposure, fixed focus and auto/manual zoom. The viewfinder is also surprisingly bright. You can find them on Ebay for very cheap, I got mine for 5$, threw batteries in and it worked great. Apparently with limited features comes low maintenance. If you're looking for something with more features, as stated by the previous poster, the simpler canon cameras are nice options, as are some of the simpler nizo's, like the "S" series. They can usually go for $10-40 BEWARE that most of these cameras are either auto exposure, or have manual exposure that is tied to the auto exposure; if you get something with dead exposure you are screwed. If you're willing to pay a bit more, you could get a canon 814 that has a fully manual exposure option. You can find them anywhere from $30-500 depending on the model and condition.

was surprised at how good the quality of this is. Did you add anything to it in the editing process or was it just the quality of the R100 stock? Great lighting anyway, nice composition.

I'm looking to buy an Elmo C-300 Tri Filmmatic camera with specifically the Double-Super 8 magazine that can take 100 ft rolls, the side mounted hand grip, and extension for the viewfinder so it can be used with the DS8 Mag. Any additional excessories like other magazine backs, battery pack or case are great. If you've got one that you'd part with and would like to see go to a good home, I am definitely going to get a lot of use out of it for making extended double exposures in my super-8 movies. Thanks.

I've seen the abbreviation "XL" thrown around a lot in regards to cameras, my question is this: Given 2 cameras (super-8) of the same brand and model, with the same lenses, one being a "XL" version and the other a regular version, Does the increased shutter angle of the XL camera (like 220 degrees versus 150 degrees) really make all the difference when it comes down to low-light shooting, or would a fast lens (say f1.2) fully open, be able to adequately pick up enough light to get a good image even with the 150 degree shutter? I'm also curious if the conditions are the same when it comes to digital shooting, like a Canon's GL2 versus the XL2. Would the difference between the 1/3 sec. shutter speed of the XL2 and the 1/8 sec. shutter speed of the GL2 really make or break a low-light shoot?