Robin Phillips

If you're trying to max out super 16, you really want a modern, serviced camera with Ultra16 lenses (or ultra primes generally). On the Arri side, the Arri SR3 Advanced (the one with the gate guides) and up, or an Aaton XTR Prod and up. You also need to make sure your lenses are dialed in to the max. These cameras have the minimum amount of any side to side movement of the film, and are very robust/reliable.

You also need to do tests with any gear prior to a shoot, incase something just isnt right somewhere in any of the gear. On the SR3, the FFD range listed by arri is a tad wide range wise, and if you're too close to the shallow limit you will be a tad softer than if you are closer to the SR3 HS flange depth. (I learned this the hard way lol)

If I were you, I'd be looking for an Aaton XTR, XTR Prod, or SR3 Adv. I've seen all of those show up for under 3k every now and then, though they can be found easier for around 5k+ USD. Arri parts seem easier to get in the Los Angeles area, though Ablecine in LA I've recently learned has a nice stockpile of Aaton spare parts. I will say the biggest advantage of the Aatons is they are sooo much easier to shoulder.

 

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.

To clarify, Mother was super 16 on Ultra16 lenses, the Arri/Zeiss high end and last generation of dedicated super 16 lenses.

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.

you'll certainly find shortends and recans for 35mm easier than you will s16. 2 perf spherical is always a great option if you can get the camera bodies.

I will say, I actually really like s16 spherical cropped to 2.39. The feel of 1.3x anamorphic is a bit nicer, but from what I've seen those hawk lenses do have some sharpness issues the wider open you get, vs say the Ultra16 spherical lenses. If you can check out some stuff shot on each. "The Wall" was hawk 1.3x anamophic s16, IIRC "Mother!" was Ultra16 cropped to 2.39 s16

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.

Hopefully more details will show up in some interviews, as the spots fooled me into thinking it was s35. the dof is so shallow it makes me wonder if they shot just shy of wide open the whole time

Ablecine will work on Aaton film cameras still. I didnt ask Girvan if they will do anything else, especially the more esoteric or rare cameras (I would guess not but ya never know)

Jorge at cinematechnic might be able to help http://cinematechnic.com/ (based out of HotRod Camera's building). Andree from clairmont now has his own shop and he may be able to help too https://www.amcamera.com/ both are in LA

Girvan at Able said this caused a lot of confusion when these came out. Im just thrilled someone is still around in the US who knows about them and their quirks (and has spare parts in stock)

Ohh intersting. Yea I figured it was something silly like that. I honestly didn't know the Xtera had a run switch near the battery release. Obviously for the AC to start/stop the camera, but still that's odd.

was able to get it by Able. Im less than pleased with the fact that the manual does not label the run lever that sits near the top battery release... That was fully depressed, leading to it immediately running when power was supplied. So I was doing something dumb and not realizing it.

As an Arri guy, I gotta say these Aaton design quirks are starting to make me dislike the french lol

Hi all, wondering if anyone has any insights on this problem I'm having.

I got my hands on an Xtera that's been in storage for 5+ years, and while its in darn good condition its got one weird problem - attaching the battery results in the camera instantly running. The test/run wheel's position seems irrelevant to this behavior. I've swapped the body fuses, but theres no change in this behavior.

Im using the only battery that will actually charge, attached the VHR shows the battery at 13.7v

Anyone ever experienced this or something similar and have any insights? Any chance Im doing something dumb and not realizing it?

I too highly recommend looking at the F35. I own one, and its alot easier to record data from (as well as has actual current recording support from Convergent Design via their odyssey 7q+). Its also a bit smaller, its global shutter is spectacular, and for my money looks more like film than the D21. It also upscales to 4k really well when you use Ultraprimes (F35 sensor is above 5k, resolves in camera to 1080 444 12 bit)

You also dont have to worry about needing the mechanical spare parts for the sweeping shutter on the D21 (I think its mostly 435 parts but not sure).

Thanks for reply.

Basically my budget is near 4-5 k Eur.

As I saw in google old ARRIFLEX d21 posts they keep quite similar price. Besides i like D21 idea of mechanical shutter and sensor which is emulates film style image.

 

Of course I think that real film is best technology to capture light but it's too pricey for me. So it is very interesting to me how Arri build they D21 camera with unique sensor quality. Isn't it

well, probably because its trespassing for one. Even if its public it can be trespassing, as the usual underlying reason for film permits in public spaces is because you're using publicly supported property for a for profit endeavor and as such the public should be compensated in some manner.

Also if the headstones and such constitute an additional form of private property then you'd need permission from both the overall property owner AND the headstone owners, lest again you're just trespassing.

I had to steal a couple shots at one last week. Are there more laws or permits which come with a place like that?

 

Thanks for any input.

Dont process the files in Adobe premier, use After Effects or Resolve to break them up into editing dalies or prores masters. IIRC Premier will spit them all out at 8bit, so if you decide to stay with your prores files or DNxHR files for finishing you'll have lost alot of color information

 

That's nothing, we blow way more than 100 grand on film school alone! :unsure:

 

You'd struggle putting a decent 3 minute music video together for 10 grand, and that's to launch a single. Imagine trying to launch a career with a 15 minute narrative, and only 10 grand to pay for it?

 

I guess poor is relative. :rolleyes:

its happened before. The real thing that can hold back a 10k film isnt so much budget but lack of practice/experience and talent. That being said, I've seen super low budget USC 310s and 508s (2nd semester projects) that have played at Cannes...

damn it man you sold your 416?

I sold a pristine kit, including tons of accessories, five magazines, four fully working batteries, for half that price two months ago. Dammit, should have waited a little longer ;)

PMed you Paul's email

Thank you all for your input. I have a fiber screen I can send them to be remarked. Is there a website address for Shurco?

Thanks for the clarification, Dom. I guess my point is that Super 16 is a format, not an aspect ratio.

 

My apologies to Robin, if I misunderstood him.

all good. there are 4:3 fiber screens made for the SR2 and SR3 that basically have a darkened on the side to prevent transmission of unwanted light if you're shooting 4:3 or N16. This darkened area is actually part of the fiber screen, so it can be removed when its re-marked, giving you the full super 16 surface area on the screen to work with. This is the sort of screen I sent to Shurco to have done for my custom 2.39:1 screen, and they confirmed when I sent photos of it that they can modify that type screen to full s16.

you're right, typo on my part, full name is Shurco tool company, Paul is the guy to talk to. Shurco can convert N16 fiber screens to super16 too.

I think the company is called Shurco.

 

P&S Technik have an SR3 ground glass for sale, it's 1.33 and Standard 16 but could be a donor for remarking.

 

I would also try ringing around older rental houses that may still have a collection of ground glasses they may be willing to sell.

I dont have any for sale, but Shruco in LA is re-doing a 4:3 sr3 screen for me into a custom 2.39:1 (arri made a 2.35, but not a 2.39). If you have a donor screen you can have them resurface it. catch is they can take a while. Cinematechnic or Alan Gordon (both in LA) may have donor screens for sale

you probably wont find one outside of working with a trusted colorist. PM me if you'd like and I can share some samples of what I've done with neat video. If I feel I need a little more pop, or an upscaling to 4k, I typically do the largest sample of grain reduction I can, add 10-15% sharpening, then re-composite with the original (anywhere from mixing back 25% to 75% depending if I need it upscaled). You do wind up having to render alot, and you need to make sure you're in 10bit or more, but I've been very happy with the results. Kinda the best you can ask for outside of either shooting s16 anamorphic x1.33 (expensive) or just shooting short end/recan 35mm (sometimes on par with s16 price wise)

Thanks for your thoughts on SCREAM. I'm unfamiliar with it, and not in a terrific position to go through another full scan on all the footage.

 

 

 

I've been making due this way in the past, but I'm just not entirely satisfied with the results regardless of the settings and mix of temporal and spatial reduction. I'm really after a one-stop solution that delivers acceptable results without requiring intensive post processes once they get back.

for the record, I hate you all for starting this thread. I now have a Chevys quesadilla and pepsi craving that shall never be satisfied...

These stills look like something went very, very potato. Like, QC should have caught it before it left potato.

As someone whose been doing a bunch of tests and tinkering around with grain reduction pipelines, I'd strongly recommend two things:

1 unless its a mag scratch test, use a fresh 100' roll of film to rule out problems there, especially for any resolution or sharpness/flange depth tests.

2 scan WITHOUT any grain reduction. Neat Video alone is so powerful (and can re-composite your grain back in if you went too far) that its really kinda dicy to play with anything from the lab, especially if the person doing the grain reduction isnt from the days of lots of tv shows shooting super16. The only lab/scan place I'd even remotely consider letting run a spirit's SCREAM on is Fotokem, and thats just cause I've seen them actually do it tastefully. The catch is they are expensive, and if you're doing tests why not just use tools in Davinci or Neat Video and save the headache (and money)?

As everyone else has said, formatting doesnt matter much (other than to guestimate time required to shoot). Really whats important is laying out each action, reaction, or tactic change by a character that moves the story forward (not tiny redundant character actions unless its vital to that end), and keeping things in the present tense. Its a great exercise that will require you to think in images instead of heads talking. Otherwise I think Celtix is still cheap and aids in formatting.

BTW my automated reminder note for students: if you do use dialogue, always remember that dialogue is action in films. its used as a tactic to achieve a goal, vs dumping exposition. If you find a character talking to just explain something, throw out that dialogue and re-write the thing they're explaining as a visual action simply and visually (or change a behavior of a character to be hiding said info, or trying to squeeze said info out of someone etc).

I've seen lots of good short films made on budgets ranging from $500 to $500,000. It really depends on the script, but I'm guessing you're not doing scifi craziness. the 480/546 class at USC I think had the budgets capped at either 10k or 15k, with film and processing needing to be paid for from that budget.

1st up - insurance. DO NOT FILM WITHOUT THIS. its not worth the risk. If you're in a class at a school that will provide an insurance cert, awesome. If not, its probably gonna be 1200-1500 for a 12 day stretch. Since this will save your ass in the event of any accident, this is your first expense. You'll need Property, General liability, and Workmans Comp. Add ons for hired auto insurance, pyro etc are additional costs.

Are you shooting thru weekdays, or more than one weekend? Consider paying the crew and talent at least favor rates (unless they're your good friends AND good at what they do). But pay the gaffer. seriously. Also probably sound (even if just their kit fee). Both jobs are kinda thankless on a short.

Food and water - people dont need the fanciest stuff, but if you do 4 days of pizza it'll bring down the moral and set energy on day 2.

Production design / costume design - depending on the subject matter this may or may not be as high a priority, but as someone else said, if something looks bad/cheap the best crew in the world wont save it. Though really creative lighting can, subject matter permitting. Consider creative solutions before spending money, but expect to spend some here. You may be able to design yourself (or between you and other key crew), but you'll likely still need some various things. You may need to pay for locations. Some insurance policies may require a financial transaction for the policy to cover, so even if its a free location it never hurts to do a rental contract for $1.

You probably dont need 4k, it may even reveal the "budget" (again subject matter depending). While HHDs are getting cheap, for the love of god get a bare minimum of 2 drives to store a duplicate of the footage. Normal procedure is to have 3 copies of footage on digital. Back up project files to google drive as you work.

A hair/makeup person will make life easier, though if you're in LA you may find talent whose down to just apply their own base if their really on board with what you're out to do. I've always kinda felt with high res digital you really want a dedicated person though.

Even $500 for some kind of score or music license goes a long way. Same with a sound mix, which you really will need for a festival run.

I'd note depending on if you're doing anything crazy in a public space, or with a prop gun that MIGHT be in view of the public, get a permit and, if need be, rent a police officer to babysit you. If you're in a safer area or super near the sub-station, sometimes they'll settle for giving you only 1 cop instead of 2 (urban areas usually send partners). It'll be annoyingly expensive, but a hell of a lot cheaper than the consequences of SWAT descending on your set and shooting your actor. (note that a cop on an adrenaline high responding to a gun call almost certainly wont notice the film equipment, only the gun). This advise is at the end cause it may not be applicable, but if it is applicable this is expense #2 right after INSURANCE.

I'd throw out there that these stills are pretty darn clean grain wise, and you'll need to remember that the grain varies across the frame based on brightness/darkness of a given spot.

I'd recommend trying Neat Video, IIRC they have a direct plug in for Resolve now. Its pretty amazing honestly, I've been able to do some nutty degrain, sharpen, regrain with upscales that look great. It may give you results more to your satisfaction.

I'd throw out there though, given the white walls you've got in the material, the grain will actually make the image less videoy and feel a bit more natural given the grain variance of the otherwise simple and constant background

Hi all, anyone have a used arri K2.52082.0 dovetail insert with thread handy they'd be willing to sell?