Robin Phillips

Ultra 16s are a super 16 lens set exclusively. 

Ultra Primes are super 35 formatted lenses, but they're sharp enough to use the 16mm and up for super 16 work. Arri's ads for the U16s initially said to use the UPs for your longer focal lengths

Ultra Primes and U16s have the same size housing, and the UPs will clear an SR3 viewfinder with no problem. have done it before.

the way to do this is with 100ft rolls of 16 and ideally the camera and lenses you want to work with. load the 100ft rolls entirely in the bag to ensure no light bleed. then use the either the same scanner you intend on using or the closest one you can afford to get your scans done. anything outside if this workflow will leave you with a lot of question marks and uncontrolled variables that may lead to a surprise once you start shooting and getting scans back

12 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Ultra 16s, Cooke SK4s and the odd wide angle by Optex and Century were about as good as it got with S16 primes. But the enduring appeal of Zeiss Super Speeds (S16 ones) is not to be dismissed. Optar Illuminates and Elites were also not bad, approaching Super Speed quality. Many S16 lens sets were intended to be filled out with 35mm lenses for longer focal lengths. 

Lots of good zooms were made for S16 too. The Canons (8-64, 7-63, 6-66 etc), or Cookes (10.4-52 or 10-30) or Zeiss 11-110 or Angenieux 7-81, 11.5-138 were all good in various ways. 

having owned an optex 8mm and an optar illumina 7mm, the optar was MUCH sharper. those optar and elite lenses are pretty remarkable if you dont want zeiss glass. 

the arri / zeiss Ultra 16s are going to be the sharpest hands down, followed by master primes. weirdly, the zeiss LWZ.2 is nearly as sharp as the Ultra 16s, and will clear the viewfinder on the SR3. Ultra 16s will fit an SR3, Master Primes wont (I think they technically will if you put the viewfinder in a vertical position that makes it unusable). 

Regular Ultra Primes work fine, but they're not as sharp as the Ultra 16s. That being said I have no issue using a 40mm UP in leu of the U16 35mm if I really want that smidge narrower field of view. Originally they only released the U16s from 6mm to 14mm, assuming that users would simply use the regular ultra primes to round out their lens set. Not long after they rounded out the U16 set with longer focal lengths.

21 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

the new magazine uses normal Kodak aluminium daylight spools for both feed and takeup so there is no need to rewind film. just load a factory 100ft roll and takeup is on similar 100ft daylight spool.

people were worried about the availability of original 200ft A-minima spools so I will skip that original plastic spool system entirely and make the magazine use the boring common 100ft aluminium spools everyone else uses including the Bolex and K3 people 🙂 

----------------------

if needing the 400ft magazine version there is very limited time window for ordering, need to know in July2025 if it is needed and partially paid for in early August so that I can start making it at the same time than the 100ft version. If missing this time window the possibility to make 400ft is lost or even in the very best case someone would need to send their own camera to me for 3 or 4 months for additional testing and design work if losing this possibility to develop the two mag versions side by side

thats great. will make the a minima much more usable

will the film still need to be re wound with this solution? 

2 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

That’s the first movie with a lot of CGI sequences:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Starfighter

Probably the first major movie that was entirely shot on video: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Episode_I_–_The_Phantom_Menace
(And there only crappy versions of this.)

episode 1 is quite clearly shot on film. the main cameras were 535s along with some 435 and vista vision use. model unit was all film, mostly (maybe entirely) vista vision. there is at least one digital test shot in it. 

episode 2 was digital on the sony F900, which came out the same year as 28 days later which was all on the canon XL1

it looks like the tap is misaligned and needs to be moved "up", so to speak, given how much at the bottom you are seeing.

had the camera previously shown more of the ground glass? or is this camera new to you and you are just seeing this for the first time?

are you 100% sure nothing is obstructing the ground glass, and that the ground glass is properly seated?

have you contacted visual products?

I'll say this, just about every time a new video AI model comes out my film friends get anxious, but my non film friends are annoyed by the unfocused (in the sense of action, not actual optical focus) AI slop. It probably wont last, but I think there will be a point where, much like with movies where the vfx have taken over the show yet become kinda boring, the technology is going to have its limitations for narrative. 

as for tv ads, internet ads, random quick shit on tiktok, thats harder to say. but it feels like the movies are already headed more toward character driven over plot and cool vfx driven work, so at least some of the audience out there is gonna be pretty sensitive to this stuff even if they cant nail down whats wrong with it. 

that being said theres almost certainly a world right around the corner where we'll be able to shoot actors in a black box theater type environment and use AI to fill it out. 

what I'm actually most interested are the lawsuits here in the US going after unauthorized reproduction of training data, given that the very nature of these systems is such reproduction, even if in small bits. once discovery moves forward on some of the cases in the US, we're likely to see some interesting results that will complicate much of this. Surely the big AI companies will do everything they can to avert that situation, but we've seen with Apple's case with Epic how an arrogant, bad faith company can face serious consequences from a judge who has had it. 

21 hours ago, John Rizzo said:

Yes that is true, so far  on the east coast 3 major movies are shooting it in 35mm.

According to Kodak they built into the emulsion an additional layer of Silver to take the rem jets place.

  "The Drama"  which rapped 2 months ago

Spielberg's new movie  currently shooting

and

"No One Cares" directed by Jesse Eisenberg staring Julian Moore and  Paul Giamatti  DP Drew Daniels    which we are scanning the dallies. 

Tomorrow myself and some local DPS are going to TCS and will be testing the non remjet  7219  7207,7213 and 50D on a Arri 416 these DP s are concerned  because most 16mm cameras have chrome backplates. 

I doubt that Kodak will raise the price of MP Stock, it already is quite costly and if they raised it to still prices I don't think they will sell nearly as much. We are seeing more and more clients shooting film whenever the budget allows. 

if you are able to report back at all on how 16mm performs on the 416 please do. 

well if it opened up a world where you could get motion runs of just about any stills film, that would be pretty incredible. though if tons of cameras/mags need modification, thats certainly something thats a bit worrying given how few technicians are still in that game. seems like theres a decent chance kodak is playing with fire. but if they have people at corporate who think motion would continue sales at stills prices... yoish...

I've seen a few rumblings online that kodak is moving to remove the remjet layer entirely from its motion line of film stocks (both on fb and reddit). While someone posted screencaps of what appeared to be a technical document onto fb, they wouldnt actually post the full document or link to it from a kodak source.

does anyone know whats going on? is this a weird rumor thats starting to spread, or is kodak actually eliminating the remjet layer? 

Im sure Paul at Shruco Tool can do this to a donor glass / screen. Though sometimes the easiest way to get ahold of him is through Andree at AM Camera. 

you probably would want marks on the screen where your gate limits are though, even if just hooks, since the viewfinder optics will show you more of the image circle than the gate gets (normally the shaded area on an arri ground glass/fiberscreen). 

Roundabout has a director, I think its the older 10k model https://www.roundabout.com/restoration-remastering

also Cinelab Boston's xena scanner can do the same sort of thing. I did some s16mm tests a few years ago with them, and the range that was extractable was insane, especially on 50D negative. Cinelab does consumer, hobbiest, and professional scanning.

I dont know if Fotokem has added to their scanner line up or not, but its been my experience that as long as you can afford their rate they wont say no to money. I think thats generally the attitude with any of the labs these days to be honest. though Im sure some have a minimum charge. 

just FYI you are very unlikely to find one in mint condition. if you did, you'd want it serviced regardless. also an SR3 HS will almost certainly be louder than an XTR Prod, so I'd recommend sorting out if you actually need 150fps or not. if you do need it, you really want a HS Advanced model if you dont want to have to worry about replacing the rails as they wear on the normal HS.

8 hours ago, Vincent Wolfram said:

Gate and fiber screen are definitively N16. Weird setup.

I'll test it with some film soon, right now i'm waiting for an Arri B to PL adapter as i dont have any PL lenses

 

 

lightbeam has a super 16 SR gate assembly for sale in their spare parts site if you need it. I have no affiliation with them, I just check their parts site every now and then and saw it. heres the link https://lightbeamequip.com/shop/arriflex-sr-super-16-gate/ 

it probably will depend on how well colimated the sigma and speed booster together are. it would make for an interesting test though. 

for one, it likely serves the narrative in a unique way.

it also makes it stand out in a world where we've somewhat left behind the older way of shooting scenes where the camera movement is part of the blocking and helping to advance the story without cuts. 

I havent seen it myself, but given what you laid out it undoubtably would have been a different movie if it was shot more traditionally.

sometimes creating a novel piece of art is worth all the headaches. a film isnt just what you can do or how efficient you can do it, its giving a experience for the audience. that experience is the goal.

I think the indie assist for the 235 is brand new. probably very unlikely to find one second hand. I once saw one sketchy ebay listing for a 416 one, but I doubt it was legit. 

realistically if you actually need one, you'll have to order one new. unless perhaps you find a camera thats for sale one is already bolted to

I think its important to note that there is no way to refine an after market product without having a camera body to test with. also the tools to re-spool the film the way the a minima needs. if it was a simple matter of 3d printing parts with the same dimensions this problem would have been solved already. I think you'll find that the materials will be critical to any successful reproduction, along with the insights of a technician who troubleshooted a lot of these cameras. 

to be clear Im not saying dont try. but I cant see any way of being successful without a camera, mags, and a film rewinder to facilitate any tests. (you could alternatively get fotokem to respool the film for the camera, but that adds up fast)

2 hours ago, Jack Jin said:

Yes exactly! I'm trying to test the sharpness of the lenses + camera with the filmstock that resolves the highest amount of detail, thus my dilemma, I do wonder though if 200T or 50D is usually better in resolving power? Thank you.

I'd say that if shooting in daylight, shoot 50D. if you are shooting under tungsten light, shoot 200T and over expose. I normally shoot 7213 at 160. I know people who shoot it at 2/3rds over. Im not sure if shooting a full stop over has a major benefit, but it could be done.

I'd note I did once shoot 50D at 25 and honestly there wasnt a big difference between shot at box speed. was comparing with Ultra 16s, so theres not getting much sharper than that. 

so its worth noting that we need to be talking about resolving power, not "sharpness." 

In my experience at box speed 250D has always been grainier than 200T. 50D less so than 200T. and this makes sense, you need larger grains for faster exposures. if you over expose, you'll get smaller grains in the film to expose and will give you a bit more detail.

you will run into optical limitations though depending on the capabilities of your lenses and the colimation of both the camera flange and lenses. making sure these are dialed in as best as possible will mean you'll get the most out of your glass. 

that all being said, the contrasiter you make your lighting the more you'll gain apparent sharpness regardless of the resolving power of your combination of glass, camera, and film. 

one thing you might consider, you can get a good condition set of Ultra Primes in the 20-25k USD range these days. just something to consider. 

my preferred scanner is Fotoken's Scanity 4k, or if I have the option the lasergraphics director Roundabout has. those are true RGB scanners.

that being said, if you run a lasergraphics scan station, a bayer patern scanner, in HDR mode, the color reproduction gets damn near that of the Scanity. some vendors offer hdr mode for a modest price bump but some charge quite a bit for it (requires two flashes per frame, so the machine runs slower)

I second neat video, its my go to for grain reduction and sharpening 16 when needed