Will Montgomery

Which Scoopic? The grey original or M/MN/MS?

While Super 8 has come a long way, especially Vision 3 50D, it still has a certain look that may take away from your thesis piece. Super 16 or even 35mm would be a better choice. You might be surprised at how affordable 35mm is these days. You just need to keep an eye out for film stock or even call a Kodak rep and talk to them about student programs. I think they're extremely interested in pushing for format to students.

As Perry says, while Super 8 may save film costs, a proper transfer isn't that much more on 16mm. Plus 16mm is more of a professional format and it's worth it for you to have that experience. Shoot Super 8 all day long for fun or for the artistic choice, but for something you'll be showing to find work...I'd go with 16mm. Better cameras, better lenses.

Just wish Velvia was still available. We need a nice slow reversal for those bright, summer days when Super 8 is at its best. Kodachrome COME BACK!!!

Looking forward to try Ferrania 64D. Guessing a year or so away still.

Good news is you won't have to worry about Ektachrome any more...or bad news I guess. I loved it in 16mm.

If you know what you're filming and have a short shoot planned, it might be better to just rent a full kit. Everything will work, you won't need to waste time buying all the bits and pieces and hoping they work, you can just concentrate on the filmmaking.

This is a good idea, especially since they almost never rent these anymore and you'll get a great deal...at least rent before buying so you get some experience with it.

I'm sure a camera tech can give you very specifics; the SR2 is supposedly a little more quiet, but I really didn't notice much difference. I suspect some of the noise would come from the magazines and you can have an SR1 running SR3 mags. I honestly couldn't tell much difference between the SR1 & SR2 but I only had the SR1 for a few months. If you get a better deal on an SR1 then I'd go for it. Arri NY fixed my SR1 board just a couple years ago so while they don't officially support it, sometimes they take it as a personal challenge to keep them running.

The big leap is the SR3. You'll notice big differences going to that one. Great viewfinder, PL mount, Super 16 standard and SUPER quiet.

Also you'll find these cameras heavily modified with Cinema Electronics speed controls, PL mounts, Super 16, ect. so you really have to check each camera out carefully to know what you're getting. I'd also have it taken to a camera tech that lives these things (or at least used to!) to make sure you're not missing something.

But yea... all this has me trying to break into the more "cinematic" Super/Ultra16 market. One taker so far for this wedding season so we'll see how that goes!

Don't be in too much of a hurry...you're doing great work in Super 8 and 16/35 is a slippery and expensive slope!

It's all about emotion...if the blurry stuff is cut right it can work. The major issues with those cameras are that 1) they break easily and 2) they may be autofocus but not very good at it!

Here's a quick example of some of that "cheap camera" work from a few years ago.

David, great to see weddings done this way! Lucky you have clients that will pay for that.

Your shots are nice and steady and well framed. Here's an idea...hand out cheap Super 8 cameras like an AF310xl to some older kids and have them do some random shooting. I've found that a few quick roughly shot scenes anchored by your excellently shot footage gives it even more of a homey feel.

Another small suggestion: find an old titling kit on eBay and shoot titles with the old plastic letters on a black velvet background and you'll be able to overlay that on the film in post easily instead of using computer titles. That way the tiles won't be so perfect which took just a little away from the magic for me (but not from the overall great work).

Then their job is to mimmic the original recording, which requires many takes. Then you've gotta figure out how to mate it to the picture, which is challenging because even if it looks perfect during the recording sessions, it's rare to BE perfect by the time you hit mixing.

All very true. However, these days with something like Logic, it's extremely easy to make subtle adjustments to the audio to line things up better...as long as you have a natural, good set recording to base it off of. Even then it's not perfect and always better to get it right in the overdub performance whenever possible.

Cine Film is a slow process in general. Spectra and Cinelab are really great labs and we're lucky to have them. I have a special cabinet where I stuff all my shot film and hold on to it until it reaches critical mass then I send it off (I recently sent off 13 cartridges to Spectra). Maybe you'd have enough at the end of the summer?

You're not going to beat processing prices at Spectra or Cinelab really (nor do you want to cheap out on that), so it comes down to the transfer.

Many years ago I had this company run a giant roll of Super 8 for me. Fairly decent results although you'd do better quality-wise with Spectra, Cinelab, Gamma Ray or several other places...but a decent price for ProRes 422.

http://mymovietransfer.com/2012_1080p_Pricing.html

You could even go with a lower-res 720p transfer, then if there's something you really like, send that to a higher-end service. Part of the charm of Super 8 is it's "low fidelity" anyway...if you want perfection you'd be sliding up to Super 16 and 35 anyway.

Run the numbers, you may find it worth it to invest in an inexpensive transfer unit like from MovieStuff.tv. It would be an investment to start, but you'll save money over a long period.

For me, it's worth it to work with good colorists. This time around I'm considering a quality flat transfer and working with an excellent local colorist.

I see, thanks, so basically it's not that hard to get the basic look from a flat file as I feared it would be (have no experience in this area). That makes sense actually.

Actually, if you're not familiar with color work it might be frustrating. But you can probably get close.

There's a reason why colorists charge what they do. It is a very specialized field, but a good one can make your jaw drop. The good news is that with a flat scan, a colorist can draw an amazing image out of your file.

There are plenty of online tutorials now and you could compare it to correcting a raw file so you'll find something online that will point you in the right direction. As a student, I bet you could call a good post house in your area and ask for an hour at a good rate.

The film packages will be film, processing, and scan under one roof at one price.

I think Kodak is considering outsourcing it to existing labs, which would be consistent with their idea of supporting existing infrastructure and selling the chemicals and film...it would just LOOK like Kodak did it all. Hopefully that's good news for our labs that we love.

The Arri S is great for handheld shooting. The SR is more modern with 400 foot mags (vs. 100 ft. on the S). SR's are generally easier to find parts for although there are tons of S's out there too.

The S is great to start on. If you are looking at an SR, I'd hold out for an SR2 or SR3 with a PL mount converted to Super 16 (in the case of the SR2). Regular 16mm is great on these cameras, but might as well go Super 16 if you can.

By the way, the Arri S cannot be converted to Super 16 very easily. The only one I ever saw converted would have cost 3-4 thousand dollars for the work.

16mm vs. Super 8: You'll pay more for the camera, more for the actual film, a little more for processing, but decent transfer will cost about the same so 16mm is certainly worth a look.

If you're just starting out in film, try Super 8 so you can go through the whole process saving a little money and seeing how light sticks to the media before jumping down the rabbit hole that is 16mm and 35mm.

I have two of those sitting in a drawer. I like the lens on them, but they are crazy heavy to carry around. Also I think 24fps is the fastest it goes...I enjoy a little slow-mo every now and then; especially if I'm carrying a heavy camera.

and if you think about it, a roll that is emusion OUT would need to be wound A wind as far as the perferations go, like the stock for the A-Minima.

I was going to say, the only A-wind film I've ever heard about was for the A-Minima 200ft spools.

The 310xl has just about the fastest lens on a Super 8 camera...but it's not exactly top-notch glass. You can pick one up on eBay for under $50 so I'd give it a shot and see if you're happy with the results. Very easy to use!

Watch out for the AF-310 as the newer autofocus version is notorious for poorly focused footage. It focuses when you first pull the trigger and remains fixed until you stop and pull it again. Still is a fun camera to hand out to kids on vacation however.

Of course Gregg is correct in taking account of the maintenance history. I've found Arri cameras are generally much easier to have serviced in the U.S. than almost any other 16mm camera if that helps. Arri in NY has serviced an SR1 for me (rebuilt the control board!) and local rental house techs look at my SR2s and magazines regularly even though they don't rent their own cameras very much these days.

Learn routine maintenance and leave real repairs and annual checkups to the professionals.

Just realized that my avatar has a shot of me with a Scoopic on a slider.

While I have shot Ultra-16 with this camera for years, I have never actually transferred the full Ultra-16 frame because I always used to work with a local company that had a Spirit telecine and couldn't see into that "between the sprocket" area...so it's all regular 16 cropped which still looks great. I've been shooting less 16mm and more 35 recently. I do however have a music video shoot coming up that will be done on a couple SR2's with Double-X B&W I'm looking forward to. I use the Scoopic more as a home movie camera these days.

My Scoopic MS is Ultra-16 (upgraded by Bernie at Super16Inc.com) and crystal sync. I bought it already with crystal sync so I don't know if the crystal sync company is still operating... here's there website:

http://www.webtfg.com/sync10.htm

Honestly though, I don't think that crystal sync is very important on this type of camera. I have another Scoopic MS without crystal and I can't really tell much difference between the two.

Here's a really short shot from the Scoopic MS. It shows the camera operating at different speeds...These are all just a home movies mostly. Don't have much call for that camera on pro jobs.

There's a little Scoopic in this:

Here's the other, non-ultra Scoopic MS I have...

I've had a K3 with the recentered lens mount, widened viewfinder, loop formers removed, and even the Bernie's laserbrighten process done to the mirror (highly recommended!). By the time you do all of that you're at $400-500. If you're looking for the cheapest way into 16mm, it's fine, but winding that camera constantly (every 20 seconds of film time) will get annoying very quickly.

"Hey look! What a great shot, wait...do that again while I wind up my camera!" That happened ALL THE TIME for me.

I've had other wind up cameras like the Kodak K-100 that at least had a decent spring in them and didn't require winding constantly...although that's not a TTL focus camera.

I'll try to answer your questions directly:

1) Has anyone purchased an already modified Super 16mm K-3? Is the optical axis really 100% re-centered? Is the new, widened film gate safe regarding scratching the film? I don't see any shifting to the side on the photos regarding the lens adapter ring....

I bought the re-centered mount on eBay. Super easy to install. Just 4 screws. Gate scratching? Everything depends on how well the person filed the gate. I'd give it a 50/50 chance. If it does, you can take the gate out and work on it yourself to smooth it out.

2) is the view finder normally modified to match the new format? I wouldn't mind it not being wider, as long as the center is exactly natching film gate and optical axis - and as long as I know when unwanted vignetting occurs. I don't mind some guess work. I'm "old school" if it's necessary :-)

Usually not. It has to be drilled out to be wider and is rarely perfect. Du-All camera in NYC did mine and it was fine but not exactly perfect. The vignetting happens on the stock Meteor zoom lens when it is not re-centered on the widened gate. If you pick up some m42 still lens this will not be a concern as they cover a much wider area.

2) Would it be recommendable to remove the loop guides right away and hand-load, to eliminate the chance of scratches?

Yes, standard procedure for these cameras. It's a little of a pain to manually form the loops but once you do it 5 or 6 times it gets easier.

3) I don't have anyone who could service the camera nearby - so how reliable is it regarding motor speed, mechanics? I plan on mainly filming at 24 fps - perhaps some slow motion at the highest speed possible...

Bernie at Super16Inc.com and Du-All camera in NYC service these. Keep in mind that almost any service will cost more than the camera. There's no motor, it's a spring and not reliable or constant...it will slow down as the spring loses tension.

If you're just getting into 16mm I'd do the Scoopic MS. I know I've said this a million times, but for the money, you get the best of all worlds. If you have $1000 and don't need to handhold it very much, go Arri SR. I've never done the Bolex thing, plenty of people say they're great, just make sure you can focus through the lens.

The AutoZoom 814 is quite a tank of a camera, as long as you can find batteries for the meter and it's functioning, you'd have a great camera. I believe it only goes up to 24fps however.

The Scoopic is a very interesting camera. In the U.S. it was used often by football teams shooting games for review the next week and by news crews picking up b-roll.

The later versions, the MN & MS (the black bodies) have a really great lens; I've had a few colorists ask me while in a session what lens was used due to the sharpness and color; they were always amazed that it was the built-in lens.

Ultra-16 is simply widening the gate on both sides so more of the film is exposed, giving you a wider image for transfer. It goes into the space between sprockets on that side. Advantage is that no moving of the lens mount is required; it expands equally on both sides. Some transfer systems (Spirit) have issues seeing the space between sprockets so this can be an issue.

Super 16 expands on the non-sprocket side giving you more of a 16:9 image but the lens must be re-centered over this area. Super 16 is much more of a "standard" than Ultra-16.

The advantages of the Scoopic over other similar priced cameras are:

1. Fastest auto-loading system I've ever seen on a 16mm camera; like one of those B&H school projectors that you just slide the film into the the path and it sucks it up and threads automatically.
2. Great lens with wide zoom range and incredible macro ability.
3. Auto exposure. I use it to set the exposure then lock it so it doesn't "breathe". Even if you leave it in auto mode, it isn't as fast as a Super 8 camera in changing exposure so it's not that bad...but you'll want to set it and lock it most of the time.
4. MOTOR!!! I had a K3 and my hand would literally be in pain because of the constant winding. The motor makes a huge difference.
5. Batteries last for 5+ rolls; I've never run out of battery power on my re-celled battery. Batteries Plus+ can easily re-cell these for around $60.
6. Easily upgraded to ultra-16
7. The "TV Safe" lines in the viewfinder are great for framing a 16:9 crop while shooting.

Negatives:

1. Nearly imposible to upgrade to Super 16. It has been done, but only at great expense and time.
2. The 400' adapter is rare and hard to use when you find it...figure only on using 100' loads.
3. No other lens options; stuck with built-in lens (but I love it!)
4. Difficult to do fine adjustments to the film path...they are hard to work on.

There are a few good threads on the camera here so definitely do a search. Great camera to get into film with.

Krasnogorsk-3 in crystal sync for $1000.

BONK!!!! If you can get an SR for $700, forget this. Not even remotely in the same ball park. I had a K3 as one of my first 16mm cameras, took some beautiful pictures with it but it's a wind-up toy compared to an SR.

I'd go Scoopic over an K3 too so you won't be stuck winding it all day long. Although fixed, the Scoopic MS lens is quite good.

Keep in mind that an SR2 was what...$30,000 new? A K3 wasn't over $1000 even when it was new. There's simply different engineering and tolerances built into professional cameras and what an amazing buy they are now!

Bernie at Super16 inc.

He did mine, always does a great job.

http://www.super16inc.com