Jump to content

Will Montgomery

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    2187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Everything posted by Will Montgomery

  1. So who is processing Regular 8mm in B&W, Reversal or Color negative? Robert, can you do that? I think Spectra was doing some of that...Dwayne's used to do color reversal Regular 8mm... What about Double Super 8? Anyone processing that if you can find the film?
  2. Second sending to Bernie. But you should go ahead and shoot a roll and get a baseline so you can let him know of any issues. But even if you think it's running great, a CLA will keep it that way.
  3. I've got it...we start a news network like CNN but shoot everything on Super 8. Everything would be delayed a day or two for processing and transfer but it would look cool. We could go through those 200' loads pretty fast...
  4. I have a pretty rare 800' magazine for the SR3 but I'll never get 800' loads from Kodak unless I was doing a big feature and buying $50k worth of film. They were often used on concert and event coverage where longer shooting times were helpful. (like on Peter Gabriel's Secret World Live). I'm sure Kodak would make 200' loads of Super 8 for you if you bought enough...but it would have to be quite a bit.
  5. Just got some Scoopic footage back from processing for a music video shot last weekend. I was going to bring the S16 SR2 but then I was like..."let's go simple" and I'm glad I did in this case. It's not the perfect camera for everything but it is great for any run-n-gun situations. Lens is surprisingly sharp.
  6. Is this Vision 3 50D? Looks great and closeups are definitely the way to go with Super 8.
  7. There's been a revolution in film scanning over the last few years and a much better appreciation of the colorist's role in the process. Differences in noise often come down to the type of scanner while color can be adjusted from almost any scan so I'd conclude that the "new" lab is paying more attention to what the color should be. There also may be a different philosophy between labs in that the "old" one may be trying to get you a close as possible to what the actual film looks like without corrections vs. a new approach of getting you what it SHOULD look like...blue skies, ect. Good news is that all the previous footage can most likely be adjusted with a program like DiVinci Resolve to get your color and even the noise closer to what you'd like. With any lab your best bet is to have a discussion with them about what you're looking for so they can best match the scanner and post processing to your needs. One school of thought would be to get the "best" and highest resolution "flat" scan you can, then have a proper colorist work on the image until you're happy with the color. Then you'll have a "digital negative" that you can repurpose later without having to re-scan. This can be more expensive however because a good colorist is not cheap...but they make every difference in the world.
  8. Glad Bernie could help with the Scoopic. He saved one for me that was completely dead...lots of film chips jamming the mechanism after years of student use. Those cameras work really well for what you're doing. Makes you're piece stand out over any video camera...hope you can do more. They're perfect for music videos and live performances (except the 100' load issue). Bernie did the U16 thing on one of my crystal Scoopics. Great job. Not as practical as S16 but a nice and relatively cheap alternative for Scoopics.
  9. I agree with Robert...even when finishing to HD, a 4k scan of Super 8 makes a subtle but noticeable difference. Of course it helps when it is shot on a decent camera and actually in focus which doesn't happen very much with Super 8. It's nice to have the extra resolution to make pan & scan and zoom decisions. You can reframe in post easily without loss of quality. 4k (and 5k) scan rates have come down dramatically recently...I guess because the ScanStation machines have proliferated.
  10. Nice to be able to use equipment like the One-Man-Crew from Red Rock Micro & my Ultra16 Scoopic MS on a music video shoot this weekend. There are so many great tools out there with the DSLR "revolution" but it's fun to use them with film cameras too. This One-Man-Crew is the original version but I've used it with an SR2 before. I plan to do the upgrade to handle heavier cameras.
  11. Great to find someone in Texas! Too bad their prices are 3x Tommy's...$300/minute vs. $110/minute (silent 16mm).
  12. If you are planing on scanning and finishing digitally, I would shoot 500T and remove the color in post. The extra grain in 500T actually looks good in B&W. As far as anything being lost, if it is scanned well then all of that is adjusted in post (DaVinci Resolve is a great platform to adjust this.) In her room you may be able to add more light so keep that in mind. The more light the better...you can always remove light in post but trying to "add light" in post never looks as good as the real thing. The main difference you're talking about is negative vs. reversal when you talk 200T vs. Tri-X. Tri-X will have a higher contrast than the negative film at first but you can get the negative closer to that high contrast look if you want in post. Negative will also help you hold the highlights without blowing them out as much. The 310xl may have a wide aperture but it doesn't have the best lens so keep that in mind.
  13. Tommy at VideoFilmSolutions in Maryland can do film outs, including 16mm with optical sound. He has a hybrid system that he developed that gives excellent results at a reasonable rate. http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/main
  14. Prices have really changed. I bought two crystal mod Eyemo's on eBay about 12 years ago for $600. I think my wind-up one was $350.
  15. Hmmmm...that makes me want to re-scan that footage. That was done on a Spirit 2k many years ago, but I know their machine was immaculately maintained. Bernie (at Super16Inc...my go-to Scoopic tech) believed the flickers were due to tiny alignment issues in the rollers and mechanisms of that Scoopic. Unfortunately there's not a clear way to adjust each piece because adjusting one piece moves another one and so on where as Arri's and Aatons are setup for precise changes and adjustments...at least that is how he explained it to me :) . I've also wondered if the crystal sync (after market mod) on the camera could be affecting that.
  16. Here's my wind-up Eyemo that we talked about (happened to be sitting on my desk as I read your post). Love that is was built in the 40's and can make images rivaling the latest & greatest digital cameras...except perhaps in sharpness due to the ancient but full-of-character lens. This camera shot this (Double X, Spirit Transfer): Another motorized Eyemo with Nikon mount lenses shot this on 50D (ending has some nice faces):
  17. Scoopic is a great option that is under $1000. I've had 6 of them and I have noticed most of them can have a little flutter only noticeable in skys. If it was an Arri you'd be able to make tiny adjustments to the mechanism to get rid of it. With the Scoopic you don't have as much ability to adjust; they were meant for shooting football games and vacations...not for making features. However, on the M, MN & MS models (I've had each) the lens is really great. I've had colorists ask me what lens I was using on some transfers because they loved it so much. The fact that it is motorized is a big plus...constantly winding a K3, Filmo, Bolex, K-100, ect. can be painful and difficult on long shoots. You can find a crystal sync mod but I don't believe that is critical. Ultra 16 conversion is easy while Super 16 is nearly impossible or at least impractical. Here's an example:
  18. I would consider raising your camera budget to £2500, finding a more modern 16mm camera that is tested and works, then selling the camera when you're done. Check around where you live to find out what cameras are still regularly serviced in your area. In the U.S. it's much more easy to find a tech that can work on Arri SR's than Eclairs and the parts are much more plentiful. Not sure about the U.K.
  19. It is undeniably sexy. And I do love BMD as a spunky little innovator. I'm sure they will get the scanner figured out.
  20. Yes, we are a rare breed. Struggling in the right man's world.
  21. One little trick I found was to get a cheap variable polarizing filter that rotates to change the polarization...take out the glass and use that to mount the anamorphic lens to the camera lens (probably will need size adapter rings too) which will allow you to fix the anamorphic lens with rods and still be able to focus/rotate the camera lens. Remember that the anamorphic lens must remain fixed and level or you'll get really trippy 70's "I'm so stoned!" effects. In looking for a photo of such a setup I ran into this which could be helpful although It doesn't seem to have a bracket to mount to rails: https://www.vid-atlantic.com/products/anamorphic-lens-clamp
  22. Every scanning pro I've talked to has had the same issues with it discussed here. Plus the non-movable sensor so 16mm is only captured at 2k. One house in Atlanta that shall remain nameless wanted to use it for 16mm dailies and found it not even suitable for that. Looks very cool. They just need the sensor to catch up with the looks. If BlackMagic decides to make it kick ass, they could...they just have to decide to do it and listen to their clients.
  23. These days it seems best to get a completely flat scan with no noise reduction and treat it as a "digital negative" and almost make "work prints" from that with a basic color job applied so when you show others the edit they don't cringe (or just apply basic coloring in the NLE). Then when the edit is locked sit down with the colorist and pay him lots of money to make it look amazing.
×
×
  • Create New...