Will Montgomery

I think A-Minimia reels are 200ft but they are wound backwards or something... maybe you could call Kodak and ask about them, see if they are on a daylight type reel.

You could try a really grainy black & white stock too... Double-X negative is pretty grainy.

If the magazine doesn't make it, can you continue in PDF form? I'd certainly pay for it in PDF form as well... you have great articles and insight into the word of small film. By the way, I loved the article on wedding film shooters in the last issue. I've been interested in doing some of that to support my film habit.

Very nice. It's tough to cut a good trailer, that's a special skill and you have it. Definitely check out film, it would be a worthy tool in your arsenal.

Buy a cheap 16mm camera, like a Russian K3 ($175) or something and shoot a few rolls, process it and transfer it. This could all be done for under $700 and you'll have gotten an education worth several times that. Plus you'll have a camera to play around with in the future too. Once you do that you'll start to understand everything involved. You're really lucky to have any budget for a project but you want to make sure you can finish what you start so try to be realistic on money no matter how tempting film my seem. Try to finish it up quickly so maybe one of the networks will buy it durring the writer's strike. :P

On Telecine: Film captures WAY more information than ANY video. WAY MORE. Because of this, film gives you the opportunitiy to adjust color, contrast and a million other image variables infinitely when transfering to video. Keep in mind, this is only really true when transfering directly from the film in Telecine, this is where you have the most flexibility in color. The color correcting tools available to a telecine operator (colorist) are lightyears above anything that Final Cut Pro could offer, even with the new (and buggy) COLOR application. Yes, you can adjust from your tape but once it's on video tape you now have a video signal and maybe 5% (if that) of the available "picture info" to work with. Fine for minor, subtle adjustments HENCE is born THE COLORIST. The colorist lives in a dark room, drinks lots of coffee and will talk endlessly about how someone has "olive" skin vs. the person next to him with a fair complexion. They know color and how to get the most out of film. This is one of those things you kinda have to live through. IMO the colorist is the most important person in the production chain after the DP but you never notice his work because we expect things to look "right". Do your test and sit through a telecine session and ask questions to understand what they do. You'll be amazed when you see the source image compared to when their done with it. I hope you can shoot film on your next project, it will be a great learning experience. Make sure you do tests and go through the whole process so you'll be prepared for you feature or at least know what to expect.

The general flow is right, but I think you underestimate the "Shoot 16" part and the "Get footage back in digibeta" part. "Shoot 16": You need to know how to handle film, load the camera, use a meter properly, set the camera properly, how to record sound while shooting. "Get footage back in digibeta": Understand that $300 an hour for telecine does not mean RUNNING TIME, it means per hour of use of the machine. If you're doing scene by scene color correction you'll be lucky to get 20 minutes per hour of telecine time. SO, you'll probably want to do a "one-light" transfer of the footage so you can get as much as possible transfered per hour... then edit your piece, then come back and transfer JUST THE PARTS YOU NEED carefully and possibly in HD. So the work flow might look like this: Shoot 16. Process Film Telecine footage as a "daily" or one-light for editing only (possibly to miniDV) Ingest into Final Cut Pro Edit . . . Take EDL and go back with the best Colorist and Telecine house you can find to re-telecine only the footage you need with scene-to-scene color Reconform the newly transfered footage Put it on a DVD. The end. Accept your Oscar. (I added this part)

If you don't have experience with film, don't use a feature to learn on the job. Your reasoning is sound if you have both film and video skills, but it sounds like you're approaching from a video perspective. I'd suggest getting a 16mm camera for a week and shoot tons of tests in similar situations to what you'd expect durring the production. Try shooting people and recording audio, try different lighting, see how light "sticks" to film, understand metering. Only then will you know if you're comfortable with it. Remember in either HD or Film you will need good lighting and know how to use it for each medium (they are different). Film is a skill set worth developing and will help you tremendously in video shoots as well. As far as the numbers, look at the budget and work from there. Telecine for a 90 minute feature will be EXPENSIVE. The entire editing workflow for film is much different even if you're not cutting film. You'll probably want to do a one-light transfer on everything then cut it, and finally go back and transfer the only cuts you want with a good colorist on the best machines you can afford. Once again, more money. Totally worth it, but not cheap.

Super 8 processing is actually less than 16mm (makes sense). And transfer of Super 8 is generally the same price on the same Rank machines at 16/35. Problem is finding a telecine with a Super 8 gate... not too many out there. If you have an NPR and you're comfortable with it, go for it! If you want lots of grain, try to find some old Vision 800T stock... it gives a whole new meaning to the word "grain."

If you get two, you could have one for each shoulder and rig up a 3D setup. :rolleyes: It certainly would look impressive if you walked into a wedding gig with these on your shoulders.

Who's selling them? How can I get in touch with them? I've actually been looking for one of these for a while.

Kodak says on their web site that Vision2 100T is the sharpest motion picture stock available. Wonder if that is still true and if it is why noone is using it in Super 8.

One Milllllllliiion Dollars... or should I make that Euros now? Just kidding. Not quite ready to sell but when I am I'll let you know.

Good news Clive. How about a few K3 motors while you're at it? They are hard to come by on eBay.

The rear element is 72mm diameter which matches the Scoopic lens, but it won't screw on properly because the threads are set back a little on the adapter. Rolando came up with the simple yet ingenious solution of using a 72mm polarizing filer, breaking out the glass and screwing that in between which gives the added benefit of the filter's rotation to set the anamorphic adapter straight while focusing with the Scoopic lens. Perhaps the extra milimeter or two this ads would jack with my ability to focus? I'll check the lens with a meter to see if it makes a difference.

I don't mean to gang up you about that camera really. I'm sure if you were making a 35mm feature and you needed to insert some super 8 for an effect and you needed crystal sync it might actually make sense. I just have to wonder if I by a Beaulieu 4008 for $500, and have someone like Bernie O'Doherty at Super16inc go to town on it, I would expect he could do everything Pro8mm does with the possible exception of Crystal Sync for less than $1200 (just a guess). At that price, he would probably also be able to do that Laserbrighten process to make the viewfinder extremely bright (He did this on my K3, I highly recommend it). So for $1700 you could have a completely rebuilt camera with this "Max 8" mod made, the lens collimated by one of the best techs around and still have the automatic aperture adjustment (unless that's a problem for the widened gate somehow). That's $1300 less than Pro8mm. To get Max 8 and crystal sync is $3500 so I'd have to really wonder if crystal sync on a Super 8 camera is worth $1800 more.

I'd be curious to see a break down of Kodak's negative sales by ASA. Maybe a pie chart. I understand the 500T is the best seller but I wonder how much each of the others they sell. I seem to buy 500T, 50D and 250D (16mm) in that order. While David has a good point about 50D not being much improved with the Vision3 technology, I bet that they eventually release some of these other speeds in V3 simply from a marketing standpoint even if not much is improved. It might seem as though they were somehow "less" than the V3 stock even if they really weren't.

Those are pretty big differences right there... especially in the whole cartridge thing.

Your Beaulieu 16mm probably isn't Super 16 so you'll be fine. The only time I've run into problems is either with really fast stock or if I'm shooting Super 16 and you get a little edge fogging. In your case you wouldn't notice any edge fogging (unless it was extreme).

From looking through it... I've tried the same setup... it looks very dark compared to the Scoopic without this adapter on it.

Don't knock a Scoopic MS until you've used one... what a great camera! Yes, there are lens limitations but it really is a good lens under the right lighting conditions. Easy to load and a great on-board meter. I've heard bad things about the original Scoopics but that MS is a champ. Rolando, I shot some Tri-X today with the Panasonic Anamorphic lens. I did notice it wasn't nearly as sharp as I can get without the adapter, I wonder what it will look like when it's stretched back out in transfer. I manually adjusted the anamorphic lens angle until I can create a rig like yours to keep it straight. The question will be if using this lens and gaining more film area is worth the loss of sharpness vs. simply cropping the 16mm frame to 16:9. With the new Vision3 stocks out now it might not make that much of a difference. Another idea to explore would be a Super 16 modification. I know, everyone says it's near impossible but someone on this board swears they did it years ago. Camera techs I've talked to say that it could be $1500 or more to do it so I'm not quite sure a $2000 Scoopic makes sence. But then the only other S16 cameras with motors that could be easily handheld would be a K3 with a Tobin motor and they are going for $1500 from Du-All (who bought the last few motors.)

Looks impressive, does it work? If it does it looks like you're ready to shoot a feature. 400ft mag and anamorphic adapter...nice work. Guessing that you don't have the actual magazine adapter. The adapter has a built in motor and uses another Scoopic battery to power the magazine I think. I have one and I'm looking at it now... never used it. Guess you have to use the external battery to actually power the camera? That fixed lens is pretty good in the middle f-stop range. I've had colorists comment on how sharp it was on some daylight shots; they were amazed to find out it was a Scoopic.

Congrats, sounds like a fun project. How are you finishing it out? Cutting film or transfering/digital editing? If you are telecining, much will be determined there.

I just tried out your adapter idea Rolando... thanks so much for the tip! How many f-stops do you think that LA7200 sucks up? At least 2 I would think... It's noticibly darker and not as sharp, but fun! Looking forward to playing with it on a bright day.

I think the older Fuji technology would be the F series... and F64 Daylight is the only one remaining in that line. What I find amazing is that Fuji is so well known for their reversal still films yet don't offer anything for motion picture film. I guess I shouldn't be amazed; there can't be that big of a market but I bet it could outsell Ektrachrome 100D is it was released. Even their Velvia 100 stock would be fine. The Velvia Super 8 that Spectra makes is just beautiful in that over-saturated-reversal-looking way. I wish Fuji would put some out in 16mm (if not Super 8 but I know their issues with the format...it probably still hurts.)