Will Montgomery

Can anyone recommend a good lab in the US or Canada that can handle Fomapan B&W well? I was under the impression that certain unique steps we required to properly process this stock.

Super-16 Film is just 16mm with 1-perf, so yes you can use it on a standard 16 camera.

I use them for SD transfers and have to say they have really great colorists and quite a few major national commercials are handled there. Also their lab is great too. I think its the only 16mm & 35mm lab in the area. They are opening a new facility in another part of town in a trendy cool building that will be all HD. Dallas Video Post and Transfer They might be a little expensive though since they handle pretty high-end clients that spend a ton of money. For more less money you should look into Flying Spot in Seattle. Make sure they have the tape format you want, but I've had HDCAM transfers done there for around $400/hour I think. Good job on Super 8 negative and 16mm B&W Negative stock too. Flying Spot Film Transfer

Duall Camera in NYC. They do alot of custom work and have been doing it for a long time. http://www.duallcamera.com/

What about some Kodachrome II from 1969? A friend has a Double 8 Magazine camera and I found some unopened film from 1969, thought we'd try it and get it processed into B&W by Rocky Mountain labs. Interesting to see what we get.

I've used a K-3 for several years now and been very happy with it. The downside is winding that puppy... it can make your hand hurt and if its mounted on a tripod its a real bitch to wind. As far as your budget goes, figure out your film costs and work backwards... 15 minutes of film is 540ft of film, so figure 600ft x 3 = 1800ft for multiple takes... probably a little more than that. Film Cost: 18 (100ft rolls) x $35 = $630 Processing: 1800ft x .18 = $340 Transfer: Figure about 4 hours if you don't get too picky... 4hr x $350 = $1400 Now if $2500 in film costs doesn't scare you, then go for an Arri. Or maybe pick up 2 or 3 K-3's for $175 a pop off eBay. Test them completely and have them serviced as neeeded. It would be good to have a couple loaded and ready to go on filming days.

How does a 1920x1080 captured image look so sharp when its blown up to 4k 35mm? I know that 1920x1080 at 24p has a ton of information to work with, but it seems like that would be the "resolution" of 16mm, not 35. I know we can't compare resolutions the same way between film and video, but how does that smaller starting image look so good on 35mm film?

I just got back from Sony/Apple's XDCam/Final Cut Pro road show in Dallas. Have to say I'm impressed with the format. The cameras did a great job too. The real slow-mo from variable frame rates (up to 60fps) and the time-lapse options made for some great artistic shots. The film look is hard to compare the film look features to the DX100 and HVX200 because the lenses are soooo much better and the CCDs are a different level altogether. Does it look like film? Not to someone who works with film. Does it look more pleasing to the eye? Yes, for some types of shots. That being said, the images in general were amazing, especially on Apple's 4k projector. They played it directly from an XDCam deck and there were times that it looked almost like a 35mm print even though I knew it was video.

Just saw this in 35mm - Techniscope, or 2-perf or 3-perf but I see why it works in 35mm and not in 16. Multivision

Tell me why this wouldn't work... Could a 16mm camera be modified to only expose 1/2 of the standard 16mm frame vertically so you wind up with a wide screen format (not sure of the ratio) and 2x the running time? I realize this would result in significantly less area exposed than on Super 16, but if someone shot standard 16 and just cropped off the top & bottom in telecine, it would basically be the same, but you'd get more running time. Perhaps instead of in 1/2, you could take 2 standard frames and divide that space by 3, gaining 33% more running time and not losing much in quality if going to HD (or SD widescreen). I'm sure this has been thought of and not done for a reason... maybe telecine machines would have a problem adjusting... just thought if this had ever been explored.

It would be easier just to buy a new Peleng 8mm with the correct mount. I have this lens and its extremely wide with plenty of fish-eye distortion if that's what you're looking for.

Amen brother. But I thought the Spirits had a big red button that says, "Correct Crappy Cinematography."

I've had film "nuked" by bagage xrays. Only the film over 200T was noticibly affected for some reason... probably luck.

I was wondering why the footage I got back from Bonolabs looked a little lifeless, even though the resolution was pretty amazing to work with. Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with crappy cinematography on my part... :rolleyes: Actually, I think just having a good colorist do a scene by scene transfer would work wonders whereas Bonolabs goes for a "neutral" transfer to allow the client to do the color correction... fine if you have that talent, no so good if not.

www.duallcamera.com These guys are very good and reasonably priced. They also bought the last few Tobin motors for the K-3, but they're not letting them go cheap.

John, you really just need to get a Mac 23" monitor, then you'll be fine. : ) cvander: My practical experience with the two stocks is that 250D has a little more grain just as you'd expect. Vision2 50D is just amazing on a nice day, I mean it almost looks "too good." As a hobbyist, I sometimes prefer the look of a reversal film like the 100D or Kodachrome so when people see it on DVD they know its film. I always have both V2 50D and V250D on hand and use the 250D on a slightly cloudy day.

The reflex version is actually a modification by Duall camera in NYC and its not cheap. Ikonoskop still doesn't make a reflex version of one.

My lab guy always laughts about the "daylight spools." He says there's really no such animal, but I think you could get away with loading in shade with Kodachrome maybe. Since this is the first or one of the first times loading your K3, I'd go to a room without windows (bathroom?) and crack the door until you can just barely see, then load. Once you do it enough you can do it in a bag without seeing anything.

I love this Ultra Color stock. I use it constantly on my 35mm Nikon. I'm sure there's a reason why it wouldn't work, but it would be fun to see in a Super 8 or 16mm stock. Could someone like Pro8mm or Spectra cut some down for motion picture use? But then I guess noone could process it right?

What Quicktime codec did you use for those clips? They loaded pretty fast and were big frames...

That's why I wish I could use my Kodak K-100 more, the wind lasts for 40 seconds. But I need a reflexed lens for it and I can never find one for sale. I still have little circle indentations on my palm from winding my K-3 this weekend. K-3 owners know what I'm talking about.

We need to help younger film makers understand the advantages of film, when Kodak talks about it, it seems like sour grapes to some people. But lets face it, when starting out these days, video is just a far easier medium to enter. The good news is that with so many people exploring filmmaking with video, the best of them will come to realize the quality difference and seek out film. After all, these people keep saying, "Its almost as good as film!" But when they actually work with film, it will be tough to go back.

Fuji has release the 250D in Reala now. I've never used Fuji, but I just ordered the F-64D, Reala 250D and Reala 500D for testing. My favorite stock for normal outdoor right now is Kodak's Vision2 50D. I'm happy with the saturation and the range, it doesn't seem overly "pastel" to me, but so much depends on the transfer its tough for me to critically anaylize. Curious to see how the Fuji stacks up though.

I worked with Bonolab pretty early with the uncompressed direct to disk in Super 8 and I have to say that the images didn't look soft at all... the progressive frames were great to work with, each was like a high-res scan that I could make photo prints from. But, since it was a "1-light" it was left to me to color correct and I suck at color correction. But the 10-bit, uncompressed transfer gives you alot to work with if you know what you are doing. You REALLY have to have a MONTSTER system to work in uncompressed HD. Bonolabs is happy to help you setup a system, but remember, its not like working in DV. I've had great results with Flying Spot Film Transfer in Seattle just going to HDCam, and now they offer the uncompressed to hard drive option so I'd check them out too. www.fsft.com

Use both. You probably won't have time to do more than a couple loads on 16mm, so save it for slow-mo shots of the bride getting out of the limo or walking down the steps on the church, maybe a few smiles as she works the crowd. Then use super 8 for the rest so you can quickly change loads. The trick will be in a good telecine which will cost you, but you can always go to HD later when the money is available.