Will Montgomery

I've had a similar experience with mine. For paying so little you can get great images. When the lighting and exposure is right, you can get some amazing shots on film.

The lens that came with the camera gives very good results for me, although the S16 coverage is only past 24 or so. I just picked up a 28mm Super-Takumar M42 lens that I'm looking forward to experimenting with and have the 16mm Zenit on order as well. Good to hear you had such great results with that lens, I assume it covers the full S16 image?

Glad to hear they do good work, I've been considering sending footage to them for a while.

I've also done the Bonolabs 10-bit HD direct to disk and have been amazed at the resolution possible out of Super 8, especially the negative stocks.

If I want a old home film film look for a day interior shot, what is the best 16mm film stock to use? I was thinking Kodachrome but there probably won't be not enough light even if i use the 1.2k HMI as a fake window....

16mm Kodachrome looks surprisingly good and not as "home movie" as I would have thought. How about Ektachrome?

I'm doing an SD transfer of some S16 footage on Thursday. Good machine & good colorist. I'll be going to DigiBeta (for archiving) and miniDV for quick editing in Final Cut Pro.

Should I have them crop to 16:9 and then create an anamorphic image to tape like anamorphic SD footage from a DV camera? or should I just letterbox it? (hate to lose pixels...)

I'm asking this here and not in the telecine forum because more people seem to read this one...

My stupid question is.

Wouldn't it be easier to convert a 35mm camera to super16 than to convert 16 to super?

Wow.

Brave question.

Actually it would depend upon the the camera, but I'd conservatively estimate that it would be easier 100% of the time to convert a 16mm to super 16 than 35 to super 16. Mainly because you'd have to change every mechanism of a 35mm camera to accept the 16mm film.

:blink:

Would love something with a 400ft mag though, even another MOS camera.

With a camera like the K-3 you could buy four of them, load them all before the shoot and just pick another one up when you need it. Of course you'd have to have them checked out and maintenanced properly, but I've had really good luck with mine.

What speed film are you shooting outdoors?

The rolls I've had issues with were Vision 500T and Vision2 200T. Normally wouldn't use that outdoors but I was doing a test on a new camera and that was all I had. The camera is Super 16 so the edge fogging would cut into the shot more and because it was a test, the lab carefully looked at the negative.

Each roll was a Kodak 100' spool.

Haven't had any problems since then, but I've been pretty paranoid about loading in as low-light as possible.

Yes. That was Ohio. :)

Gray is a color, but grey is a colour. American vs. English.

Not sure if its quite that black and white... it's really a grey area.

I dont agree about loading the daylight spools above.

 

These can be loaded in full daylight if you like, but you may risk slight edge fogging, although this is normally not visible and outside the safe margins of the frame

 

As a rule load in subdued light - if it is a sunny day, go in the shade or something.

Everytime I've loaded in daylight, even in the shade, I've had significant edge fogging. When I asked the lab tech he laughed and said there is no such thing as a daylight load film unless you're using Kodachrome or another really slow film.

That doesn't mean it has to be complete darkness, but only enough to barely see what you're doing.

The edge fogging may not matter that much if you're shooting regular 16, but if its Super 16, it could be more noticable.

Do you loose much quality when you transfer to video? (Like I said, I'm a newbie to film, so forgive me if I ask any dumb questions ;) )

In a sense you lose quality because its a transfer, but the loss doesn't mean anything because it'll be as good as video can possibly be... Film has more resolution than standard definition video, and in the case of 16mm & 35mm much more than even high definition.

Many people use film to "future proof" their projects. 10 years from now when there's a Super HD format that is 4000x2500 pixels or something, you can just go back and re-telecine your film at the higher resolution.

Film is just another tool for a certain asthetic, one that will blow you away if you're used to DV cameras.

I have read recently on this board that Super 8mm film cameras can be purchased for under $500 and I have also seen 16mm cameras for less than the price of an XL2. Of course, film stock is quite a bit more expensive than MiniDV tapes.

I was in a similar situation a few years ago. After transfering some old Super 8 family footage I would always hear from people watching it how much "better" it looked than video; certainly more warm.

So I picked up a Super 8 camera for $60 on eBay and a shot some of the newer Vision negative stocks and had it transfered on a real telecine machine. It was really amazing. If you're used to the look of video, Super 8 is an entirely new look. I found that both miniDV and Super 8 can be combined in the same story for different effects. Letting the video camera run while I shot the Super 8 give me the ability to sync the sound in Final Cut Pro which ads another dimension.

I recently upgraded to 16mm and the footage I'm getting back is another level above Super 8... it really looks like footage from a prime time TV drama shot on film (well... the outdoor scenes at least).

Remember, shooting film requires a much different philosophy than video. In video you can leave it running all the time and hope to capture the perfect moment because tape is cheap (video editors hate having to sort through those hours of tapes though...) while in film, since its more expensive and generally much shorter runs, you have to think about the shot much more.

I would pick up a cheap Super 8 and try it out. Doing it will help you understand all the costs and benefits. Here are some quick estimates:

Camera: $75

Color Vision2 200T film: $18 (about 2 1/2 minutes of film @ 24fps)

Developing: $15

Transfer on decent Rank machine: $20

So somewhere around $60 per 2 1/2 minutes. Seems like each shot has to count huh?

Stil, I would try it once so you can see why so many people here are hooked.

With modern color negative films, as you increase exposure and put the scene information further up the curve, you also tend to get more "interimage" effects from the DIR couplers, which increases color saturation somewhat.

Sure... you just made that up... :D

Just recieved my first Vision2 50D, can't wait to test it. I've been so impressed with EXR 50D that I find it hard to imagine a better looking image... but I'll give it shot.

There are plenty of Europeans that use Dwayne's photo (www.k-14movies.com) for Kodachrome processing... and they do have 16mm stock available, as does Kodak in the US.

I would suggest ordering from Kodachrome from Dwayne's and having them process it. Seems like that's the simplest solution. Although any Kodak color reversal film will be close to the look you want and a little telecine tweaking will probably take you the rest of the way.

:)

Anyway if I can I may just shoot 24p and rent a DVX-100a who knows.

You should look into Super 8... you can buy a starter camera on eBay for less than $50 and film/processing is about half of what 16mm is.

If you are used to editing DV, both 16mm and Super 8 can be transfered to miniDV and edited just like it came from a camcorder... except it will have a TRUE film look.

Even if you just try a roll or two, I'd would do it for the experience. So you can see the difference. Its important to know what kind of tools are available. You will probably be better off with a DV camera if you're just starting out, but try film to see how it works, you'll be impressed in the end.

http://healyweddingfilms.com/portfolio.html

Beautiful footage. Now that is what a wedding video should be.

Bonolabs in Virginia can do a decent HD transfer at $600/hr to hard drive. But the good news is that thats RUNNING TIME not a 3 to 1 or 5 to 1 ratio. Downside: not scene to scene, just a good neutral balance and then its up to you to color correct.

Most HD shops I've seen charge around $600-$900 per hour but generally its like a 4 or 5 to 1 ration depending on how many scene changes there are.

It sounds like your best move is to go to SD miniDV or uncompressed hard drive for editing on your PC then transfer just what you need to HD when the money's available.

I tried e-mailing them a couple of times regarding their K3 modifications, but never heard back from them.

Du-All camera in NY did an amazing job on my K3 a few months ago... Super 16 mod and enlarged the viewfinder to match the Super 16 field.

http://www.duallcamera.com/

Here's a list of some movies shot on Fuji stock... but it doesn't say which ones.

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners...dOnFujifilm.jsp

How is your experience with the post house in Dallas?

Video Post & Transfer (VPT) in Dallas is a great and they are student friendly. Terry Hall schedules telecine and he'll be good to talk to about rates. They have several suites, all with great equipment and a very high end HD suite as well.

One very cool thing is that the only charge $.04/ft to process your film (only color negative though) if you transfer there. Glenn Shank heads up the lab and is a great source of info on processing and stocks.

You can also ask the lab where you're going to process it.

Marc's nailed it. Find a lab in your area and offer the techs some beer to do it for you.

Hey all-

 

I have no lights of my own and this is a "no budget" film.

If you're shooting film at all, its not quite "no budget." :D

You can pick up some really inexpensive but powerful work lights on stands from Home Depot and bounce them off some white posterboard or something for lighting.

If you'll be transfering this to video and not projecting a print, many of the color issues can be addressed in telecine (although the experts will tell you its tough to fully correct for the Tungsten/Daylight shift).

Look at a movie like Lost In Translation... I think that was shot with 500T... although Fuji makes a 500D I think... They used very little fill light and relied on available light for most of those outdoor night shots and were even suprised themselves when the tests came back so good.

All you probably need is one to get started then just move the empty reel over to the takeup side for storage until your ready to shoot another roll.

I destroyed a roll trying to load it my first time with a K-3 so that was my starter reel. Pretty expensive way to get one though. :blink:

The plastic take up reels that came with my K-3 were slightly warped and kept catching the film in the camera... hense the destroyed film. Stick with good 'ole metal daylight reels if you can.

Yep, did you mean T 2.2, Will ? Otherwise at 22 you'd be underexposed. If it is a problem of manual/auto iris, it should have been wide open, actually. And it wouldn't have been so obvious to correct an underexposed shot as well as an overexposed one...

Exactly, sorry, typed without thinking.

The shot was drastically overexposed... totally unusable in its uncorrected state. And yes, it wasn't nearly as beautiful as it could have been exposed properly, but I was just amazed that it could be saved at all. Interesting that there was some information to work with in the lighter areas. Of course if it had been shot in video there would be nothing to work with.

So I wanted to test an M42 lens someone gave me on my Krasnogorsk-3. It was a 28mm lens and it looked great through the viewfinder. Loaded up some new Vision2 250D and headed out to the park on a really bright day here in Texas.

Brought by new light cine-light meter and took readings on everything before shooting. Most of the readings were about f2.8 to f5.6 depending on the shade. So I carefully set the aperture and shot about half a roll before realizing I wasn't seeing much of a difference in light through the viewfinder as I change the aperture. Then it hit me that the lens was auto and therefore had been stuck wide open on f22 the whole time.

I changed back to the regular Zenit lens and finished the roll out.

So Video Post & Transfer here in Dallas processed and transfered the test on their Spirit. I stopped by and saw them working on it and said, wow, I guess the lens was working, it looks great. They laughed and said, "not really... look at this..." and they showed me the un-corrected stock completely overexposed to the point of hardly seeing anything. I couldn't believe that they could save such a drastically overexposed shot to the point of me only seeing some increased grain, otherwise it was great.

Between the latest Telecine software and this Vision2 Stock, we can sometimes really screw up exposures and see them come back ok on transfer.

Alright, after much researching, I've decided once and for all on the CP-16R with a 15-150mm Angenieux. I have the oppritunity to buy this camera in Super 16 or normal. Price isn't an issue, but I am a beginner. What would you guys go with?

If you expect to go to HD eventually with the footage, its nice to have the extra width of S16. Also optically blowing up to 35mm would be better with S16. The camera can still function fine in regular 16mm, you just won't transfer the extended frame. If you're ok with the money difference, might as well have S16 just in case its helpful down the road.

You may want to check if the viewfinder has been modified to match the S16 frame as well.

Today's film is amazing, especially when transfered well. You'll be happy either way.