A 16mm question.

[rhcvatni]

I'm thinking about taking the leap from super8 to 16mm. Does anyone know of a good and informative site for 16mm, like this site is for 8mm. Also does anyone have any suggestions on what camera I should get. I've been looking at the beaulieu R16 for a while. Any comments on this camera? Finally, where do I buy film, get it prosessed and transferred. Keep in mind, I'm not exactly wealthy.

Thanks

[also super 8 - 16mm guy]

Would anyone know of a 16mm forum too?
Thanks
Jeffery

[wahiba]

I suspect that amny of the member of this forum are amateurs who will try anything - well I do.

Anyhow there seem to be an awful lot of Bell & Howell 16mm cameras, many brand new ex-US miltary on eBay. One was offered with a super 16 conversion, essential for TV now using 16:9 wide screen.

Canon Scoopics are supposed to be pretty good, but again bear in mind the super16 bit.

As for film. Well Ilford make black and white, Kodak all sorts including Kodachrome, Fuji are still in the game and there are some Eastern Europaen factories. 16mm film is readily available - at a price!!

I think, is it Pro8 off deals with 16mm that they do with super8 using fuji film and telecine included.

Hope this is a start. Hopefully those more expert than I will fill in the details.

[Scot McPhie]

Here's a site about R16's (it's my site and there's not much on there though!) BUT there is a link to the forum on R16's though

http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/r16/r16.htm

Scot

[Yemi]

On the subject of budget 16mm I'm gonna put my vote in for the K3. When this camera is serviced/tuned, it is capable of awesome results. Mirror shutter, rock solid registration, rugged build....takes Pentax M42 lenses and a Nikon mount upgrade is available. I'm fortunate enough to have a super16 version!

I've heard good things about the Bell & Howell Filmo but reflex viewing is essential for me. The Beaulieu R16 specs sound great it's not clear if a super16 upgrade is available.

-----
Yemi

[Konton]

My vote is the Eclair NPR. I had a Beaulieu R16 and it's LOUD. Not sure how loud it is compared to a Bolex but I'm sure it's the same. The Bolex can easily converted to Super16, but a Beaulieu cannot.
I managed to get an Ecalir NPR Super16 for under $2500 on Ebay. It can be converted back to regular 16mm using a second mount I have, runs crystal sync , and came with three quick-change 400' magazines. If it's too big and heavy you may want to consider a Eclair ACL 2.0, but it's may cost you much more.

[vidwerk]

Thanks to all who helped me with my questions in the follow forum topic:

http://8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts/for ... b971cdf58c

I ended up buying a Canon Scoopic 16M aswell. It looks to be in great condition; however, it has not arrived yet. I'll let you know when it arrives.

Simon :idea:

[rhcvatni]

thanks for the input guys. I'm having a hard time deciding what camera I should get though. The k-3 is cheap, I'll give it that, but it's a wind up and I don't know if that's what I want. Maybe I'll get one just for starters. Anyway, Thanks again.

[kjellpell]

Well, you've already answered the most important aspect of using 16mm yourself with your statement: "I'm not exactly wealthy". If you are not "wealthy", meaning if you don't have lots of money to spend for your 16mm film-making, stay out of it. Use S8mm and Kodachrome, then at least you might be able to make some worthwile films. Transferring your S8mm to digital video on a Rank machine makes it look as good as any other format on video. Transfering S8mm or 16mm any other way, also make them look the same, more or less, on video. A good S8mm (and it takes lots of practice and knowledge to make a good quality S8mm as it takes 16mm, it's only cheaper) can look better on video, than an average 16mm. I have been transfering films to video for 20 years, started in 1982, and if the film is not good with respect to color-balance, contrast etc. to start with, no correction in the world will make it look the best on video - regardless on what format it was shot on. (With the exeption of a Rank-transfer that can make ALMOST wonders.)

[Guest]

Transferring your S8mm to digital video on a Rank machine makes it look as good as any other format on video.

This is categorically not true. 16mm enjoys several substantial advantages over S8 when transferred to video.

1. Much less grain. Stock-for-stock, 16mm has about 1/4 the grain of Super8
2. Registration. 16mm is typically much more stable than Super8 (with its plastic pressure plate and tiny frame size). And you don't need a pin-registered camera to see it. Any reflex Bolex will produce a much more stable image than the best S8 camera.
3. Dust/hairs/blotches are *much* less noticeable on 16mm. Because S8 needs to be blown up so large in order to fill the frame, any dust or specks or hairs or chemical blotches on the film will be similarly magnified. On 16mm, the image undergoes just 1/4 the magnification of Super8, so any dust or other glitches on the film will be much smaller and less noticeable.

There are many other factors that make 16mm look very different from S8 on video, such as depth of field, wider availability of film stocks, etc.

This is not an anti-S8 rant, S8 is great for what it is, but the uninitiated could take your statement to mean that S8 transferred to video can look as good as 35mm ("any other format") transferred to video -- and that's just plain not true.

Yes, your point about well-shot S8 looking better than lousy-shot 16 has truth to it, but that's not the point under discussion. The point under discussion is that 16mm is a dramatically superior imaging system, under all circumstances, than S8 is, and 35mm is dramatically superior to them both, and the differences (when transferred to video) are easily discernable. It's harder to tell 35mm from 16mm, but very easy to tell 16mm from S8mm. You CAN get a pretty good-looking Rank from S8 to video (provided you use K40 only). You can get a much-better-looking Rank from 16, S16, or 35mm, hands down.

[rhcvatni]

I might have chosen my words more carefylly. What I mean by "not exactly wealthy" is that I won't spend $50,000 on a camera, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would think so. What I might be willing to spend though, is something like 2-2500 USD. http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de has a refurbished(I think, don't know much german)Beaulieu r16 for 1700 EUR wich basically is the same as USD right now. But I have no idea if it's worth it. I want a camera with an interchangable lens mount, motor (not wind up), crystal synch 24/25 fps, hopefully single frame, built-in light meter and manual exposure And it doesn't have to make too much noise either. if it has a built-in intervalometer and a time exposure fuction as well I would be in heaven.

[Guest]

I might have chosen my words more carefylly. What I mean by "not exactly wealthy" is that I won't spend $50,000 on a camera, and it's highly unlikely that anyone would think so. What I might be willing to spend though, is something like 2-2500 USD. http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de has a refurbished(I think, don't know much german)Beaulieu r16 for 1700 EUR wich basically is the same as USD right now. But I have no idea if it's worth it. I want a camera with an interchangable lens mount, motor (not wind up), crystal synch 24/25 fps, hopefully single frame, built-in light meter and manual exposure And it doesn't have to make too much noise either. if it has a built-in intervalometer and a time exposure fuction as well I would be in heaven.

Do not pay anything like that for an R16. R16's should be $600-$800, and they're not crystal-sync.
It sounds like what you want is either a CP16/R (quiet, crystal, can be had with a light meter) at somewhere around $1500... or an Eclair ACL II, which can be had for $2000-$2500. Built-in intervalometer is very difficult to find, and single-frame in the same package as crystal-sync is difficult to find as well. Perhaps what you would want is to get a CP16/R and combine it with a Beaulieu R16 with an intervalometer from http://www.intervalometers.com. The R16 would do just about everything on your list except crystal and quiet, especially if you add the intervalometer. Then the CP would be crystal and silent. The combination of both cameras and the intervalometer could all be had for your proposed $2500.

[kjellpell]

Just a few comments on the remarks posted by "guest" on August 19th. regarding my statements on 16/S8mm transferred to video.
First let me say that I fully agree that 16mm has a higher quality then S8mm, and 35mm better than 16mm - but this will only be CLEARLY visible in big screen projection. Now we are talking about transferring to video and watching the results on a 14-29 inch television, a TV which in most homes are badly adjusted, and the films are watched under a lot less than perfect conditions, with reflexes on the screen, lots of noise from the surroundings etc. Under these conditions next to nobody will notice any diffence whether from S8mm or 16mm.
Under more controlled viewing-situations, with a good TV. properly adjusted etc. (but still with a resolution of around 300-400 lines, which is a VERY GOOD TV anyway) the difference will still be hard to notice.
Yes, I know that 16mm has a much higher resolution than S8mm, but when the TV on which you watch the films has a resolution LESS THAN HALF of S8mm, this doesn't matter much anyway. The TV-screen only gives you the approx. 300 lines resolution.
Then, better registration on 16mm. Yes, it is. And it is the same on every exposure, while on Super 8mm the friction of the different cassettes will also vary. I have however, shot most of my films on a FUJICA ZC1000, Single 8mm with a metal pressure-plate, and the registration is "steady as a rock". Also on my Beaulieu-cameras, which I am using now, this is NOT a problem. On the small TV-screen they are rock-steady.
So the dust-problem - which is not a problem. Prior to transfer, the films are of course cleaned. After this process there is not a trace of dust left.
Well, 16mm might look different, but is different the same as BETTER???
And finally; 16mm has wider availabilety??? If you mean that it is available in more places, maybe, but it doesn't really matter. You just buy enough raw-material for each project. If you mean a wider choice of emulsions, this is no problem either. Super 8 Sound can supply whatever you need.
The "bad reputation" of S8mm has nothing to do with the format. In the hands of competent people, Super 8m is great. Since S8mm mostly has been used by people for family-filming, with no efforts other than point and shoot, the results in most cases have looked awfull - giving S8mm a reputation the system does not deserve.
So I still stand by my statement: It is VERY difficult to see the difference between S8mm and 16mm, transferred to video on a Rank, with all the adjustments available, and viewed on an ordinary TV-set. And I dare to say; it is, to most people, impossible with a film shot on slow, negative S8mm stock.
With S8mm/16mm projected onto a big screen, to the same size, you can see a difference, but on a smal 25 inch TV-set; NO. (If using a S8mm original and a 16mm print when projecting onto a big screen, I don't think there will be much difference as the resolution of the 16mm print from a 16mm original will have only half the resolution of the original.)

[mattias]

Since S8mm mostly has been used by people for family-filming, with no efforts other than point and shoot, the results in most cases have looked awfull

beg to differ. i see your point, but imho most home moview shot on super-8 look great, especially compared to home videos... :-)

So I still stand by my statement: It is VERY difficult to see the difference between S8mm and 16mm, transferred to video on a Rank, with all the adjustments available, and viewed on an ordinary TV-set.

beg to differ again. i can often even see the difference between 16 and 35 mm when transferred to video. sure, it gets harder the slower the stock, but the better the source the better the copy, always, no matter what limitations the copy has in resolution or whatever...

/matt

[kjellpell]

Oh yes, compared to video most S8mm shots look great. A reversal S8mm can look OK when projected onto a screen, even with hard contrast, bluish cast, and other small off-balance "colorfaults". But transfering this material to video on ANY optical chain, makes it look awfull. Compared to this most digital video-recordings look better. To make a film look good on video, transfered with an optical chain, it MUST be VERY GOOD to start with. Low contrast, perfect color-balance, and focused properly (pin-sharp) are basic requirements for a good transfer.
The ordinary "man on the street" who used to film his family with S8mm, had in no way the knowledge to accomplish that.

Yes, there will be a few, very keen persons, who can spot the originating format, at least some times. But are these the people you make your films for???? Usually they will be more interrested in the "how, and on what format" than in the film and it's message. Put 100 persons in front of a TV, show the same piece of film shot on both S8mm and 16mm, transfered on a Rank Cintel with all the adjustment-wizardry, and I bet 99 out of the 100 can't tell the difference.
What you can meassure and what you can see are two very different matters.