Will Montgomery

So you have an Arri mount adapter to MFT?

What's funny is that I bought the PL adapter (Wooden Camera) for my Zeiss 10-100 that was converted to 12-120 PL...the same lens you have. I have to say that lens its amazing with this camera. I actually bought the BMPCC so I'd have a sensor for that lens. I've been using it with S16 for years.

I've done a bunch of talking heads with that setup and clients are always amazed.

I see your one Zeiss 10-100 and raise you one Cooke S4 18mm.

Try different formats to get a feel for each. It's fairly inexpensive these days to rent 16 and 35mm cameras for a weekend and short ends can be had cheap. The differences in formats become extremely clear just shooting them.

Don't forget the upgraded HDMI port on the BMMCC compared to the super fragile micro HDMI on the BMPCC. That port is that cameras Achilles heel.

That's another reason a cage is so important for the BMPCC...you can put on cable locks that make the HDMI port less of an issue. In fact, that's probably the only way you could use that port on a real set.

Perry's ScanStation is truly amazing on Super 8. Probably the best raw scan I've gotten on the format. I'm working with a colorist on it next week and can't wait to hear his thoughts.

It can be difficult to compare scans of Super 8, partly because of the nature and size of the film and partly because not every scan is "flat" and just a little color adjustment can make a huge difference.

The good news is there are tons of excellent choices for scanning these days. At this level other factors like cost and convenience are probably more important. If you're scanning 35mm, the subtleties of a scan are more evident and tests can reveal differences. Then you can decide based on aesthetics for each project. I wouldn't agonize that much over the Xena vs. ScanStation for Super 8...either will give you amazing results.

The thought of putting negative film through a regular projector makes my skin crawl because of how rough those projectors can be on film. But if you're just having fun and testing things you can certainly give it a try...just don't put anything critical through the projector.

How about access to the colorists? Like a freelance/job board where we can hire these guys on their downtime to color some film? I have plenty of existing scans that I'd love to get to a good colorist for say $150-$200/hour if I provide the film scan...

The oddity, even today, is that people seem to adapt to use-film prices of $20 per minute but want their cameras to run these films through at fleamarket prices. I.e. half the price of a single super-8 cartridge.

Exactly. When people are looking for a $200 camera, what exactly do they think film, processing and transfer cost?

The market could change if Kodak ever comes out with their new camera...not sure if it will raise the value of your camera or lower it.

If you're in propro then test, test, test. My guess is that you'll be fine with 2k full aperture, especially with the cost savings. If your film gets a major release then the distributor can shoulder the cost of a new 4k scan. :)

Don't see a ton of 3008's for sale. You'd probably be disappointed on what you'd get for both cameras...

I have a great MS with new batteries I could sell, but I would expect the shipping to make it cost prohibitive. PM me if interested.

If it has to be under $200 then try a K3. Great entry camera. It should come with a decent/ok lens. If you have a little more money, like $550, a Scoopic MN is a great option. The lens is truly remarkable even though its fixed. Autoload feature makes loading fast and easy and build-in meter is actually very convenient when shooting on-the-go. I usually take a reading and lock it down.

Just remember, shooting one roll of film could cost you $150 by the time you're done processing and transfer so spending a little extra on a camera shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Congratulations on your first feature! What an exciting time for you.

Super 8 would be a great place to start, after all that's what Stephen Spielberg started on!

Buy a cheap Super 8 camera on eBay, some fresh stock from Kodak and go through the process to see if film is right for you. If you like the basic process Super 8 offers you can jump to Super 16 or 35...heck, why not go 70mm? :)

Remember, the cost of the camera is tiny compared to the cost of film, processing and transfer. But most importantly, keep in mind that actually having a good script, good actors, set design, a good director, ect. is what will make the biggest difference. If you have all that then film can make it look better. If you don't have all that then save yourself some money and shoot miniDV.

Good luck, and keep us informed on the progress!

2K is 2048 x 1556 for the Super-8 1.33 frame and that is significantly larger than the typical center cut 1440x1080 HD frame.

Of course Robert is right on this and it makes a big difference if your final destination will be cropped to 16:9. You can reframe vertically in your editor without any quality loss. It also gives you a little wiggle room (pun intended) for some light stabilization which can be the difference between watchable and un-watchable Super 8.

It was supposed to be a more affordable stock, using slightly older technology with a little more grain but I don't think the cost savings was enough to justify using "less than the best" stock available. Of course it had it's own look and that should drive stock choice more.

Kodak marketed it as a way for indies and lower budget projects to still use film and save money.

I used only a few times and didn't see much difference between it and 5218. Maybe it was leftover 5218 they sold when Vision 3 came out? :)

Make sure you test the stock just to know what it will do...I haven't had good luck with 500T film older than a few years. Almost anything is fixable by a colorist these days but if it has to match another stock you should know what you're getting into.

How refreshing to see 16mm on an indie. Your project will stand out just for that. Great shots in there. Congratulations.

I needed a decent digital sensor for my Super 16 Zeiss 12-120 zoom (modified 10-100 T2) so I picked a BMPCC up a couple years ago and I love it. Makes a great accessory for my lens. :)

It does eat batteries, but not too much of a problem if you buy 10 and have them laying around (plus 2-4 chargers). Anytime the camera is on a tripod I will just plug it in.

I would also look into a cage if you are going to rig out the camera any more than just a simple MFT lens. Wooden Camera makes a great one. Also a Zacuto clip on viewfinder is an excellent and inexpensive accessory.

Images are excellent for color correction, I love working in ProRes and even the raw files...lots of data to work with.

I can't speak to a Bolex, but the difference between multiple Scoopics I've owned and multiple SRs is noticeable. I love the Scoopic fixed lens and get excellent results with it, especially close up on people and things. I've had many complements from colorists on images from it.

Where I notice a difference is in large gradient areas in the image like a big blue sky. There's a pulsing that comes from the film transport in most Scoopics that can be very subtle, but there. I still love the Scoopic for its portability and small form factor.

With the three SRs I've owned (and are well maintained) never have that issue. My SRs just feel rock solid to me and are incredibly quiet. I have very nice versions of the "stock" 10-100 Zeiss/Arri zoom lenses (T3.1 and the T2) for my SRs which are amazing too.

As has been said, theoretically if these cameras are tuned perfectly only lenses should make a difference but a camera like an SR or LTR is designed to be tweaked and adjusted whereas a Scoopic has very little adjustment possible in the actual film transport so when something is off it's all about moving a little here and there which then knocks another part out a little. Not tech friendly from what I understand.

I've use ICE on Nikon Coolscans with 35mm still film for many years with generally decent results. Never gets everything and quite often there's a little halo around things it fixes, but as a timesaver for non-critical work it's great.

Perry's the expert but I would bet on motion picture film, those little halos around "fixed" elements might be just as distracting as a piece of dust.

Arguments can easily be made on either side, but I would agree that for 35mm film to cost the same or cheaper you'd probably be in the medium to large budget range. Super 16 is an excellent choice for small, low budget features but it will almost always cost more. The question is if the aesthetic warrants the extra cost for a particular film and that your DP and team is comfortable working in film which seems to be getting harder these days.

That said, here's an interesting article Kodak shared on Facebook...

The Ripple Effects of Shooting Film: Why Using 35mm for Outlaws and Angels Made Unexpected Financial Sense

As far as airport x-ray, will I have to worry about the film being harmed?

There's a ton of posts on that...I would just plan it out to have Kodak ship your film directly to your hotel or whomever you're staying with on the day you arrive. FedEx doesn't X-ray. You have to pay for shipping anyway, might as well save a step. Plus Kodak has crazy cheap shipping deals with FedEx...just go 2-day.

Definitely won't be "much" softer with 100D...what's more important will be the lens and focusing properly...that seems to be my major issue in Super 8, nailing the focus.

With 100D you'll be able to project it and that's 10x better than anything you'll see on a computer screen. The vibrant colors will pop like crazy. I was always disappointed at what a scan or telecine looked like compared to the projected film, especially in 16mm...Ektachrome 100D in 16mm is the bomb.

I'd go 100D in 35mm. :)

You'll get different results with 50D, not necessarily much better.

All depends on the look you'd like to get. Fresh 50D should give you the smallest grain possible with Super 8 and if you have a good transfer done you'll have flexibility in getting almost any look you'd like. You'd probably want to boost the color a little in post.

Hawaii doesn't scream Super 8 to me...I'd go with Super 16 if you can...those vistas are amazing.

Prices are high, that's for sure.

With home movies, what you shoot tends to be more precious; you only shoot the important stuff. Makes editing much easier. What I love is that I can go back and re-scan all my film into 2k (or 4k with 16 & 35mm) whereas any video shot in the 80's & 90's in SD is stuck in that resolution forever.