Jump to content
Kirk Anderson

Good God- 16mm Camera value plummets in the last year...

Recommended Posts


I would totally disagree here. In general I find digital cameras to have much less 'usability' than film cameras

 

What I'm talking about here is basic, low-level ease of use. On a DSLR you throw in a flash card and even if you have to mount a lens you're ready to go. OK, you might choose to add on all manner of other things, but you aren't required to and most people don't. On 16 you need mags and a changing tent and a loader and by that point you want a vehicle to transport it all around in, not to mention travelling to three two different places to get it processed and transferred, just to get to the same place you're at the moment you hit "stop" on a video camera. You can get a DSLR kit in a backpack if you need to, and will cost to buy the DSLR kit what it costs to take a 16mm camera out for a day.

 

I'm no slavish fan of DSLR filmmaking, the things have serious problems. To try and contend, though, that it's practically speaking easier to shoot with any sort of film, let alone the sort of rusty old hunks of iron most people end up with, is sheer fantasy. I would have thought this was hopelessly obvious.

 

Phil - have you ever actually shot with a 16mm camera, or any kind of FILM camera?

 

Not much, I try to avoid it! I have, though, and it wasn't much fun.

 

Saying that 16mm is 'quite difficult' is a ridiculous statemen

 

Well, that's OK, I didn't say that.

 

I said it was quite difficult to get really good results, which is true. This is a simple matter of variability - there are far more variables involved in film than there are in electronic acquisition, and many of them (such as grading film) are based around people, who don't often do as they're told, as opposed to technology, which does. Even taking that into account, as I say, the main problem is not what you can do with an Aaton XTR or an Arri SR3 with Kodak's latest slow stocks, beautiful Cooke glass, a huge lighting truck, a massive crew, a lab that cares and a Spirit with a really good colorist. The problem is what you can do with the sort of equipment people actually get to use, which tends to be a badly-converted SR1 that can barely keep the mag doors closed without a piece of sticky tape, that universally reviled Angenieux zoom, stock that's been stored in a sauna, and the absolute cheapest possible lab and transfer deal in the universe. If you are working under those conditions, which is certainly more common, it will look like crap and it will still be a pain in the backside and cost a fortune.

 

It is much easier to get the best possible results out of a DSLR than it is from 16, regardless of your concerns as to which "best possible results" is better.

 

Some people act like indie filmmaking was impossible before DSLRs were invented

 

It was, if you weren't well funded or independently wealthy. I'd point more to the first miniDV cameras as a real jump forward, because that was the point at which it became possible to produce material somewhere close to broadcast technical standard without needing a five figure piece of equipment to do it.

 

 

Camera test. ANY camera can have some problem you don't know about when you take it off the shelf. That's why people do camera tests. People do camera tests even with DSLRs.

Yes, but.

If you are shooting film over a one day period, shooting a camera test will immediately double the camera-related costs of your production, because now you have stock and processing and transfer to organise, execute and pay for. Also, since it takes several days, maybe up to a couple of weeks to see the results of your camera test, the camera will have worked in the meantime and may have accrued faults your test won't show. This is of course not how it works on a big Hollywood movie, but most people who are choosing between DSLRs and 16 are not working in those circumstances. On this basis, it is usually not practical to test 16mm cameras before you take them out.

 

On any video camera you can run a camera test for free in thirty seconds and be fairly clear if there's anything massively wrong. There's also the advantage that on most modern digital electronics, if it is more or less working, it's probably working perfectly - faults tend to immediately cause massive and obvious failures. Film is much more variable, with the opportunity for a million faults between the subejct and the screen, each of which can be far enough out to wreck your show without causing anything to be obviously wrong with the camera when you pick it up.

 

The first bit of film I ever shot (16mm) was universally soft - all soft by the same amount, so presumably an FFD problem. I will never know why.Some 35mm I shot later is unstable and incredibly grainy. I will never know why. You can't really learn from situations like this.

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to reply to what Adam has said here. He is proving me right though that he wants to jump all over anyone that doesn't think 16- or 35mm is the best choice. How can you go from saying 16mm is a bad choice to saying it is better than DSLRs in this thread, Adam? There are clearly resolution disadvantages to S16 against a DSLR, as well as DOF, even if it's a rinky-dink, POS plastic-bodied camera that could break if you look at it wrong. I broke TWO Canon 50mm plastic primes by dropping them, not off a cliff, but once 2 feet off a carpet, and another time a foot off a linoleum floor, just in the process of taking them off the camera body. (And no I wasn't shooting HDSLR; never have. You'll notice I list myself as a "film loader" before you group me in as being "one of them.")

 

 

However, you've got it all wrong, Phil, when you say that a camera test will take "weeks" and cost extra rental. I've seen camera tests, the day before checkout (no rental fees) where they shoot a reg. test and literally run the film down the street to the lab. You don't need any digital BS, you just project the test, at the lab, using the negative image to check the result. They tend to be done on color, but B&W would be even easier: You need a bucket, some Dektol ($8 at a camera store) and some fixer ($% at a camera store). Sorry, forgot the current exchange rate, but I'm sure the USD is doing poorly compared to just about every world currency, your gain.

 

Very easy to evaluate this image. Steal a 16mm projector from a school and that part is free. So there's no excuse for having troubles that you describe, unless of course this happened when you were new to film or a student. We all make mistakes when we don't know what to do.

 

 

Also, Phil, you assume that everything needs to be digitized for HDTV. While, in many cases, this is so, in reality there are a lot of shortcuts, cheaper routes to take, that can get this done more-cheaply. You don't need power windows and a 2K scan of every frame you've shot.

 

It used to be that 16mm, back in the film dailies days, you had to have everything printed. Now, I think, more labs are allowing "print circled takes" for 16mm as well, so in that regard, they are being more flexible than before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm talking about here is basic, low-level ease of use. On a DSLR you throw in a flash card and even if you have to mount a lens you're ready to go. OK, you might choose to add on all manner of other things, but you aren't required to and most people don't. On 16 you need mags and a changing tent and a loader and by that point you want a vehicle to transport it all around in, not to mention travelling to three two different places to get it processed and transferred, just to get to the same place you're at the moment you hit "stop" on a video camera. You can get a DSLR kit in a backpack if you need to, and will cost to buy the DSLR kit what it costs to take a 16mm camera out for a day.

 

You just purely make things up. Out of nowhere. Look back a few posts. Somebody posted on this very thread some great looking 16 he shot on the road carrying the camera around in his backpack. You just don't know what you are talking about. Pure and simple.

 

 

 

 

I said it was quite difficult to get really good results, which is true. This is a simple matter of variability - there are far more variables involved in film than there are in electronic acquisition, and many of them (such as grading film) are based around people, who don't often do as they're told, as opposed to technology, which does. Even taking that into account, as I say, the main problem is not what you can do with an Aaton XTR or an Arri SR3 with Kodak's latest slow stocks, beautiful Cooke glass, a huge lighting truck, a massive crew, a lab that cares and a Spirit with a really good colorist. The problem is what you can do with the sort of equipment people actually get to use, which tends to be a badly-converted SR1 that can barely keep the mag doors closed without a piece of sticky tape, that universally reviled Angenieux zoom, stock that's been stored in a sauna, and the absolute cheapest possible lab and transfer deal in the universe. If you are working under those conditions, which is certainly more common, it will look like crap and it will still be a pain in the backside and cost a fortune.

 

More crap. I don't know how to respond other than this is your hate-fantasy about film that is just not in any way based in reality.

 

And people who don't do what they are told? Seriously? Come on. I've never had a DOP or colourist not do what they are told. They often contribute, which is helpful, but in the end you are the director and they know they are there to help make your vision a reality and that you have final say. It's ridiculous to say people don't listen. Do you treat your crew like crap, and yell at them and insult them? That's not a jab, I'm serious here. When I see crew who don't listen (especially key crew) it's because the director is an a**hole who treats them like crap.

 

And technology doesn't 'listen'. The more complex the piece of electronics the more it crashes or malfunctions or just plain doesn't work. If something goes wrong with an actual person at least I can reason with them. I don't have to send them in to have technicians chase an elusive bug for weeks, and then just end up getting a new one. What a f**king anti-social and stupid statement. I'll take people over technology any day. People make a film, not technology.

 

And variability? No way. There is a very small list of variables to deal with in 16, all of which can be easily monitored and controlled. With digital, and especially DSLR, there are a lot more, many of which can not be controlled.

 

 

 

It is much easier to get the best possible results out of a DSLR than it is from 16, regardless of your concerns as to which "best possible results" is better.

 

Just not true Phil. 16 not only has a better upper limit potential than DSLR, it's 'mediocre' results look WAY better. As for badly shot footage with either camera, bad is bad and there is no limit to how bad something can get on any format in the wrong hands (see your own 16 footage for reference).

 

 

 

If you are shooting film over a one day period, shooting a camera test will immediately double the camera-related costs of your production, because now you have stock and processing and transfer to organise, execute and pay for. Also, since it takes several days, maybe up to a couple of weeks to see the results of your camera test, the camera will have worked in the meantime and may have accrued faults your test won't show. This is of course not how it works on a big Hollywood movie, but most people who are choosing between DSLRs and 16 are not working in those circumstances. On this basis, it is usually not practical to test 16mm cameras before you take them out.[/size]

 

On any video camera you can run a camera test for free in thirty seconds and be fairly clear if there's anything massively wrong. There's also the advantage that on most modern digital electronics, if it is more or less working, it's probably working perfectly - faults tend to immediately cause massive and obvious failures. Film is much more variable, with the opportunity for a million faults between the subejct and the screen, each of which can be far enough out to wreck your show without causing anything to be obviously wrong with the camera when you pick it up.

 

Borowski already covered this. Free, free, free.

 

 

 

It was, if you weren't well funded or independently wealthy. I'd point more to the first miniDV cameras as a real jump forward, because that was the point at which it became possible to produce material somewhere close to broadcast technical standard without needing a five figure piece of equipment to do it.

 

Oh my god. Seriously? I killed myself laughing when I saw this response. Are you serious? Serious? You are kidding me right? You ACTUALLY believe that indie film didn't exist before miniDV? Seriously? Oh my god.

 

People made self-funded indie films decades before that, on film, without being rich (many actually being poor starving artists). The indie filmmaking world has not gotten better since the advent of digital cameras. The same type of people who found ways to make movies back in the day still find ways to make movies today. A cheaper shooting format only saves you money in one area of your films budget, you still have to pay for all the other expenses of making a film and round up the people, the locations, etc., etc.

 

No, no, digital has not increased the amount of people making good indie films, but what it has done is plant this rather misguided idea in the brains of amateurs (like yourself) that ALL it takes to make a good film is to own a digital camera. It doesn't. It takes creativity, skill, craftsmanship, more people also with said skills, resources, planning, organization, and on, and on. Digital has not changed that. It takes effort, work, and passion, and buying a DSLR is not going to give you that.

 

People made films long before digital, and will continue to make films despite it. That is a FACT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some of the ease of use issue is clouded by the type of productions that someone does.

 

For industrial productions, weddings and similar work where it is never broadcast or to be shown on a big screen, I'd give the advantage to DSLRs and Red One because of cost and "ease of use." BUT that is simply because the standards aren't as high compared to what a network broadcast would need.

 

When you try to get parity in color & exposure either it will take digital more time to setup, light and test or you're faced with the additional time that film brings naturally but have much more options in post to color the way you want it.

 

So with digital more time is spent getting it right upfront while with film you have more wiggle room in post. Does that make sense? But only in shoots where the best quality matters.

 

For 90% of the video work that is done out there for corporations interviewing plant managers on how great their widget workflow is, DSLR will be just fine.

 

Super 16 also takes a little more work perhaps than 35mm to get the most out of but it would come down to the shooter's experience with each format to really determine what is best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to reply to what Adam has said here. He is proving me right though that he wants to jump all over anyone that doesn't think 16- or 35mm is the best choice. How can you go from saying 16mm is a bad choice to saying it is better than DSLRs in this thread, Adam? There are clearly resolution disadvantages to S16 against a DSLR, as well as DOF, even if it's a rinky-dink, POS plastic-bodied camera that could break if you look at it wrong. I broke TWO Canon 50mm plastic primes by dropping them, not off a cliff, but once 2 feet off a carpet, and another time a foot off a linoleum floor, just in the process of taking them off the camera body. (And no I wasn't shooting HDSLR; never have. You'll notice I list myself as a "film loader" before you group me in as being "one of them.")

 

For the love of god, PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth. I am "jumping all over" someone for saying that 16mm is difficult and DSLR isn't. That's COMPLETELY different than just objecting to that it's "not film".

 

And I have NEVER said 16mm is a bad choice. I just said that my practical experience was that 35mm can cost the same or less than 16mm so you shouldn't shoot 16mm as a COMPROMISE if you would rather shoot 35mm. In fact I also said that if you want a 16mm look you should shoot 16mm. Which goes for any shooting format. If you want a DSLR look then shoot DSLR. What I am objecting to to is people saying they can't shoot 16mm or 35mm if they want to because they assume it's too expensive or that digital is somehow easier when anyone who has shot regularly with both formats will tell you the opposite.

 

I don't know why we got off on the wrong foot because we seem to be on the same page with a lot of stuff. Let's turn over a new leaf. This board has enough arguments going on already that we don't need to argue about misunderstandings.

 

Truce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I will give you a truce, but since you are relatively new here, let me just tell you that Phil is not a new-be or an amateur. He is very knowledgeable, even if he can be dry and sarcastic and our opinions aren't always in tune. He is just as critical about HD cameras as he is about film.

 

 

You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what he says, or to pick him apart like that. I don't know what else you would call it.

 

He makes a good point in that even independent filmmaking cost a fortune before tape (I won't even say MiniDV even analog tape got quite good). Steven Spielburg's first [8mm] movie had a lab bill (not the film, just the lab) of $600 or 700. That's $3500 to 4000 today, for an 8mm film.

 

And I've had experiences with labs flat-out ignoring what I say. Of course, a lot of times they HAVE to do this, because many filmmakers don't know what the hell they're talking about. They'll say one thing, and the lab has to "interpret" it to what they actually mean. Or someone will complain about he colors, the lab won't fix it, and then they come back and say "Oh, now it looks much better." And no, I'm not talking about Rob here :D

 

Far be it for me to ever say "Money, Money, Money." I am the last person on Earth to expect my crew to work for free. Indeed, there are times I have been taken advantage of for this, delivering money to people's doors. The amount of money I pay on crew, is often double what I expend of filmstock. Film is usually the cheapest item on my cost list. I love it how people often completely ignore transportation, wear and tear, wages, consumables, shipping, editing hours, as costs of production. Of course, you are just as likely, if not moreso, to run into people expecting you to work for free on their "High art 16mm production" as on "My mom bought me a RED camera so now I'm a DP"'s shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what he says, or to pick him apart like that. I don't know what else you would call it.

 

What he said on this thread was ridiculous. I may agree with stuff he says on other threads. Who knows. I'll take it on a case by case basis. I have no personal grudge against him.

 

 

 

And I've had experiences with labs flat-out ignoring what I say. Of course, a lot of times they HAVE to do this, because many filmmakers don't know what the hell they're talking about. They'll say one thing, and the lab has to "interpret" it to what they actually mean.

 

Well then the filmmaker is at fault for not knowing what he is talking about. If you have problems like this then brush up on what you need to know so you know what to tell the lab. This seems more like miscommunication rather than people outright not listening.

 

 

 

Far be it for me to ever say "Money, Money, Money." I am the last person on Earth to expect my crew to work for free. Indeed, there are times I have been taken advantage of for this, delivering money to people's doors. The amount of money I pay on crew, is often double what I expend of filmstock. Film is usually the cheapest item on my cost list. I love it how people often completely ignore transportation, wear and tear, wages, consumables, shipping, editing hours, as costs of production. Of course, you are just as likely, if not moreso, to run into people expecting you to work for free on their "High art 16mm production" as on "My mom bought me a RED camera so now I'm a DP"'s shoot.

 

We are in agreement here. But Phil said that it was impossible to make a film before miniDV was invented unless you were rich. That's simply not true. And regardless there are other costs to filmmaking besides the shooting format. As you point out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then the filmmaker is at fault for not knowing what he is talking about. If you have problems like this then brush up on what you need to know so you know what to tell the lab. This seems more like miscommunication rather than people outright not listening.

 

 

 

 

 

We are in agreement here. But Phil said that it was impossible to make a film before miniDV was invented unless you were rich. That's simply not true. And regardless there are other costs to filmmaking besides the shooting format. As you point out here.

 

I have had labs flat out ignore what I said, even though I do know what I am talking about. I assure you that it happens.

 

Phil said that it was impossible to make a film on a budget (or something to that regard; this isn't a political forum or a law school, you don't need to get so personal), and that before MiniDV it was impossible. That is, more or less true. Film is expensive.

 

I mean, back in '94 I think "Clerks" was the big thing because it was made for under $20K with everyone working for free, and THAT was B&W.

 

 

Maybe he is exagerating what he said a bit, in jest, but I don't have $20K in my bank account to blow on a whim, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had labs flat out ignore what I said, even though I do know what I am talking about. I assure you that it happens.

 

Well that's a crummy lab then. I would find someone else. I've never had it happen.

 

 

 

Phil said that it was impossible to make a film on a budget (or something to that regard; this isn't a political forum or a law school, you don't need to get so personal), and that before MiniDV it was impossible. That is, more or less true. Film is expensive.

 

I mean, back in '94 I think "Clerks" was the big thing because it was made for under $20K with everyone working for free, and THAT was B&W.

 

I find it funny that you advocate that there is more to it than the cost of the shooting format, then make statements like this. Even with people working for free there are still lots of costs you just can't avoid. $20k is a bargain for even making a feature on DSLR. Get real here. Indie film existed before miniDV. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. You just don't know what you are talking about. YouTube crap didn't exist, but actual films did. Nowadays there are not more good indie films, just more crap to wade through to get to the good ones. And by good ones I don't mean they have to be shot on film, just that a decent amount of effort was put into making them, and that they didn't cut corners on a lot more things than just shooting format.

 

 

 

Maybe he is exagerating what he said a bit, in jest, but I don't have $20K in my bank account to blow on a whim, do you?

 

Filmmakers don't make films on a 'whim'. If you want to make films on a 'whim' then DSLR is fine for you. Who cares what it looks like. You didn't put any effort into it. You made it on a 'whim'.

 

There are ways to raise money for a film. Yes often your first short has to come out of you pocket, but I think trying to shoot a feature out of your own pocket is just plain a bad idea. If you plan to make any decent kind of indie movie you need to raise money somewhere, regardless of what you shoot it on. And when it comes to putting my own money in, no I certainly don't have 20k to throw around. But if I work at it I can raise 20k for a film.

 

Most indie films that are based on a solid screenplay do eventually get made. Yes, maybe they get passed up by studios, certain grants and certain private funders, but eventually someone sees it's merits and is willing to fund it. It may be frustrating but that's why you have to have a passion for this industry and stick with it. So many people rush to write a terrible screenplay that no audience except them wants to see and then wonders why nobody will fund it.

 

Instead of going out and making crap on a whim, the smart filmmaker puts all their available funds, resources and talent into one or a very select few projects. Quality over quantity. Once you show that you can create a QUALITY product and approach a studio or funder with a quality idea, your chances of getting a feature made are fairly good. But if you just continually turn out crap based on a screenplay you spent no more than a Saturday afternoon on, and shot on a DSLR without lights and cut corners on at every turn nobody cares. Most of the time it's so bad people cant even sit through it let alone would want to help you make something else, no matter how many of these so called "films" you make.

 

Look, people need to make a choice. If you want to be a filmmaker then dedicate yourself to that and put effort into making a good film rather than any film. If you are serious and you have talent things will happen for you. Maybe not overnight, but eventually. But if you just go on making no-budget crap that nobody wants to see then you are going to be stuck in the sand making no-budget crap nobody wants to see forever. And if you are actually satisfied with making no-budget crap nobody wants to see then that's just artistic masturbation and you shouldn't be calling yourself a filmmaker.

 

I'm not saying you can't make a good film on DSLR. What I am saying is you don't HAVE to. There are ways to make an indie film with better quality if you work for it. There always has been. MiniDV didn't invent indie film. So stop complaining about what it costs, and go out there and find a way to make it happen. It's not the cost of shooting film that is holding you up, it's your defeatist attitude. You are just using the shooting format as a scapegoat.

 

Decide if you are and indie filmmaker, or a YouTuber, or a wedding videographer, or a corporate videomaker, or whatever. Nothing is wrong with any of those things, but they are different. YouTubers and corporate video makers shouldn't call themselves filmmakers, just like a filmmaker shoulden't call themselves a wedding videographer (I wouldn't know the first thing about shooting a wedding). If you want to just dink around and make things that only ever get shown on YouTube, then fine, do that. But don't complain about not having money to do bigger and better things, or not getting into festivals or whatever. You need to put the effort in if you want those things. If you don't want to put the effort in then don't complain. It's simple.

 

 

 

I realize this was a rant. But whatever, it's a rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Phil said that it was impossible to make a film before miniDV was invented unless you were rich.

I think you'll find that rather depends on your definition of "rich".

Taking a film camera out for a day is very difficult to do for less than four figures. If you have that kind of money to burn, then I suspect you probably don't need my help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking a film camera out for a day is very difficult to do for less than four figures. If you have that kind of money to burn, then I suspect you probably don't need my help.

 

That is just categorically untrue Phil. I just recently took a 35mm one out for $45 f**king dollars. But I was just playing around. Had I been making a serious film I would not have batted an eye at spending four figures (lowest 4 figures although I would probably have found a way to do it for 3 figures). And that would be for 35mm. For 16mm I guarentee it would have been in the low 3 figures. People shoot 16mm on next to no money. That's just the reality Phil. Get over your "film costs a fortune" fantasy. It's just not based in reality. And your precious DSLR is only "free" after you pay a hefty 4 figures for it. Stop with your BS already. You are just repeating the same crap that has no basis in reality. There are plenty of people on this board who have and will continue to shoot film despite not being rich. Get over it. You are just plain wrong on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Adam, you can do it on the cheap. Then you'll get the old, rattly camera, the junk lenses, the old stock, and the bad transfer, and you'll risk poor results because you can't do reliable camera tests. Or you can get a decent selection of gear, do proper tests, buy new stock, transfer on a quality telecine - and it'll look great. But it'll also cost a lot of money. You cannot have it both ways.

What we're talking about here is the sort of level at which people are considering shooting with DSLRs, which is not the level at which you have a lot of money. My position has always been, and remains, that trying to do film on the cheap creates a lot of problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Adam, you can do it on the cheap. Then you'll get the old, rattly camera, the junk lenses, the old stock, and the bad transfer, and you'll risk poor results because you can't do reliable camera tests.

 

Old rattly camera = NO! Technically old maybe, but rattly no. Purrs like a kitten. Runs like new.

 

Junk lenses = NO! Better lenses than your DSLR in most cases.

 

Old stock = NO! Brand new Vision3 stock.

 

Bad transfer = NO! This may be the most expensive part but it's not as expensive as you make it out to be. Not at all.

 

Camera tests = YES! I could do one if I wanted to. Free. But in my case I know the people I am getting them from and know that they keep them in good shape and test them regularly, so if I'm shooting for fun I skip the camera test just to save time. If it was a critical shoot I would do the test - for free.

 

Risking poor results = NO! Less variables, simpler and more reliable equipment. I rarely (almost never) have problems with film, but every time I take a digital camera out for a spin there is some "issue". I mean if you want to talk unpredictable results and risks lets talk about not knowing wether or not a person's clothing will even be film-able by the camera, or not knowing if your image will tear to shreds if you move the camera around even a little bit, or not being able to properly judge focus, or not being able to _____ (there is a whole list).

 

 

 

Get over it Phil. Your experience with film may have been bad, but it's not the same experience most people have. The truth is film is easy to shoot. And when you are shooting recreationally easy=fun and when you are shooting professionally easy = time and money saved.

 

END OF STORY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How old are you, Adam?

 

Four and three quarters. I'm going to be five soon! Mommy says that soon I can have a big boy bike.

 

Seriously. What the hell does my age have to do with anything? Is this going to turn into an "I'm older than you so therefore I automatically know more than you" type of thing. Because that is so ironically childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there's a well-developed school of thought pertaining to the idea that arguing on the internet is, without exception, pointless. Personally I'd much rather spend the time eating cookies, or perhaps setting fire to Sarah Palin. Inconveniently, though, immolating neo-cons, no matter how morally justifiable, is subject to legal sanction in many jurisdictions. Cookies make you fat after a while. Noel Edmonds lives yet. Is there no justice?

 

 

I don't know. I'm doing a motion graphics job right now. I suppose it's possible, and perhaps quite reasonable, to find a sort of zen mysticism in staring at a progress bar. The reality of the work, the certainty that soon it will be complete, the unknowable waiting period. Maybe it's that, or maybe it's a combination of caffeine and fatigue that's making me ponder the nature of reality and the absurdity of existence. It couldn't possibly be anything to do with the perspicacity sinkhole that this forum currently represents, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there's a well-developed school of thought pertaining to the idea that arguing on the internet is, without exception, pointless.

 

It kind of seems that way.

 

Glad to hear you are in zen mode Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since th ethread seems to be drifting, I would add my 2 1/2 cents worth.

 

My wife decided that she wanted a better digital Still Camera after she was disappointed with her results on an adventure trip a few years ago. She brought home a 5D Mk 2. She told me that she could make "movies with sound with it" I am used to making my "art/Hobby" films with an ancient B&H Filmo.

 

The 5D is so awkward to hold, that I don't think it is possible to use it on Movie Mode hand held. The filmo has a lot of handy inertia and rests comfortably against the Forehead.

 

I will not even go into the lack of exposure latitude. It makes a fair home movie camera.

 

example...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here is a big 16mm gun, Rob Todd film maker mostly with a Bolex all beauty shows on print etc. places like the MoMa it is still amazing what one can do with a Bolex and a 100' roll of 16mm..

 

http://www.roberttoddfilms.com/

 

 

And the iron guild film I shot on a LTR the other night, cost me $138 for the stock and if I did not part own a lab process would be $56 and Transfer to ProResHQ $92.00 total $286.00 the Aaton long ago paid for itself.

 

 

Some of the most beautiful images of the 20th century were shot on cameras like the Bolex or Filmo with C-Mount lenses and again it's the eye not necessarily the camera but maybe the all mechanical spring powered camera is too simple a puzzle for some to figure out.

 

 

 

-Rob-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it. The Charleton Heston of 16mm.

 

I agree of course.

 

 

Of course! and I have to say that I like my Eyemo more than I like my guns. :blink:

 

-Rob-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course! and I have to say that I like my Eyemo more than I like my guns.

 

Just substitute the guns in this sketch for your collection of 16mm cameras:

 

 

"I'm completely bored of Bolexs now. I need to do something completely different."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • The Original Slider



    Ritter Battery



    CineLab



    Abel Cine



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Tai Audio



    Metropolis Post



    Just Cinema Gear



    Paralinx LLC



    Visual Products



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Wooden Camera



    FJS International



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    G-Force Grips



    Rig Wheels Passport


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...