Evan Kubota

Right, which is why I said 'in the US'... http://www.abelcine.com/articles/index.php...8&Itemid=32 http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/why....3.10&lc=en It seems that more shows than I expected are using S16, but the 'big' shows are still either 35mm or HD. According to imdb 'Lost' is 35mm (3-perf) while '24' was 35mm until season 3 when they switched to HD. 'Seinfeld' was 35mm... I haven't done a huge amount of research on this but my guess would be that it's only in the last 5-10 years that scanning and film stocks advanced to the point where S16 becomes viable for mainstream shows in the US (and also the proliferation of smaller-budget dramatic television on smaller networks).

Interesting. I've never seen any of those shows either. According to imdb Scrubs is S16 on an XTRprod and sometimes A-Minima. This is honestly pretty surprising as I thought 35mm or HD were the standards for dramatic television in the US. Are they really saving money by using 16mm? Nip/Tuck is certainly 35mm.

Those shows are generally shot on 35mm, not S16... and all things considered, an HD transfer is going to look better than SD if they are both 10-bit with the same color sampling and equally skilled/proficient colorists. To answer your other question, a well-maintained Bolex with clean Switars gives quite good images as far as regular 16 goes.

I'd sell either the Bolex or the NPR... on one hand, having an NPR as the backup for the ACL would be nice, but you'd get more money from selling it than the Bolex. I'd probably sell the Bolex if I had your three cameras.

Thanks. The mic was an AKG C1000S. I bought it for about $90 used on eBay. I think new they are $150-200. Yes, the whole film was shot with a Kinor. In that sequence it was about twenty feet from the actors and the mic was placed as close as possible without being visible in the frame. This is the key to getting clean sound even with a camera that is not whisper quiet.

Save the file from the link and play in QuickTime 7 or above... The sound quality from the PMD660 is quite good and probably comparable to a good DAT. Obviously your mic placement and mic quality are far more important than the recorder. I don't think the PMD660's quality is limiting. If you're using a Sony D8 or similar this is probably a good replacement.

I record sound as I shoot with the Kinor. I use a Marantz PMD660. Here's a sample of a scene with this method. http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/dialogue.mp4

What Andy suggests is by far the sanest option. From the posts here, almost everyone has made it sound like a crystal sync camera is practically a requirement to do anything with dialogue. Not true. Just record the sound after the camera take (or during, with appropriate sound insulation and mic placement), and make sure your actors can give a (relatively) consistent delivery. The eye is forgiving as far as sync as long as the start of screen talking and sound talking is relatively synchronous. Every word does not have to be perfect (although my results were far better than I expected). I used a mixture of recorded-after-the-take and during for my 20 minute film, which had at least two dialogue scenes (five minutes total). It worked fine. The result was probably nearly identical to using a crystal sync camera. Of course, nothing is wrong with the latter if it's on someone else's coin.

As a user of both, I would definitely go with the Kinor. IMO the SBM and EBM are the bastard children of the Bolex lineup. They're quite heavy, loud, and significantly, very expensive. The advantages of the Bolex are small size, relatively light weight, and ability to be free from battery power. Without these advantages it starts to look like a camera that is cumbersome and expensive without many redeeming characteristics. The Kinor was designed from the beginning as a motorized, relatively quiet camera, not an existing design pushed into being something it isn't. The 10-100mm lens is fantastic, the .75x wide angle adapter is incredibly useful, and the 400' magazine combined with simple, efficient operation (no threading of film into the body, for example) and great results make it by far the most useful sub-$1000 camera for actual production work, IMO. I have several non-reflex Bolex bodies (one converted to S16) and I enjoy them for the high quality, wide variety of available lenses, and light weight. Spending several hundred dollars on a similar design while losing most of the characteristics that make them pleasing doesn't sound like a great plan...

The current draw varies by camera, but I use a 12v 5Ah SLA with my Kinor and it works well. A little heavy at 4.5 lbs or so but in the shoulder rig it's fine. I get the subjective impression that it's more than powerful enough to run the camera (and the camera in the worst case will probably not draw more than 1.5-2 A, so it's good for at least 2 hours of film time) - about half a feature if you maintain a low ratio. Another good thing about film cameras - almost no battery drain unless the motor's running ;) I have a recelled 300mAh internal NiCd for my Scoopic (grey) that is fine for that camera but it doesn't give enough juice to power the Kinor. Same for a 300mAh wallwart (although stated output is always inflated on cheap stuff).

Kinors have a history too, just not in the Western world ;) Some stills at my site: http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html These were all from the 6mm prime. The 10-100mm zoom is apparently slightly sharper, of which I have some other footage that will be posted later. The BL is brutally heavy, fairly expensive, and limited in lens options... nice camera but I'd rather go for something cheaper and more comfortable. Also, sample footage: http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/18.mov SD Rank telecine to miniDV by Cinelab. Shot on Plus-X negative. In retrospect I don't even notice that it was shot at 25 fps and transferred at 24. Do you?

I tend to agree. Why not look for the best price? It's not going to be available locally anyway (unless you're only using E64 and you're in the UK). Kodak is the cheapest, especially with student discount.

I started in 16mm with a Bolex then went to a Scoopic that had a poorly calibrated lens (must have been taken apart at some point) and gave kind of soft footage. For dialogue shooting I got a Kinor. I should have the first footage back next week - I shot 300' of Plus-X neg outside. My impression of the camera is that it's relatively heavy compared to a K3 or Bolex (but not bad compared to a CP-16 or Arri) and it's not too noisy, although its not whisper quiet. From 15-20 feet away sound should not be an issue. The 10-100mm zoom seems to be great and the 6mm prime is really cool as well. As Olex pointed out, for quiet, pin-registered cameras in this price range there's really no other competition. I paid a shipped total of $550 for the body with the 10-100, 12-120, 6mm and 20mm lenses (also a .75x adapter). It also came with five 100' mags (one of which was broken) and a 400'.

Plus-X 7265 is available in double-perf. Has to be shipped from a Colorado warehouse and they only seemed to have two in stock each time I ordered (got 4 for a project). I recommend taking it apart and removing the second claw and row of teeth. Takes no more than an hour and you won't be cripped by double-perf.

Reloading the 50' mags is a huge pain - probably better off getting a camera that takes normal 100' daylight loads. FWIW, Kodak has some double-perf stocks that are not special order and are regular stocked items, although the people on the 621-FILM line don't seem to know this and will only check if you insist. In a few days, I can get the part number from some double-perf Plus-X that I ordered a while ago. However, there were only 2 100' rolls in the warehouse each time I called (about 2 weeks apart) so I was never able to order more than 2 at a time.

Yes, "Idi i smotri" (Come and See) is a fantastic film. I wasn't aware that split diopters were used - it looks like the shot could have been done by taking two separate takes of the scene with different parts in focus then optically blending them later. Same with one shot in Reservoir Dogs where Harvey Keitel is in the foreground and Mr. Pink is on the floor in the background - it looked to me like the shot was done twice and composited, but I guess a diopter could have been used there. There is a very visible blurred line between the halves of the frame.

Skin looks a little hot, but other than that, looks good. I like the broken-up lighting in the last shot. Would it be possible to use less fill? They look very classically lit, but I like the least fill possible for a starker look.

FWIW, I shot part of my 16mm short with a Sony 20-80mm f/2.5 TV zoom. The results were quite good, IMO, although I used B&W film. I guess theoretically different focal points for red, green, and blue should still affect B&W images, though (assuming the scene has colors). The second shot here was from the Sony. http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html

Nearly all of the actual action is on the small set. There are 2 or 3 shots outdoors, back on "Earth." I had read many posts/threads on several forums discussing how TV lenses were generally made so that red, green, and blue had slightly different focusing points, as opposed to a cine lens where they would all fall on the film plane. I was prepared for sub-par results from the Sony lens (actually made by Canon, I think), but my initial thoughts proved correct - the optics were clear and large, and the lens gave a very sharp image through the ground glass.

I've been keeping a log of my projects at my website: http://plaza.ufl.edu/ekubota/film.html I just received the developed/transferred film from "Silence" on Friday. A few stills are posted on my site. I used Plus-X at 80ASA, and an old non-reflex Bolex H16. Lenses were a Sony TV zoom, Switar 10mm, Angenieux 25mm, and TTH 25mm. Surprisingly, the Sony zoom appeared nearly as sharp as the Switar. I think in the future I'll try rating Plus-X as 100ASA indoors - some of my shots appeared to verge on overexposure, or at least were "standard". For a project like this I prefer the denser, darker look of slightly underexposed film.

I don't have a Schneider ;) I guess you meant Angenieux. Unfortunately I didn't make notes of what lens/fstop I used for each shot, but I should be able to roughly figure it out because the camera placements were largely determined by the set design - all of the rear shots used the Switar or Sony, for example.

Interesting thread. It's generally said that both Switars and Schneiders are excellent lenses, but I haven't received my film back... I used a Switar 10mm f/1.6, an Angenieux 25mm f/0.95, and a Sony TV zoom 20-80mm f/2.5. It should be interesting to see what look each lens gives. IMO there's not nearly enough quantitative comparison of C mount primes - I've yet to see a comprehensive and objective test of images produced under similar conditions with different lenses.

"There's a sense in your diary, which I've often felt - during prep for the few short films that I've shot - that on most jobs our main task is just to get the damn thing on film, and if you can fit some artistry into the process, then you're ahead of the game. The situation, the location, the weather, the b.s. all dictate a lot of your decisions. In other words, 95% of our attention is on logistics, and somewhere in all the chatter there's a little notion about how the film should look." I'm not a professional DP, but I feel exactly the same way on my own productions. Logistical nightmares and technical issues take so much time and effort that shooting becomes a struggle to get through the shotlist. There certainly doesn't seem to be any time to consciously focus on aesthetics. I kind of do what David does - saturating myself with ideas and images (in my case when I'm writing and storyboarding) and hoping that some of that shows in the finished product. My current project is more technically complex than my previous work, so I feel even less certaintly about the finished result.

I agree that these production diaries are a fantastic resource. However, I'm not sure that school credit is required for interns to work for free - I worked on a low budget (~$1 million) production last year as an intern, didn't receive school credit, but wasn't paid either. Was this legal? It was a great experience, regardless.

Yes, all the elements are coated. If you want a degraded look, maybe throw a cheap filter on the front.