Will Montgomery

I shot a ton of 16mm 100D and loved it projected. Fine scanned, but amazing projected. Color was rich but not overly saturated; very realistic and accurate. I also shot Kodachrome 16mm and loved that even more for the non-realistic but beautiful pastel-like color it got. Due to the nature of the stock itself it doesn't scan very easily (see tons of posts about Kodachrome 35mm slide scans) but projected it was just gorgeous. Certainly less exposure latitude than negative stocks but honestly if you're in the ballpark without extremes (going from shadow to bright sun at the same exposure) you're ok. I would always suggest good, hi-res scans before running through a projector but you owe it to yourself to see it projected. Honestly, its such a pain to get out the projector you won't do it very often. I've made 16mm prints from negative stocks with good results but the prints never seem to have the jump-off-the-screen color that E100D or Kodachrome had.

Screw...M42 mount. Thats another thing I'd recommend...some Pentax Super Takumar lenses...like a 24, 35 and 50mm. That actually made the most noticeable difference to me; those lenses are amazing. Fairly common and inexpensive but super sharp.

At that point it is a $375 camera. I think I sold mine with all the mods and a case for $600. I'd get the brightened viewfinder before Super 16 actually. It helps quite a bit. Also, that's less than 2 rolls of film + developing + scanning. I think the gate is just a mater of unscrewing it and screwing in the new one just like the mount (which is extremely easy.) Honestly, just take it out and shoot. Scans today look great with regular 16 and you can re-frame in post without losing resolution if you get a full 2k or 4k scan. Especially if you shoot 50D outside.

I had a K3 about 6 or 7 years ago. Got tired of winding it and sold it but had several things done to it: Duall widened my gate and drilled out the viewfinder to see the full S16 field. Duall also removed all the loop formers...too often they would scratch the film so it was better to manually make the loops Bernie at Super16Inc.com did his Laserbrighten process on the mirror and it became MUCH MUCH brighter. Highly recommend that. I found a re-centered lens mount on eBay and it was very easy just to screw it on and have the lens centered for Super 16. Don't know if you can find those anymore.

The masters can use light to sculpt a scene and make it seem "natural" when it's anything but. You're definitely on your way and learning how light sticks to film so bravo. A great colorist I've worked with for years said to me once, "get the light the way you like it, then double it." Not sure if that's scientific but if you can keep it in the same ratio but put more light on the scene it's much easier to remove light than add it in. Just because a stock says 500 doesn't mean it sees in the dark. Lighting makes any scene come to life, film or digital. Love the idea of looking at a Vermeer and trying to achieve that. What wonderful practice that would be.

Thanks for the insight. I can certainly talk to my broadcast brethren about their tracking systems, but they certainly aren't really toward film. The Filemaker method might make the most sense...cost effective and flexible. I can just set it up to include all the info I need and print box stickers with major data points and a catalog number pointing back to the database.

Working on a music video at the moment that we shot on Super 8 50D (Beaulieu 4008 ZM2 Jubilee Edition) and Ultra 16 (Scoopic MS). It was an impromptu shoot with no planning or lighting to speak of...just picked up the cameras and started shooting. 50D just really amazing, especially with a sharp lens in Super 8 and on closeups. These two stills are from the same day. I adjusted the levels but not the color or grain. If you want to see more variance in Super 8, here's a link to family vacation film I made quite a few years ago with the Beauileu and several super cheap Canon AF310xl's. Anything sharp and in focus is the Beaulieu, anything NOT is the AF310xl which was used by my kids. Sometimes out of focus crappy Super 8 is just fine. As has been said, everything except focus comes down to the colorist and a lesser extent to the transfer. Yes there are some bad transfer companies but anyone offering services on this board will be great; it will come down to the colorist's skills. 2018 Music Video Links to the 4k stills for closer inspection: Super 8 4k: https://internetstaging.com/images/4k-Super-8.jpg Ultra 16 4k: https://internetstaging.com/images/4k-Ultra-16.jpg SUPER 8: ULTRA 16mm:

I'm asking in the Telecine forum because my guess is that labs and transfer houses deal with this a lot. I have a closet full of film, 8mm through 35mm of different work projects and home movies. I need a consistent way of archiving, labeling and storing the film so I know what & where everything is. I have transfers of most of the footage so it would also need to tie digital files together with the actual film as well. I've considered buying a ton of USB sticks and copying transfers to them and placing in the same box as each film as a fail safe, but would like to have it organized on the film shelf and on hard drives with multiple backups. Any recommendations on modern software or organizational methods if starting from scratch? Thank you in advance!

Seems like the actual color rendition of stocks these days is a sort of moving target in the sense that any scan, even as "flat" as possible will put a moderate spin on the "color". Part of what I love about film is the fact that you have no choice but to pay attention and adjust the color. With our limited choices these days it's more about matching grain structure through film and lighting choice; color an be infinitely adjusted.

Thanks...I love R8. Cameras are tiny and easy to use. Honestly, R8 is the new Super 8 since Super 8 has gotten so good with the Vision stocks. I have to test this Canon Scoopic Double Super 8 camera and have some fresh Foma B&W. That may be tricky to get processed.

Texas, U.S.A.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

Is this Vision 3 50D? Looks great and closeups are definitely the way to go with Super 8.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great to find someone in Texas! Too bad their prices are 3x Tommy's...$300/minute vs. $110/minute (silent 16mm).

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.

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

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.