Jon O'Brien

Will this new version mean that the original BMPCC becomes somewhat obsolete and possibly affect the value/availability of S16-suitable lenses eg. on Ebay?

A lot of today's big movies are like this. Enormous infrastructure, amazing image and sound but lacking in simple human interest. A good production should care about the 'people' side of the story. Not the 'things' people do - that's actually far less interesting because it's materialistic and the key to people is that they are really about spirit. We are spiritual beings. Modern art/entertainment is woefully poor at this truth compared to artworks of even the past century and it's not difficult to track down the real reason for this change.

I agree about vinyl by the way. For listening to classical music, eg. symphonies, I always said you can't beat a stereo with tube amplifier, LP records and proper large cabinet speakers. Yes there's crackle from static, and the stylus and records eventually wear out (not all that quickly, though), but it's a better sound because really it is the amplification of an actual physical acoustic process. The stylus is physically reproducing the sound in your own home and then it is simply amplified with the help of the input of some electrical energy. Same thing with real film projection. Light rays interact (shine through) a physical, chemical medium and are focused by the lens. There's no intermediate series of numbers getting between you and the physical process. So it really explains why there is a charm to these things. I do have on my list of projects to get my record player back up to functioning again but there are many other things to do before that. So digital for now :)

Just a brief note, for sake of completion to what I typed above. There's no problem getting 35mm scanned in Australia. Yay!

Getting back to S16, what lens works well with the Krasnogorsk 3 camera that the Panasonic LA7200 1.3x adapter fits onto? Does this adapter work well with a zoom? What about PL mount lenses this anamorphic attachment would work well with?

Well, I would be over the moon if film projection came back here, in my country. But it's not going to in my lifetime. We are the country of digital, she'll be right, mate. So I strike a compromise that works, shoot on film and digital for all the rest of it. But I agree with you, Tyler, and I wish I could regularly see film prints projected. Last year, I walked a long way through Brisbane's Fortitude Valley to discover a cinema, tucked away in a side street, so I could watch my first real cinema experience film print in a long, long time. I was charmed and invigorated by the experience. You see? I'm an artist. I'm a rare breed. I go the extra distance for quality. But most audiences? Pff! And as you know, film projection hasn't quite died yet. It lives. It didn't die in 2013. It's like the robot in Lost in Space, the original series. Yes, we can reverse the polarity and get that heart to beat again! Maybe.

This is encouraging for buying cheaper shortends. If I can get hold of a 2 perf camera and affordable zoom lens, now just need to confirm if can I get the film scanned in Australia. Looking good so far for a 35mm short film. Just have to make a final decision to stay with S16 or get into 2 perf. I know which one I want to shoot with.

Hi Doug, no I never met Laurie and I only found out about him through the excellent post you wrote about him on your website. It would be great to track down the original plans for his camera - not that I would be able to do much myself as I'm not very mechanically inclined. I know enough to know how cameras work, but not much more. It's interesting to learn about Laurie, as back in the 70s I must have lived less than 5 minutes away from him, if he was in Mordialloc. But I didn't start to make films myself until just after I moved to Queensland. That looks really excellent Matt. Any chance you could post some photos and further details of your camera, lens and anamorphic set up? Even though my main interest is shooting on film and then projecting digitally, I still think someone could make a 2 or 3 perf projector pretty easily. There are factories in China or elsewhere that could do this. Even here in Australia, Blackmagic Design recently came out with that wall-mounted film scanner. People just have to be patient. If there's a will there's a way. But if film projection dies, it won't be the end of the world, as film origination will live on through digital projection. But I think that interest will grow in real film projection. It will never go back to the way it was before, of course, with all theatres having film projectors. Too expensive and not enough interest from 'lay' audiences. This is a very 'liberal' thread. Feel free to let the discussion roam to wherever it will ... 2 perf, 3 perf, anamorphic, or back to S16. I'm enjoying all the ideas and input.

I was going to ask about this, too. I'm thinking of buying some shortends but don't know yet if it's feasible. I can get it processed at Neglab, so that's no problem.

Yep, sorry, I have jumped over into another topic a bit there. I've no intention of watching 2 perf on a projector, so I see what you mean. Just can't help but compare S16 and 2 perf.

Okay, I'm biased. I always thought the earliest Dr Whos were the best. I especially liked Patrick Troughton best (who matches up with my first Doctor - no surprises there I guess). Next favourite is a tie between Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker. The earliest Dr Whos were terrifying psychological dramas often, at least for young kids. They had to be as the budgets were so meagre they had to imply fear and evil rather than mostly show it. Very clever productions on a shoe string!! So much modern filmmakers can learn from I reckon. 'Web of Fear' and perhaps especially 'Fury from the Deep' were marvellous. I remember as a kid the terror of the ghastly seaweed, that had somehow acquired an evil sentience, dropping through the air vents. I lived not far from a beach in Melbourne that often had stinky seaweed. For a while, it horrified me. Oh, the imagination!

Comprehensive answer, thank you David. Cinematography.com .... a great place!

How would S16 anamorphic (1.3x) depth of field compare with 2 perf 35mm, generally? Would it be easier to achieve a shallower dof with one or the other?

I love the WWI story, I read somewhere, of how the Germans and British came up out of the trenches one Christmas morning, smoked cigarettes, swapped some food, sung songs together, and ended up kicking a football around I think. Then a handshake and back into the trenches. Crazy and sad but also hopeful in a way. Haven't seen the above film yet but will.

It might help if they eventually release a 2nd version of the camera, with optical viewfinder. But I will be sticking with 16mm I think, so it doesn't affect me.

Interesting comment from Manu Delpech, post #20 in 'S16 Anamorphic - On a budget', https://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=74665&hl=%2Bhawk+%2Bv-lite+%2Blens&do=findComment&comment=478978 "Anecdotal, but The Wall (Doug Liman) that takes place entirely in the Iraqi desert, entirely shot on super 16 anamorphic with the Hawk V-Lite 1.3x and the 50D stock looks good although it is very soft, I actually found it softer than The Wrestler, or the super 16 portion in Steve Jobs or some of the best super 16 footage out there with a 2:40 extraction. Close-ups can look surprisingly good, and the 50D (blown up on a big screen) yields minimal grain but some medium close-ups and the wides really look soft." I haven't seen many S16 productions at the cinema, so will start doing it, and begin with 'The Old Man and the Gun'. Saw Mother last year for that reason but that was cropped spherical, was maybe just a bit too grainy I thought, and was almost entirely shot indoors. I'd like to compare results in the theater with the Hawk v-lite anamorphics. How do you keep track of all the latest cinema releases shot on S16 - is the best way to keep checking the Kodak site?

Thanks Dom. Anyone know what a 416 generally goes for second hand? I think around 11K USD. A 416 would hold its value well.

An Arri or Aaton camera, eg. SR3 or XTR, and shoot 1.3x anamorphic sounds the way to go for me (maybe own the camera and hire the lenses). Which of these cameras can you fit with anamorphic viewfinder, and is S16 a more difficult shoot for the cinematographer in any way, over say 35mm or Arri Alexa? Those camera prices seem very appealing, considering they are for a pro level camera. What is the availability for the best s16 lenses? The more I think about it, S16 is the way to go, if digitally distributed, all the way from short films up to feature length. Only go to 35mm for something that really needs the extra definition. And 65mm if seeking a 'real film' distribution (forgive me for occasionally thinking big) - not likely though. Mark, best wishes for your S16 project! Hope it goes ahead.

Yes, sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. I should have known that. Ultra 16 is really an amateur format. Does anyone know if there is any discernible registration problem with Bolex cameras when projected digitally on a big screen, compared with Arri 16mm cameras? I know Bolex don't have pin registration. I'm thinking of getting an SBM as my personal camera, for making short films with MOS and dubbing in post, and hiring Arri cameras for sync sound shooting further down the track.

I'm wondering if I might actually find it easier to attract funding for a film project if I shoot on 35mm, as it would be resurrecting this film stock here. No one in Australia shoots on 35mm any more that I know of. The government is willing to support filmmakers for some projects, and I already have a camera. Still, S-16 is a very attractive option as I like the look of film grain. I did see Mother at the cinema, purely for the fact it was shot on S-16. I didn't realise it was shot on Ultra 16. I liked the look of it very much, however it was shot with many close-ups, so really worked well for 16mm.

I might email Volker in Germany, who sometimes posts here. He modified a projector to S-16 and enjoys wonderful home movies. If I can find out details will post on this thread. Thanks guys for very worthwhile advice above. I'd like to be up and running with a projector soon, in time for Ektachrome release here (assuming processing etc is going to be fine in Australia). But my main longterm aim is to continue shooting Vision 3 and release digital movies shot on 16mm (and later 35mm if I can). The projection idea is just to satisfy a craving to see and experience real film "with my own eyes," (... to quote Darth Vader). Considering the apparent huge cost of the best S-16 anamorphic glass, I wonder if for a short film 35mm spherical, cropped to 2.40:1, might actually work out cheaper, or about the same production cost.

A big ego and a big heart wouldn't hurt, either, for a film director. Hard to drive a good project to completion without both, surely. And balls (that is not a sexist comment).

Passion in any field can lead to talent, with hard work, intelligence, wisdom, good teaching (in some form or other), opportunity, and (crucially) opportunity taken/chosen. Than add tenaciousness. A close friend is a music teacher and he says that, to his continual surprise, the kids who go on to be a pro are not usually the "talented" students. It's the ones who are passionately fond of music and just stick with it.

Inspire the actors so they feel their association with you is making them better performers. Even in your earliest, smallest films. Sometimes that can mean being tough on them, but not in a way that makes them feel you are telling them how to act. They will rightly think you are worth working with. Most great directors are interesting people with a lot of knowledge of art and culture, and are natural leaders in creative production, though it mightn't be obvious at all. Some of the loudest hot shots are the least talented.

It seems to me that these days with digital distribution and projection, the low grain of Vision 3 film stocks, and the great cameras and equipment still available for rent today, that Super 16 is becoming even more interesting than it was before as a medium for photographing movies designed to be shown at a large theater. I thought why not a broadly-themed thread that discusses many points about Super 16. What movies have you seen at the cinema that were shot on this gauge and looked great? Is grain a problem to contemporary theater audiences/online streaming/DVD blue ray audiences? How would anamorphic 2.35:1 Super 16 look at the theater compared to the same aspect ratio photographed with spherical, but cropped in post? I know that the spherical lenses have a reputation for being sharper - so which really, in the final analysis, would be sharper? I suspect anamorphic would be significantly sharper. Is 16mm going to be able to deliver enough sharpness of image for an outdoors movie with a lot of sweeping shots of large landscapes? And finally, projection, for home movie use. Does anyone have any advice/anecdotes regarding converting a projector to Super 16, or for converting a projector to Regular 16mm cropped to 2.35:1 in the projector gate? I realize that with this option there would be a heavier loss of clarity. Do film camera repairers generally undertake modifications to projectors? I'm not very engineeringly inclined so would have to get someone to modify a projector.