Bryan Darling

I have the following for sale: (3) 100' - 7289 16mm Vision 800T @$15/roll (1) 100' - 7277 16mm Vision 320T @$10 (3) 100' - 7246 16mm Vision 250D @$15/roll (1) 100' - 7222 16mm Double-X @$8 All film has been kept in cold storage. A roll of 7289 lost it's plastic box top due the cold of being in storage, roll is still wrapped and fine. The roll of 7222 has been opened and yellow film cover unwrapped but film is still good. I have personally shot a roll from the same batch of 7246 & 7277, both workprints came out good.

No, it does not have a 24p or 24 frame mode. It does have a "Frame" mode in which it essentially becomes 30fps progressive. It takes the first field of the video frame and duplicates it for the second field. I have used it many times because I like the "look" it gives.

It is called a Silver Recovery Service and you have to pay them to pick up your silver from the silver recovery units and then they process it. Then you are credited something back for the silver. However, it is more an expense, not a method to generate money.

I would get a workprinter, get a model you can afford. Any of them are worth the price as far as quality goes. I use one for both business and personal use. I have the workprinter XP however they have other models depending on your budget. The results using any model will be far superior to that of a standard projector and video camera setup. http://www.moviestuff.tv

So would the transfer be supplied to you on DVCProHD from the transfer company? From what I know they use a Canon XL-H1 as a camera head, I would assume they are going from the HD-SDI out to a Blackmagic or AJA card into their computer's hard drives. I guess they could have the software set to capture using the DVC codec and then record that out to tape. Although they may have it set a different way. The issue with negative is the orange mask. It is tied so much to the make-up of the image that you can't just "filter" it out. It's not like white balancing a piece of clear neg and that cancels out the orange mask. The film is more dense and lower in contrast. It takes a lot of post color and gamma correction sometimes tied to filtration and/or white balancing on the front end of the transfer. However even with this I haven't seen results that I thought were equal or on par with conventional negative transfers using BTS Quadras, Ranks, etc. As for b&w negative, b&w reversal, and color reversal these issues are irrelevant. The one thing about negative film though is that the dust is more noticeable and apparent because it turns from black to white when the negative is inverted to positive. The black dust seen in reversal is better hidden because it is more common to have darker tones and colors in an image. White stands out because of it's intensity and stark contrast to the image. These are pretty much technical issues that may not have an impact on your film. With all this said you may look at your transfer and say, "that's fine with me I don't really notice it and I'm sure my audience won't." The thing I don't know is whether the money saved is going to be worth the gain in additional resolution. In my humble opinion, I really see the only thing you'd be getting here is "numbers." Is it realistic and practical to have this extra resolution if most of the time it will be screened on DVD players, etc? I don't know what your end use is, but if it's for anything other than say screening it on an HD projector all the time, it might be more practical and economical to just to an SD transfer. It's still a long ways off that HD DVD players really hit the average home. But I digress. I really have no clue about your project or it's final intent and use. However if HD is what you need to do then you might need to spend the money on a more "professional" transfer unless you feel the results from the workprinter will work for your needs. I've been able to master SD transfers on mine that can compete to that coming off a BTS Quadra. But it's taken three years on perfecting a complete system, a closed loop system if you will. I'm not saying others couldn't or don't offer competitive transfers to that of "professional" telecine machines, as a matter of fact I'm sure there must be. All I can speak of is from my experiences and opinions as a filmmaker and having a business that does just that.

I do film transfers as a business using the workprinter. My question to you would be, do you know for sure that your computer or the one you will be editing on will be able to handle the load from HD video? Also what codec are they using? I've seen their examples and what I noticed seemed alright, however they did appear to be quite contrasty. I work very hard to preserve both the shadows and highlights in my transfers. I've been working in film for 11 years so I take the approach of matching to the professional transfers I've had done for my 16mm work in the past. One other thing to think about is color and exposure correction. Do they do it automatically via the camera or some device hooked up? Or is it done later in post? If so, how good and of what experience does the technician have who will be doing the corrections? My hunch is that they probably don't do any post color/exposure correction. However I could be wrong. The tools available for post corrections are superior to that available at the front end of a workprinter transfer. If you are going to do the correction, you'll want to make sure there is enough information there to work with. Additionally, you'll want to ask yourself how well do you understand color and exposure correction and how good are you at getting the results you'll need. I do enormous amounts of color and exposure correction on the transfers that I perform, all in post. That's why I worked hard to develop a system that captures as much of the film's information as possible, i.e. retaining the highlights and the shadows. One last thing, are you shooting negative or reversal? I ask as these machines are designed for reversal. It is a big challenge to get a good transfer of negative film even with heavy amounts of correction done at the time of transfer and in post.

I used an XL1 for sound on film where we shot thousands of feet of film and it was never a problem sync-wise. The issues I would be careful with is mic placement and your levels. You really want someone who knows sound and how to record it. On the film we did with the XL1 we didn't have anyone running sound that was experienced. In the end it shows. The next film I did we had experienced sound people that came in and did the recording for free. There were a couple days they couldn't make it, so we used the XL1 and just watched our levels. Those days we really didn't have much dialog so it wasn't as much as a concern. What really made the difference was hiring the same sound people to do all the mixing and mastering. I think we paid them around $500-$700 which was a pittance, it really was worth all that and more. I think it's a big error not to put as much into the sound as the picture, effort-wise at least, if you're making a film that relies heavily on sound. You can see both movies at: http://www.youtube.com/tornsprocket Lily is the film down without experienced sound but on the XL1 and Listless was done with experienced sound people using a DAT, some additional sound was done with the XL1.

Here. Here. I agree. For some reason a lot of people seem to have this notion that one medium is "better" than another. I think it is such a closed, narrow-minded view. It is unfortunate as people close themselves of to choices and alternatives. It would be similar to saying I only use oils, not acrylics, when painting. If you go back to what was happening in the late 60's and into the 70's you'll find many artists, referred to as intermedia artists, who were experimenting with a new media called video. These artists took video and film placing it side by side and intertwined the mediums. It was all about possibilities and growth. I find a lot of people locked up in their mentalities these days. "It is either film or video, but cannot be both." "One is superior to the other, rather than one is different than the other." I feel film and video to be brethren in the visual mediums. Perhaps if people questioned their perspectives and played around with different mediums more rather than being hard-lined and snubbing what they do not know or understand, you'd find much less talk about "film vs. video."

Having supervised several film transfers myself, I really recommend it- especially if you are just starting out. The flexibility of image control is both versatile and speedier than once it's in your computer using an NLE. It's worth saving up the extra cash. It can be a great learning experience to see how your footage turned out and what look you want to dial in. If you want to save time shoot your footage as close to your final look as possible with aids such as slates and a Macbeth color chart. Slates will save you a lot of time by providing easy reference points for the start and end of shot corrections. From there you can just do some tweaks here and there. Now if your footage has a lot of problems, a supervised transfer will have more ability to "fix" the footage. If you are going to go through all the time, effort, and cost of shooting film AND transfer to HD, you really don't want to cheap out at the end. It really makes the difference between an amateur and a finished look- not that a finished amateur look isn't an aesthetic in its own right, just that it too should be a "finished" look.

Last I knew Monaco was transferring to Digital Betacam, I believe, then laying that off onto hard drive.

Well I think the best way to be sure in that case is to just call up Bernie and ask him.

You're not going to lose more light, you're going to gain extra brightness in the finder using the same amount of light coming in through the prism.

I've talked to Bernie on a couple of occasions. He is a great guy, very comfortable to talk with and extremely knowledgeable. He has helped me with a couple issues. I am sending both my Bolex and my Kodak Model A for him to work on in January. He is going to laser brighten the Bolex and repair a lens issue & lathe out a set of sprockets on the Kodak so I can use single-perf.

Ah..so good!

I'm afraid I can only help in that I have shot with a K-3. I used the original 50D before it had been discontinued. I cannot post it as it is a workprint. I can say that I was extremely impressed as my expectations were low. The camera performed beautifully, the lens was sharp and clear as for as my work in 16mm has been. I would say for the money you can buy no better a camera. If 16mm is something you are just getting into, then a K-3 or Bolex Rex is a great camera to start with. You'll find many people continue to use them for a variety of purposes even when other more "professional" camera's are available. It all has to do with your project, it's needs, and how they can be accomplished.

What's the name of the documentary?

I stand corrected. It will go blue rather than red without the 85 filter. I apologize.

For one you'll find black and white to be more versatile and varying in possible development processes. Additionally, the stock is half the price. There's a lot you can do with filtration for contrast and rendering various colors differently. I myself shoot mostly black and white, it's a medium I love so I'm biased. I also enjoy grain as a texture so it's nothing I've ever worried about. There is also a big difference when going from 16mm to 35mm in b&w. Just look at the films coming out of the 60's that were shot using the current b&w film stocks available, especially those by Haskell Wexler. I like how it allows for everything from a very finished clean look to a grungy "real" look, say Cassavetes.

Actually it will go yellow/red not blue, at least if you are shooting in daylight. It is designed for tungsten balanced lights.

This was used to great effect in a music video for Orbital. I would do a search on youtube.com for The Box music video. You probably will want to get slower than 12 or 6fps depending on the effect. Being able to shoot a frame at a time can help a lot to get a motion blur shutter effect for night shots. You could figure out the speed of the subject by timing their normal rate of walk then multiply it by the increased length that using a slower frame rate would bring. Then use something like a metronome, rehearsing and some tests. This is where the ability of certain film cameras can really be of help. A Bolex with a cable release or a time lapse motor would do the job.

I've done this many times when I had a camera without a filter. You can fix it in telecine pretty easily, you could even through a filter over the projector to cool it down- if you are going to project it. Basically, the majority of your color information is in the warm/red region. As to how much depends also on the scene/subject matter. So the cooler the colors are the less it will seem to be real warm, if that makes sense to you. I would say do it if you are going to telecine and correct out, or for effect. I can't tell you that it will be perfect once corrected.

You should go and check this out http://www.super16inc.com/page3.html might be a less expensive fix instead of buying a new Rex5. I too have my diopters set to my eyesight. That is the wonderful thing about diopters. I use a Bolex Rex2 with a 10x and found it so much easier to focus than the previous 6x model. I don't think going to a 13x will make that much difference, but then again it's a personal thing. I would try one first though before buying it. It may be not worth the hassle in that it may take a whole different camera such as an Arri or Eclair to get what you are looking for in a viewfinder.

I'd go to a pro or semi-pro lab with your next roll, have it processed and scanned. It shouldn't cost too much, maybe around $20. Just getting your own machine won't necessarily give you better scans. Unless you get something like a good Nikon film scanner, cheaper scanners have less dynamic range amongst other things. There is something to be said for machines that cost $150k new, I refer to the ones that are being used in mini labs as well as pro labs. You'll find that both Costco and pro labs use Noritsu machines, the quality will depend on the operator and the machines initial setup.

Most one-hours and mini labs tend to over sharpen on scans. Unless specifically set, I've found scans coming from any mini lab machine to have artifacts from sharpening. It looks very apparent in your 100 speed picture. These are scanned on the same machines as they make prints from. Also note the quality will depend on the file type, usually JPEG, and the amount of compression. You can see compression artifacts in both. Most times the technicians of these machines will have no idea to the inner workings and setup menus that can adjust these settings. It is setup but either the machine's company tech, ie. Fuji & Noritsu, or a tech employed by the using company, ie. Walmart, Ritz, etc. You'll get better results from an independent pro lab that knows, really knows, about their machines and the processes involved. You will pay more, but the difference in quality should be apparent.

Honestly, I feel if you are asking these questions you should stick with something very simple. You can always upgrade and spend more money on more and better things. However when you're starting it's best to get a simple reliable camera and just start shooting things. Do simple transfers to a format you can use. Once you've mastered that and you are making money, you'll be able to afford many things and many options. But if you try and start out with the best of everything, you'll wind up wasting a lot of money because the results you get back won't be what you are looking for. Using the best cameras with the most amazing lenses will not give you the best results just because you are using them. You have to start somewhere. A skilled, experienced, and talented person can take any piece of gear and make it work. It's getting to that point that takes time. I've used a Bolex and an Arri and honestly they both create great images, but it is not the camera and its optics that are creating those great images- they are allowing them. It is you, your talent, skill, and experience that are creating those great images. So stop torturing yourself, spending hours and hours, days and days, months and months online looking and reading things. Grab a Bolex with a basic set of Switars or Schneiders, or whatever you can afford, and go with it. Load up some film, take a meter reading, and press the trigger, process the film, through it up on a projector or look at it on a TV screen. Then start over again this time doing things different based on how you felt you did or didn't get the things you wanted the first time. When it's time to get another camera or some "better" lenses it will come, but you have to start somewhere. The important thing is to just start, not to worry about what you're starting with.