Will Montgomery

Having film hand checked to bypass x-rays is very possible in the US, but from what I have heard, it is fairly unlikely in other countries. But that depends on the country. And again, this is only for unprocessed film. Processed film can go through x-rays, be exposed to light, etc.

It's very easy as long as you:

a) Don't CHECK IT! The big x-rays used for checked baggage will nuke the film and there's no option on checked bags

b) Remember to pull it out and ask for hand inspection when going through security

Keep in mind that security folks will tell you that their x-rays only affect film of 1000asa or higher which is NOT true.

There's aways this cautionary tale:

http://seattletimes.com/html/television/2003564825_weblostfilm09.html

Any precautions to take when shipping film? Or is it quite basic? My god, what if it's lost?

Lost isn't nearly as much of an issue as X-ray and handing issues. Not so much a problem when shipping domestically in most countries, it's when you cross borders that it becomes more of an issue I would think. Never know what a customs agent will do even if you label everything "do not X-ray".

I had some R8 processed a couple years ago and not split so I could play with it on a Spirit 16mm gate. Besides the missing every other frame issue (each scan frame had 4 R8 images on it) there was a crazy enlargement of grain. I know that Paul at Cinelicous mentioned there was some serious adjustments to be made to properly scan 8mm on a Spirit; not just the gate. I know the Rank Cintel is a different beast but it may not be just hardware to be updated.

I like being at the transfer session so I can tell the colorist what to skip. In the telecine days we would make a pass on color, the whole thing would rewind and lay off just what I needed or at least not spend time working on color of parts I didn't need.

I have a TON of Super 8 family film that I wish I could just tell the colorist to capture only the stuff with people in it but I'm not sure that would save me much money. I don't however want to cut up the film since I don't have another print.

You're assuming that the DP and the camera crew have a say in the acquisition format for a TV series.

Good point. Perhaps it's more producers convinced it's cheaper to shoot digital. This "they want digital on their resume" was antidotal from some Panavision folks.

You should be able to pickup a decent Arri S with lenses in your range. Plan on about $300 for a clean and lube from Duall or Super16Inc.com. These are U.S. based shops. There are some good people in Australia but don't know about the Asian market. Must be some people in India I would think...

Will,

I guess you were right. Their reply came day before. I didn't know about the thanksgiving holidays.

cheers

You can learn all about it here...

Just think of printing as shining a light through the negative so that the image gets exposed onto the print stock. Since the print stock is also a "negative" stock in the sense that it reverses the light values, you are basically taking a negative picture of a negative image and thus creating a positive image. So shine more light and the image on the print gets darker, shine less light and it becomes lighter. This is the way it works in printing b&w negatives to print stock. So to be able to correct the color, instead of a single white light, you shine red, green, and blue light through the negative onto the positive and by changing the individual levels of red, green, or blue, you can adjust the overall color bias in one direction or another while also making the image overall brighter or darker.

 

That's basically it.

David, you need to create some online training materials...I was starting to formulate in my mind how to explain the process and then read your post and was amazed at how clear and concise it was.

Practically any 16mm camera when used with great lenses, stock, processing and high end scanning will give great imagery, images that are indistinguishable from cameras such as the Arri SR2.

I believed that until I owned an SR and saw the stability difference between that and "consumer" 16mm cameras. Yes, almost any 16mm camera CAN give a great image but only a few were really designed to give a great, rock solid steady image. No flicker. Cameras that cost $50,000+ at the time usually fall into that category. Now you can get them for $2000 or less. Pretty good deal.

 

 

In my experience with 16mm it is the lens and stock that contribute most of all to image quality; obviously the camera needs to be running perfectly.

That's the point about cheaper, home movie type 16mm cameras, they never are running "perfectly". I've had my K3 and Scoopics serviced by the best techs around and still have slight issues in stability...multiple cameras serviced at different times all having the same basic stability issue.

This is not to say the cheaper cameras can't make a great image, and are really good for cutaway shots or where you need tiny, handheld camera...I'm just saying if you're shooting a beautiful national park landscape and need something flawless, an SR and probably a later Aaton will get you there.

SR's with PL mounts give you access to the best glass ever created for motion pictures so you have that going for it too.

Duall haven't responded.

Because you were trying to contact them over the Thanksgiving holiday. They will most likely get back to you today or tomorrow; maybe try again this week.

Is it an Arriflex camera? If so, Arri NY can still service SRs although I'm not sure if that is official or not...might be just if you know the guy.

Best bet might be AbelCine (sponsor of this site)

http://www.abelcine.com/store/home.php

They can probably handle just about anything and are very good with lenses for sure.

Another option might be Duall Camera. Small shop but good guys that know their stuff. If they can't service it they'll know the best people in town for it.

http://www.duallcamera.com

When it comes to higher end you’re really just talking about more possibilities. K3s are great, but when a sync-sound, pin-registered camera is in question (with interchangeable mags) there is really no comparison. Yes, in a vacuum you will get the same images, but sometimes practicality is a factor.

Yes, between a K3 or Scoopic and an Arri SR (1, 2 or 3) there is no comparison on stability. Even in a vacuum the images are much more stable on the SR, it is noticeable; not just by us film geeks. They are however quite a pain to go handheld with. For anything you plan out and are shooting with sticks, the SR is the way to go. Walking around, run-n-gun I would consider an A-minima or Scoopic if stability and S16 isn't an issue.

I love Krasnogorsk 3's they are rugged and have an outstanding zoom lens, all you need to get is a Peleng and you have a wide angle.

I did like the lens selection (M42 mount) for the K3, I just got tired of winding the thing! Missed too many shots.

You might want to consider picking up a small c-mount lens like 8mm or so that you can use on your 4008 to keep the size and weight down. It almost makes it another camera; very small and light. Good for family gatherings.

There should be plenty of c-mount cine lenses around from 16mm cameras like a Kodak K100 and many others that will work or you can find something like this new for less than $100...

Makes me wish I had taken more than a semester of French!

Allons à la plage. (that's all I remember!)

Thanks for developing this, I will dust off the PC and play with it this week!

If it's an SR2 with bayonet mount you can pick up a Zeiss 10-100 T3 for around $400. Mine is about the sharpest zoom lens I've ever used; I think I just got lucky. Standard mount prime lenses can be found for less.

Here's a sample/test with an SR1 that I had rebuilt with that lens...

If you have a PL mount and are S16 then you get into another class (of cost) and probably in the $2500+ range for something decent in a zoom. I have a S16 converted Zeiss 10-100 2.2 so it's 12-120 now. Love the lens but the T3 bayonet mount is still slightly sharper.

Just saw an Arri SR2 complete kit go for $600 on eBay. If you're ready to move up to something rock steady, they will be cheap when you are ready.

I caught a little bit of the zombie TV show on SyFi network called Z Nation and found it almost unwatchable due to it's video looking nature; blown highlights and the like. Made me appreciate the aesthetic decision to keep Walking Dead on 16mm. (that's not to say there weren't poorly shot shows on film).

I know the march to digital in TV production was inevitable, but was it some of the DPs and crew that wanted to make sure they had digital experience and stay "ahead of the game?" A friend at Panavision told me once that this was a big thing driving the change to digital production...not wanting your previous production to be film so when you are looking for a new gig you have the digital experience.

While I'm sure producers and networks think they are saving money and time with digital, I bet they are very glad their older productions were shot on film so they can re-scan and sell those old shows in high-def...unfortunately now what the get is what they get for all time.

I have to laugh, Bjorn will speak the truth on these cameras. He couldn't believe that one of my cameras had gone to a respected tech here in the states (I will not name names). He was very disappointed at the work that had been done here.

If it costs less than $400 to fix it, I might still do it. You'll have a better than new camera. At the very least ship back the lens.

Maybe ask Bjorn if he has another camera body he can sell you...

With Super 8 images are more like memories rather than perfect, stark photocopy of an event. For me and many people I've shown films to, it takes you to that place and time much more emotionally than VHS does. Not sure what happens chemically in our brains, maybe we're just programmed from watching our parents and grandparents home movies, but it still evokes more feeling than video to me.

Two great side benefits are:

1) Self-editing; you only shoot important or good stuff because of the cost

2) As has been said, archival qualities are extremely important and today's films will last much longer than any VHS tape, DVD or Blu-Ray

I shoot 16mm and 35mm for different reasons, mostly due to what I believe is a better quality with much less effort than shooting a Red Epic or Arri Alexa.

That is something I wanted to do, i even had a perfect light tight store room in the basement. But I was told the 200ft spools can't be re-spooled or re-used or something. If it's a matter of emulsions side, that's no problem. Not much different than 400ft cores onto 100ft daylight spools.

Just flip the film and wind it the other way; emulsion out. Pro8mm is doing it now. A little tricky to get it tight but totally possible. I believe they come apart like a split reel and you can wind it like that then put back the other side.

Bolex's are, by far, one of the cheapest and easiest camers to convert to S16. I have a S16 Rex5 and I'd love to add an SBM to the mix. Clean SBM's have become VERY difficult to obtain because they're the most rugged lens mount + the easiest to convert. Owners are definitely hanging on to these models.

Actually, the K3's are by far the cheapest and easiest to convert. Just widen the gate with a file and (optional) purchase a re-centered mount of eBay. Cost me less than $100 when I did it 6 years ago.

Not saying I'd rather have a K3, but I will say it's easy to convert.

Björn will make all the problems go away. Yes it costs money, but you'll have a better-than-new camera when you're done and you'll never need another one.

Ran across this, fairly impressed with it's distressed film handling. Towards the end of this video you can see it.

I've never heard of this scanner and it looks very "refined" for a one-off machine; someone took some time to make the machine itself look cool. Their super 8 scans seem extremely noisy however, like Spirit Super 8 scans when the Spirit hasn't been adjusted to handle the smaller gauge stock.

I also feel that it is important that all film handlers should dress up like scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQpSQlMlCSw

http://reflextechnologies.com

I've done a ton of research in one day, and I'm considering between a Bolex H16 and a Krasnogorsk K-3.

I've never owned a Bolex but I think you'd find the construction of the Bolex to be far superior.

A possible advantage on the K3 would be the M42 lens mount which has some great inexpensive glass available from Pentax. Maybe the form factor is a little easier to shoot with on the K3 and it is reflex so that helps when focusing.

Even with all that the Bolex would be a better made camera for sure.

Can you get a reflex H16? If so I'd go with that.