Will Montgomery

Looks like you've got a ton of responses. I can't speak for the technical mathematical details but like when I asked a local mechanic about a Ferrari sitting at dealer in West Virgina, his response was... "Runs good." So that's what I'd say about the K3 and other Pentax lenses. I've used 24mm, 35mm and 50mm Pentax Super Takumar lenses with the K3 with excellent results. When it was in focus in the viewfinder, it was perfectly in focus on the film. The 50mm was particularly sharp. I think I shot some Double X with it and was very pleased with the image quality and sharpness so I don't think the Flange Focal distance is an issue. Great inexpensive combination.

There are some great M42 lenses available that are really affordable. The Pentax Super Takumar lenses are particularly good; especially the 35mm and 50mm.

Rule of thumb: If you are sourcing old stock, go for the slowest speed you can like 50D or 100T. Faster stocks deteriorate faster. Always stay away from that Vision 800T stock because it hasn't been made in so long any of it will be pretty nasty, unless you're going for nasty then thumbs up!

I think I acknowledged that you will capture more information as you say. I'm just saying especially if you finish in HD, a 4k scan may only be a 25% improvement in perceived quality when footage is shot soft or poorly exposed. Aren't we basically agreeing with each other? I don't think your point is lost. I'm sure you have many people extremely happy with your 4k services, you do great work. Looks like 4k scans have come down significantly in price which is great. In fact Pro8mm lists their fees and a 4k scan is actually 25% more than a 2k scan which is kind of funny after I pulled that 25% number out of the air.

In absolute terms yes, 4k scan of Super 8 will look better than HD. But it helps when it's shot with a decent camera, great lens and actually in focus...something that the majority of Super 8 footage isn't. For things we shoot today with care I'd go 4k all day long. For my parents and grandparents home movies, not so much.

Canon AF-310XL. Probably the worst lens ever on a Super 8 camera and the autofocus only works when you first pull the trigger, but I've given these out to kids at events and gotten great results. These are inexpensive cameras so they don't have to feel bad if they drop it and destroy it. When they are actually in focus it's not horrible...but even the out of focus bits can be fun if edited well.

Not a very technical answer and a completely different stock, but I can tell you recently seeing 16mm Ektachrome projected made my jaw drop in the color rendition. It was more than just slightly more saturated...it had colors that I just didn't see after working with scanned film for years. And don't get me started on 16mm Kodachrome...that was another world projected. I've made prints from Vision stocks look great but never seem to have that overwhelming beauty that reversal stocks give me when projected. I realize this is due to the higher contrast and color saturation but it is something everyone should see while they can.

So it's the black, older version and not the Autofocus (AF) silver one, correct? It's a decent camera. I believe once you put some batteries and film in that should go away as Mark indicated it's a low light or underexposure indicator.

Not being an engineer but having owned many 16mm cameras, my take on different camera bodies with the same lens as stated in the original premise would be that an individual frame would be quite similar for multiple cameras with the same lens, it's the movement from frame to frame that is different. While I don't have a Bolex, I can say that my Canon Scoopic has beautiful individual frames, but I can see flutter in skies quite often whereas my SR2 is steady and continuous as a rock. I've been told the movement on a Scoopic is extremely finicky and difficult to adjust as changing one element leads to issues on another element and basically it wasn't designed to be worked on and adjusted as precisely as the Arri. Bolex's are fine cameras and I'm sure a well-maintained one will be great; it just may be harder to find qualified Bolex techs vs. Arri techs at least in the U.S. Not sure in London.

Wow. A ten year old post is new again. I'm getting old.

Have you looked into simple adapters like this? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32772779341.html

Great answers here. Most important is maxing out what 16mm can do for you by using sharp lenses and proper focus & exposure and using the slowest film stock you can for the project. 4k scans will almost always be an improvement, how much of an improvement will be based on how well it's shot. If the image doesn't hit the film sharp and clear, higher resolution scans will only give marginal improvements and may not be worth the cost. When it's shot well, 4k absolutely improves the final result even when finishing in HD. Plus you can reframe a little bit if needed which is nice.

Basically a cartridge system for 16mm would have to be the same as SR mags to have a substantial and quality pressure plate to we're kind of back to where we started. Maybe you could make them of lesser quality material but probably not. Although the Disc idea would be fun. It would also be spinning so fast you could chop down trees... or a whole forest at once with a 70' radius.

$1500 for a short is not pricey at all. Depends on who you're getting and what results you expect. Prices have come down quite a bit because everyone thinks they're a colorist now but someone with experience and talent will cost you but for good reason.

Are the power belts 3 pin as well? If so you'll be fine. I've had Batteries+ re-cell belts for me in the past just fine if you don't feel like getting out the soldering iron. As far as an adapter...From B&H the expected availability is 8-10 months... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1121420-REG/lowel_bl_820_4_pin_xlr_f_to_3_pin.html

The Super 8 cartridge is incredibly cheap in every way. The plastic, the pressure plate, the spring, ect. are all made to be as inexpensive as possible yet still yield passable results. These are meant for one use and discarded. But even they add costs to the film because of the extra labor assembling them. To make a 100' or 400' 16mm (or 35mm) cartridge system would add significantly to the cost of film because it would have to be MUCH more substantial than the Super 8 system to hold up to professional use. So basically it would be like a new Arri magazine every time. Yes you could do a deposit/return thing like bottles but would not be very practical. Not sure where you can cut corners with that design either but it wouldn't save very much even if you designed a brand new camera (which would NEVER happen.) So we're back to loading our own magazines which goes really fast and isn't so bad once you do it regularly and is also why clapper/loaders exist. As my Kodak rep recently told me, loaders are getting twice as much money as they used to because its becoming a rare skill. (and too much responsibility for me!)

I've always ordered directly from Kodak (800.621.FILM (3456)). If you have an account it's easier but they will accept credit cards...you just have to read off the numbers to them every time you order. Their shipping is fast and cheap. Looks like they have online ordering through the website now as well. https://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/product_information/index.htm

The "removing the filter then you have to collimate part may be witchcraft," but the point that a 4008 is what...35 years old and who knows what's been done to it is not witchcraft...always worth checking collimation every few years, especially if the camera is new to you. But if you test it and have no issues then save the money. Checking it should be part of regular service so if it's a new camera to you then service by someone who knows what they're doing is more important than just collimation.

If the internal filter is removed it is a good idea to collimate the lens. Actually, it is always a good idea to have that done. Björn Andersson in Sweden can help you with that. Filmkonsult Svebaco KB - Björn Andersson Vidholmsbackkarna 54 - Box 5136 - 165 72 Hasselby - Sveriges Telephone: +46 (0)838 1074 Email: bjorn.andersson@brevet.nu info@beaulieu-service.com

Yep. Unless you're ok with film chain transfers, costs savings with Super 8 is pretty minimal compared with 16mm and maybe even 35mm if you get stock cheap.

An unsharp mask type plugin may appear to help a little but there's simply no substitute for proper focus. The data is just not there.

My results with the Wolverine were very similar to Daniel's example posted. It almost looks like it was captured at 360dpi and enlarged to 1080. Like I said, it makes otherwise sharp footage look like a Monet painting. If you want to say it does a fine job for the money, I guess maybe that's the case since it's $300...but it would be completely unusable for me in any situation other than simply to know what was on the reel.

Beautiful.

Shooting 7222 is like shooting some of the really old Hollywood Movie stocks...if you don't have big lights it can get very grainy. A beautiful grain in my opinion but could be a bit much. Highly recommend testing before a shoot. Movies like Good Night and Good Luck shot in Vision 500T then desaturated in post so keep that in mind. Just plan on having plenty of light; more than you think you may need so you're not shooting wide open on the lens. It's always easy to remove light in post but adding it in just leads to more grain and ugly blacks.

Focus tests I've done on multiple Scoopics seem to be fairly accurate. I'd love to hear your results.