buying a 16mm camera

[Stuart Brereton]

Cinematography is generally format agnostic. If you're looking for information on specific Film techniques, there are still plenty of people on this site who can help you, as long as you ask the right questions.

[Nima Khazaei]

Seconding (thirding?) the suggestion to pick up a K3 for now, to get your feet wet. It won't do sync sound but it'll be very affordable, and excellent to learn on.

 

I wouldn't worry about a matte box or filters quite yet. K3s were originally sold with a zoom lens and a set of 5 filters, and it's not hard to find that kit for a decent price. The filters include an ND and 2 yellows (handy for shooting black and white film in daylight). The zoom lens takes 77mm filters, which are easy to find very cheap. Sure, eventually you'll want a matte box and a set of 4x6 filters, but those are a hefty investment.

[Tyler Purcell]

Anyone know of good site that specializes in film cinematography?

Umm how about this one? I think you'd find the majority of people on here have worked with film quite a bit.

 

With that said, working with narrow gauge formats (16 & 8) and projecting the output, is an entirely different philosophy and workflow then say shooting with modern negative, 4 perf super 35mm with a digital intermediate and DCP finish.

 

So for students of film, working ONLY ON NARROW GAUGE FILM, with no digital finishing, there are a lot of other things to learn that digital people wouldn't have a clue about.

[connor denning]

Umm how about this one? I think you'd find the majority of people on here have worked with film quite a bit.

 

With that said, working with narrow gauge formats (16 & 8) and projecting the output, is an entirely different philosophy and workflow then say shooting with modern negative, 4 perf super 35mm with a digital intermediate and DCP finish.

 

So for students of film, working ONLY ON NARROW GAUGE FILM, with no digital finishing, there are a lot of other things to learn that digital people wouldn't have a clue about.

Please tell me more.

 

Also I'm not sure I get pereration, I know what it is, but stuff like 4perf vs 8perf 35mm, I still have no clue.

Edited March 30, 2016 by connor denning

[Tyler Purcell]

Woo :wipes brow: Yee'got a lot to be learn' now don't yee? Which is awesome by the way! :)

 

Some people consider 8mm/super 8 and 16mm "narrow gauge" formats. They are unique because the frame size is very small, so field of view and depth of field are different then say 35mm which has a much larger frame size. Since the vast majority digital cinema cameras have the standard (35mm) frame size, so people are just use to how that frame size works with focal length and depth of field. Experts at working with narrow gauge formats, need to use many tricks to get shallow depth of field including longer focal lengths and keeping the lens wide open. This isn't as necessary on standard (35mm) formats.

 

Also, I assume you will be projecting your film and not transferring it from film to digital, which is very costly, since you're on a tight budget. IN that case, shooting for a "print" vs shooting for digitizing, they're almost two different animals. With printing, you gotta nail everything in camera, it's gotta be perfect because there is very little change you can do during the printing process. With digitizing, you don't have to work quite as hard, you can be a bit more sloppy and fix many issues in post, thanks to films tremendous latitude/dynamic range. In layman's terms, if you want to watch the film on your computer, you gotta pay some bux. Stock and processing can be A LOT LESS then scanning to digital.

 

Ohh... so "perforations" or "perf's" refer to the sprockets down the side of the film. 35mm has FOUR current/modern formats; 4 perf (4 perforations per frame) 3 perf, 2 perf and horizontal 8 perf which is very close to the size of a standard 35mm still camera. This just refers to how big the frame size is. As a side note, with 8 and 16 formats, it's 1 perf per frame.

[connor denning]

Woo :wipes brow: Yee'got a lot to be learn' now don't yee? Which is awesome by the way! :)

 

Some people consider 8mm/super 8 and 16mm "narrow gauge" formats. They are unique because the frame size is very small, so field of view and depth of field are different then say 35mm which has a much larger frame size. Since the vast majority digital cinema cameras have the standard (35mm) frame size, so people are just use to how that frame size works with focal length and depth of field. Experts at working with narrow gauge formats, need to use many tricks to get shallow depth of field including longer focal lengths and keeping the lens wide open. This isn't as necessary on standard (35mm) formats.

 

Also, I assume you will be projecting your film and not transferring it from film to digital, which is very costly, since you're on a tight budget. IN that case, shooting for a "print" vs shooting for digitizing, they're almost two different animals. With printing, you gotta nail everything in camera, it's gotta be perfect because there is very little change you can do during the printing process. With digitizing, you don't have to work quite as hard, you can be a bit more sloppy and fix many issues in post, thanks to films tremendous latitude/dynamic range. In layman's terms, if you want to watch the film on your computer, you gotta pay some bux. Stock and processing can be A LOT LESS then scanning to digital.

 

Ohh... so "perforations" or "perf's" refer to the sprockets down the side of the film. 35mm has FOUR current/modern formats; 4 perf (4 perforations per frame) 3 perf, 2 perf and horizontal 8 perf which is very close to the size of a standard 35mm still camera. This just refers to how big the frame size is. As a side note, with 8 and 16 formats, it's 1 perf per frame.

THats what I thought perf meant thanks.

I will be scanning, likely doing it self. I have a feeling at least for me that making a scanner is going to be the easiest part of the film or one of the easiest. I', actually much more concerned with the camera and lenses.

[connor denning]

Umm how about this one? I think you'd find the majority of people on here have worked with film quite a bit.

 

With that said, working with narrow gauge formats (16 & 8) and projecting the output, is an entirely different philosophy and workflow then say shooting with modern negative, 4 perf super 35mm with a digital intermediate and DCP finish.

 

So for students of film, working ONLY ON NARROW GAUGE FILM, with no digital finishing, there are a lot of other things to learn that digital people wouldn't have a clue about.

 

there are a lot of other things to learn that digital people wouldn't have a clue about.

 

please tell some more of those.

[Bill DiPietra]

I have a feeling at least for me that making a scanner is going to be the easiest part of the film or one of the easiest. I', actually much more concerned with the camera and lenses.

 

You initially stated you about a $600 budget for a camera. It's great that you want to do a lot of DIY, but are you sure you have the resources and money to make a scanner at this time?...

[connor denning]

I belive so

 

 

You initially stated you about a $600 budget for a camera. It's great that you want to do a lot of DIY, but are you sure you have the resources and money to make a scanner at this time?...

 

[connor denning]

What ever I get it need to work for about 1 minute 30 seconds long. And I with or without mods I need to use it on a steady cam. Like I can't hold down a button and do that, but if it has a remote trier like the k-3 ( I'm not sure it works for anything other then single frame) If It's wind up fine, If theres some way to add a mecinisum to wind it up as it goes, that will do.

 

Anyone done sound without sync, was it all that hard?

Edited April 1, 2016 by connor denning

[connor denning]

What ever I get it need to work for about 1 minute 30 seconds long. And I with or without mods I need to use it on a steady cam. Like I can't hold down a button and do that, but if it has a remote trier like the k-3 ( I'm not sure it works for anything other then single frame) If It's wind up fine, If theres some way to add a mecinisum to wind it up as it goes, that will do.

 

Anyone done sound without sync, was it all that hard?

What ever I get it need to work for about 1 minute 30 seconds long. And I with or without mods I need to use it on a steady cam. Like I can't hold down a button and do that, but if it has a remote trier like the k-3 ( I'm not sure it works for anything other then single frame) If It's wind up fine, If theres some way to add a mechanism to wind it up as it goes, that will do. From what I can tell thats how the bolex moter add-ons work on the older (motorized models).

like this

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bolex-H16-M-16mm-Camera-w-Som-Berthiot-17-85mm-f2-C-Mt-zoom-lens-w-dogleg-finder-/182055848228?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368

 

Anyone done sound without sync, was it all that hard?

Edited April 1, 2016 by connor denning

[Brian Drysdale]

It wouldn't want to shoot sync sound without using a sync system, I've done small amounts of syncing by eye and it's a slow process matching up words to lips.

 

Sync dialogue is different to adding sound to mute film, which involves adding effects etc and building up a soundscape. Although it can involve a lot of work recording each sound, this is a more satisfying job than matching words to lips.

[Bill DiPietra]

It sounds like this is going to be a project-based purchase. Maybe if you give us some information on the project, we can advise you better on what camera to consider....

[Anthony Schilling]

Whatever camera you find at whatever price, double that if you want a lens. 16mm camera bodies are historically cheap but lenses have gone through the roof.

[Bill DiPietra]

Whatever camera you find at whatever price, double that if you want a lens. 16mm camera bodies are historically cheap but lenses have gone through the roof.

 

With a few exceptions, I also wouldn't purchase any optics sight-unseen.

[Anthony Schilling]

Another round of SRIII's from NFL films were up again this week, for around $3000. Comes with mags, batts, cases, no lens. But if I was in the market, something like that would be worth another $1200 for a lens.

[connor denning]

It sounds like this is going to be a project-based purchase. Maybe if you give us some information on the project, we can advise you better on what camera to consider....

 

Well mostly I need light enough for steady cam, and long takes, at least a minute. It will be a short film I have some projects planed that will require sync sound, but for now I don't think it's needed, I will likely have to re-dub most of the audio even if it was sync (due to location). Image quality Is important.

 

Would something like this be good?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bolex-H16-M-16mm-Camera-w-Som-Berthiot-17-85mm-f2-C-Mt-zoom-lens-w-dogleg-finder-/182055848228?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368

Edited April 1, 2016 by connor denning

[connor denning]

Wail I'm at might as well say on location light, 50/50 between natural and artificial lighting, mostly indoors for both.

[Bill DiPietra]

If you're going to need a sync-sound camera for upcoming projects, you might as well purchase it now. And that will cost closer to $2,000 at the very least. Check ebay - there are a lot of SR's and SR-II's floating around these days.

 

Do you have access to a Steadycam rig or will you be renting it?...

[Tyler Purcell]

please tell some more of those.

Well for digital to really look good is a two step process. The first step is to take each frame of film and take a still image of it using a camera much like a DSLR. These systems are called film scanners. They have a mechanical movement which registers the film perfectly across a gate. It then snaps pictures of each frame and stores them in a compressed or raw format. The next step is to apply color because the raw image won't have any. This process can be done simply but it needs to be done by someone who knows how, it's really an art form. Once done you can then watch your material, edit it and then do final color.

 

With big projects this process is far more expensive then shooting properly and coloring photochemically. Sure there is a lot of trial and error with that which can be costly, but it's still cheaper then scanning and paying for an artist.

[connor denning]

If you're going to need a sync-sound camera for upcoming projects, you might as well purchase it now. And that will cost closer to $2,000 at the very least. Check ebay - there are a lot of SR's and SR-II's floating around these days.

 

Do you have access to a Steadycam rig or will you be renting it?...

nether I'll be making it.

[connor denning]

For those of you who think I need sync. I'd like to know when did sync first become the norm, and what did they do before? I don't think it was re dubbing even half the time, though I could easily be wrong.

[Bill DiPietra]

You should start reading some film history books. This is one of many:

 

Film History

[connor denning]

You should start reading some film history books. This is one of many:

 

Film History

I'd love too, but I'm on a tight enough budget as it is. anything on-line thats free, thats usful?

[Tyler Purcell]

For those of you who think I need sync. I'd like to know when did sync first become the norm, and what did they do before? I don't think it was re dubbing even half the time, though I could easily be wrong.

Initially sync sound used the 60hz AC motors to drive the picture camera and optical sound camera. Al Jolson's 'The Jazz Singer' from 1927 was the first time in a nationally released film. Many people had experimented with sync sound prior, but 'The Jazz Singer' was the first time the audience heard the dialog of the actor as well as singing. Originally it was a single mono track, with a live orchestra. Eventually the orchestra tracks would be played back on set from a recording and actors would lip sync.

 

Remember, back then cameras made quite a racket. So any film recording audio had to put the camera in a box, or a blimp. This was very expensive because it now couldn't be moved around the set without huge cranes and dollies. The solution many people took was to record audio and replace it in post production. This really didn't come about until the advent of magnetic tape however, so almost all of the early sound films up to WWII, were all done with sync sound.

 

After WWII, camera technology hadn't changed much, so people experimented with dubbing or replacing all of the audio instead of blimping the cameras. This led to the technology we now know as looping or ADR (Automated Dialog Replacement). Hollywood used this technology mostly to replace audio in scenes that had bad set audio, but would generally leave everything else alone. Other countries like India, China, Japan, where they didn't have the kind of money to build huge sound stages and keep things quiet, resorted to looping all the dialog. This is why you see so many classic films, with original language, but looked dubbed. One of the most famous examples of this Goldfinger, whose accent was so bad, the filmmakers replaced his voice. You see this work done a lot in foreign films where the filmmakers hire an actor who doesn't have a native accent and/or doesn't speak the language of their film.

 

In the end, here in the states, sync sound has pretty much always been the norm. Sure there will always be occasions when things need to be cleaned up, like big stunt scenes where the audio is worthless, or even added lines with actors off screen. We always try to make the dialog sound excellent and it's very challenging. With the advent of wireless body mic's, better recording systems and quieter cameras, there is really no excuse to get it right on set. It's the best performance and most actors want to move on instead of coming back for looping later. Sure, there is still a lot of looping done, but set sound is still the primary source and has always been for this countries movies.