Jim Ferguson

I'm looking to get a spare mag for my kinor. I need the 150 meter one (the smaller one for 400' rolls of film). Is anyone looking to get rid of one? Please email. Thanks, Jimmy www.homelessmanproductions.com jim@homelessmanproductions.com

I have a 2-perf Kinor available for rent. It's modified by Bruce at Aranda and tweaked by Bernie at Super-16 inc. A really nice camera. I love the format. Hopefully I'll get some footage from it posted on my website soon. Jimmy

I bought an HVX200 and am selling my DVX100. Only used professionally by me. With roughly 250 hours, it is in great condition. Please email me with offers. Thanks, Jim www.Homelessmanproductions.com

How much for the set? You can drop me an email if you'd like... Jim -at- Homelessmanproductions -dot- com Thank you, Jim

I'm a DP in New Orleans and I own a 2-perf Kinor overhauled by Bruce at Aranda films (with new electronics and video tap). I'm very often asked about a comparable B-camera. Many productions won't rent one without two. So, in my research I've found: The Crook Brothers in NY. Karl Kim in NJ. Anders in Sweeden. Movielab in Australia. I'd like to know how many are really out there. It would be great if we could help each other. I'm convinced that there is a significant market for us. I need to rent a b-cam for October, but can't find one. Will our 2-perf aspirations fail because we don't have enough cameras? I'm proposing we make a bit of a list here as a reference. As for my Kinor, check my website:. www.homelessmanproductions.com It's being developed as a resource on the format. I should have some info by next week - it's slowly getting there. Jim

Your sense of lighting and color is really excellent. However, I don't feel your reel does you justice. I don't think it's edited very well. I think it's a bit long and slow. I'm a DP and like staring at images for the sake of the image, but most people aren't as patient. A reel needs to be almost like a music video. It has to have pacing and rhythms. (I think this is true for films as well to some extent: images + editing = poetry). Anyhow, it's this pacing, these rhythms, that I think your powerful images lack. You've done the hard part (acquiring great images) just fine tune the cut a bit and I think you're there. Good work. ... My 2 cents.

Not a pioneer? :( I know. I'm joking. But, since a number of you have been shooting in this format, can you put forth the reasoning that compelled this decision? Also, do you think it's still too uncommon to 'sell' to most indie producers? Might they be too easily scared off? Thank you.

What's this new Aaton 2-perf? Do you have details? (I'd be modifying a Kinor.) So I decided to contact some producers I know. I realize that my question is perhaps best answered by a producer. The question, I feel, is really quite simple: "Would a very low budget film typically budget up to a release print, or just up to the telecine?" All of the responses I got went something like this: "We'd definitely budget for a release print... Well, unless we couldn't afford it yet and just wanted to get the film in the can. It's a lot easier to raise money once the films been shot. So, I guess if we couldn't get the money up front, we would just budget up to the telecine... until we could get the rest of the money." So, again I'm a bit stuck. I feel that the 2-perf option really only makes sense if you're not doing an optical blow-up... i.e. If you already plan on doing a DI, it seems like a good choice. Or, if you don't have the money for 4-perf - up front. Also, because of the relative obscurity of the format, all of the producers sounded a bit nervous in using 2-perf. (I tried the Titanic, Lucas, Leone, etc pitch... I even mentioned that Amelie, and Oh, Brother Where Art Thou? used the same size negative with a DI -but not technoscope. Although I might be lying here, I don't know where I read that.) The producers don't seem convinced that the benefits are that great over s16. (Although I am. It seems like a good compromise in cost and quality - especially if you want 2.39:1.) I saw an article about Sundance: http://msn.com.com/2100-9595_22-6028354.ht...28354&tag=tg_bz I think it's safe to conclude that 1/5th of the films being shown there were shot on film and finished on HD. So, now 2-perf sounds like a bargain again. So, it's a difficult choice. Perhaps it's still too obscure.......... but I could be a pioneer................................

Thank you for your response David. Alright, let's forget about DIs. I didn't realise they were that expensive, as I've never had had the opportunity to budget for one... So let's go with a telecine, and then an optical blow-up. If you shoot a non projection format, but don't have a distribution deal, do you factor the optical blow-up into the budget, or do you count your pennies just up to the telecine (hoping for a distribution deal to pick up the tab on the blow-up)? ... 'you' here would be the really low-budget producer. In other words, would you say "gee, I'm saving 30k by using 2-perf (and am now able to finish the film up to the telecine)". Or would you say "gee, I'm saving no money by using 2-perf because the optical blow-up is so expensive, and I end up with inferior footage". I apologize, as I'm sure every production is different... but I'm looking for the generalization. Note: I'm still ignoring equipment costs on this (including for the anamorphics).

Alright, ignoring equipment costs, and assuming comparable equipment... In trying to make an extremely low-budget film, which is more economically practical, 2-perf (2.39 / matted 1.85) or 4-perf (anamorphic 2.39 / matted 1.85)? I'm speaking of practicality, not aesthetic or technical quality (which is obvious here). I suppose the question comes down to this... is a very low budget film (with no guaranteed distribution) more inclined to do a DI anyhow, and not worry about printing out to film (until possibly getting a distribution deal based on the DI)? Or, is it more likely to forgo the DI for the less expensive straight to film method (thus justifying the extra film costs upfront with the larger negative)? For instance, many choose to shoot s16 over academy 35 due to cost difference. Would 2-perf be a viable option (substantial cost savings, but double (at least) quality of s16 - which, like 2-perf, is also not a projection format)? I realize that this is a ridiculously generalized question, but unfortunately this is the question I face. Very basically, I'm considering converting my camera to 2-perf, as those who would hire me and my camera, will certainly be low-budget. I'm wondering if this will increase my marketability. I could go after low budget 35 films and save them money, and I could possibly convince s16 films to use a larger negative. I appreciate any input on the matter. Jim

It worked! We imported with the xl2 and didn't have a problem. After your suggestions and talking to Canon, this seemed like the only possibility. I don't understand why that is, but... it is. Thank you all.

Thanks for the info on the external timecode. They were capturing on something other than the camera itself. I'll see if they can try to use the camera. Perhaps this will fix it. Thanks again everyone. Jim

Also:I presume that he is speaking of picking up eternal timecode from an outside source as I believe some high-end cameras (beta, etc.) do. Mini-DV cameras don't have this feature as far as I know. - But this is a guess.

"external timecode" I feel the same way as you.... I have no idea what it means, nor have I ever heard of it or seen it in a manual, etc. It's something that was mentioned to me second-hand from a video guy. I thought I would throw it to the forum to see if anyone else has heard of it... anything's worth a shot!

"Inconceivable"... That's how I feel, that's why I'm so frustrated. I've been assuming a camera error, as I'm not digitizing the footage myself. It seems the editor has imported a lot of footage in the past and never had this problem. Also, the first seven tapes were fine. Someone mentioned to me about a possible "external timecode" setting. I've never heard of this, any ideas? Thanks again, Jim

Jack, Thank you for your response. Yeah, I've never seen this either. I was shooting Rec Run Preset. 24p The timecode was definitely rolling accurately on the camera. It's just in the tape that it doesn't seem to have recorded. Unfortunately, the camera is rented. It's back at the shop until we begin shooting again. I'm not able to play around with it to try and recreate the problem. What could it be? Jim

Hello... I'm shooting a feature on the XL2. We've shot ten tapes so far. The editor has reported to me that the final three tapes have no timecode. The camera operator, the director, and I all saw the timecode rolling on the camera, however somehow, the editor cannot find anything on the tapes themselves. ????? He will have to dub the tapes with the proper timecode in order to import them into his system. So, what's going on? I want to make sure that this doesn't continue for the rest of the film. Has anyone experienced something similar? Any advice? Thank you all for your help. Jim I suppose I should add that I was manually entering the start timecode for each tape. Also, we are importing into Final Cut. Thank you!

Beautiful stuff. Masterful lighting. This will stand out from other reels just from the quality of the work - importance of music, editing, etc. are minimalized by the strength of the images. I didn't particularly like the music. I also think it could be cut better to go with the rhythms of the music. I like the slow pace that allows the images to be viewed, however may be a bit slow paced for some. Again - none of these strike me as that important given the quality of work. The one thing I would definitely do: take out the image of the boy (I'm sure you know which one) it doesn't match the tone of the rest of the reel. Tone ('your style' so to speak) is one of your great strengths. Well done... best reel I've seen.