Elliot Rudmann

Great! thanks....I liked the idea of holding a torch close enough to the subject on the close-up shots

I'm sure the actor(s) will love that too, especially when there's a gust of wind :rolleyes: I'd play it more cautious, let the fire's natural flicker do its work, and just manipulate the supplemental lighting for close ups.

It was an iconic film, but it won't be missed by me. I found it terribly difficult to scan (35mm stills), and even the best scan required numerous color adjustments in photoshop. Even so, the way it rendered browns and warm hues really gave it a unique look.

Hi there,

So I've been scanning this old 16mm project at work, and I've been trying to figure out what filmstock it is so that I can customize a film calibration in our Arriscan. Unfortunately the client doesn't remember what filmstocks he used (the footage was shot in 1986). On the film itself (it's negative film, not positive), contains an edge/keycode # that reads: J2 39 (the '39' is directly under the 'J2' mark) and then after it reads '86 143'. The '143' is irrelevant as it probably indicates the length (it gets higher as I shuttle through the film). Maybe the '86' refers to the year in which it was manufactured.

I have looked at the Kodak website where they publish their keycode numbers and can't find anything that dates back that far, in fact, it may not have even been a kodak stock. Agfa? Fuji maybe? My knowledge of motion picture film history is very weak. I tried searching for other resources with no success. Would any film buff's here care to help out? I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance!

Elliot

I have a late model SBM that I'm considering converting to super 16...However, I've heard some horror stories while reading old post.

 

I am considering either JKCamera or perhaps Jean in Canada.

 

Does anyone have any experience with these people?

I have an EBM that was converted to Super 16 by JK. Zero problems, the conversion is excellent. I've also heard great things about Jean's conversions.

Elliot

I would stick to slower speed stocks like 7217,12,01, and quite possibly the new 250D, and like others have said, overexpose a little and process normal. I usually go about 2/3rds of a stop over.

After that, the battle for clean images, which no one here has yet to mention, is how it is digitally transferred. Long story short, you get what you pay for. SD telecine transfers hardly do justice in exploiting the potential sharpness, and latitude and cleanliness in the Super 16 medium. HD transfers come a bit closer, but still suffer in comparison to DI film scanners like the Northlight and the Arriscan. I've shot footage on 7212 100T and 7201 50D that looked phenomenal via 2k Arriscan on a 50" HD television set. Even on a large television set, the difference in grain between lower speed Super 16 and any type of 35mm footage becomes severly marginalized if it's scanned on the right machine.

Howdy all,

 

I'm shooting a short set in Italy in the early 70s. Although it's not strictly a black & white period. We want to shoot B & W, I often use Kodak Tri-X for my art stills and love it.

 

You can only buy Kodak Double-X in boxes of 5 rolls and I want to get a hold of a pretty fresh short end roll to shoot a couple of tests on. Process normal as well as a push 1 stop etc

 

Does anyone know where I can purchase a short end of around 250'...

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated! :-)

 

P.S. I need Super 16mm stock!

Adam,

Contact Ralph at http://www.reelgoodfilm.com/ he may have some short ends/fresh cans available. Media distributors might as well, but your chances of finding black and white 16mm short ends may be very difficult since they aren't used in productions as much as ECN films. Also I would advise against pushing that stock 1 stop, because it is VERY grainy to begin with, and you're shooting it on S16 so grain will already be an issue. (unless that is the look you want - but yeah, always a good idea to test!)

EDIT: Just noticed you're from Australia. In that case, ignore the short-ends dealers to which I referred you!

Hi all,

 

I've been a filmmaker my whole life. As a kid I shot on 8mm, then Super 8 and eventually VHS. As an adult I've shot one thing in 16mm, then a lot in mini-DV and for the last few years I've been shooting in HD (well, HDV) often using a 35mm adapter. Anyway, I'm going to be shooting a feature later this year and after considering the Red and many other options, I've decided that I want to shoot on either Super 16 or Ultra 16.

 

Whilst I'll most likely rent a camera for the shoot (if possible - I live in Austin and haven't found any place that rents them) I would like to go ahead and buy a Super 16 or Ultra 16 camera now to replace the Canon XHA1 I've been using. So... I'm going to sell my HDV Camera as well as my lens adapter and lenses and I figure once all that's gone, I should have about $3,000 to spend.

 

I need a camera that shoots on Super or Ultra 16mm, preferably with a zoom lens and crystal sync motor that's quiet enough for sync sound work - is this possible with what I have to spend?

 

I'm familiar with some of the options available, the NPR, H16, etc. I just don't know whether I can reasonably expect to get what I need for around $3000 (or where to look). I just found out about Ultra 16mm - perhaps that would be a more affordable route to take than Super 16?

 

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Cheers,

Luke

http://LukeHill.com

Some might attack me after saying this, but I would seriously avoid the ultra 16 format. Yes, the conversions are cheaper, but the post production workflow is nowhere near as standardized as the Super 16. You limit your options as to where you can get your footage transferred and processed; and forget about getting high quality HD transfers/scans from it as well. Yeah I know cinelicious can transfer u16 but I'm talking about a higher quality scans (no offense to cinelicious). Save up a little more money and grab something like a super 16 eclair camera.

Henri - I really like the look of this. The subtle green works nicely, and you pulled off a soft palette/low contrast scheme, something that is probably more difficult to achieve in the S16 format. Usually 16 requires a bit more punch but I like what you've done here. How did you get it transferred? SD/HD telecine? DI scan?

Elliot, I used to have a Bolex S16 and a 10mm Switar Preset. Mine unfortunately vignetted as well. I believe it depends on the specific example of the lens. I know my Bolex S16 conversion was excellent (JK) so it wasn't an issue with the recentering of the lens mount. However it could be a problem of the centering of the lens itself, and as a result you see the edge of the image circle on the S16 frame. I believe the Angenieux lens covers the frame.

Thanks Babar,

I read on another post on this site that confirmed that the Angenieux does not, in fact, cover the whole S16 frame. I think the Schneider 10mm F1.8 cinegon is my last hope. I've heard that lens has a lot of coverage. The only disadvantage I can see to that lens is that it's not RX.

I guess so Chris, and adjusting the lens mount was something I really wanted to avoid, seeing as how it has the potential to screw things up, but I guess I have no choice. I'll give it a try and see how things turn out. Thanks for your suggestions and feedback!

What confuses me is that the vignetting is on the right side of the frame, where the perfs are on the S16 frame. You'd think that if a lens didn't have enough coverage for a S16 Bolex it'd vignette on the left side, where you're getting the extra 20% of the Super 16 image. Oh well, maybe the centering is really off! The test footage I shot with it came out great, but that was only with 35mm Canon FD lenses, which would have considerably more coverage than then any 10mm lens for the S16mm format.

Recently purchased a 10mm Switar preset lens and noticed that there IS vignetting on the right side when viewed through the viewfinder. It's subtle, but definitely there. Does anyone know if there's any reason why the preset 10mm would vignette and not the regular (nonpreset) 10mm RX (as Kori showed in his examples?). Would appreciate any help/feedback before I sell this lens back and buy the older/non preset 10mm RX. This is quite frustrating!

Elliot

Right, cheers. Shooting won't commence until late summer so should be alright.

2:nd btw, I'm pretty wanton with the technical side of this project, and I love Cooke's S4 series, does these fit Arri SR1?

It depends on whether your SR1 has an Arri Bayonet lens mount or a PL lens mount. If it has a PL, then it can accept the Cooke S4s. If it has the Bayonet, you should be able to purchase an adapter for a few hundred dollars.

Btw, is the Vision3 available in anything else than 500T for daylight purposes?

Kodak just came out with a new vision 3 daylight stock, 250D 7209. I'm not sure if it's available to ship yet though; can anyone here confirm this?

Looks fantastic. Nice to see some 16mm with a Bolex. The camera mechanics and the conversion seem spot on. The adapter also seems to work properly. Most shots are sharp, and a few soft, but I know the Bolex is dificult to focus. During the shot starting at 59 seconds there is a curious double flare below and right of the chin. I wonder what caused that, but I'm guessing the 24mm lens was used.

 

I am a bit curious as to your choice of lenses.

Thanks mike, glad you liked the footage. Unfortunately the bolex is a bit tough to focus; combine that with an slr lens with a shorter focus distance/turning ratio and you begin to question how you even got those few sharp shots in focus! The flare of which you speak confuses me as well. It was actually a flare of those two candles in the shot. I did shoot that shot with the 24mm 2.8, with no uv filter, so perhaps it's just a bad characteristic of the lens. Eventually I will upgrade to the switars (I just bought a 10mm preset switar).

Hey guys,

I shot some stuff on my recently purchased Bolex EBM (s16 conversion by JK Camera) and thought I'd post the results I threw together in an edit. This is by no means "Hunter Richards test footage" quality haha. I was just making sure the camera worked and properly exposed the film, wasn't going for anything too aesthetic. Used Canon FD lenses via Les Bosher adapter.

Stocks I used were 7218 (expired, so it was a little grainy) and 7201. Footage was scanned on an Arriscan @ 2k resolution, color graded on a baselight, cropped for 1.78 HD.

You can watch it/download it here:

Vimeo link

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Elliot

Elliot, when you say "at the start of your shoot" how often should that ideally be done--w/o going overboard? Do you mean just at the beginning of the shoot and if you change film stocks? Or do you mean for each setup? And then what about reversals, master etc. for each scene?

 

Thanks much :).

Like Adrian said, during location switches is fine. Personally, I just shoot it once at the beginning of the shoot, and never after that. The colorist can save his/her base correction for this if they need it down the line; as long as you shoot the chart with balanced light (soft light across the whole chart, and with correct color temperature - ie. tungsten light 3200 K for tungsten stock, daylight 5600k for daylight stock. It also couldn't hurt to shoot one if you're changing stocks, especially if you're switching to from kodak to fuji (or vice versa).

Oh and word to the wise:

Never disrespect Telecine Man.

Never question Telecine Man.

Telecine Man make film into gold. ;)

Well, you obviously need a colorist to manipulate the image in some form and apply a proper look up table for normal viewing otherwise it will be extremely flat. How much a colorist changes the image depends on what you pay for. Did you get a best light,one-light, or scene to scene transfer? It's always a good idea to properly expose and shoot a grey-card +color chart at the start of your shoot, so even a lower-skilled colorist can get you in the ballpark of proper color balance and exposure.

Overall a colorist does exert a lot of control over what you shot. If you are doing lighting tests or exposure tests, it's generally a good idea to get a one-light transfer so you can see the differences from shot to shot or scene to scene. A one light transfer is where the colorist sets a base correction (proper density, color balance) at the head of the roll, where typically a color chart should be. He/she will then let the color correction system apply this to the rest of the roll. A scene-to-scene or supervised telecine (probably the one you saw), is where a colorist will correct each shot (or generally balance each scene) to the client's liking.

I wouldn't worry about how much control the colorist exerts, unless they're inexperienced, or just bad. There's no true way of knowing, but typically, you get what you pay for. This is why I stayed away from cheap unsupervised telecine transfers for serious projects I shot in film school.

Hunter, for a "test" this is truly inspirational footage, makes me really glad I recently purchased a bolex! Would you mind telling me what kind of rig you used for the car interiors in order to lock the camera down? Particularly the shot behind the drivers seat looking towards the front windshield.

Hello! I am curious to see if there are any timelapse motors that would work properly on my Bolex EBM. I emailed Clive Tobin and he said that his TTL mounting screws won't line up with the EBM on the side, and that some people solve this issue with an adapter plate or simply by using a strong rubber band to hold it. Does anybody have personal experience with it on their EBM? Are there other motors that would work better? I appreciate your responses. Thank you!

Elliot

Hi all,

Is Digital cinema going to be standard?Is traditional lab printing is becoming a part of history? Because in india D cinema is catching up very quickly.Most multiplexes and single screens are using digital projectors now.

Another question is what is the average ratio of lab prints and DCP(digital cinema package) abroad?

 

Thx

Srinivas mamidi.

In the US, AMC (one of the biggest theater chains) just struck up a 300 million dollar deal with Sony to buy a lot of their digital projectors, so yes, I'd say that Digital Cinema will eventually be the standard, but at the moment, it is not. There are still numerous amounts of lower end theaters that can't afford the expense of owning a Dcinema projector. much less, one for each viewing screen! 35mm projectors are pretty easy to maintain, and their standards have been consistent for years. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Apparently, people have been telling me that once film prints become marginalized, film will "die" because that's where kodak makes so much of their money from their film division. Only time will tell.

If someone bought a Northstar or a Spirit 4K and offered to transfer film to normal HD, they'd make a killing.

It's funny you say that because the DI company I work for in Chicago is seriously starting to consider offering affordable (possibly beating Spirit hd rates) 16mm/35mm 2k dailies straight to QuickTimes, prorez or uncompressed (with one-light or scene-to-scene grading in our Baselight). We hate seeing our scanner go unused. The problem is our Arriscan, despite the amazing quality it gives, isn't exactly synonymous with "fast turnarounds" which is the only area where telecine wins out. I just always hated having to settle with telecine quality when I was in filmschool. Even with student discounts it got ridiculously expensive. Anyway sorry for the plug. We'll certainly be advertising on this site pretty soon.

wait, what company do you work for again, Ted? I couldn't tell from your post. :rolleyes:

When a film opts to shoot on 35mm with anamorphic lenses and go through a digital intermediate, whether it be at 2K or 4K, what is the standard for scanning resolution when recording back to film? I ask because Super35 4-perf at 2K will be 2048x1536 pixels during the scan or telecine, but as anamorphic uses slightly less of the horizontal film area it would be 1828x1536. Would the anamorphic scan be slightly uprezzed to 2048 horizontal by 1712 vertical pixels and recorded out to film or be recorded out at 1828 horizontal by 1536 vertical pixels? Is the number of vertical pixels something other than 1536?

 

I have tried to find the answer online but I haven't as of yet. As someone with an obsessive compulsive tendency I find it hard to drop this thought. I would appreciate anyone answering this small but 'impossible to get out of my head' riddle so I can lay it to rest.

Hey there, when we scan 2k anamorphic footage, our scanner scans at 2048x1556 within the academy frame.

But how can this resolution be the same as a Super 35mm 4perf frame when academy uses less of the original camera negative? Answer: The arriscanner we use shifts it's optics and zooms slighty into the academy frame to obtain this full 2k resolution.

After color correction when we're ready to do the film out, we send the lab 2048x1743 images (slightly uprezzing the vertical pixels to obtain a true unsqueezed scope ratio while keeping the highest 2k resolution possible.) Remember that when the print that the projectionist uses is not squeezed, the lens he/she uses on the projector squeezes the image into the proper 2.35:1 ratio, so the slight vertical uprez is offset. The reason why you can't find any resolute numbers on this subject is because every DI post house works differently, scanners scan at slightly different resolutions based on what the engineers who made them thought the optimal resolution should be. Film recorders also accept different resolutions as well. Hope this helps.

If Boston gets its own sub-forum, then why not Chicago? Chicago gets a hell of a lot more feature work than in Boston! It has more rental and post houses too, so why no Chicago forum? In fact there's not a single midwest state represented in the Community Subforum section.