Christian Schonberger

Here goes my 2C: The huge roadblock of digitally rendering image and audio is that we are using calculus. To exactly describe, say, a curve in steps (pixels, bits...) the number of pixels must be infinite and the pixel size an infinitesimal. But there is a reasonable limit which very likely can be achieved with technology soon to come. The other roadblock consists of the various stages of software processing. Each time you do something to an image or audio signal represented in "pixels", it becomes degraded and information of the original is lost. The problem is that we are long since used to the high control of digital editing/processing. Layers, masks and the likes in image and heavy editing (timing, tuning, patching takes together etc.) in audio. Even top notch symphonic orchestral recordings usually consist of editing takes together to obtain the illusion of one flowing performance, as flawless as possible. It's that editing power which is not possible in an all analog production. The signal degrading has been heavily improved upon in recent years through oversampling to minimize all the errors caused by interpolation and the likes (aliasing!). Add to that the fact that analog editing requires the medium (tape) to be run dozens if not hundreds of times, causing wear and heavy signal degrading. BUT there is a way around that which has been done in audio (my line of work) before digital workstations took over: work with multiple tape recorders and only run the parts to be edited, saving the already finished parts to come in only at the end. For a complete film soundtrack (dialog, sound effects and music) consists of as many as 70 individual tracks or more. Back in the analog day it was insane, but it was done successfully (with limits in quality). Same with film. Any simple fade or dissolve had to be an optical effect to be inserted into the final edited neg (grease pencil marks on the work print) - clearly visible in many an older film by degraded image quality (color, contrast, dynamic range, more grain and even slightly mismatched framing)... That's where analog has its limitations: generation loss, being cumbersome and expensive and no real time control or fine tuning after the fact. The convenience and relative ease of digital processing/editing has lead to other problems: 1) audiences get used to the false, tweaked "perfection" (listen to any pop/rock vocal performance from the '80s - lots of notes are out of tune because we are formatted by now to expect perfect tuning - how perfect depends on style). 2) it allows less talented people to come into the game and even talented people get sloppy (we'll fix it later). There is a huge difference between getting it right "in camera" or "live on tape" and "fixed after the fact". This is very obvious in music: dynamics, expression and human effort all match up. With "fixing after the fact" we have ill-fitting performances and results, but it long since became a standard. That goes for image exposure to framing to performance, on set lighting, set design... just about anything. Even pre-recorded television "live" shows have tons of editing both image and audio. Official DVD's of live performances (musicals, rock groups ad even symphony orchestras) have been heavily edited and "fixed". Obvious to the keen observer, not noticeable to the average person who buys the product. We need to get back to more discipline and choosing people who can nail performances live. This will also cause a much better sense of accomplishment for anyone involved. What good is watching your work consisting of heavy editing. That feeling of "I did that!" has a very bitter aftertaste, because it was digital editing that actually "did" that. I'm glad seeing younger people driven to actually learn their craft, performing in real time (that goes also a lot for camera operators and their assistants including crane/dolly and focus pulling and any skilled steady cam operator) as opposed to relying too heavily on automation/robotics and tweaking it until it feels right. Take human effort out of the equation (= one can do anything) and it will be off. Don't get me wrong: I like "impossible" camera movements (as an example) like tracking through a glass door or through the handle of a coffee pot (Fincher anyone?). But this is only "impossible" when compared to what IS possible in the physical world. Once the impossible has become the new standard, what's left? Time to do some heavy re-thinking or letting it run its course - until there is no more challenge and nothing new. All of the above are dead horses being beaten since this topic has been addressed by generations of old masters who left the stage shaking their heads. "That's reality, face it!" is definitely not the answer. The results are visible. Just my usual ramblings, C.

Well I didn't just refer to the sound. Vinyl wears out, has surface noise, pops and crackles (eventually), the track speed decreases, etc. etc. etc.. Vinyl is simply a great looking physical "manifestation" of music (or any kind of sound) and everything about it, the way you play it on the turntable, two sides, the cover art, credits you can read without a microscope.... that's what I was referring to. Same with film. Knowing behind you is a long string of beautiful individual images that actually physically exist, running through that old trusty projector by a guy who actually gives a beep and keeps an eye on frame line and focus. Think about it: you can do (in theory) anything on a computer. I still wait for the first self generated symphony though (composers ran out of ideas about 100 years ago). But by the time this is possible we humans probably will never hear it. The computer doesn't need to play it - it knows already what it's going to sound like ;-) Just messing ;-) Christian

Yep. For the analog tape mastering we used a Studer A 80 (what a beast! Studio rental), half inch tape at 15 ips speed (30 isn't better at all because of increased flutter for mechanical reasons and loss of bass response, 15 is the ideal speed). About vinyl coming from digital data masters: yep: it's the digital intermediate thing again. BUT there is a hi cut filter in the machine that makes the lacquer master (direct metal master has problems BTW) at 17600 Hz, so the glassy high end is out of the equation. The analog stages also fill in the "holes" in the sound with very musical harmonic distortion (not intermodulation - which sounds horrible and not clipping) and impulse response. There is also an advantage: since our master is digital, we were able to turn everything below 90Hz into mono with a very recent phase accurate EQ (this does not affect the perceived stereo image at all and makes for a rock solid bottom end) - ideal for vinyl because the stylus won't jump. Getting the low end absolutely in phase accurate mono was always a problem in the analog world. Sure it can be done with minimal loss, but only with very expensive military grade gear (and while I'm at it: basically anything in entertainment technology - and many other areas - comes from military technology or makes giant leaps forward because of it). C. It's better than no vinyl at all.

Tyler: Thanks again for the insight. Yep, and that's just projecting and resolution. On our upcoming album we used (besides the obligatory computers) an analog mixing console (besides the very musical harmonic distortion it also handles the summing of audio signals much better (computers/software hide a LOT from the user: for examples the information they simply scrap when they can't handle it) it's like night and day - much clearer, deeper, silkier and more powerful) - sure: needs maintenance and calibrating, but it's worth it. We also used fresh analog tape for the mastering stage (needs to be top notch though to reduce tape hiss - the equivalent of film grain) and we will release it on vinyl. CD is long since obsolete for tons of reasons I will not get into. Just a hint: the standard resolution is very low due to technical reasons, add to that the first generation D/A converters that simply scrapped a lot of "bits". Same with the first generation digital audio workstations: sound engineers at the time called this: "cardboard bass and braking glass sound!" - spot on! Great to know that vinyl records are now made with fresh, sturdy 180 gram or at least 130 gram vinyl (not the re-used, flimsy, contaminated (with dust, trapped air bubbles and even rests of paper from labels!!!!) garbage they used back in the '70s and '80s) and stampers are not being worn out (as they did back in the day to save $$$), but from a certain quantity on, new stampers will be made. As it always should have been. Those poor quality vinyl albums and purposefully misleading advertising campaigns convinced people that CD's were better. I am in the business since the early '80s (including sound engineering) and people with not a shred of knowledge at the time even argued with me when I said: vinyl is better. The nerve! Conclusion: there are organic artifacts that just sound fantastic. Same with film/video. It needs tons of CPU power to come up with algorithms achieving the necessary complexity to obtain something similar (to evoke emotions as opposed to just capture moving images) and megatons of CPU power to run these (or render....). Perhaps a new computer technology will arrive - at the moment the components within a microchip are reaching the absolute limit of miniaturization. Semi conductors will not work when they are too small - the unpredictability of atoms and particles are the problem! At the time being, digital video is just being "banged up" in post to get rid of that ugly glassy metallic flat and sterile look. C.

Great! Thanks for the tip.

Mark: thanks again for the information and insight. For years I was unable to find any book about the tech aspects of film making. Then in 1991 I visited (again) London (recording studio). The first traditional book store I found already had just about anything I ever needed. Bought as many books as I could. Together with the rare information from professionals - this is where most of my my modest knowledge comes from. Any information of that kind is very highly appreciated. I love both the art and the craftsmanship about film. Sad that this is considered a dying art - but so many arts and crafts are dying or are dead already - until someone brings it up again. Christian P.S. (not beating a dead horse here): film is 125 years old, but it always evolved and improvements only were slowed down by the slow and painful video/digital take over. Digital isn't "recent" at all. It is clearly a form of video, which is directly linked to live television. So we can safely say: video is at least 60 years old (I am counting from the first video tapes in use, live television was around for public viewing in the 1930s). It took "video" much longer to mature than film.

Thanks a lot for all the great information and insight! Yep, I knew VistaVision (35mm 8 perf horizontal) didn't use all the frame (as in 35mm stills photography), but almost. Yes: I agree with the lens artifacts of 35mm 2x anamorphic systems (CinemaScope and later Panavision). I remember many a blockbuster movie that heavily suffers from too narrow a depth of field and vertially and horzontally moving distortion/blur when rack focus/follow focus is used: "Star Wars" (1977), "Close Encounters..."(1977) - except for the great composite shots (Douglas Trumbull, the man!), "Alien" (1979) and "Die Hard (1988)" come immediately to mind.... to say nothing of these horizontal streaks when a light source is in or near the frame - now known as the JJ Abrams lens flare. I wonder how the negs were edited (A and B rolls with black film stock in between to hide the splices, alternating between even and odd numbered shots, as used for 16mm for a while?) - since 35mm 2x anamorphic uses the full frame height. No place to hide. I can see the narrow splices on some 1960s European movies made in that format. Distracting. I really would like to know how the neg cutter went about it. Christian P.S. gotta love "Close Encounters" for all those great film cameras shown running. In one sequence (Mother ship communication) I can clearly see a Fries Mitchell - painted white (probably for slow motion). Great attention to detail. I'm always a 7 year old in front of a candy store when I see this.....

Thanks for the information. Of course I knew that VistaVision is 35mm horizontal (love the fact that VistaVision was used for many of the composite shots in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" to compensate for generation loss), I just didn't know how much of the frame area was actually used. Back in the day I was fortunate enough to have access to very professional books and references. I am always reluctant to online information such as Wikipedia. It is not 100% reliable. Yes: the silhouette in the door frame shot. Also at the end. Sergio Leone made a great homage to that (and tons of classic American westerns) in the opening sequence of "Once Upon A Time I The West". And yep: continuation errors can be distracting. An example of an otherwise great movie riddled with mismatching facial expressions is "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof". In order to reduce wasted film (say: in dialog scenes) I would employ video cameras for reference and only shoot on film what really ends up in the final cut - doing the editing beforehand. Film will always be a hobby for me, but I spent my life learning how it's done properly including the exact edit points, framing and lensing. I love when the editing is "invisible" and everything just flows naturally, in sync with human perception. One movie I watched dozens of times in one session is "Twelve Angry Men" (the 1957 version). It is an entire course about acting, editing and framing/lensing (for me that is). with only very few obvious continuity errors (which very likely were due to schedules and the lack of video tap for reference at the time). About "experimental". I have my own opinion about that and I never claim it to be correct. I approach music (what pays my bills - kind of) this way: You need to know the rules in order to break them. Otherwise it's just "random" or trial and error at best. I belong to a group of people who "smuggle" quality (or what I believe to be quality) into my work. The greatest obstacle is very often the client (the person who approves my work). They can destroy work where I had my heart bleeding over in a split second just by saying: "No, I don't like it!" or "I decided to drop that tune/song/cue". Professionalism is tested here to the breaking point: one needs to abandon a labor of love and come up with something new of equal quality in a very short time without it being a hack job. Maintaining quality even when answering to an ignorant (or even worse: envious people with huge egos) - that is the key. Why "smuggling" or "sneaking in" quality? Not because of vanity but to get quality through to the audience. I have the feeling that modern audiences (both in music and films) don't have the correct reference pool. Both have become a business model. It's a miracle that many a movie (I have given up on mainstream music long ago and do work for stage musicals, the now rare original music for commercials and similar, besides a 13 piece band playing old school soul/funk/R&B requiring arranging skills for the vocals and horn section). I don't dismiss other approaches, I simply happen to be in awe of great quality (= what I perceive as such). Sure: a lot of movies are clearly outdated in their pacing and acting style for modern audiences used to "loud and fast", but I study the old masters and I'm in awe - even more so when a skilled teacher analyzes the style (not just how it was done but also why). The huge obstacle is (for me and many others): breaking into the right groups of people who have the power. The social side of it all. That means: people with social skills and lucky enough to be born into a certain background have a huge advantage. That filters out many a great talent (and I am not speaking of myself here - I am still a student after decades). It's great seeing young aspiring film makers studying both the old masters and new techniques - so every decision is made out of knowledge as opposed to "trying something out". The old argument: "It's about intuition" (often used in music) is one I do not subscribe to. Intuition is a "must have" for anything in the arts. By studying the old masters and trying to understand why they did what they did (instead of just mimicking them) a great feeling of appreciation sets in. Almost every master borrows heavily from others. That doesn't mean necessarily they are copycats. I wholeheartedly agree: stories can be told without words. Thake the famous opening shot of "Rear Window" - Jimmy Steward's back story is being told in a tracking shot as opposed to boring exposition. Or the wonderful music of, say, Bernard Herrmann and John Williams (two of my all time idols) tell a thousand stories. Certain framing and lighting, as well as certain instruments playing certain types of melody lines and chord voicings or underlying harmonies (rarely spoken about by non-musicians) paint incredible pictures. Take the funeral scene of "Superman"(1978). Just that one trumpet line followed by emotional strings tells everything there is to know together with the great cinematography. Too bad this kind of approach (harkening back to the grand opera and the Max Steiner, Franz Waxman - school of film scoring) is long since considered outdated. I think that is in a great part due to the severe lack of reference pools in the audience. And the audience is not to blame. It's the people who dismiss timeless values in favor of trendy stuff that un-educates audiences. "Fooling" the audience in the correct way is not looking down, but rather trying to bring something of value to the world - make all the hard work worthwhile. I quote (non verbatim, but close)) from the DVD director's comment track of "Matchstick Men" (Ridley Scott of course): "..and if they don't care, I'll do it anyway. That's how it's done". I don't see it as forcing a snobbish attitude - I see it as "respecting the audience and deliver quality". We humans interpret things a certain way, our senses work in a certain way. This has been studied and I greatly enjoy learning from all kinds of sources. It all comes together in cinema. Too bad many of today's mainstream movies are just playing for the cheap seats. Sure: many an innovation is created by a lucky accident, but that doesn't mean we should just do random stuff hoping it will turn out great. For me there is nothing greater than when the hard work of studying pays off. Without studying one only has an idea of the result. It only can be achieved when we know exactly how to get there. Intuition are the bookends of any art: the start (what do I want to achieve?) and the end (evaluating the final result). It's the long way inbetween where the knowledge and hard work is needed. And yes: screenwriters are often given way too much credit. Here is a short animation "film" from 2004 where I did the music score - just me on keyboards/computers and a great session guitarist whom I work a lot with. All for free between paid work. The animation was done as a "hobby project" by graphic artists and computer wizards who work in architecture for a living. I know the music is full of "mickey mousing" and clichés - but that's the idea. There is no story to speak of - but it was great fun for everyone involved. This short animation was shown on many festivals BTW. Hope you enjoy: Thanks a lot for reading my ramblings - just my humble opinion anyway, Christian

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing. Recently re-watched the classic John Ford Western "The Searchers" (VistaVision - that's roughly the image size of 70mm camera 65 (?). Very static camera, just some pan and tilt (didn't see the entire movie this time but what I saw had no tracking shot of any kind) and the composition/framing is just great. The indoor scenes are meticulously done (definitely all with marks). Takes a lot of discipline indeed. Christian

Agreed 100%. That's why I chose Super 16mm. It' the smallest format you can get that professional film look. I watched a lot of recent Super 16mm on Youtube and Vimeo and I'm 100% convinced: that's what I was always looking for. I'd say as a rule of thumb: no higher than 200 ISO/ASA. The grain becomes distracting. BTW: I must be nuts, but I just bought a 100 ft reel of fresh (2009) fridge stored Kodak Ektachrome 100D (E-6) from a trusted seller on Ebay (already established communication - very nice guy!). I can get it processed and scanned at top notch quality for about half the price in the UK (only serious drawback: one splice in the middle because it's hand processed. I'll keep it until I know my camera and know it won't harm the film stock. The only cheaper option to do test footage is the Wittner (it's 200D, I'd love having the choice of finer grain100 ISO - but that's not going to happen I guess) and it is estar based, but if it runs smoothly it will be just fine (E-6 process also). Kodak Vision 3 50D is the way to go (for me) for sunny days or with a lot of light, but I have yet to find a turnaround deal which doesn't drain my account. If I'm satisfied with my results I plan on uploading the footage to YT (Vimeo costs money when any kind of self promotion (commercial use) is involved, and in my case it would be (mostly music videos and behind the scenes footage from our band - always a great subject) and make it available as downloads in BluRay quality/format. To be frank: on my old graphic card in my 2009 PC it doesn't look better than YouTube, just different and even a bit harsher regarding grain. The restored (looks to me like taken from either very low generation or camera neg - very likely before the optical printer stage where the image is converted to anamorphic for 35mm "Panavision style" 4 perf full image height screening) versions of Leone's Spaghetti Westerns look fantastic (it's spherical Techniscope, 35mm 2 perf not including the optical soundtrack area - meaning: not that much larger than S 16 and 1960s film stock with it's gritty look and muddy colors). Here is Kodak E 100D footage processed and scanned/graded by the "boutique" UK based lab with the great deals (about half the cost of a normal "industrial" lab, scanning is Muller 2K (yeah, it's boring amateur footage, looks like 18fps(?), but I love the look: lush greens, rich blacks, nice white balance and pleasing orange-ey skin tones): Christian

Thank you, I really appreciate it. And yes: each film gauge/format has its own look and feel. I am not a: "the bigger the better" -guy. My issues with Super 8 were just that it could have been treated with a little more love by the manufacturers. Not everybody was an unpretentious amateur. Beating a dead horse: there should have been at least the choice of an alternative "open" cartridge (similar to single 8) - so that cameras with a precision pressure plate could have been manufactured. Or a single cartridge for all cameras with a removable part - for more demanding film makers with "high end" Super 8mm cameras such as the Beaulieu 4008 through 7008 models - that either couldn't afford 16mm or actually like Super 8 but just would have wanted that one step higher in consistency and image quality. Not that much more hassle - but much more consistent image stability and focus. The aesthetics still would all be there. And they could have done something about the sound. 18 frames in advance is simply too few. just, say, an additional four frames (=22) aloowing for at least one guide roller - and the lower loop wouldn't hammer directly against the sound head in the projector or camera - leading to that typical Super 8 sound flutter. The capstan with flywheel and pinch roller are placed after the sound head - so the lower loop always hammers away - no space to tame it.... Thanks again for your kind words regarding my music for TV commercials, more to come (without getting off topic!). Christian

Super 8mm was even big back in the day in Germany (between 1965 and 1982). Lots of German made equipment and film stock (to be frank: all inferior to the classic Kodachrome II and later 40). Just to explain: I simply wanted - at one point - to make decent films with a decent soundtrack. It was well known and talked about that Super 8mm simply doesn't offer the technical possibilities (lack of hardware except for small companies ranging from toy-like to high precision) to achieve even half professional results at the time. In-camera fades and dissolves for example looked nice, but the outcome was not 100% controllable. I even tried to remove the transformer of the projector and move it into a separate box to get rid of the hum - which was caused by electromagnetic induction into the sound head(s). It was too complex in terms of wiring - otherwise I would have done that and much more. I am a "hands on/DIY" guy (within my skill level) - I am not a whiner. I even knew some truly professional guys who really provided me with most valuable information. The answer was almost always: "You need 16mm" and even a used 16mm Bolex was offered to me at a very reasonable price - but the sound was always the problem: a decent mix of dialog and/or voice over, sound effects and music. I was unable to get the gear together to achieve that - and I really tried. I hope it is O.K. to post a 2011 show reel I assembled from lo res working image files I had access to. A friend of mine (non-professional) did the best he could in Final Cut Pro. I provided all material and the complete soundtrack (including sound effects and restoration of older material) was done by me inside Cubase 5 software: All music is original by yours truly and the commercials actually were approved and aired (except for director's cuts where indicated). This is NOT self promotion (I am not selling anything!!!!). It is what clients allowed me to do - so please forgive me some of the cheesy bits :-) If this is against "house rules" please let me know and remove the link: I already set up another channel (no film footage uploaded yet) for my Super 16mm adventures. Will keep you posted. Christian

Well I never thought that handling Super 8mm was a chore. The technical limitations were too much for me and damage of some sort was inevitable. I don't think there is a rule in life that says: either accept everything about a given format and work around the problems (if you can't: live with it) or leave it. This simply doesn't make sense. I did do something about it: spending a lot of time and effort (and the money I made from small jobs) to do the very best I could. I also read a lot of articles about separate sync sound to get more professional results. There was a system made by Erlson (a small firm) which was based on professional 16mm and 35mm systems at the time. Waaaaay out of my budget. I also was never truly satisfied with the image quality (I had a Beaulieu 6008 S in the end, which yielded much better results than the modest Agfa Movexoom I had before - yet is just wasn't "there". I think Super 8 was kind of half heartedly updated until its oficial demise. I wouldn't for example have minded working with grainy black and white work prints to try out the exact edit. Then sync sound to it in a mechanical way (super 8mm full coated in an editor would have been nice and similar systems actually existed, but they always involved touching the irreplaceable camera original. Once edit and soundtrack done (I had access to nice equipment and i could have done audio mixes with music, sound FX, voiceovers, location dialog, dubbed dialog etc. (all of which I actually did - but with a Bauer T 600 you can only do so much). Then I would have edited the camera original with frame accuracy and it would have been it. More work, more costs - I wouldn't have minded. Hassle is one thing. Impossibility is another. It's the latter that bothered me with Super 8. I really worked my butt off, including animation and trick work of all sorts. The Bauer T 600 and the last model produced: T 610 were at the time the best machines I heard of (except for the Beaulieu which was fantastic and way too expensive - there was even a xenon lamp version with a high voltage transformer to fire up the lamp). Until, later into the 1980s I heard about Fumeo, Elmo and other machines, used by collectors which were even better (less wear, high precision, better registration, built-in ring for anamorphic lens. I had one (2x) with external support btw! etc. etc.) (again: completely out of my budget), but very hard to come by and sought after. I really did my homework and never thought of anything as a chore or hassle. I just didn't like roadblocks impossioble to overcome. I was doing everything to come up with half decent movies. That was simply impossible with even expensive Super 8mm equipment at the time. Also: at age 20/21 it is hard to choose the right crowd to hang out with. Too few information about what other crowds there are and how to get into these - and even what to look for. There simply wasn't enough information available at the time. The concept of social skills and networking wasn't even that clearly defined as it is today. Christian

Problem: in my native Germany, when Super 8mm died, also all photo equipment shops/stores ceased to deliver and just dumped rests of stocks for a while, monthly publications/magazines ceased to exist, film stock disappeared, no way to find groups still using and supporting Super 8mm, and the Kodak 200m (roughly 10 minutes) sound film cartridge (which I loved) became officially unavailable. It was not just a mainstream thing. Super 8mm literally disappeared all around me. To be honest: I never was a fan of that fragile material and adding sound on a projector causing a lot of wear. Handling the precious camera original for editing picture and sound didn't lead to satisfying results - as hard as I tried,as carefully as I was. Splices were always visible and audible. Wet splices (acetate) shrunk in a short period of time and dry splices ruined at least two if not four frames (depending on the pre-framed transparent tape) - and over time they become sticky and fall apart. All of my friends who used Super 8mm simply abandoned it and went on with either video or gave up on making "films" of any kind. 16mm was so incredibly out of reach at the time. All thise Arriflexes: disappeared. They could not be sold because television was state owned and cannot sell or rent anything. Not stages and no equipment. The price of a used (pretty beat up from field work - saw them) say Arriflex BL around 1982 (if someone could get me one) was estimated around (today's exchange rate) USD 10.000 (no tripod, no extras, just one zoom lens and not even sure if the chargeable battery was inlcuded) - that was a fortune back in the day and bought you a nice car. Not to mention film stock and lab service. Too little information available even where to start searching. People were way too protective and evasive - in fear of competition. Very different times: road block after road block. No chance. I had to let go - like some other film enthusiasts I met at the university. Add to that the fact that (Western) Europe was not united back in the day. Each country was its own world, so you were basically stuck within your own country. It was probably all a matter of where you were located. Christian

Well one can't really override emotions with reasoning. And life is one long string of farewells and small deaths anyway. A huge part of me died back in 1980. The music I so dearly loved was no more. Just old, worn vinyl albums and their covers reminding me of times when I was still able to dream big. All the rock groups that were (and still are) such a huge part of me either quit or went with the flow and made bad music (I can pinpoint this exactly to 1980). Just a couple of years later Super 8mm (I was very active making films at the time, starting back in 1975) died and 16mm for television news gathering and documentaries was being replaced by portable video cameras and U-Matic recorders (sure, grainy Kodak Ektachrome VNF, processed with boiling hot chemicals as fast as possible, slapped together on a Steenbeck under pressure never looked really good - I literally "ran" many a spool (a pair of 16mm image and matching 16mm fully coated sound) to the room with all those machines where film was aired live). Sometimes I kept scrapped 16mm reversal film snippets from the cutting room floor - I knew it was about to lose its importance (= dying) but for me it was like a small row of precious paintings, and I am by far not the only one who thinks and feels the exact same. Recently in an email group dedicated to 16mm film cameras, out of nowhere, some clown posted: "Oh real film! Light leaks, grain, scratches, very artsy!". I replied by saying: "Naw. You can have all that much faster and easier", posting links to digital plugins and "after effects" that emulate all that (poorly but whatever...). - No reply. Good! Back to the topic at hand: there I was: 19 years old - all about creativity - not only trapped in a country that doesn't care one bit about creativity (Germany) but also with my entire world disappearing in just a few years. Sure: a huge part of me died. I moved to Portugal for a fresh start and I actually managed to make a living in music. But all that also died a slow death. Once again: we were forced to use a certain type of technology - if we didn't want to play free or poorly paid club gigs (which I did and still do). I have seen a few highly talented sound engineers leaving the business because all their knowledge, all their passion: crushed by prematurely released digital technology and clients who demanded its use. "Digital" was the magic word since the late 1970s. I never went for that B.S. - not for a second. Digital/computer technology is brilliant for crushing numbers and to help and assist us in many ways. But it is not the solution for everything. Not by a long shot! I already had to gave up film (no chance here in Europe anyway). I was lucky enough to also be a musician and it turned out to be a good choice for me. Not a good choice for making a living - but we don't chose the arts - they chose us. I'm too old now to live my dreams (which never changed). But I can make the best out of it all. The world isn't made for truly passionate creative people (at least where I live: Continental Europe with its image and status obsessed, humorless, fun-less self promoting "culture"). It is made for people who function and fit the mold. I support all young talented musicians and aspiring film makers I see on the interwebs. I am actually very happy to see people just as "crazy" as I am. Let's see how my step-by-step adventure with film goes. Christian

Off topic (not cinematography) I know, so I'll be as quick as possible: I'd say the Beatles evolved into something very mature besides pioneering - and left the stage prepared for the 1970s - which produced both: utter crap and some of the best pop/rock music ever made on this planet - by people who actually worked their butts off because they were in for the music, and brought it to a truly professional level. Then came three big catastrophes in a row: 1) punk music - the first underground movement starting roughly around 1976 (it was never against "the system" - it was meant to be bad and B.S. music from the word go, it was made by untalented "musicians" who were frustrated by some of the fantastic, gorgeous, finely crafted virtuoso rock music of the first half of the 1970s on both sides of the Atlantic). 2) Mtv - they shifted music from sound to image (bringing all the wrong people and lobbies into pop/rock music, as if we didn't have enough of these already back in the day) 3) Technology: namely synthesizers, drum boxes and the first digital effects: all used in a wrong way: not to compliment but to replace. Didn't work out obviously - and we were left with post apocalyptic wasteland until this day. So I'd shift the death of music exactly one decade ahead: from 1970 to 1980. That's exactly when I came in: oops, missed it. I don't talk about jazz because the time line is different and there are too many "experts" out there. But it died before the Beatles, somewhere in the '50s. It never truly evolved after that. Christian

Great! Yep: as myself and many colleagues of mine (musicians/producers) say (roughly early '40s and older): it's hard with the younger generations: they have it all made easy for them (or so they think), giving them a false sense of control. They don't know what true achievement is. Music is my gig, but I'm close to film (and both art forms greatly overlap in many ways): so there is a lot of software out there where you can get maximum results with minimum effort. At the same time the worldwide standards of mainstream music are being lowered and lowered - started long a go. The real great bands and musicians/composers are to be found in small niche markets or unexpectedly on YouTube and the likes. I applaud anyone taking risks, trying to show the world that there is more out there than depressing trendy pop music, film music that all sounds the same, and rock music that sounds like a brick wall. Classical musicians call stuff from the very early 20th century "modern". Conclusion: cinema is dying and music is already dead (I am not a pessimist - I am basically just quoting people and agree). Didn't know about the digital motion smear in "Jaws". I don't buy BluRays anymore. A huge DVD collection that turned into worthless garbage (just like the audio CD collection before that) taught me a lesson for the rest of my life. This digital motion smear artifact is a pet peeve of mine. I hate that with a passion. When I saw - for example - the action scenes in Michael Mann's (a director I truly, greatly admire I should say!) otherwise great "Collateral" - I was thrown off for good. Looked like a television cop show video to me. I read all about the difficulties shooting on digital video at the time (hard drive space, long cables etc.) All that hassle on untested equipment to capture L.A. at night (because film doesn't have the latitude)??? Well Stanley Kubrick shot "Barry Lyndon" just with candle light on film (special lenses, sure) and his last movie "Eyes Wide Shut" also was exclusively available light. I am positive there are cameras and 35mm film that would have cought L.A. by night with enough shadow detail without looking like a "tv cop show". But that's just me - I don't know the full tech specs and the true motivations behind the decisions. Just one final word regarding "Collateral": it was not even trying to hide that it was digital video. Result: I never thought a story was being told that might eventually unfold. It looked as if it was "happening now" and I was just watching something without a story. If it was film, I knew everything is part of a grander picture. That's the power of film! Yep: the great Hitchcock classics such as "Vertigo" (Vista Vision - 35mm horizontal: *huge smile on my face* - perfect for 70mm release prints - which were shown short after the restoration - I remember an article by Roger Ebert) were restored analogically before it was too late. I'm glad they did it. I have the "restoring making of" featurettes in my humble old DVD collection of Hitchcocks greatest movies. "Psycho" is by far the worst. Some frame rate conversion artifacts and a very soft, milky image. I saw parts of the restored BluRay on YouTube: even with the heavy data compression it looked fantastic. I never saw that movie in this quality: flawless, pin sharp, nice contrast and yet no crushed blacks, blown out highlights and no cranked HDR (high dynamic range) look which even photographers start to dislike step by step. I highly appreciate your patience with the kids! Film takes care and effort, but it isn't all that hard. The arts are about achievement (not necessarily recognition - as we all know by well known poor Oscar decisions by the Academy throughout the decades, and that's just one example). An true achievement needs to be earned - by effort. The age old "now you can have it all in one single package at your fingertips" sales pitch/ad slogan is nothing but B.S. - If everyone can do it, I'm not interested. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and valuable knowledge - and for reading my ramblings (trying to contribute as much as I can). Christian

Thanks again for the information. Of course I have seen a lot of very recent BluRay releases where the master was clearly analog film generations away from the camera original (slight weave and float, a little too much grain overall and of course white and dark - neg and pos - dust speckles). Still modern scanning and data compression yield very pleasing results compared to the utter crap found on many a DVD release. Sure: the original camera negs are to be touched only on very rare occasions ("from scratch" restoring projects - I think the results on such classics as the James Bond movies and, say "Jaws" are fantastic - even more so knowing that 35mm archival low fade prints were struck - should outlive us all if stored properly). Not so sure (BTW) about many a Disney animated classic. The artifacts of the animation cells (shadows), slight color inconsistencies, dust, etc. and film grain gave it character and a certain look. Some of the new - completely digitally cleaned up (basically re-built from scratch) - re-issues look like digital video to my eyes: drained of all life. The decade old discussion (of film buffs): not sure about younger generations, they will grow up to an ultra clean look and dismiss film. Glad seeing restoring projects of very old films revealing the image as it was intended, opening it up for a new generation (so they don't just fake to love, say, Kurosawa - because it's trendy, but they actually enjoy the master's work and discover how he influenced modern (post 1950s) Hollywood, Leone and as a consequence Tarantino - big time!). Discovered some YouTube footage of young folks (film students, aspiring television camera operators, etc. ) discovering 16mm film and its "steep learning curve" and "unforgivingness" . Yep: two variables are already out of the exposure triangle equation: ISO (= film stock - chose wisely before loading if you can), shutter speed (unless the shutter blade angle is variable this is a fixed value) - so you need to get exposure right just with aperture and lighting. For me (since I lived through all that) it's completely normal. No big deal. At least it's great seeing young folks finally discovering that point and shoot digital devices which do it all for you are not the best solution for ace results - and actually give "all manual" and even real film a hands-on try. Will look into the various data compression file standards a little closer. Thanks for the information, Christian

Thanks for all the information. Yep, I remember reading tons of articles with photos (blow ups) of frames of the the 35mm prints - in professional audio engineering magazines such as EQ and Sound Engineering (etc.). It is part of my line of work to be at least informed of what's new at any given time. I watched quite a few commercials in movie theaters where I composed the music (and often did the sound design). Here in Europe it was crazy during the mid/late '90s: make a TV commercial and you need to do it at 25 fps (European PAL standard) - of course the cinema/theatrial version (always running longer - often 60 seconds). is made and approved by the client together with the tv spots (standard is 30 sec or seldom 45 sec, but to cut costs after a week, only the 20 sec versions and shorter so-called "reminders" will be aired (where I was located at least) . Now played back on 35mm (often bad transfers from standard tv video - mostly Betacam and digital Betacam formats as the master(s)). Your audio is almost half a note (or correc tly: half a step which is one fret off on a guitar and one adjacent key on a piano!) lower in pitch (same with all movies done on 24 fps - they would run on 25 fps on TV, any video tape. laser disc and DVD - BluRay has more sophisticated data formats that allow for different frame rates). Again: You are almost half a step too high in pitch - together with the slightly altered timbres (formant = resonance frequency patterns changes together with pitch) of anything including actors' voices and tempo). Still a lot of movie clips on YouTube at 25 fps which should be 24 fps (If I have to use this as a reference: fortunately I have the software to bring it back to how it should be (not without any data loss, but more than good enough for reference.) Anyway: original music for commercials is basically dead here in Europe (cheap library music patched together and pop songs are usually the way to go - no more sung jingles as back in the day - completely out of fashion since long ago). If I get the occasional job, they'll send me a poor quality (= small CPU footprint) reference video to sync the audio to. The final product is done elsewhere (mostly in Final Cut Pro). Well I have a question: how are DI's (digital intermediates) used for BluRay releases? Should be basically just a data format such as ProRes or a variation of Mpeg-4 AVC (H.264)? Please let me know because of my upcoming scans - for Super 16mm camera tests and later for more serious projects such as behind the scenes footage of our funk/R&B band with 5 piece horn section - always a great subject for motion picture film. No need for sync sound (until I give it a shot at music videos with a decent camera) - just play through any tune from an album or live gig, with some wild recorded location audio - and you'll be fine :-D No worries: I will not do any kind of self promotion here (no links to any of my S 16 footage unless it's 100% non commercial). I know forum rules and I will of course comply :-) Thanks, Christian Thanks for all the great insight, Christian

Thought about DTS. I remember de Dolby codes between 35mm sprocket holes. in addition to a modern optical sound track (to make the print compatible with older projection systems. Didn't know it would fit into the narrow bandwidth of 16mm optical sound. re: "The Hurt Locker" (love that movie!). What about "Black Swan" and "The Wrestler" all made around the same time and filmed on Super 16mm? Of course now there is "Carol" and it seems like the Super 16mm camera original was scanned digitally and from then on it was image processing for either D-cinema or 35mm prints. I'd also love to know how "This Is Spinal Tap" (hysterical! - Love it!) was done back in the day - since it also was shot on Super 16mm, still in an all photo chemical process up to 35mm prints. Christian

Well. just sharing my thoughts and things I read. The idea do print identifying timecode with each frame is that when the film print breaks and has to be spliced, the sound will jump back to sync, omitting the missing frames. (like any print with optical sound would do). Another things to consider (which of course you know): The motor of the projector must be very stable and at accurate speed, otherwise the sound will have audible speed issues (= incorrect pitch, wow and flutter). Perhaps it is possible to record actual SMPTE timecode onto the optical soundtrack with a sound camera. The necessary band width needs to be known since 16mm optical sound (at best) only goes up to around 7000 Hz with a steep roll off after that. But there are ways to work around that (change the pitch digitally to fit into the frequency range). You certainly still know that SMPTE purr sound from video tape. Just throwing around ideas. Chistian

Yep: since the Logmar is very stable you can have a very tight fit and don't lose any height to speak of (unless your gate isn't 100% clean), then you only lose a little on the sides and make the best use of both formats. I thought about it loooong ago. I would print some kind of frame code into the print (can use the sound track) and have the sound coming from a hard drive. Just hook up a computer with a professional DAW (Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar, Digital Performer, Logic) and let the external interface do all the syncing. The sound editing should be done in the DAW (then mixed down to desired format: stereo, 5.1 etc). just using a small quicktime or Avi ect. file as long as the frame rate matches up (the way I work for tv commercials). And you're good to go: vintage 16mm projector with the optical sound system reading your code, sending it to a custom interface that communicates with a laptop computer (10+ year old ones will do just fine), then fire wire cable connection and D/A converters and you will have top notch killer sound way better than CD quality. This should work (just need to figure out how to print the correct frame code onto the optical sound track (to avoid modification on the 16mm projector). There are old 16mm cameras that record sound - so this should be do-able, just a matter of figuring it out. Here is an example of a 16mm camera recording optical sound (can be before or after printing the image): The Auricon for example: instead of soundwaves, you can generate any kind of signal with a virtual synthesizer inside one of the DAWs - like clicks or beeps or shapes generated by oscillators - anything that triggers and contains information. I already did that kind of stuff for visual cues (Hammond organ Leslie speed change to the pre-recorded dry signal etc. - yep: I also do a lot of DYI stuff on a pro level in my field): Thought about all this loooong ago. Just my thoughts and ideas thrown in, Christian

Sounds great! BTW: yep: gotta get your film loading procedure down on any film camera or it's bad loop and/or jamming! So you will have it blown up to a 16mm print to be projected? That limits you to the standard 1.37:1 ratio unless you mask off a little top and bottom in the 16mm frame. Nice to know that there are still labs doing optical step printing! Been around back in the day when we still used 16mm projectors back in middle and high school. I always insisted on being the projectionist (had already Super 8mm at home). Ah the good old Siemens 2000 and Bell & Howell TQ series.... How are you going about sound for the 16mm print? Optical is mono and limited in quality. Magnetic track glued onto the film print is unreliable and wears out (if it is available at all still....). I guess the best is still going with a separate, mechanically sync'd 16mm fully coated magnetic soundtrack on a specialized projector - that's the way they aired 16mm (and 35mm, but with a matching 17,5 mm full coat sound track with the exact same sprocket holes) back in the day (1970s until early '80s in my native Germany). Just letting you know that I have actually used and/or seen live all this stuff back in the day. Please let me know. I'm interested in just about everything "film". Love it! Christian

Sorry if I chime in. I really don't have the knowledge to support any statement made in the latest comments. Just applying common sense: 1) Why isn't there footage showing the Logmar shot with a Logmar? Phil of Pro8mm at least has some of his footage explaing Max8 and the scanning/grading/cropping on actual Super 8mm. 2) why is there only one (!) Logmar film (test with lens issues, such as vignetting and asymmetrical aberration, among others) on YouTube? ...just asking. Don't shoot me ;-) Christian

Well I would never buy a camera just for the looks alone. I have the exact same mind set: I want my camera to work well for me and never become just a display or collector's item, but It ends with a shiny plastic box looking like I got it from Toys-R-Us. It's not about fetish - it's about how it makes me feel. I tend to lean towards classic film camera design of all sorts - but this is personal. It is hard to put in into few words: I am not extreme in any kind. But "just getting the job done" also involves a mental process, a state of mind. So using ad hoc stuff that gets the job done (for other than budget reasons!!!) might also be an "I want to be different and against the mainstream at all costs, just to make a statement" attitude. Which has its merit as well. It's just not my personal approach. Same as "go with the flow" is not my approach. I don't just love the results, I love the entire process. I don't just love, say, Mozart's Symphony Nr. 40, I also love seeing it performed by a great orchestra - even if pink and green violins with old bumper stickers on them would sound better and dress code doesn't really matter - I prefer seeing the traditional shades of wood finish and some decent dresses/tuxedos- the eyes are part of it. The "how it's done" does matter because different approaches lead to different results. Always. There is a reason many a silhouette representing "film" or even "video" looks a lot like an old Mitchell. It evokes: film. The Eclair NPR is not exactly a beautiful camera (IMHO), but it's a true classic film camera. It is a personal thing. I definitely don't dismiss functional forms (the NPR was basically more functional form than beautiful design). About the footage where I posted the link: sure it's boring as hell - I just love the image quality. Christian P.S. I talk as a serious amateur who might make a nice short film one day (I attempted dozens back in the day). If I was a pro filmmaker, things would change, because other people (especially clients) come into play.