Owen A. Davies

I rewatched both Pulp Fiction (1994) and The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) recently and picked up on something that's got me really stumped. Both films were shot using Kodak EXR film, with Pulp Fiction being on 5245 (EXR 50D) and LOTR being on 5293 (EXR 200T). Additionally, Pulp Fiction was shot 3-Perf anamorphic whereas LOTR was 4-Perf and cropped to 2.39 widescreen (24.89mm x 10.41mm). This in turn should've significantly reduced the image quality for LOTR seeing how it was also on a faster speed film. Yet Pulp Fiction, being both shot with Super 35 anamorphic and a very slow film speed, looks as if it was released 20 years prior to LOTR. You can see this in the overall color and detail present in the film stock. It just looks rougher and more harsh, as if it were from the early 80s. Why is this? I've included a dropbox link below with some visual comparisons. https://www.dropbox.com/t/RuRflbIZyvFlrdfW

If anyone has any visual examples of the product of pushing film a stop or two in the development process I'd love to see it. Can't find a lot of examples online regarding motion pictures and I would like to see the effect it has on the image. From what I hear it is more contrast, more grain, more saturation, darker darks, and lighter lights. I would prefer clips or screenshots of film exposed at box speed and then pushed in development on top of that, but beggars can't be choosers. I'm wondering if the pushed film look could achieve an image that resembles what a lot of the stock in 60s and 70s films looked like. Rich blacks and, rough detail, and a nice contrast. I'm also wondering if pushing film in development has the potential to make a 35mm film stock resemble more of what 16mm would look like with its roughness and character. Let me know, thanks.

@Dom Jaeger @Uli Meyer @Tyler Purcell I really appreciate the info and will keep my eye out for converted 4-perf cameras as opposed to originally made Techniscope ones. I'd also like to ask whether or not you know of any Techniscope converted cameras with either a Mitchell Standard, Mitchell BNC, or Bell & Howell Eyemo mount that are currently in circulation? Thanks for your help.

I see a lot of cameras listed as "2-perf” but I can’t see a ton that are specified as Techniscope or not. Does anyone have a list of all Techniscope cameras produced or at the very least a general knowledge of one’s in circulation? Thanks.

I know Mitchell has a deeper FFD than Arri, but I’m still not sure if the conversion is possible seeing as how Arri standard lenses protrude deep into the camera whereas Mitchell lenses don’t. Let me know if this adaption is feasible

Did you buy yours from Visual Products?

While I'm going to be looking in the under $10k price range, I'm absolutely aiming for cheaper. This isn't gonna be a professionally funded production by any stretch of the imagination, and my entire aim is to find quality for cheaper. I'm more than happy to use old tech that meets my requirements if it's a few thousand less expensive. Right now the three cameras that seem like my most probable options are the Eclair, CP16, or the Kinor. What are your issues with these cameras?

What about the Arriflex 16M as opposed to the BL? Are they roughly the same noise caliber or no?

I’d like to know what the quietest 16mm cameras there are out there. Something under $10,000. I’ve heard a lot about the Eclair models, Kinor cameras, and the CP-16 but I’m wondering what other options there are. Super 16 not required. Thanks.

Does anybody here happen to have any insight on what lenses (Baltars, Cooke, etc) were often used by Kurosawa in the early life of his film career? I’m thinking of through the 50s and 60s. Yojimbo, Throne of Blood, Seven Samurai, Stray Dog, etc. Any insight would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Best answer I've gotten on this thread thus far. Thanks as always Dom! I have no idea how this topic devolved into this giant argument about something else entirely.

I haven’t been able to find any footage whatsoever taken with the B&L Baltar line of lenses created exclusively for Super 16. I wanna know the quality of these lenses and if they stack up to regular Baltars as well as how they compare to something like the Cooke Kinetals (also vintage lenses created for 16mm). Primarily looking for the 17.5mm and the 15mm. Let me know what you guys have. Thanks!

Pretty general, but I just want to keep this question intentionally vague. What are your opinions on 2.55:1 vs 2.39:1? Which do you think is "better"? When would you use each when? Which do you think should've been the Cinemascope standard format? And all around, just what are your general thoughts on the two?

If I'm not mistaken, thew few ones I see floating around are eBay are Baltar lens cells, not fixed focus lenses. Meaning I could adapt them to a helicoid for cameras with a shallower FFD and focus them by that means. Is that correct? I'm aware the lens cells have no internal focusing capabilities on their own.

I’m aware this is a rare item, but I a few of these have been bouncing around these forums here and there the last few months. I currently have two purple Kowa 8Z lenses in fantastic condition which I would be more than willing to trade to anyone in exchange for this thing. Kowa’s a re lighter, easier, more practical, and give more coverage in shooting anamorphic. I’m filming a short in the vain of "The Robe” (1953) so this lens would be a fantastic fit. Let me know if anyone has one, knows someone who has one, or is interested. Thanks!