Will Montgomery

On another thread awhile ago I saw somebody looking for advice on how to achieve that "Kodachrome look" when there aren't many reversal options left. There was a great suggestion to try making a print of the negative, and transferring THAT.

The "real" Kodachrome look, gotten when Kodachrome is PROJECTED, is really hard to recreate. If you view a projected print and see any transfer to video of the same print you'll find they are very different. Kodachrome slides are diffcult to scan and re-produce accurately digitally and the same can be said about the motion picture version.

However, if you work with a good colorist, they can probably get to where you're happy with it from a print or a negative. These days the possibilities are endless.

Double X is certainly a grainy film but I still like the look for the right project. No doubt that it is a black & white film rather than desaturated Vision...mostly due to the grain. ;)

Filmworkers still processes film in Dallas, TX... not too far from New Orleans. You'd want to call and discuss the project but they still run 16 and 35 negative.

For Panavision to rent them to you, they'd have to get them rent-worthy and probably wouldn't make financial sense unless it's larger production.

If you really like to gamble, try sending it via USPS Media Mail. Remember, motion picture film qualifies for this amazingly inexpensive transportation method. I've shipped 16mm movies weighing like 15 lbs. for less than $10.

Never had anything lost (knocking on wood right now) but it can sometimes take a week to get somewhere.

Good luck with the postal workers trying to explain what Media Mail is...especially when you have film. They usually say no, then I have to tell them to get their supervisor who at first says no then I say look it up and they come back and say, "oh, you're right!". Funny since it was originally made for transporting educational films around the U.S. back in the 60's and 70's.

Electric. A motor is a must. Also should be a reflex viewfinder so you can focus properly.

It's not fun to constantly wind a camera, especially if it's for a documentary.

Little trick on the Scoopic, there are guides in the viewfinder...might be "TV Safe". If you shoot framing with the top and bottom of those lines in mind, it will roughly be 16x9. Then scan in full 2K like Robert said (2048x1556) and you'll be able to move the frame up & down without losing sharpness/resolution in the edit.

I used to have scans done in SD to DVCAM but have the colorists make it anamorphic; stretch vertically where it's still cut off as 16:9 but tell the editing software it's shot anamorphic and *poof* it was 16:9 and maxed out available pixels.

The reasons for Super8 looking softer compared to 35mm are a few.

Of course. Just making a casual, unscientific observation having actually done it...good Super 8 camera to crappy 35mm camera. Two cameras that happen to be roughly the same size although one is only 1 minute of film and the other is 3:30.

I'm very clear on this. It's not about resolving power of the input materials or the digital resolution of the output materials, it's about lack of focus in the image.

That's especially clear on my older Super 8 and regular 8 family films from the 40's though the 70's...Focus was never a major priority. The medium is fairly capable of sharpness but you really have to nail focus in Super 8 much more than 16 or 35...part of what I was trying to show with the comparison above. The Eyemax lens on the Eyemo doesn't even have a focus but it appears sharper because of all the things Carl explained...while the Super 8 with one of the best lenses possible and every effort I could make at focusing only just holds its own.

 

Why they still call it "ARRI New York" when it's located in Jersey is beyond me.

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut...If you can get to it in less than a 5 hour drive it should be all be the same thing. Takes 13 hours to get across Texas. :)

In all my years of using super 8, I've never shot anything that could be considered 'sharp' or 'crisp'. Most of my stuff was soft, even when I triple checked focus.

The only time I've really been happy with sharpness is some footage from my Beaulieu 4008 II ZM "Jubilee Edition" the black one (as apposed to dark grey) with the Angenieux f1.2 6-80...probably the sharpest lens I've ever seen on Super 8. Of course, it's still Super 8 and it can only be so sharp.

On the other end of the spectrum I've shot with the 310xl Autofocus and that sucker is crazy soft even when "in focus". Still a fun camera though.

This short edit has both cameras...the sea gulls at about :30 are from the Beaulieu and anything in focus from there on out. A caveat on that camera; when you turn the speed up, the sharpness goes down fast.

Interesting to compare this wind-up 35mm Eyemo clip, shot with an Eyemax lens...basically the stock lens from the 40's. Even with a massively soft lens, it's way more sharp than the Super 8...of course the edges are super soft but the center is nice and sharp. No focus on that lens; everything past 10 feet or so is just "in focus."

I've been in the works of trying to shoot a project on film for the first time. 2-perf definitely caught my eye, but the seem so hard to find to rent.

Should be a few places in LA or NYC that can change out the movement of some cameras and get you 2-perf. Probably a great option for student productions. 3-perf is much easier to find though...and that saves you 25% in film...

You may want to give Tommy Aschenbach a call or email. He's developed software for cine optical sound and does 16mm sounds prints all the time at his lab. They work with the National Archives near Washington, DC. He would be a good guy to bounce ideas off at the very least.

http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/main

Telephone: (301) 770-9155

Seems like manufacturers need to hear this! Make us some 2-perf cameras!

Holy cow. $291 for 200'? I think I have a roll in the fridge, time to sell it.

I have three factory fresh 400' Fuji Vivid 500T in my fridge. PM me if it would be helpful to you. I'd sell at a fair price; I'll never get around to shooting it.

I can't imagine how bad vision 3 500asa will look in super 8, its pretty grainy in 16mm as it is.

Huh? Vision 3 500T is amazing and is BY FAR the most used motion picture stock. Yes, it can be more grainy but that is more about the lighting...if you try to shoot 500T in minimal light as most people in small format would do, it will be grainy. Light it properly in 16mm and you'd be fine. Super 8; yes more grainy than 50D of course but not unusable...just light it well.

Good Night, and Good Luck was shot on Vision 500T color stock then the color was removed in post. That gets you a finer grain film with decent ASA.

In Super 8, you will still get a "small format" look but it will be much less contrasty than a B&W reversal film.

Let me know if you'd be interested in selling any 2-perf cameras. I have a beautiful 4 perf Arri 2C with a Steve's Cine mod motor that I love, but saving some film costs with 2-perf or 3-perf sounds interesting to me.

By the way, I have an 800ft Arri SR3 mag that I'm not using. Might be hard to get loads for it but it's available for sale if someone needs one.

It would be fun to see a "VistaVision" 16mm format. Rotate the film plane and go cinemascope ratio with 16mm film. I'd bet standard 35mm glass would cover it.

Of course I realize that it makes no sense in any financial model whatsoever...if I was a camera engineer it would be a fun side project.

Actually, what am I thinking? That would basically be 2-perf 35mm and give you no real film cost savings.

Nevermind.

Thanks David, good point about balancing when you have fixed light sources. And I guess in the case I described there may have been a lamp light at the end of the couch that would have to be accounted for. I know its hard to discuss without specific examples.

Would I be correct to say that if that scene didn't have the windows and candles (much less interesting for sure) you could have shot at an optimal ASA for your camera and adjusted the lights, T stop and shutter to give you a similar look with less chance for noise in the blacks?

I'm guessing that the answer is that experience (which you have in abundance) dictates what variable you change and how you change it; lighting, aperture & asa (film or digital) change based on infinite artistic variables (like depth of field).

The only rule of thumb I can think of would be maybe to err on the side of more light when artistically possible to keep your colorist happy.

This thread evolved quite a bit from the simple question of if there's a desktop scanner for 16mm film.

Unfortunately with film it's a little like, "if you have to ask...you can't afford it."

It's just plain expensive, no way around it. Also, remember that for 95% of film's existence it was finished and edited in the film dimension vs. scanning and editing digitally. A laborious process, but if you knew how to cut film I guess it would be possible to do it this way for less.

You've got to buy the film and process it. Those are fairly fixed costs (yes you can try to find re-cans and short-ends and work deals with labs). Those are not cheap but can be done.

Scanning however is where costs go crazy. Not just crazy expensive, crazy in price ranges. Seems to me that if I was to do a low budget or micro budget feature on film, I would budget/borrow $50k to buy a scanner like Perry mentioned for the term of the project and sell it at the end. Even if you just get 50% of your money back you probably come out way ahead vs. scanning all those dailies. Maybe even scan some friends films at the same time for a little extra money.

Even with that however, you'll need to bring the final cut to a colorist to get the most out of your expensive project. But then, you'd need that step with RED or Alexa or iPhone 5 to be honest.

Another method would be to buy your local colorist/film scanner guy a lot of beer and become good friends with them. They love it when you ask for favors.

 

...but doesn't actually exist in the wild except for a few slick photos of the models who apparently run these machines.

I was wondering if those Blackmagic models come with the gear. I mean, for $30k they at least could have them deliver the unit.

When you can light things properly, you'd be up around 400 or even 200 ASA.

I was at one of these seminars where they bring in DPs to talk about what they do and this had a workshop. They were shooting in almost no light, looking at a monitor and making subtle adjustments in light position until they were happy with what they saw on screen.

I thought, well you must be pushing the sensitivity almost as far as it goes and must mean lots of noise in the blacks. I said why don't you keep the same ratio but just double the light and tweak when coloring it? He looked at me like I had two heads.

Colorists I work with constantly tell me, "when you have the light the way you like it, double it." That's coming from working with film and I know I can get low-light looks with more light. As colorists also say, you can take away light easy, it's adding that's hard (in post).

I appreciate the idea of getting it right in camera and I guess that changes from film to digital, but this trend of seeing how little light you can possibly use seems counter productive to me...try using more light and using lower ASAs to reduce noise (on cameras that this makes sense with) and spending a little more time in Resolve. You'll wind up with a sharper, cleaner image with the same "look" if you do it right.

Just my 2 cents.

I love the K3 for what it's good for; the run-n-gun handheld shots you can't get any other way. However, if you move to an Arri SR you will be blown away with the difference in stability. Having a 400' load option is nice too...although I still use 100' loads often.

Remember however that is a very different camera and not really easy for handheld shots. Everything has to slow down a little when moving from a handheld 16mm.

Best to have both honestly. I was so sick of winding that K3 that I went to Scoopics for that type of work and haven't missed my K3.