Will Montgomery

Consider a Scoopic M or MS as well. Easy to load and good metering, probably a little more reliable than the R16. Can't change lenses, but it has a sharp one (In its middle f stop range) and I've never missed that for this camera.

Hi-

 

It's not just high-speed- there are piles of neat old cameras (maybe antique is a better description!) that require 2-perf. Mitchells, Cine-Kodaks, older Bolexes and Filmos, it's a long list.

I have a Kodak Cine from 1933 that uses double pert only. Haven't tried it yet.

Anyway its interesting how much better old ITV shows look: The Saint, The Avengers, Thunderbirds, Miss Marble, Poiroit, Geeves and Wooster, Crackers etc - all have endured the test of time better than the BBC equivalents.

Studios are reaping the benefits of using film on many old shows now with DVD and HD releases. I bet that also figures a little into format selections on network shows. 35mm shows will look great for many years into the future.

I am reliably informed that it looks very "video" because it was incompetently posted, but I should take this opportunity to point out that HD video does not have to look quite that godawful.

 

Phil

That's what I thought... I've seen some really good looking HD video, less contrast and more "film-like" although not what we're used to here in the States in primetime with 35mm shows.

Ha, don't mention the dreaded 'T' word!

I remember the earlier Dr. Who using 16mm for outdoor scenes and video for indoors... always thought that was strange but maybe UK audiences are more open to the differences in asthetics.

That Super 16 did look fantastic.

I recently watched an episode of the new BBC show Torchwood in HD and I found it to look very "video" since it was shot in HD Video. Some of it looked like the signal from my local TV station's news in HD. None of the warmth of film... too bad really. I'm so glad that most shows in the U.S. continue to use film.

One interesting observation was that watching an SD signal of that same Torchwood show, I found the video look to be more forgiving vs. the HD signal which made it frighteningly obvious.

Out of the cheap 16mm cameras, the Russian K3 is the easiest to covert because all you need to do is file the gate. This isn't a "true" Super 16 conversion because the lens isn't actually recentered, but as long as you use a lens that covers the area it will work.

It can be done yourself for free or by someone with experience for about $200.

Keep in mind that this IS a cheap camera.

If you're looking for cheap there's a Kiev 16ue made in Russia that has a reflex viewfinder and a rotating 3 lens turret. Never used one, but the motorized version might be worth checking out. Probably could be found for less than $125.

If you're not concered about changing out lenses or Super 16, the Canon Scoopic 16mn is a GREAT camera for someone starting out. It even has a generally reliable built-in meter and automatic exposure. It's motorized so you don't have to constantly wind the thing. They go for about $400-$700 on eBay usually. The built in lens is actually really good in the middle f-stop range.

The Arriflex 16S, 16S/B and 16M would be a really good investment and something that could grow with you but they will cost you more than the ones listed above and are somewhat less portable.

All that said I'd love to find a way to preserve or even fake it's unique property of color falling off to monochromatic in / near the toe -- a black and white feel to a color stock (and why it's critics call it 'muddy' - you really have to know how to expose for it -- another lost art ----)

 

-Sam

Here are some Kodachrome stills taken from 16mm transfered in HD on a Millenium machine last week. These sized down from the full 1920x1080 but you can see the color.

Facial skin tones are really nice and I like the different look in other colors... but it still doesn't come alive like it does when projected.

The main thing I like about Kodachrome is the archival qualities. I have slides from the 50's that look brand new while Ektrachrome slides from the same time period are barely viewable.

Can you point me to someone who has actually emulated Kodachrome with it ?

 

I mean Kodachrome specifically, not some idea of "Reversal Looks" -- most of which are cartoon ideas of what reversal stocks look like....

 

-Sam

I can't point you to anyone who's actually even used that stock. Not even a colorist who's worked with it. Makes me wonder if Kodak is really marketing it right (or if it even lives up to the hype).

I've never seen Kodachrome telecined that looks anywhere near as good as it does simply projected. Same with Kodachrome 35mm slides, they are really tough to scan properly because of the nature of the stock. Ektachrome 100D can look fine telecined, but Kodachrome always seems to have issues transfered to video.

I think that it would be cool if Kodak made their older formulations availabe, want a 70's look? get the stock they used...Want a nitrate look get some nitrate film!! It's not all about the K's you know.....

=Rob-

That 500T Expression seems kinda 70's ish...

And that 7299 scanning stock gives you all sorts of looks... even Kodachrome can be emulated with it. Every telecine house that works with it must have this box from Kodak that "dials in" different looks. Maybe that's the future... having stocks play well & do new tricks in the telecine booth.

DV can allow people with $1000 to make a basic short with actors that will "work" for free.

People with $4000 or so could make a decent 16mm short for video release if they're good at negotiating, beging and waiting for available time and with actors that will "work" for (close to) free.

I just got 2 hours in an HD Millenium suite for less than I usually pay for Rank SD because I waited until there was available time and was very nice to the owners. It happens, you just can't count on it to happen exactly when you need it... you have to be flexible and let multiple places know what you can spend.

Might be very different in the UK, if so, I'm sorry.

Strange how my Kodak rep is very helpful even though I don't spend very much with them. Same with my Fuji rep. He just called a week ago to let me know they were taking a holiday off in case I had any orders planned. (I didn't.)

My opinion is that vision2 is less contrasty then vision.

Check out the 500T 'expression' stock. Very low contrast, interesting look but not very practical.

I tried some Vision 800T 2 years ago, and found it to be pretty nasty. My colorist said that 800T was about the "ugliest" stock she worked with (with the possible exception of Ektachrome VNF which isn't used anymore). I found it to be exceedingly grainy.

The Vision 500T was certainly an ok stock and was used extensively... if you're just experimenting I'd go for it. If you have to shoot a music video or a slightly larger project it would probably be worth it to stick with fresh stock you can get more of if you need it.

Lighting & lenses will probably be more important to you than Vision2 vs. regular Vision.

Then there are other variants like the Turbo and Y front's and the milleniums that were mods and upgrades made by non factory companies.

A Y-Front operated by a good colorist can give amazing SD results.

Sure, Techiscope is cheaper initially but it's also grainier and less sharp than true scope and how much does a DI run and is it going to cost for it to be captured onto true HD?

The colorists I work with love 2-perf. They think it's a great alternative for Super 16 users to "move up." Grain and "sharpness" might not be much of a factor for some projects not being blown up for release.

Of course you are right, DI and telecine would cost the same as 4 perf, but then it costs the same for 16mm too... it's the machine and the colorist, not the format that seems to effect pricing for that.

If someone has a real budget then should go for the best quality they can afford. But with 2-perf your film and processing costs rival 16mm or close to half of 4-perf so that makes it a worthy tool in your toolkit; not the final answer in quality but a good option.

The millenium can ultimately make a better picture, many technical reasons for this, but it is just about the pinnacle of flying spot telecine technology. The thompson people will disagree but they are wrong :rolleyes:

 

Millenium's with the V2 update kit are good to 4K scans and the color fidelity coming out of the machine is unsurpassed...

 

-Rob-

Then of course it comes down to the colorist which really makes the difference.

Thanks!

Are there any major differences between a Millenium machine and a Spirit? Any advantages to one over another?

Once you go through the whole process and see the results, you'll understand why it's still around and here to stay. 16mm stands at an interesting position; it can look extremely professional with the Vision2 negative stocks or it can look very warm and "home movie" like with a reversal or b&w stock. Those are both looks that videographers are always after but can't quite get.

Have you ever gotten a package deal at spectra film? I'm curious how good their transfer is.

They're really nice people and will help you with any questions you might have. Definitely much better than Pro8mm. But I'm not convinced their colorists are on the same par as FSFT in Seattle... or their machines.

Freya, I thought you had purchased them and would have them by now.

For someone who is ok with 50ft reels they'd be fine... and the price isn't horrible for what you get, as long as you know what you're getting and can use it.

If you bought them direct from Kodak they'd be $18 a piece, so $900 worth of film for $300 isn't so bad. I guess you could splice two 50' rolls together for a 100' reel. Pain in the ass to do, but it can be done. Double perf kills it for me, I shoot mostly Super 16.

Yeah thought something was up - especially when the seller has sold a couple of lots apparently the exactly the same as this one. Heres the link if its of any point :) -

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...A:IT&ih=008

Just the sight of all that potential film got me excited..

Actually, based on the fact that these are the EXACT same photos and this seller only has 14 histories I'd bet it's a scam. The ORIGINAL one was not a scam, it was just not made clear what was being sold partly because the seller didn't understand that these would normally be 100' rolls.

I talked to my Kodak rep about the original posting (by someone with several thousand transactions) and she looked up the part number and confirmed that it was made, probably for a special order that wasn't picked up.

Call up Fuji or Kodak for the new stuff, that's really the best way and if you're a student, there's a discount. You're also from Boston so you can also go to Boston Camera Rental too.

Yeah, direct is the best... you know it's been stored properly and their shipping is pretty cheap since they deal with such quantities.

I buy 16mm & super 8 direct... sometimes only a few rolls at a time.

Kodak: 1-800-621-FILM (3456)

Fuji: (888) 424-3854

If its the same box that was on U.S. eBay this week then yes, too good to be true.

That one was 50 rolls of 50ft DOUBLE PERF. I called Kodak and asked them to check out the stock number and the rep was surprised to find it even existed.

See this on Filmshooting...

http://www.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/...pic.php?t=17650

Was this the image?

Perfect for getting into film. Plan on buying a MOVIE FILM LIGHT METER. Not just a normal light meter... one that takes frame rates into consideration. The camera has one but it's notoriously inaccurate (if it even works.)

This camera will make you learn how to load and handle film properly & how to set exposure. Remember, the camera is inexpensive, but everything else about film is not.

One load of film might wind up costing you about half of what the camera does.

100' Roll 16mm Film: $38.00

Processing: $18.00

Transfer: ? Rarely do I transfer just one roll... usually costs about $300/hour depending on where you have it done

There are cheaper ways to do it, but not much.