Richard Mills

Thanks Mitch, I have read you thoughts on the SR in the past :) I was leaning toward the SR although it does cost a wee bit more to convert. But in the end, as you said, I'll end up with a viable product. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

Thanks for the info. I know Jorge, and if I choose the Arri I was going to have him do it. Met him when I was going to the Workshops in Maine. Brought my camera with me and he checked it out while I was there. Found out that my camera was quiter than his SR2 which he converted. My biggest concern is noise after the conversion. I had heard that it could be a problem with conversions. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

I've got two cameras, one is an Arri SR1, the other is an Eclair ACL. Both regular 16. One is going to get converted to super16 in '06. I want to make an informed decision on which to convert. I know the cost to convert each camera. Outside of costs, what other factors should I consider before I box the choice up and send it off to conversionland. Thanks Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

If there is a place in your city like Batteries,Batteries, or a Batteries Plus give them the specks and they can build a battery for you. I have had them build batteries for my R16 as well as my other cameras. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

The quality would be better than tape transfer. My goal is to remove tape from transfer equation and self control of the image that I shoot. Image quality is the reason I like to shoot film. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

Finally, somebody GETS IT! :lol: Your post is spot on. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

Since about NAB 2001 I noticed the middle getting squeezed. It was either big pictures (HD) or small pictures (the web), while the middle was kinda SOL. I haven't back since. So yeah I want someone to take the parts of the Indy car and build a dune buggy that I can use in my garage :) Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

No not really. That's what proxies are for. Scan, edit with proxies or offline, then conform. I want the best signal going in as I can get and let the NLE compress the frame. Not send in a compressed frame and compress it again, which is what we have now with any tape based format. It is unlikely I would do filmouts. In the event that I would do a project that needed to be filmed out, I would have that option. I guess it is more about control than anything else. As for the fast/cheap/good triangle, I'm only asking for 2 of the three. Good and inexpensive (not cheap). As for fast, well, with no transfer houses in my city, in the time it would take me to scan the footage it would be faster that waitng 2 weeks, in some cases, to get the transfer back :) Richard Mills Phoenix,AZ

Price is right but the technology is wrong. The Tobin machine only has 480 lines. Most TV engineers will balk at that (NTSC). Although it is on the right track as far as something for the desktop. The JK has a camera. I don't want the camera involved at all. I guess that a camera may be the only option. I want to be able to shoot 24 frames (film), scan 24 frames, edit in 24 frames, and then output to anything I want, DVD, tape (HD or SD) or output to film, (although unlikely but it would be nice to have that option) without dumbing down the image that I captured on the film frame by adding either camera or tape compression and resolution loss. I have all the technology to do the above except a direct A/D conversion of the film frame, on the desktop, without the use of a digital camera and it's added compression. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

Their site has no mention of S16, just 16mm. There is the single perf factor with S16. Plus there is the telecine factor. I don't want to be at the mercy of a camera. I want to scan right to a file without having to deal with a camera's chip and compression. I'm not saying that this is a bad product, it is just not what I'm looking to do. Though it maybe the only option out there. Has anybody seen the results of this product or used it? Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

Mike Sorry, my bad. I couldn't remember which scanner company had the roll film adapter for 35mm roll :( And the two strip thing for 16mm is a joke. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

As an ACL owner the thing I like the most about the camera is that it can take any lens mount that you can machine. I have Cannon, Nikon, and PL adaptors plus with the C mount any lens that I want to use I can. I have never had a mag fall off so I must be lucky. I only have the 400 footers. My camera is basically a Frank-en-cam. I have tried to figure out if it's a 1.5 or a 2. Some parts of a 1.5 some parts a 2, can't really tell which model I have. Went all over the net to find out this information got all three owners manuals and compared the notes so I think I have what they call a 1.5.5. I bought it on ebay 3 years ago and I have had no problems with it at all. Plus it is lighter and just as quiet as my Arri SR, so I use it mostly when I need to go hand held. Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

David You are correct, no one would spend $20K for a scanner. But, they will spend $20K for a midrange HDV camera :) For example, I think the Coolscan has an adapter for rolled film, why not make a larger transport with a coaxial mag to hold 200ft of 16. Doesn't seem that hard to do to me. Yeah it is a nitch market, but a market none the less. With the world going digital, the scanner market will shrink anyway so what are the going to do with all those scanners? Maybe we as potographers didn't scream loud enough in the beginning. It seems to me that we could be extending the product cycle of another dying product :) Richard Mills Phoenix, AZ

Yeah I have looked into their line of machines. Interesting concept but, they are telecines and you can't do S16 with them. I'm speaking of a mid-range scanner where you scan the whole frame, wheather 16 or S16 and not lose information by going into a camera. Where you are not dumbing down the frame by the camera's limits. Your only limit would be drive space. Richard Mills Cinematographer, Photographer, Editor Phoenix, AZ

First post so please be gentle :) I would love to remove tape from of the equation. I can't understand why a desktop scanner has not been developed for 16/s16. Even super 8. With technologies available today, that some scanner company hasn't come up with a scanner that can do this is unbelievable to me. Or even a desent adaptor for that matter so I don't have to use strips. Something that is the size of a Movieola, with RS422 control, to only scan selects, that will give you a TIFF/JPEG file that can be converted with QuickTime for editing in a NLE. Granted it will be slow, but it couldn't be any slower than waiting for your transfer to come back from the transfer house. All that would be needed is a ton of drive space, which is relatively cheap. Then output to what ever you want. With all the software that is available, ie After Effects, Photoshop, Final Touch etc. You would have more control of the image and achieve the look that you are after. Now I'm not saying that you would use this for a 35mm feature, but something for the middle range for someone that doing spots, music videos, or industrials that want to shoot 16mm and not have to deal with tape. Tape, to me seems to be the weak link in the whole transfer chain. Even HD although close but no cigar as far as image quality goes. Rant over. Thanks for letting me blow off steam Richard Mills Cinematographer, Photographer, Editor Phoenix, AZ