schnozzle

Oh, I see. Well that makes sense. Yeah, all of the cameras I'm looking at predate the Arri, then, so that's fine. So you modified a camera used to shoot Harvey Krumpet? Cool!

Thanks for the reply, Bruce... Although...do cameras commonly used for animation, like 16mm Bolexes, do they have focal-plane shutters? What about those old hand-cranked cameras animation studios used in the 20's and 30's? I have to admit I don't actually know.

Has anyone tried using a non-pin-registered camera to shoot animation in 35mm? Assuming there wouldn't be any multiple exposures involved, that is. I ask because I ran across a reference to an animator who shot a feature-length stop motion film in the mid-80's with a 1920's-era Debrie Parvo, which I'm pretty sure isn't pin registered. Now I wonder how well such a thing might work nowadays.

Well, those are all good questions. The main reason I was going to shoot 16mm is that I own an old Bolex. This project is going to be a cutout film, rather than cel animation, and there would be a homemade animation stand that allows for cutout elements on several layers (via multiple sheets of glass between the camera and the animation stand--I've done this before and it looks cool) so I think shooting it on film (rather than with digital stills, which makes perfect sense otherwise) would actually contribute to the overall feel that I'm going for, which is sort of a 1930's German Expressionist look. Anyone ever seen "L'Idea" by Berthold Bartosch by any chance? It's pretty obscure--but anyway, in this case contrast, some grain, and a bit of flicker would actually help me out--if I owned a decent Super-8 camera I'd probably consider using that. I considered renting a 35mm camera for this, but it takes me quite a while to shoot a cutout animation film--it's not like I just have to burn through a stack of cels, but rather at my pace the camera would go up on a stand and probably stay there for a month or so. I have a small-to-teensy budget and I think it makes sense for me to use a camera that I already own. Although...I wouldn't say no to someday owning a simple 35mm camera for this purpose, like a B&H 2709 or a Debrie Parvo...how cool would that be? Possibly an Eyemo if it could shoot single frame. As for the telecine...this is a pretty new subject to me. Frankly I'd be perfectly satisfied cutting 16mm work print and mag stock on a Moviola (hell, I still have motorized rewinds somewhere) for a release print, and bump it up to 35mm if I got the chance later on. But from talking to people here and elsewhere I gather this is no longer commonly done, or even supported at labs. Is mag stock even made any more, especially since Quantegy shut down production? So my desire to use digital anywhere in the process was, I thought, just a substitute for physically editing with a tape splicer. An adaptation to industry changes since I last shot 16mm, if you will. I am not opposed to digital manipulation (and all of my recent animation has been 100% digital, so who am I to complain?) but I don't think I need it for this project. Any more thoughts on this subject would be very much appreciated.

Hi Sean, thanks for the suggestions. Hmm...considering that I'd only be using Final Cut to cut the picture, and not do any digital imaging, then probably option #1 makes the most sense for me at this point. I think I need to do some more research--things have changed considerably since I cut my last 16mm film myself, which was on a flatbed with mag stock in the mid-90s. I've tried finding info on the web but it all seems to be out of date. Are you aware of a good FAQ or site that covers recent developments? I understand the general principle of what you suggest but there are a few specifics that escape me. Thanks!

So let's say I was going to shoot a project on 16mm film and wanted to edit it on Final Cut. I worked on a music video recently that did this, where the final product was going to be screened on video and on the internet--the director got a telecine and edited it on Final Cut and it was done. But what if I wanted to start a project that I would shoot on 16mm and would probably stay in the digital world--but there's a possibility of making a release print on 35mm sometime in the future. Would I want to get a clean telecine, edit in Final Cut, and then get a digital output to 35mm if needed? Would it be better to bump up the 16mm to 35mm, edit and cut the neg in 35mm and then telecine that for digital distribution? This would be for a very short animated project--3 to 5 minutes max. What would make the most sense? Thanks...

Okay. Anybody else know?

...at the Aero here in Los Angeles. Really cool guy. There was a dumb technical question that I meant to ask him, though, but I never got the chance. So I thought I'd ask it here in case somebody knows... He said for a lot of his projects he mixes various formats (Super-8, 16, s16). He also said he shoots mostly reversal stock. So what I wanted to know was...does he: 1) telecine everything, edit digitally, and then get a digital output for a 35mm release print or: 2) does he bump everything up to 35mm neg and edit from that? or does he do something else that hadn't occurred to me?

Don't get me wrong--were Super 16 projection to become widespread I would absolutely use it. It would solve a lot of problems, and certainly I hope the smaller festivals are able to adopt it. Has anyone here used this system for their own projects?

What is the realistic likelihood of Super 16mm projection with DTS sound being available at more than a handful of high-profile festivals? As far as I know events like CUFF and Antimatter only provide for standard 16 projection.

Well...I see. What it sounds like you're saying is that while these kinds of options exist, all are kind of 'make-do' measures and none are terribly practical or cheap anymore. What would be your advice, then--to continue to animate at 16x9 on my computer and then output to DV or 35mm as needed, which, as you point out, isn't terribly expensive for short films? As for shooting the small amount of live action that I'm involved with, would your advice then be to shoot on Super 16 and either blow it up to 35mm or telecine it for editing? Thanks. I appreciate your advice.

Sorry, my real name is Eli Chartkoff. "Schnozzle" is just a name I use on various forums. Probably not so appropriate here. I'm in kind of a frustrating position--I make short animated films, some of them get into festivals or are screened on television now and then, which is great. None of the festivals I've been involved with are big enough to support 35mm prints, they all ask for either 16mm or DV tapes. Since all of my projects for the past few years originated in the computer, this hasn't been an issue. I would like to start shooting stop-motion on film again, though, and clearly the most practical thing for me would be to shoot on film and transfer to digital for editing and distribution. But I actually enjoy editing mechanically, with a tape splicer and a Moviola and all that. Plus, if given a choice to watch one of my films through a 16mm projector or a video projector, I'd choose 16--I think it looks great, especially in a small theater or gallery. I was talking to a friend who swears he gets his short experimental films into more festivals because he's able to provide a 16mm print, which sets him apart from everybody else sending in DV tapes. If everything continues to migrate towards Super 16, I'm out of luck. You can't screen Super 16 on a 16mm projector--even if you widened the projector's gate, there would be no soundtrack, and I assume that a standard 16mm flatbed wouldn't show the entire Super 16 frame, so mechanical editing is out. I feel like I'm going to have to use digital whether I want to or not. Does anyone feel the same way, or do I just need to get over it and feel satisfied with digital editing and projection? Is there some other solution I haven't though of?

I learned how to shoot and edit with a standard 16mm camera (not Super 16) and a Moviola, a tape splicer, mag stock, all that. I was just down at MOCA (Museum Of Contemporary Art here in LA) and saw a couple of short 16mm films actually projected (as opposed to telecine'd to digital or whatever) through 16mm projectors for the first time in a couple of years and thought they looked really, really great, and it made me feel all fuzzy and nostalgic. But with HD tv becoming more popular it seems like everything is moving to Super 16, and that people are all transferring to another format, rather than actually editing and projecting on 16mm film itself. So are we faced now with 4x3 being phased out entirely? Does it have any kind of future? One guy I talked to recently says he still edits mechanically and gets 16mm release prints because there are so few people doing that anymore and it gives him an edge on the festival circuit. But how much longer will any of the festivals use 16mm projectors? Whaddya think?

I see. That explains it, thanks!

I see. This is one reason why so many people are moving to Super 16, yes? (I forgot it was 4x3 & 16x9 rather than 4:3 and 16:9-sorry about that).

I apologize if this has been asked already, but I was having trouble with the search engine... I guess this applies to any 4:3 image really. Neither I nor anyone I know owns one of those 16:9 HD television sets, but I know that they're become more and more popular. I've been helping out on a number of 16mm film projects again after a long hiatus (mostly music videos, with the aim of showing them on tv) and they've all been shot with a standard 16 Bolex and telecined to fill all of our non-widescreen television sets. So what would that telecine'd image look like on an HD television? Would it be stretched horizontally? Or, for that matter, what happens to all of the old classic movies made before the advent of widescreen when viewed on an HD set? Are people who shoot on 4:3 16mm faced with doing two telecines, a full-screen one and a widescreen one? Would you simply cut off the top and bottom of the frame for the latter? Things have gotten a lot more complicated since I was in school 12 years ago...

Yeah, if I were to spend that much I'd probably go the extra $1500 for the B&H 2709. That would be nice.

Why is it then that nobody (or at least nobody I know) uses the Arriflex for animation, even though single-frame motors are available? I even remember somebody telling me the Arri was actually unsuitable for this purpose, although I honestly can't remember what the reason he gave was. As for the focal-plane shutter, is this more of an advantage for the Bolex in terms of allowing a wider selection of lenses to be fitted to the camera (which in the still camera realm is a reason why a bunch of large-format photographers I know like to use old Speed Graphics) or is there more of a functional advantage? As for the Mitchell, yeah, I would love one but I'm not sure I need that much camera. Unless of course someone has one they want to get rid of...

Is the ultimate 16mm camera for stop-motion still considered to be an RX4 or 5 Bolex? I know that the Mitchell 16 is considered quite good, but is it $3,500 good, more than twice the going rate for an RX4? I know that Arriflex 16s cameras can be fitted with animation motors, but nobody I know ever seems to use them for that purpose--does anyone know why? I thought the registration might be steadier than the Bolex, but perhaps that's less of an issue for single frame work? When I was back in school many folks I knew used old Cine Kodak Specials, but I believe those are all non-reflex, correct?

Does anyone know what the difference between the regular Scoopic 16 and the Scoopic 16M is? On the link listed above I noticed that replacement battery chargers for the regular Scoopic are $75, but they're $250 for the M! Anybody know why?

I've found a Canon Scoopic for sale in excellent working condition at a very reasonable price--with this caveat: the seller says that "the 2 12v nickel cadmium batteries included may need to be replaced, or rewired." Does anybody know what's involved in replacing the batteries? What kind of costs would I be looking at to get this done?

For hard-core animators who enjoy animation only? I can't agree with that. I do both animation & live action...I dunno, it's just a tool, it's not expensive, and the learning curve isn't that steep. It's not like buying an old Oxberry or something.

I'm not trying to be a crank along the lines of that Jukuzami guy from the HD forum, but I really do want to know why people choose to work in Super 8. I've looked at a several labs here in LA that handle S8 and so far I can't find one that convinces me that it's significantly cheaper to shoot & process it over 16mm. So what is the attraction? Do you just like the look? Is it that the cameras tend to be smaller and cheaper than their 16mm equivalents? Or do you know something that I don't? Again, this isn't meant to be an attack on the merits of Super 8, but rather an inquiry from someone not familiar with its charms. Thanks.

There's lots of inexpensive software made for this very purpose--if you don't want to use film I think this approach will be less of a hassle in the long run. A friend of mine recommends this highly: http://www.istopmotion.com/ You do need a Mac and a camera with a usb or firewire connection, but once you get it running he says it's easy to use and works great. I'm not sure what the pc equivalent is, I should find that out since I don't own a Mac myself.

So...if Pro8mm is overpriced, then who would you folks recommend for lab work & telecine for Super 8?