Will Montgomery

Keep in mind that 4k S16mm is a diminishing return; yes it will be slightly sharper when shown in 4k or downsampled to 2k but you will not be going..."WOW!" like you might have between SD and HD/2K. If you have the budget, just weigh it against the cost of better lenses perhaps.

If it is a student project or low budget project, I would stick with a true 2k scan and put the money into lenses, lighting and set design. If it's a hit and Netflix wants it in 4k, you can always re-scan.

Simple answer zoom in to focus

 

Have your zoom lens tested thoroughly to make sure it holds focus throughout the zoom, especially if it has been adapted from another type of mount. If it has then this is the time honored and easiest method to get sharp focus on SRs with a zoom.

I've been shooting U16 for years on my Scoopic, but have yet to transfer it properly since I've usually have used Spirits and they don't see between sprocket holes. I have many feet of film waiting to be re-transfered properly and get the entire image.

I've personally serviced SR, Aaton's and Bolex's. Arri's design is so nice and compact. With that being said, I personally prefer Aaton's design. It's very clever and it results in a much quieter camera that has better registration, which is pretty incredible to think of because nobody would consider the SR having a problem with registration!

No doubt on the ergonomics Aaton is superior...but I've had three SR's that were crazy quiet. With an SR3 I had to practically put my ear on the magazine to see if it was running.

I had been using a Canon Scoopic for a few years before moving to an SR and the registration difference was certainly noticeable. The Scoopics are GREAT for what they are, I just wouldn't want to shoot landscapes/skies or anything where registration is crucial. They were built for capturing football games and news b-roll, not for a feature...but I can great images out of them for sure!

Hey...there's one in my Avatar!

the question is, is it possible to get one in good enough condition at reasonable price and ALSO get good quality S16 lenses also for cheap.

They are built like tanks and even if they aren't perfect they can generally be fixed. PL Super 16 lenses are going up but Arri standard mount lenses are pretty reasonable still and can be multi-purposed for sure.

If Super 16 isn't a requirement an SR2 with a Arri mount & lens (complete package) in excellent shape can be had for around $1500. Standard 16mm on an SR2 is an excellent option. If good Super 16 SR2's are going for $2500-$3000 and SR3's in the $3500-4500 range, an standard SR2 doesn't sound that bad. The $1000-$2000 saved will purchase quite a bit of film for that camera. A little more grain can be a positive for some projects. Especially if you're trying to show off that it's on FILM.

In terms of the Krasnagorsk, they're real junk in my opinion. Do they work? They CAN work. Are they any good? not really. The Bolex is a far better design in my opinion. I've worked on both and you couldn't get me near a Krasnagorsk again. They're such buckets of bolts inside, it's just a poor/cheap design which is why they're so cheap on ebay.

A K3 was my first 16mm camera. Had the Super 16 mod both gate and drilled out the viewfinder to view the wider image, removed the loop formers and even had Bernie at Super16Inc do the laserbrighten on the mirror. I had excellent results with it, but it's a toy compared to the SR2. Plus, good luck winding it after every 20 second shot. For cheap 16mm I went to a Scoopic MS so I didn't have to wind the thing constantly! (but I wouldn't recommend that for your project)

I love Aatons, but I'd go with the SR2 any day of the week because I can get it serviced in almost any city still. Most camera rental houses have experienced camera techs that worked on these even if they don't rent them any more...most of the techs have moved over to servicing lenses. Arri techs seem to be much more common in the U.S. vs. Aaton techs.

I sent an SR1 over to Arri in NYC and they were able to rebuild the circuit board for me just a couple years ago. Don't know if they officially support the SR2's (probably not) but they still want to help filmmakers and Arri owners out whenever they can.

Bolex is a great option but with the SR2 you get 400' mags, rock steady registration and access to the best lenses in the world.

They scale just fine on a Mac with Safari. :)

Good advice, thanks! I know there's no perfect solution...just trying to minimize the pain in post.

Since there will be multiple musicians doing multiple passes maybe I can get a time display from Pro Tools (or whatever they're using) and even sync it to the iPad slate and shoot that periodically. That would keep all those clips in the ballpark. I will investigate further.

I've shot film for many years MOS, only syncing sound manually a few times. I have a new music video project where I'm shooting in a music studio while the performer is recording. He's an acoustic guitar player/singer and will have a band tracking at in the same session but probably not all playing at the same time.

I'm using a well-maintained & very quiet S16 SR2 with Cinema Electronics crystal sync. May use my 35mm Arri 2c with Steve's Cine crystal for a few close shots when they're not recording. Currently thinking of going B&W with Double-X or 500T and desaturating. Liking the idea of Double-X's grain at the moment.

Neither camera has any timecode abilities so what best practices are there for syncing sound in post? I will be running a Zoom H4n with 2 tracks of mics and two tracks of feed from the mixing board (probably syncing the final studio mix in the edit). In the past I've just used the first downstrokes on a guitar to get in the ball park then just manually slide the sound around until it syncs up. I won't need extended syncs...I'll be cutting between several takes (as each musician adds their tracks) so I can probably sync in 30 second to 1 minute segments for editing.

I'll be using an iPad timecode slate and possibly see about recording that timecode to one of the Zoom tracks.

My question is...is this practical? or should I just rent an SR3 and run timecode on the camera? (I know that's a whole world of hurt)

I will have to run some tests to feel comfortable either way but sound sync is a new world for me. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

p.s. I should add that I've had moderate success with recording audio on a digital camera sitting on a tripod recording the entire session and just setting off a still camera flash, syncing the video with the film in post and bamm!... synced sound. Just have to make sure the digital camera audio section isn't doing anything strange with audio compression or auto levels.

I miss Video Post & Transfer in Dallas as well as Filmworkers, where I could drop off film and have it processed and scanned by the next day. VP&T used to have a dropbox and a night shift that would process and do dallies overnight. Those days are gone.

I have an upcoming project I'm thinking about using Double-X on since I have to wait for processing anyway (instead of shooting color and desaturating). There's definitely less labs handling B&W negative these days.

If they do it for $40 they lose money on every roll. Kodak needs to stay in business. Not go out of business. let's be reasonable here.

We don't actually know the economics these days for them, but I'm betting on $75 per roll all in with a razor thin margin.

The idea behind the K40 prepaid mailers was a "promotional" type deal for film schools. $13.50 for 1 roll with shipping and processing. But at that same time all the other S8 stocks required an independent lab and cost about $24 for film and processing. That was up until about 12 years ago.

So if that math still holds up and it would cost around $80 at Pro8mm for one cartridge, processing and transfer, then if they can do it for $40 everyone should be happy. I would be completely fine with that and hope they do the same for 16mm!

Sounds obvious, but if you're using film that's been used before, make sure you look for scratches on the film BEFORE you load it so you don't get unnecessarily freaked out because it was already scratched. Happened to me once and felt like a dumbass.

Filmworkers in Dallas finally shut down processing a few months ago. Very sad day.

 

I think we all need to contact Kodak and let them know what is what we think about current prices.

Nothing wrong with letting them know what we want, but it will be completely an economic decision. They know they have to keep the costs down to sell more, but they might not be able to.

If they are making money this year with motion picture film sales (which is what I heard) then they've probably got the price right for now. Which means they won't be bringing Super 8 film prices down very much and I doubt they can just eat processing and transfer costs so there we are. I would suspect it will be slightly less than Pro8mm's package but I'd be amazed if it was $50 per reel all in. More like $75 or $80 I bet.

I don't think any of us are looking at this Kodak camera as they answer to all our Super 8 camera prayers...Max 8 and audio is nice but I have a Pentax TV 6mm lens that seems to be similar to what they're selling with the camera and while it's wide and convenient since everything past 1.5 feet is "in focus", the first thing I will do is put on my 4008 Angie lens on that puppy. Focusing will be tricky though.

It's the processing and transfer announcements that I find most interesting. I just don't believe the economics will work for them but I hope it does! Would like to see it offered in 16mm as well!

Built-in audio recorder and LCD display? It's just a camcorder at that point.

You know people will take that HDMI video out and hook it up to a disk recorder of some sort so they can start editing right away and sync up the film later. I assume that video out was intended for larger monitors rather than recording.

My favorite cheap Super 8 camera is the Canon AF310XL which has one of the worst autofocus incarnations ever made but it is so easy to use. Usually hand it out to the kids or people who've never used a Super 8 camera. The battery compartment is constantly breaking so I have to gaffer tape it shut.

When I'm shooting myself I have a Beaulieu 4008 mk2 Jubilee that is flawless.

But against what I previously said I don't know that I would have ever fallen in love with camera work in the first place if it wasn't for that crystal clear world revealed inside a top notch optical viewfinder. There is something quite perfect about seeing the source image in it's native clarity.

The first time I looked through an SR3 viewfinder I fell in love. Even more so on a 435. Nothing like a pro optical viewfinder.

Since you're in/near LA, I'd go talk to Paul Korver over at Cinelicious. They have an amazing colorist or two over there. They are expensive but I'd bet Paul would make time to show you around and see the process at the very least; possibly make you a good deal on the transfer. If you can observe the process, it's a much better learning experience. Good folks to know either way.

http://cinelicious.tv

I have a lot of notes about using it on the Blackmagic thread. I've got quite a bit of time on the machine.

I read them, thanks. Those were from November 2014, I was hoping someone is using a released version and they had addressed some of the issues you brought up back then. I thought it was out in the wild and I haven't heard a peep about it.

Yes I'm located in Cypress CA and my name is Christopher Lee.. I was aware of using my real name when I set up the account.

Sorry! Great name!

Thought I'd move this thread to telecine since it wasn't getting much interest in the Blackmagic section.

Has anyone seen one of these yet?

I'm a little disappointed in the specs on the scanner; seems there's no optical/lens zoom on the scanner so the resolution is fixed. So Super 16 scans aren't even true 1080p. Yikes!

Maybe they're going back to the drawing board on this one. Seems like the market would demand true 2k scans at the very least on 16mm, if not 4k.

From the Blackmagic Site:

So is the scanner in anyone's hands yet? Information seems to have dried up on this one. My impression is that if you are shooting film currently and have good clean footage to work with this might be an option but anyone dealing with archival, warped footage would have problems with it.

It also does not appear to ship with hot models. Damn.

Grain elimination technology has been available for a while...it's called a video camera. I hear they are widely available now. :)

Honestly, unless the film is really poorly exposed and needs some sort of drastic measure, grain reduction in small format film seems against the purpose of shooting it.