Will Montgomery

An interesting theory (I won't call it any more than a "theory" though) which I read on Facebook about why the BMPCC's price got slashed in half:

 

<<The new studio cam (only camera head) has the same sensor like the pocket, but Blackmagic don't sell it as expected. So they had a lot of unobstructed sensors at home and decided to build up some more pockets for half the price! Nice, but not clever to all early adaptors...

Greetz,

Tom, 4W Team>>

I know there's a 1080p version of the studio camera, but I don't believe it uses a S16 size sensor like the BMPCC. Maybe they got a great deal on sensors but I don't think it was because another camera used them.

This makes a 4008 3D. A breakthrough in Super 8 technology!

The BMPCC in film mode and their "raw" is about the closest I've gotten to what I loved about 16mm. Plus it lets me use all my S16 glass although I've found myself using more Nikon lenses with the speed booster. Still need that footage counter or something to let me know how much time we have left on a card and proper audio meters.

 

Thanks for the recommendation. The Canon is pretty nice, though I'm more impressed by the footage coming from the Arri. Probably the Zeiss, scanning, and stock that make the biggest differences? Maybe I should jump up to the next film gauge and look into getting an Eyemo?

The only issue with the Scoopic is you can get some pulsing when shooting skies or anything that looks like a sky. I've had 4 or 5 of them and they've all had similar issues. It's because they really can't be adjusted with the same absolute precision that an SR can. If you adjust one point in the path, something down the path gets off. So if you're looking for something that can make a great western or shoot a lot of scenic outdoor scenes, a camera designed for features or at least TV might be better. If you're doing run-n-gun the Scoopic is great. Think of it as a Super 8 camera with the quality of 16mm.

As far as an Eyemo, they are nearly impossible to find in reflex and that really makes all the difference. I love my Steve's Cine modded Eyemo but I just have to point it in the general direction, guess at the distance for focus and flick the run switch. It can make slightly less than 1 minute of beautiful footage per reel.

I'd go Arri SR to start since there are so many out there and still plenty of people (including Arri!) that can work on them. Shoot with that for a while then look into an Arri III or something in 35mm.

I've suggested Canon Scoopic MS cameras in the past for people getting into 16mm. They have built-in meters, are extremely easy to load and come with an attached, amazing lens. Yes, it's nice to change lenses but you really don't need that with this lens. It's the easiest, best looking camera for the money and won't kill your hand winding it.

The next step up for me would be an Arri SR and you can see a difference in the steadiness of the film, you get 400' loads and access to tons of reasonable Arri mount lenses. If you go Super 16 with a PL mount, lenses get very expensive.

I've owned K3's, Kodak K-100 (very cool non-reflex camera!), Kiev 16, SR1, SR2, SR2 Super 16 and I would basically go for a Scoopic or SR in hindsight. Scoopic for learning & run-n-gun and SR to shoot things more on sticks.

Here are some samples of both:

Canon Scoopic MS (Ultra-16...slightly wider on both sides of the film, unlike Super 16 which is larger on one side)

Arri SR 1, Standard 16mm, Zeiss 10-100 Lens

I may have to start weighing my Super 8 cameras to see which one might work the best for a drone attempt. I've seen people hang cameras on strings with fins from quad copters and it can kind of work...won't be perfectly smooth but would be fun to try.

In quads it's all about the gimbal, and even as light as a 310xl can be, it would take quite a strong gimbal to handle it. Something in the $2500 range although they are coming down quickly. Otherwise the unsteady footage is simply unwatchable.

The Speedbooster is almost a necessity with this camera. I realize Nikon mount doesn't make sense for everyone, but getting full manual aperture control and those extra stops really makes a difference on all the Blackmagic cameras.

2.5k maybe helpful, but investing in the best glass with either camera will make the biggest difference.

Lens wise, I'd go for the Speedbooster adapter for Nikon and the 16-40 or 17-40, as well as a 50mm prime. You don't have to buy Nikon brand lenses, but I'd also suggest looking at vintage Nikon primes instead of zooms. Vintage glass looks beautiful on the BMPCC, and Nikon never changed their mount, so they're still usable on the Speedbooster. I used a friend's vintage Nikon macro for a couple shots on a film and it was beautiful.

The Nikon 17-35 is another great option we've talked about here.

If you have Nikon glass or access to it, the Speedbooster is a great option. I have that and a PL adapter, but I've used the Nikon glass much more than any PL glass; the speed boost is extremely helpful with this camera.

I have 6 more rolls on their way and I'm lining up an outdoor wedding to shoot this Saturday - no charge to client - for the experience and for (hopefully) good sample footage.

I was going to shoot a wedding in 16mm a couple months ago and I brought my SR2 and tons of gear. When I got there, it was crazy dark and un-filmable without major disruption. I shot with a BMPCC which isn't exactly low-light friendly either but the results were really good. Always have a backup! Bring 500T and 50D.

Another idea is to pass out cheap Super 8 cameras to people in the wedding and have them film it. You'll wind up with 80% out-of-focus junk, but the other 20% will be golden. Plus you supplement it with what you shoot and you can get some very cool stuff. Canon A310xl's are good for this. They sell for $25-$50 and are autofocus. (you need to explain that they have to release the trigger and pull it again if subjects move closer or farther away).

Here's a sample of that type of shooting:

Just updated my BMPCC; everything fine so far.

A colorist friend of mine often would tell me he didn't care too much about the age of film people shot; he could get decent images from almost any age film within reason. Obviously that's only for transferred film.

There are tons of film chain places out there that will transfer for those prices or less but you'd be much better off with Perry's solution.

It also depends on how the Super 8 was shot...often Super 8 from old family reels are out of focus and shaky so while it still would benefit from an HD transfer it may not be as big of a jump as modern footage shot in focus with a nice lens/camera.'

What ever you're shooting maybe you can just do a short test and see if its worth it to you.

Are you talking about a 2C or an Arri III?

Either way, don't rule out talking to Arri in NYC, there's still one guy there that loves the film cameras and can make any of them purr. Just might cost a pretty penny however. Worth a phone call!

Great look, kind of "filmic" except where the sun gets blown out.

DaVinci is a strange beast when you first get into it but investing in learning the software will pay off quickly. Seems like you've already got it down from the look of the piece.

Canon made one that kind of clips on to it. Kinda rare, I've seen about 3 or 4 of them over the last 10 years or so.

For houses like Cinelicious that are used to dealing with pros and big projects, those costs are not unusual, but they are disappearing quickly in the industry or are certainly lower in general. Some places look to bill every second of their time on a project like an agency model. It works & is expected when doing commercials or films with budgets but it's really difficult for the little guy.

The quality of work you get from Cinelicious is amazing because of their colorists but you pay for it. Just keep that in mind. I would also try talking to them as they want to support film and the little guys.

I understand what you are getting at but still. What happened to personal accountability?

 

And why dont they have insurance if they are in business?

I totally agree about their accountability and often they would too, I'm just talking about how the business works.

If something major happened at Fotokem or any of the older giant labs, they wouldn't just "make it right." You, them, your insurance company & their insurance company would go into long negotiations with them about how the costs would be handled...but if it was a small batch even with a big boy they'd probably just replace your film to make it easy on them time-wise...they never HAD to do it automatically.

It's just like parking lots saying that leaving stuff in your car there is at your own risk. They can't completely wave responsibly by putting up a sign or stating a policy...if they messed up they would be accountable, it might just take a while and some money to get to that point legally. Make sense?

I can live with having to reshoot if my actors are up for it because they are taking reduced rate anyway but I cannot handle it if the stock gets wiped out and I cant get replacement.

 

If that's a concern you might want to look into insurance or maybe the lab can direct you to companies that do that...it can be affordable. I would look at it like (slightly more likely than) a freak hurricane or something...it can happen, rarely with good labs.

Colorlab is good people. They would work with you as much as possible but those types of issues should be covered under your production insurance.

If there was a major fowl-up it could cost them their business and/or their personal savings & house so they need to be protected. These days we should be glad there's a lab open.

Sweet moves. If you could have shot some of it at 16fps it would have added to the cool Kung Foo vibe.

Here's an extremely short thing I shot on an Eyemo in 35mm if you want to compare grain...

If it plays fine on a Mac, open it on the Mac and save it back as another Quicktime file in whatever codec you need, even the original, and I bet it will work.

A DIY setup like a projector and DSLR certainly can work but it is extremely slow and will chew through the shutter counts on the DSLR very quickly. Also using a hot light source can lead to uneven illumination of the film frame.

But you could use a low-end and less expensive camera as the mega-pixel count isn't as important...maybe find several older used models of the same type for cheap.

I was thinking of selling my standard 16mm Arri SR2 but with prices like that it might be better just to hold on to it.

For some strange reason, I never felt reversal film ever scanned right. A projected Kodachrome or Ektachrome image always looked amazing to me in person and looks like a noisy mess when scanned.

Kodachrome doesn't scan well; even 35mm slides don't do well due to the multilayered approach to Kodachrome. Ektachrome can do better in scanning but of course projecting it is the best.