Will Montgomery

I'm considering having my Scoopic modified for Ultra 16 since it seems to be much easier than doing a true Super 16 mod but I'm concerned that finding a transfer house might be difficult. This will allow me to continue to use it as standard 16, but for future HD transfers I'll have a little more film to work with. I believe a Spirit or Shadow can handle it, but I know that the Y-Front my local house uses can't since it can't see into the sproket area on the left (due to pin registration?). I'm basically looking for two types of transfers, a standard def, anamorphic 16:9 and HD. Can anyone recommend a reasonable transfer houses with good colorists that could handle the Ultra 16 frame?

Ok. Same post applies about lens use though. DX lenses are not an option unfortunately.

Yes, DX lenses are cheaper because they removed the aperture ring (and generally use plastic materials for housing the lens); therefore they won't work for movie cameras. The fully automatic cameras like all their digital SLRs and the F100 35mm control the aperture anyway so this was "extra" for most photographers. Even the non-DX lenses with an aperture ring might have to be modified slightly. The K3 uses M42 mount lenses and Pentax had that great "Super Takumar" lens line that has an auto/manual switch so you could manually operate the aperture. Only the fully manual Nikon lenses would be advised. Nikon still makes a HUGE selection of these (or at least they maintain a huge inventory and selection) and they are wonderful glass. I would love to see a c-mount to Nikon adapter; those Nikon lenses must look strange on a K-100.

Is that a new website? Makes me want to try you guys at CineLab...

The 320T is from the previous Vision series and would have a slightly different character than either Vision2 200T or Vision2 500T.

Are there any cheap 2-perf 35mm cameras available or that can be modified? i.e. Eyemo or something under $3000 (yes, this is for a hobbyist, not a pro)? Seems as though 2-perf 35mm would only be slightly higher in costs than Super 16 and look much better...

You are correct that most labs will process negative for cheaper, I'm sure John's correct about the process for reversal being harder, but also, many more people process negative so therefore more labs do it and the price is less. Many labs in the U.S. are associated with telecine houses and often give processing discounts if you use their telecine. For instance, in my home town, Dallas, TX, The Lab at Video Post & Transfer will process negative for $.15/ft if you use their telecine or $.18/ft if not.

You'll have very interesting results; see previous posts on proper filtering for it (search). If this is just for fun, go ahead and do it and see what you get. If this is actually for a project involving money, don't even bother with it, there's no point.

I applaud your effort. Something that most people would only think about, you actually did. Good job.

Thanks John, can't tell you how happy I am to see you posting again.

Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T stock might be a start for you. I've noticed the lower contrast and slightly less vibrant colors while still a sharp stock and low grain for a 500T. Several Fuji stocks are also noted for this characteristic too, I think the 400T especially. If you liked VNF, you may like the look of a reversal like the new Ektrachrome 100D but have the contrast lowered in post. A reversal film gives a slightly dated look almost automatically.

Good advice, I have one ready to go, I just haven't been as responsible as I should in this regard. This is really to get the experience of printing the negative, not for any paid work at this point. I cringe at the thought of running my Kodachrome or Ektachrome through my projector for fear of scratching it... although it looks great when I do. Are any labs recommended over others for standard 16mm prints? I've used Forde in Seattle and been happy with their work so I was considering sending it to them since they teamed up with another lab that has printing capibility. I'm in Texas, so I pretty much have to send out for this service.

I've been shooting both negative and reversal 16mm for some time now, but I've always telecined the film and never projected it. Now that I have a projector, I want to print some of my negative film and was wondering if I should look out for anything. I know there there are one-light, best-light and timed prints available... and since this will be simply projected at home I'm guessing best-light will be fine if my footage is fairly consistent in lighting. Any special stocks I should be requesting?

Forde in Seattle does a great job with all types of Super 8 & 16mm (probably 35 although I've never sent any there). I also really like The Lab @ Video Post & Transfer in Dallas, TX although they only do 16mm and 35mm. The Lab @ Video Post & Transfer

I think the mod that most people do to the K-100 is similar to the K3 mod, basically just widening the gate. I wonder how much of the frame is covered by those c-mount lenses. While I love my K-100, it's hard for me to still use it because of focusing issues. I rarely have enough time to guess distances correctly. I got a reflex lens for it, but its so bulky with it on that I'd just rather use my K3 or Scoopic.

I have a Bell & Howell 16mm Filmosound 3580. I believe it was High School surplus, bought off eBay for $60. Ran my first reel through it last week, a 100' Ektachrome 100D shot in a Pumpkin Patch on a sunny day. I was AMAZED at the colors when this film is projected. Loading on this machine is easy and when I had it transfered to video this week there were no scratching issues evident. I believe these projectors were still manufactured in the late 80's and early 90's, and they are solid chunks of metal meant to last in the worst environment known to mankind, a public High School. Having only run one reel through it, I can't say how it will last, but I know I wouldn't want to drop it on my foot.

Umm, Jon? That was a post from 2 years ago you responded to...

Good luck with your feature, let us know how it goes!

I would bet that brand new Tri-X reversal ($18.95 per 100' roll from Kodak last time I looked) would still be cheaper than color negative Fuji 16mm recans and shortends unless they are giving them away. Modern negative stocks from Fuji and Kodak use the same development process so no worries on that... and its easier to find negative film labs than ones who still do black & white. Check out negative stocks if you haven't already, you'll be impressed with how they look. Also, negative B&W stocks look great too, I really like Kodak Double-X (not to be confused with Triple-X I guess).

Just call Kodak, they have plenty of Tri-X, Plus-X and Double-X.

Congratulations! Make sure you pick up an inexpensive projector, shoot a role of Ektrachrome 100D, and see it projected since you'll probably be transfering to video to work on it. That will give you an appreciation for the vibrant colors of the stock, and plus its just very cool & retro and great party fun.

Is there developing process similar to the Foma which is like the OLD Tri-X process? Something about less time in the bleach... it would make it harder to get processed properly.

I just projected some 16mm Ektachrome 100D for the first time and was amazed at the color saturation. What a beautiful stock when projected.

Interesting, my local lab returns film in "Pizza" type carboard boxes, I'll ask about glue issues. I think they said it was better than metal because it breathes more.

I believe it was 2.35:1 but I'd bet it was Super 16 cropped in & anamorphized (is that a word?) durring blowup to 35. Grain is ok, and handheld is usually ok, its just when every shot including closeups are handheld and moving it starts to hurt a little on the big screen IMO.