Will Montgomery

I have the Batteries+ store near me make them up from the old cases. Also, check with these guys. I haven't dealt with them in about 4 years or so but they sold Scoopic batteries at one point... http://www.javaphoto.com/16mmpage.html

I haven't worked with Aatons although I know they make a great camera. My only hesitation is that in the U.S. Arri's are MUCH more prevalent and easier to find parts to fix.

Bernie at Super16inc.com did my Ultra16 conversion. As far as doing it yourself, it's just a matter of widening the gate but cutting/filling that steel isn't exactly easy and you can mess it up and wind up with scratched film very easily. You'll just have to make sure that your transfer house can handle Ultra 16...I know Spirits can have problems seeing between sprocket holes. I wouldn't get hung up on Ultra or Super 16 conversion; regular 16 is fine and a major step up from Super 8. Night and day difference if you're coming from Super 8. Scan it at 2k and you have extra headroom for reframing in post.

Great and helpful video Tyler. The point is of course more flexibility...I was just working with a colorist today that pulled some miracles on some raw footage shot on a BMPCC. The Cinema DNG color space on ProRes is definitely a great option but it is about halfway between raw and the non-film mode. On the time side, since I'm still spending roughly the same amount of time in Resolve on either but have the RAW tools at my disposal I kind of prefer the RAW. But I'm a film guy so I'm used to having a negative to go back to.

Everything is about how you shoot. The Scoopic is really good for events like weddings or concerts where you are walking around and need to get quick shots without any setup. Loading is the fastest of any 16mm camera I've encountered. The autoexposure is actually very useful; I use it to set once then turn it off on each scene. I've had a M, MN and MS and I can tell you the MS is the way to go. An Eclair ACL gives you more flexibility with lenses and longer shooting time but it is a little more involved to use compared to the Scoopic. Scoopics can go to Ultra16 easily but not Super 16. You can probably find an ACL already converted to Super 16. The Beaulieu R16 is ok but I'd take the Scoopic because it's just a more modern camera and I've never had a problem with one while I've heard of many issues with the R16 due to age.

Hopefully he won't mind me talking out of school but in 2012 he was able to do a 2-perf conversion on an Arri 2C for $4000. But those cameras are relatively easier to convert I would think than a Konvas. Just email him because his pricing may have gone down or up in the last few years, just know that Bruce is the man to do the conversion if you go through with it. Also, this is what he had to say about 3-perf if you were thinking about that...

Can you post a picture of it? I had one that I wanted to use on my Kodak K-100 a few years ago. Beautiful lens, but the viewfinder was for framing only; you couldn't focus with it which seemed very bizarre to me. Never understood how the image could basically be more or less in focus and not change no matter how I shifted focus on the main lens. I mean the image really didn't change when you adjust focus...

This is good to hear. This summer I hope to have some time to shoot some 50D in Super 8 and try these 4K scans. Something I never thought I'd say.

Just be aware it could cost more than the camera is worth now.

Sounds like the discussions we had a few years ago on SD vs. HD scans. HD certainly won out unless it was just a horribly soft image on the Super 8... so I'm sure the lenses and stock used make a big difference as to whether or not an 8mm scan looks better in 2k or 4k or I should say how much better.

Very cool. So it's an optical/lens blowup to make the 8mm fill up the sensor? What amazing times we live in.

Bruce McNaughton would have been the guy to do it but I don't believe he is anymore.

I was just shooting yesterday with a BMPCC and the Metabones Speedbooster for it. This adapter fixes many issues I've had with this camera. Gives you a Nikon mount (or Canon I believe) Increases aperture by 1 2/3 stop Makes the lens .58x wider One issue with the adapter for me has been that I need to use ND filters to control the light on bright days; can't shut the aperture enough to get the exposure right since it "magnifies" the light coming into the sensor. http://philipbloom.net/2014/06/21/canon-ef-to-bmpcc-active-metabones-speed-booster/

Shot a music video last year with an SR2, Canon 5D m3 and Sony FS700. I was extremely surprised how I was able to make it all work together. Must have a good colorist for sure.

How is sending film to/from Canada to the U.S.? Are their customs issues or more possibility of X-Rays? I'd love to send older films to you...also do you have a new rate for 4K?

Any more news on the scanner?

Well said. Yes it is! Applying it to lots of clips usually means going to sleep for the night. I did however run into this small thing that makes it 10x faster. There's a little pull-down at the bottom to render with CPU or GPU. If you have an OpenGL graphics card set it to GPU and watch it rip through rendering like CRAZY FAST.

Boy, that's a project. Should be fun when you get it going.

You might be better off using/borrowing a Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera for this test. You can get a PL adapter and use the same lens you'd use in S16 and the sensor size is closer to S16 on the BMPCC which may help you visualize better. I've found the BMPCC to be the closest to S16mm in both look and lens focal lengths. Setting it to RAW gets even closer. As far as emulating the response of ORWO, that's more tricky. You can certainly emulate the LOOK of the stock in post, but setting the camera to match exposure characteristics at ASA100 is a little like apples and oranges. Good news is that your lens choices between S16 and BMPCC will be the same whereas the GH2 could mess you up with that larger sensor.

Just contact John Schwind directly at: jaschwind@operamail.com He accepts PayPal and is reliable but as stated he's not much of a webmaster. Good to put in a big order at one time rather than order a few here and there.

You're basically asking about workflow and if you should color in the edit or color the final outputted file, correct? If you are the guy editing and coloring you are fine doing everything in your time line at the time of edit. As you said, coloring is an art form unto itself and since the nature of filmmaking is collaborative, it would probably be best to find a good colorist to work with. Either way, you can color it in the edit and if you find later that you can work with a colorist, just remove all the grading and LUT so the colorist has the most info to work with. Most editors these days would apply LUTs and basic color correction to their edit just so it doesn't freak out end clients that would be reviewing your edit. When the edit is approved, you would generally remove grading (sometimes transitions too!) and make it available to the colorist.

That's basically it. Although colorists I've worked with have all said that in digital, lighting to what it looks like in a monitor on set is something of a flaw; especially in low-light situations. Too easy to have no black detail or lots of noise when you try to work on it.

This has been the hardest part of my transition to digital. Just got back from Masters in Motion in Austin and watched these digital guys light with almost nothing and still get a decent image out of the camera. I kept asking, "Why don't you keep the ratio the same and just raise the light equally on everything so your colorists have more to work with and less noise?" They looked at me like I had two heads. They would say, "But look at the image, that's what I want..." Not sure that they are all that wrong, but every colorist I've ever worked with in film or digital has told me to light, light, light. When you got it where you like it, turn everything up 20%. Then when you color it, you can get the same look but with more details in the blacks and less noise. This seems especially true with digital since details in blacks can be completely gone (and the highlights of course).

It's not a myth that they CAN be, but 95% chance they won't be, even shipped internationally. More like 99.9% they won't domestically in the U.S. I've had Kodak FedEx film to me all over and never had an issue. Only X-Ray issues when I screw up and forget I have it in a bag when flying.

I actually put a B ) but it reinterpreted as the above emoticon. I was not implying you should pull anything but film out for hand inspection. b)