Moving over to 16mm - Need Advice

[Luke Hill]

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

[Elliot Rudmann]

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.

[Adam Garner]

Luke:

 

I'm in Austin as well, and just "invested" in an Ultra16 set up. I'm shooting a test reel next week for a film.

 

I did the math and U16 is just more within reach than S16 for what I'm doing.

 

1: U16 and S16 are nearly identical as far as how much film real estate they use for an HD transfer at 1:1.78. Depending on who's math you look at it's about 3% difference.

2: If you have a fixed lens, like a scoopic, you HAVE to go Ultra... and the conversion wont run more than 400 bucks or so since it's just a gate widening.

3: If you buy an Eclair or Bolex, you'll have the option to go Super but the camera body will be more expensive AND the conversion (it's about twice as much since they recenter the lens), AND the lenses you'll need to cover the S16 frame. This is a several thousand dollar venture. You will then have a S16 frame that you can get transferred on the highest quality scanner... but that will also cost you muchos pesos.

4: With ultra (on a scoopic) you can't change your ground glass so it's not great for critical framing, but you can get really close. No biggie.

 

What are you shooting? Can you deal with 2.5 minute 100' loads or do you need a longer shooting time? For me I wanted the hand-held option vs. something I had to tripod or dolly for movement. Again, saving $$.

 

Ultra isn't common, that's for sure. BonoLabs and Cinelicious are both doing it. Other transfer houses are researching it. You can get it developed same places as S16. The challenge is that the scanners need to read between the perfs. Some can, some cant. Ultimately it sounds like you're an independent filmmaker on a budget which is what Ultra is designed to do... save money. There are plenty of options for transfer since there's more than 1.

 

If they made a good handheld super16 camera for 1300 bucks I'd have thought more about it. Problem is they're more like 13,000. The NPR's and EBM's are not really that ergonomic at all...

[marc barbé]

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

 

Hi,

I've been around that question myself, finding precious help in posts on this website (you might want to search through them).

I finally narrowed it down to two choices: Eclair ACL1,5 (with variable speed motor and kinoptik viewfinder) or Aaton LTR7. They are both sound sync, silent and reliable, the Eclair being Aaton's ancestor.

To make a long story short, I chose the Eclair for two main reasons:

Maintenance is cheap (several good techs in the states, one in Europe).

It takes all mounts from C to PL (some of the older switar, cooke or zeiss primes, angenieux and canon zooms are very good glass at affordable prices). And why buy a camera if you're gonna end up renting glass?

I got a fine complete S16 ACL package last year for under 2000$ (no lens). The cheapest i've seen the Aaton LTR7 S16 go is about 4500$.

Good luck in your search and happy shooting.

Marc.

[Luke Hill]

Thanks, guys, for your input. I would, if I can afford it, like to get Super 16 just because of the ubiquitous nature of the format (and the relative ease of finding telecine services), but if it's just simply out of my price range, I'd rather have Ultra 16 than nothing at all!

 

I'm still holding out hope that I can find a Super 16 camera that will do what I need in my price range. I do have my eyes on an Eclair NPR right now, but Adam's comments about the ergonomics of the camera concern me as I like to shoot handheld.

 

Adam - what kind of camera did you have converted to Ultra 16?

 

Marc - I was considering the ACL, but was concerned that it would be too noisy for Sync sound - have you found that not to be the case?

 

Thanks again...

Luke

Edited May 19, 2009 by Luke Hill

[David Rakoczy]

A 'complete' SR2 Package will run $50k+... now, any minute Adrian will tell you about the SR3 he got for $30k.. however, he did not get all that I received :P . (just playing with you Adrian).

 

Be very careful with people saying they will sell you their Camera for X dollars... because you need much more than just a Camera Body, a couple Mags and a Battery. S16 Lenses are at a Premium right now and my Zeiss Super Speeds have about doubled what I paid for them. You can drop your $3k+ on one Lens. Are you ok with a 4x4 Matte Box or do you want the industry standard 4x5.. what Filters do you want.. how about Diopters.. Extension Eyepiece, an Aspheron, Eyepiece Heater, Standard and Baby Sticks, Head, Block Battery, Video Tap & Monitor, Hi Hat, True 180º Shutter Conversion?.. and on and on... of course you can always start with a very very basic package and add to it but on the whole that is what you are looking at... I personally don't want to walk on Set without a set of Straight NDs, 85NDs, Classic Softs, Pola and Optical Flat. All that costs and that is a very small Filter Package.

 

On the bright side, the nice thing about purchasing a Film Camera.. is that (for the most part) you are done... let Kodak and Fuji do all the R&D for you... my Camera was built in the early 80's and is still as viable today as it was then... esp. after it's S16 conversion. How many Video cameras can you say that about?.. You are heading in the right direction ;)

[Bruce Taylor]

If you're going to be shooting sync sound, Bolexes, Scoopics, etc are all out.

 

The Eclairs, both the NPR and ACL were designed as "self blimped" cameras, and, if running properly, are fine for recording sync sound. In small spaces you may want a sound barney. They are inexpensive. While the NPR is not particularly ergonomic, they did enable a whole genre of hand held documentaries to be made in the 60's and 70's- So it can be done.

 

An Aaton or Arri SR* is more modern, but it is still pulling film through a gate, you can put modern glass on an Eclair with a PL mount if you feel you need to.

 

Ultra 16 is an interesting option that only recently became viable. While I appreciate Elliot's comments about post workflow and ultimate quality, one needs to consider the intended release formats. If you're going for a 35mm projection print, the Cinelicious telecine may not be adequate. I got a nice look at their work done for a friend of mine and can say this: On my 42" Sony Bravia from a home burned DVD, the Cinelicious transfer (from 35mm 5219 4 perf anamorphic) looked indisguishable to me from a commercially produced DVD of a Hollywood movie. Granted, this is entirely unscientific and subjective, but so is any normal person's experience sitting in front of a TV. So consider your final presentation when making your decision.

 

Good luck on your film. You'll find something in your price range.

 

Bruce Taylor

www.indi35.com

[Todd Anderson]

I've seen a few Aaton XTR's going for as little as $5,500 ebay. Though, you probably want to set aside some money for an overhaul for any used camera.

 

Zoom lenses for S16 are about half of what they were two years ago (meaning a Canon 8-64mm that was around $8,000 prior are going for around $4,000)

 

Because of the economy and the infiltration of RED, Super16mm is at an all time low on the used market (with some exceptions).

 

I bought two XTR's, and a lot of glass last year at such prices. If you can hold out, there are some decent deals.

 

There is one DP (Tony Stewart), who has listed his Aaton XTR on ebay a few times now (last time it was at $6,250 and that includes a top handle video tap, and if I am not correct, an overhaul was done recently) and I'm sure he would take $6,000 for it. I think one of the reason it hasn't sold yet is because he only has a (4) in feedback on ebay. But I bought his Canon 7-63mm and it was in excellent condition, so that listing is legit. By the way, a video tap for an XTR can cost you half that cost alone, if not more. Pretty good deal in the long run if you weigh that against a Eclair ACL after conversion and some of the headaches associated with that, along with a video tap solution, not too mention it is a much more modern camera.

 

Todd

[David Rakoczy]

Zoom lenses for S16 are about half of what they were two years ago (meaning a Canon 8-64mm that was around $8,000 prior are going for around $4,000) Because of the economy and the infiltration of RED, Super16mm is at an all time low on the used market (with some exceptions).

 

I am sorry but I have to question this advice.... actually completely disagree... S16 Lenses are at a PREMIUM right now (because) of the infiltration of RED.... whether they be Primes or Zooms. I get calls all the time from people wanting my Set of Primes. Good S16 Glass is at an all time HIGH... not low. I have never seen an 8-64 (which is a fantastic Lens ) for $4k???... and again.. Aaton XTR's for $5,500... what, a beat up bayonet Body, Mag and a Battery that needs to be re-celled?.... I paid $42k for my Package but would add the extra $8k PLUS (because) of the Glass..

[Saul Rodgar]

I am sorry but I have to question this advice.... S16 Lenses are at a PREMIUM right now (because) of the infiltration of RED....

 

And the Scarlet 2/3" will very likely raise the prices of R16 glass as well when and if it goes for sale later this year.

[David Rakoczy]

Absolutely Saul.

 

Just checked ebay.. found (a) Zeiss Super Speed S16 9.5mm for $5,500.... found (a) 12mm for $5,500... and a Set of four for $8k.. all of which are not PL Mount... which you will want if you intend to pursue Cinematography (and invest in your future) as that is how you will mount real Glass...

[Tim Carroll]

. . . and again.. Aaton XTR's for $5,500... what, a beat up bayonet Body, Mag and a Battery that needs to be re-celled?.... I paid $42k for my Package but would add the extra $8k (because) of the Glass..

 

Sorry David, that's what they are going for. You are right about the glass, it has gone through the roof. But Super 16 cameras have really dropped. I picked up Jason Martin's Aaton XTR, PL mount, Super 16 camera with two DX mags, two 16 volt batteries (one needed recelling), rods, and an Abel Cine Tech charger for the batteries, all for $5500. I just finished overhauling it, and doing modifications to the eyepiece so that I can now see the whole Super 16 image area in the ground glass without having to move my eye around. Also modified my Van Diemen Matte Box and the lightweight rods, so now everything fits and works smoothly with my Cooke Kinetals and Speed Panchros (with the Les Bosher Cooke to PL mount adapter).

 

 

Best,

-Tim

[David Rakoczy]

I have always been an ARRI guy when it comes to 16 :P ...... great deal you got Tim! ...of course you need a lot more to actually have a usable Camera System. Something more like this:

 

S16 Package

[Tim Carroll]

I have always been an ARRI guy when it comes to 16 :P ...... great deal you got Tim! ...of course you need a lot more to actually have a usable Camera System. Something more like this:

 

S16 Package

 

That looks like a great system you got David. And if you are a DP and want to rent your package out to clients, you're right, you do need all that stuff. But looking over Luke's original post and taking a gander at his web site, I don't think he is trying to make it as a DP. He lists himself as a director and from glancing at his web site, I think he wants to write and direct his own material. He could get by with a lot less equipment than you can as a DP.

 

Now mind you, I also have a good set of sticks and a fluid head, filters for the Van Diemen, a full set of Cooke Kinetal lenses and a full set of Cooke Speed Panchro (Series II and III) lenses and all the lenses are set up with focus ears and I set the camera up so the focus ears are on the operators side (as opposed to the way they are set up on ARRI cameras), so I don't need a follow focus rig. The camera set me back $5500, but the glass and everything else, which was accumulated over about eight years, ran more than the cost of the camera.

 

I think the biggest issue Luke is going to run in to is trying to buy glass. The cameras are coming way down, but at the same time the glass is going way up. And as someone else mentioned, with the RED 2K cameras coming out the 16mm glass is going to go way up as well.

 

Best,

-Tim

[David Rakoczy]

Agreed Tim. But I will put it this way. Luke, a (decent) Fluid Head will run $3k. What do you want below it and what do you want above it?

 

Todd, you are a lucky man to get those deals!!! I want to go shopping with you!

[Todd Anderson]

Todd, you are a lucky man to get those deals!!! I want to go shopping with you!

 

 

David,

 

If by 'lucky' you mean I have acquired an obsessive compulsive addiction to buying cine lenses over the last two years... then I guess I'll take that as a compliment ;-)

 

But truth be told, I'm still shuffling some of this stuff around as to what I'll keep and what I'll hold, but there is no question that a 'sane' person would sell some of my glass off for other purchases!... but I'm not quite there yet....

 

Best,

Todd

[Todd Anderson]

Luke,

 

Getting back to some advice for you (having been there before myself), I would try to see if you could hold out until you can afford an Aaton closer to the $5,500 range. You can probably even find an LTR54 for less, as it is a buyers market for 16mm gear at the moment.

 

This is versus buying a Eclair ACL (which may be the only sync sound camera in your budget range) for the $2,000 - 3,000, then putting another $2,000 into converting that to S-16, which will put close to $5,000 anyhow.

 

Another very good suggestion (especially if you are just finishing to DVD or Blu-Ray), would be to just buy a 'Regular 16mm' camera and letterbox your footage in post for a wide screen look. The 16mm stocks are plenty sharp with less grain these days to hold up to using less of the negative in telecine (again, assuming that you are not blowing up to 35mm, which unless you get a distribution deal to pay for that, chances are that may not be in the cards for your first feature) Instead, concentrate on telling the best story you can, and save going the full S-16 route for you next feature.

 

Also, not only are the Regular 16mm cameras going to be a better deal (buy a good condition Eclair ACL which can do sync sound), but the high quality glass for those cameras are going to be less expensive for you, too. For instance, if you look hard enough, you can find a Zeiss MKI 10-100mm T2 zoom come up on ebay for $2,000, or a Cooke 9-50mm T2.5 lens for $1,500. Pair one of those up with an ACL for $1,500- $2,000 and you will have telecined footage that looks incredible. If you don't have the funds for one of these lenses, you can come across an Angenieux 9.5mm - 57mm F1.6-1.8 zoom for probably $500 (you may even luck out and find the HEC version of that lens for the same price). And or/ you can also find some Cooke Kinetals and piece them together for primes.

 

In fact, if you get an ACL, there is a good bet that it may come with a 12-120 Angieneux — that while it has a bad reputation as being a coke bottle (mostly because most of them are worn out and unserviced) it is still possible to get a nice image out of that lens at a certain level. (I would suggest sending it over to Duclose Lenses and they could probably adjust and collimate it for $125). I will say one thing about the 12-120 Angieneux, that is a great portrait lens (no diffusion required) on the long end of the zoom —and sharp — with a really warm feel. And maybe you have a story that fits that particular tone of the Angenieux. Don't be bought into the hype that you always need a super sharp Zeiss lens for your story.

 

Best of luck,

Todd

[Scott Bryant]

I got a NPR a couple of years ago and I have to say it is extremely reliable basically due to the fact that it is a tank. I had Bernie O'Doherty (incredible work) convert it to Ultra 16. Which for my low budget I think was a good choice.

 

No offsetting is needed of the gate or magazines. You don't have to worry about which lens covers this which covers that. The biggest problem (my opinion) is the infrastructure right now. There aren't as many labs that will process and only a couple of transfer houses (right now). Cinelicious says they are dedicated to the ultra16 workflow and aren't getting rid of it. For me I don't really care where I have to send my film b/c I'm in Oklahoma so sending it to Alphacine and Cinelicious doesn't bother me. There isn't anywhere for me to take film around here anyway. Also, with Cinelicious you get the online supervising of the telecine which may be a standard thing for most houses but i haven't heard of it before.

 

Ultra16 for me saved money on the conversion, I don't have to worry about lenses covering a funny offset conversion, I have a quality lab and transfer house (no it isn't spirit, but for it looks nearly as good to me and more importantly most audiences untrained eyes). My camera and conversion together added up to under $3000 also. It seems like the best choice for me. The one thing I may change when I'm older and become a dentist is I'll probably get a better camera that isn't so bulky. For now, it's awesome though.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Scott Bryant

[Luke Hill]

Thank you, everyone, for all the replies - this has certainly been a very informative discussion!

 

While I'm still mulling my options, it does seem that if I could scrounge together enough money to buy something in the $5500 I'd probably get something I'd be a lot happier with! Unfortunately adding an extra 2-3 grand to the price is probably more than I can swing right now.

 

So, the search continues, but now I have a better idea of what I should be looking for. I'm going to go ahead and sell my digital gear and just keep lurking on ebay and hoping I get lucky.

 

Thanks again!

 

Luke

[Tim Carroll]

Thank you, everyone, for all the replies - this has certainly been a very informative discussion!

 

While I'm still mulling my options, it does seem that if I could scrounge together enough money to buy something in the $5500 I'd probably get something I'd be a lot happier with! Unfortunately adding an extra 2-3 grand to the price is probably more than I can swing right now.

 

So, the search continues, but now I have a better idea of what I should be looking for. I'm going to go ahead and sell my digital gear and just keep lurking on ebay and hoping I get lucky.

 

Thanks again!

 

Luke

 

Luke,

 

If you want to get an idea of what you could do with a regular 16 camera, framing for 16:9, take a look at the film clips on my web page below. They were all shot with a box stock Arriflex 16S in regular 16 on Kodak Vision 2 200T film and transferred 16:9 in telecine. You can see what the Cooke Kinetals look like, compared to the Angenieux 12-120, compared to the Schneiders, compared to the two most common Zeiss zooms, the 10-100 T2 and the 10-100 T3.1.

 

Shot Regular 16, framed and transferred 16:9

 

 

Best,

-Tim

[Stephen Smith]

I had my eclair npr s16 for sale on ebay a week or so ago and it didn't go for £2000.

 

this is what was included in the sale....

 

Eclair NPR Super 16 Film Camera.

Converted By Les Bosher in 2008

 

* Super 16mm Gate

* PL lens Mount (allowing you to use the most up to date lenses available)

* C lens Mount

* 2 Magazines

* Custom Upholstery Products Barney (used for one shoot)

* DIY attachement for arri SR 15mm rods to add accessories (Mattebox, follow focus, lens support etc)

* Kinoptik Viewfinder

* Baby Legs Tripod with custom fluid head for NPR (With flight case not pictured, made by FILM TECHNISCHE GERATE Cradles motor to lower centre of gravity)

* Angenieux f2.3, 10-150mm zoom lens (Arri B mount)...(Covers super 16mm frame from 10-14mm focussed above 2 metres, then from 25-150mm focus to infinity) (both stills in gallery where shot with this lens)

* Kinoptik f1.8, 5.7mm PL Mount lens

* Arri bayonet to PL Mount adaptor

* Nikon to C mount Adaptor

* MOTOR

* Pelicase 1650

* 12v Battery, lead and charger (new last year)

* Camera manual

 

 

I could have either lost alot of money from the sale and someone would have got themselves a bargain. I've now split the kit up to sell.

 

I think if you look around you will find an eclair in your price range. with the C mount you could start out with cheaper slr lenses although i know people have different views on the quality. or even rent PL mount lenses when you needed. The only problem i've ever had with the NPR was shooting in a tiled bathroom about 2 metres by 3 metres, which required a few blankets adding on top of the camera other than that its great. If you make an adaptor to add 15mm rods and get hand grips on there handholding becomes a lot easier.

[Luke Hill]

So far most of the super 16 camera packages I've seen have been out of my price range, but the more I look the more I think, "You know, I hardly ever ride my motorcycle anymore..." so I might just have to figure out how to gather up enough money to get something a little better.

 

Tim - I'd heard of the approach you mention - using regular 16mm and cropping for aspect ratio. Your footage looks great, by the way. It would be great if I could do this (it would save me a lot of money), but I have a couple concerns about this approach:

 

It's likely that what I'm shooting will end up on HD or DVD, but I'm hoping it will get some play at festivals before that and whilst it's unlikely, there's still the possibility of some sort of theatrical release. Unlikely, I know, but my concern is that in the event that I do get that sort of opportunity, and even for the festival showings, the cropped standard 16mm footage will not 'hold up' when projected on a large theater screen.

 

From what I've read, Super 16 is basically 20% more image that regular 16 and when converting regular 16 to letterbox, you lose roughly roughly 20% more of your image resulting in a total difference in image resolution between Super 16 and standard 16mm of roughly 40% (yikes!).

 

Is that accurate? And even if it is, would the cropped standard 16 look good enough (subjective, I know) for theatrical exhibition?

 

Thanks again,

Luke

[David Rakoczy]

So far most of the super 16 camera packages I've seen have been out of my price range, but the more I look the more I think, "You know, I hardly ever ride my motorcycle anymore..." so I might just have to figure out how to gather up enough money to get something a little better.

 

 

Wise man! Shoot film.. live longer :lol:

 

Whatever you buy.. buy the best you can afford. The less you have to sell and swap out as you build your Package the better... because in the end, you'll want/need the better version anyway. For what you are describing as your use of this Camera, at a minimum seek a S16 with PL Mount and Good Glass. Build the rest from there.

[Adam Garner]

Adam - what kind of camera did you have converted to Ultra 16?

 

Luke: It's a scoopic 16M. Lot's of very good points being made in this thread. I'll say that I like that the scoopic is light, easy to use, comes with a VERY sharp lens, has macro, and converted to U16 without a hitch at all. In the end I have spent less that 1200 on the whole thing, even after the Ultra modification and a full CLA (clean lube adjust) with Bernie, AND new batteries. I mean, how can you pass that up for a tasty little film camera? It's almost disposable eh? And, something I was surprised to find, is that the scoopic is relatively quiet. I thought it was going to sound like a coffee grinder given the awful comments I'd gotten on other forums about sound sync-ing. In actuality it runs quieter than my 1014XL-S. Sound sync is totally doable. And, if you've go the right post tools you don't have to worry about it running at 99%. You can time strech in post so easily now. I've also got a great contact for a scoopic barney I'd be happy to share with ya.

 

You won't have all the bells and whistles that some of the more expensive cameras have, but do you need them? I've always thought that "an artist uses his tools creatively and is not limited by them." Video taps, mags, crystal sync, etc... these are all really nice. But, if you don't need them for your projects, you don't need them for your projects.

 

Also, Cinelicious is definately doing amazing work, and with your/our budget it's much more desirable than other transfer houses doing S16. U16 will, I feel, get some more momentum in the coming year(s). It's only "drawback" is that it's not the "standard."

[Paul Korver]

Hi All,

Interesting thread. I feel compelled to mention a few things. First, It seems like we're all on the same page that S16mm is a preferable format to Ultra 16mm if one has the funds to buy the camera & lenses necessary to go that route. It's always best to have as many options as possible for processing and post which is a strong argument for S16mm and the S16mm neg is about 20% larger in terms of sq mm yielding higher resolution. Hopefully the fact that we support & develop Ultra 16mm workflows is not taken by anyone that we see it as a better format. What we seek to do is support and develop filmmakers... not a particular format. To that end there are shooters out there (myself included) that want to make the most out of older, more accessibly priced and sometimes more ergonomic Regular 16mm cameras and Ultra 16mm makes sense in that case.

 

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.

 

Secondly, I wanted to address Elliot's image quality point... most notably referring to our Diamond Clear HD. First of all no offense taken at all. Same philosophy applies to Diamond Clear HD as to Ultra 16mm. Would I transfer my stuff with Diamond Clear HD if I had a healthy budget? No. Considering all the $ that goes into some of the higher end stuff that gets shot would I want that extra 5% sharpness and be willing to pay double or triple to get it? Absolutely. However, it's a great product for people that don't have the budget for a true HD scan, are doing a spec spot, and indy film that wants to conserve funds prior to getting distribution (and preserve the ability to do a DI later with a C-mode, file-based EDL). FYI I just did a S16mm to doc/psa that had the color neg footage transferred from a HD Millenium to 444 SR by Fotokem (transfer was donated by Wolf Films) and the S16mm reversal we transferred here at Cinelicious using Diamond Clear HD. The final was a mix of both scans layed off to 10-bit 422 HDCAM-SR and screened on a 30 foot screen from an SR deck over single link HDSDI to a Christie 12K projector in front of an audience of 750 people. I have to say that I was amazed at how well the Diamond Clear HD held up. There was no perceptible difference between the footage from an audience perspective. Maybe a DP or engineer who was told beforehand to analyze the footage for sharpness would have been able to pick it out... maybe. But I was pleasantly surprised and definitely think it has a place in the market.

 

Third and most importantly for those considering Ultra 16mm... and those like Elliot who want the highest possible quality... We've just worked out higher-end Ultra 16mm workflow to do a true 2K Ultra 16mm (and S16mm and 35mm) scans to 444 10-Bit LOG DPX data sequences. What I'm so excited about is these particular 2K scans are rock steady... meaning no weave AT ALL in the perf which is paramount when extracting a 1:85 Ultra 16mm frame and needing every spare micro millimeter of clearance. Any telecine machine that has a gate modified to Ultra 16mm has a tiny bit of weave no matter how steady a post house claims it is. To compensate for that weave the colorist must push it a tiny bit more from the top/bottom perf edges that circumscribe and define the top & bottom edges of the frame, slightly reducing the resolution you're attempting to maximize with the format.

 

It will basically be a DI workflow and of course... more accessibly priced than what one would typically associate with the word "DI". But it will be more expensive than our Diamond Clear HD. Workflow details & scan samples showing rock-steady registration will be on our site later so check back. Any of you out there that may be considering Ultra 16mm... be certain that we've got your back moving forward... wether your project demands highest quality 2K scans or best price Diamond Clear HD... the choice will be up to you.

 

Kind regards,

 

Paul