Jump to content

Will Montgomery

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    2191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by Will Montgomery

  1. Not a very technical answer and a completely different stock, but I can tell you recently seeing 16mm Ektachrome projected made my jaw drop in the color rendition. It was more than just slightly more saturated...it had colors that I just didn't see after working with scanned film for years. And don't get me started on 16mm Kodachrome...that was another world projected. I've made prints from Vision stocks look great but never seem to have that overwhelming beauty that reversal stocks give me when projected. I realize this is due to the higher contrast and color saturation but it is something everyone should see while they can.
  2. So it's the black, older version and not the Autofocus (AF) silver one, correct? It's a decent camera. I believe once you put some batteries and film in that should go away as Mark indicated it's a low light or underexposure indicator.
  3. Not being an engineer but having owned many 16mm cameras, my take on different camera bodies with the same lens as stated in the original premise would be that an individual frame would be quite similar for multiple cameras with the same lens, it's the movement from frame to frame that is different. While I don't have a Bolex, I can say that my Canon Scoopic has beautiful individual frames, but I can see flutter in skies quite often whereas my SR2 is steady and continuous as a rock. I've been told the movement on a Scoopic is extremely finicky and difficult to adjust as changing one element leads to issues on another element and basically it wasn't designed to be worked on and adjusted as precisely as the Arri. Bolex's are fine cameras and I'm sure a well-maintained one will be great; it just may be harder to find qualified Bolex techs vs. Arri techs at least in the U.S. Not sure in London.
  4. Wow. A ten year old post is new again. I'm getting old.
  5. Have you looked into simple adapters like this? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32772779341.html
  6. Great answers here. Most important is maxing out what 16mm can do for you by using sharp lenses and proper focus & exposure and using the slowest film stock you can for the project. 4k scans will almost always be an improvement, how much of an improvement will be based on how well it's shot. If the image doesn't hit the film sharp and clear, higher resolution scans will only give marginal improvements and may not be worth the cost. When it's shot well, 4k absolutely improves the final result even when finishing in HD. Plus you can reframe a little bit if needed which is nice.
  7. Basically a cartridge system for 16mm would have to be the same as SR mags to have a substantial and quality pressure plate to we're kind of back to where we started. Maybe you could make them of lesser quality material but probably not. Although the Disc idea would be fun. It would also be spinning so fast you could chop down trees... or a whole forest at once with a 70' radius.
  8. $1500 for a short is not pricey at all. Depends on who you're getting and what results you expect. Prices have come down quite a bit because everyone thinks they're a colorist now but someone with experience and talent will cost you but for good reason.
  9. Are the power belts 3 pin as well? If so you'll be fine. I've had Batteries+ re-cell belts for me in the past just fine if you don't feel like getting out the soldering iron. As far as an adapter...From B&H the expected availability is 8-10 months... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1121420-REG/lowel_bl_820_4_pin_xlr_f_to_3_pin.html
  10. The Super 8 cartridge is incredibly cheap in every way. The plastic, the pressure plate, the spring, ect. are all made to be as inexpensive as possible yet still yield passable results. These are meant for one use and discarded. But even they add costs to the film because of the extra labor assembling them. To make a 100' or 400' 16mm (or 35mm) cartridge system would add significantly to the cost of film because it would have to be MUCH more substantial than the Super 8 system to hold up to professional use. So basically it would be like a new Arri magazine every time. Yes you could do a deposit/return thing like bottles but would not be very practical. Not sure where you can cut corners with that design either but it wouldn't save very much even if you designed a brand new camera (which would NEVER happen.) So we're back to loading our own magazines which goes really fast and isn't so bad once you do it regularly and is also why clapper/loaders exist. As my Kodak rep recently told me, loaders are getting twice as much money as they used to because its becoming a rare skill. (and too much responsibility for me!)
  11. I've always ordered directly from Kodak (800.621.FILM (3456)). If you have an account it's easier but they will accept credit cards...you just have to read off the numbers to them every time you order. Their shipping is fast and cheap. Looks like they have online ordering through the website now as well. https://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/product_information/index.htm
  12. The "removing the filter then you have to collimate part may be witchcraft," but the point that a 4008 is what...35 years old and who knows what's been done to it is not witchcraft...always worth checking collimation every few years, especially if the camera is new to you. But if you test it and have no issues then save the money. Checking it should be part of regular service so if it's a new camera to you then service by someone who knows what they're doing is more important than just collimation.
  13. If the internal filter is removed it is a good idea to collimate the lens. Actually, it is always a good idea to have that done. Björn Andersson in Sweden can help you with that. Filmkonsult Svebaco KB - Björn Andersson Vidholmsbackkarna 54 - Box 5136 - 165 72 Hasselby - Sveriges Telephone: +46 (0)838 1074 Email: bjorn.andersson@brevet.nu info@beaulieu-service.com
  14. Yep. Unless you're ok with film chain transfers, costs savings with Super 8 is pretty minimal compared with 16mm and maybe even 35mm if you get stock cheap.
  15. An unsharp mask type plugin may appear to help a little but there's simply no substitute for proper focus. The data is just not there.
  16. My results with the Wolverine were very similar to Daniel's example posted. It almost looks like it was captured at 360dpi and enlarged to 1080. Like I said, it makes otherwise sharp footage look like a Monet painting. If you want to say it does a fine job for the money, I guess maybe that's the case since it's $300...but it would be completely unusable for me in any situation other than simply to know what was on the reel.
  17. Shooting 7222 is like shooting some of the really old Hollywood Movie stocks...if you don't have big lights it can get very grainy. A beautiful grain in my opinion but could be a bit much. Highly recommend testing before a shoot. Movies like Good Night and Good Luck shot in Vision 500T then desaturated in post so keep that in mind. Just plan on having plenty of light; more than you think you may need so you're not shooting wide open on the lens. It's always easy to remove light in post but adding it in just leads to more grain and ugly blacks.
  18. Focus tests I've done on multiple Scoopics seem to be fairly accurate. I'd love to hear your results.
  19. If you're a glutton for punishment you can make it work no doubt. Good luck with that. By the time you add everything on to it the cost and the cumbersome-ness would be crazy. Image can be more or less as steady as a 2c maybe, but not a 3 with registration pin. Not saying its a crappy camera (I have 5) just saying it's not what I would shoot a feature with. Would you really debate that?
  20. You're not going to make a feature with an Eyemo...1 minute at a time... They are great for crash cams and something where you don't want to risk a real 35mm movie camera; and perhaps for home movies if you don't mind changing reels constantly. They are not particularly stable compared to any modern (in the last 40 years) camera but not un-stable either. They give a noticeably improved image over 16mm even with cheap lenses. Here's footage from a wind up Eyemo...1080p transfer. Outer edges are extremely soft due to the lens but the center shows more detail than you'd get from 16mm in my opinion.
  21. Bernie & I go way back. I'll call him, thanks. Very true. But so nice not to have to constantly wind them. I do have a spring drive Eyemo that is as reliable as the day it was built. Also would work as an excellent bludgeoning weapon.
  22. I have several Steve's Cine modified (motorized) Eyemos that are looking for some service love. Since Steve is retired (don't want to bother him) it would be nice to find someone who services them. Might be expensive to send to Deutschland though... One is in pieces and another may just need a fuse for all I know; just don't have the time to sit down with them unfortunately.
  23. So even if you get a scan back that you think doesn't look great because of the age or temperature handling of the film, you might be surprised what a good colorist with film experience can do with the scan. They have tricks you won't find in a YouTube Resolve tutorial.
  24. Great news! So Cinelab is basically a one-stop-shop now for any kind of motion picture film processing, correct? Nice to be able to send everything to one place. Regular 8, Super 8, 16, 35, color reversal, B&W reversal, color negative...Double X B&W negative as well?
×
×
  • Create New...