Browsing Ebay one day when he should have been working on spreadsheets, The Camera Rental Guy discovered late model “Iron Curtain” era Russian motion picture cameras. It looked like Mosfilm was doing a little housecleaning. The nutty belief that a few people in Hollywood would want to rent them to make real movies resulted in www.Indi35.com; a place where Bruce thinks anyone can shoot their movie on 35mm film– the way they really want to without getting sucked into the great maw of digital video.
Blogger DVDs
Daily Blog
September 3, 2008
The world of 35mm film formats… it’s a wonderful thing. So much versatility in a single strip of film! Unlike 16mm or Super8, 35mm motion picture film does not use one perforation per frame. From the beginning, standard 35mm film used 4 perforations per frame. There were a few variations, especially with the exact frame size and the addition of the optical sound track, but 4 perf pull down has been the standard. Unfortunately, the modern version is usually cropped to a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, which wastes a good deal of negative area. That is one reason we have more choices.
Even the invention of anamorphic lenses (Cinemascope) retained the 4 perf pull down. One of the clever qualities of this new presentation format was that the camera original could be contact printed directly for a release print; no expensive optical processes were required in the lab. One of the wonderful properties today is that one can rent a set of anamorphic lenses to hang in front of just about any standard 35mm camera and you’re shooting ‘scope, with all the advantages: native 2.35:1 aspect ratio, maximum use of the available negative area for acuity and lack of grain, and a “big movie” look. Anamorphic lenses are slower (let in less light) and heavier, however.
Super 35 is an interesting variety of the 4 perf pull down, it leaves you with the most choices for release aspect ratios. Super 35 uses the soundtrack area of standard 35mm film for image, making the overall exposed frame bigger. The lens mount must be re-centered and the larger film gate installed. Standard spherical lenses are used. Now you have a large frame from which all aspect ratios can be extracted. Standard TV? Use the whole frame (1.33:1). Wide screen 1.85:1? HiDef 16×9? 2.35:1 ‘scope? No problem, they can all be extracted from the original frame. One downside is that when the 2.35:1 ‘scope frame is extracted it is so small that it is not significantly larger than 2 perf pull down movements that use only half the film. And any release prints from Super 35 are going to require optical or Digital Internegatives which are very expensive.
3 perf pulldown was developed for shooting 35mm film for television. Since the movement pulls down only 75% of the film a 4 perf movement would, there is an instant 25% savings in film stock and processing. Film runs 33% longer. Since it will never be projected, cost concerns about making 4 perf release prints don’t exist. 16×9, the HD aspect ratio, is native.
2 perf pull down is a personal favorite of mine. It pulls only 2 perfs, or ½ the amount of film of 4 perf, per frame. Its native aspect ratio is 2.35:1, just like ‘scope. It was developed in the 1960’s by Technicolor in Italy, they named it Techniscope. With out going into a lot of detail, Technicolor Italy saved the studios money on film stock and made it up in their lab. In those days an expensive optical blowup and squeeze was required to get a 4 perf anamorphic release print. It looked great! Take a look at the old spaghetti westerns by Sergio Leone, he shot 2 perf, and it looks great to me even today.
The advantages of 2 perf are many. It uses exactly ½ the film, so film and processing costs are reduced instantly by 50%. Magazine run times are doubled, a 1000’ roll of film lasts 22 minutes! Telecine used to be a problem, but many shops are doing it now. If you need to make a work print during production, you can run it though a standard 4 perf projector. You’ll see two images at once (one on top of the other), but you can see what’s happening on the big screen. In contrast, 3 perf projection is very hard to find. Standard, fast spherical lenses are used too, keeping lighting costs down. Even if you crop the image down to 1.85:1 widescreen, you still get about 50% more image area on the film than Super16. If you’re keeping production costs super low, 35mm short ends are available for pennies per foot, and even a 200’ short end runs for 4 minutes, the same as a 400’ load in a 4 perf camera. If the project is not going to be released with film prints, there aren’t any additional costs, just like 3 perf. If you do go to a 4 perf release print, there are significant costs for the Digital Internegative required to get you to a 35mm anamorphic release print. But the distributor will pay for that when you sell your masterpiece, right? That’s the dream, of course.
Happy shooting!
Bruce Taylor
August 13, 2008
Kind of shaky this morning! Today in L.A. we had a moderate earthquake, just enough to get everyone’s blood moving a little faster. Coincidentally, I was involved in a discussion concerning an image “shake” problem. The first assumption was that there may be a registration problem with the film camera. Film cameras have an intermittent movement. While the shutter is closed the film is moved into place by a claw and held still while the shutter opens. After the shutter closes again, the claw disengages, retracts and moves to pull down the next frame. The movement does this 24 times a second for normal motion. This requires an extremely precise and durable movement to accomplish this for thousands of feet of film—each frame exactly where the previous one had been exposed. Registration is the exact, repeatable placement of each frame. Poor registration results in a projected image that is not steady.
In this particular case, the shots in question took place at a windy beach. Was the camera going to need an expensive repair? Was the telecine machine to blame? Or was everything fine, and the camera that was moving? In this case the problem was camera stability. The buffeting wind was creating very small camera movements that even the operator wasn’t aware of. The entire camera assembly was shaking and the camera was faithfully recording the movement. The tripod and head he was using were inadequate to provide a dead still platform for the camera. It’s always better to use support that looks like overkill than risk camera shake that will ruin your shot. If bigger support isn’t an option, the weight of sandbags or water jugs (which you can transport empty) tied to the tripod can provide the weight needed to keep things steady.
In other unfortunate cases an unsteady image may be caused by the lack of experience of the camera operator/loader. An improperly threaded movement or magazine can cause lots of problems. Debris from a film jam can go on to cause registration problems or scratches if everything isn’t properly cleaned up. Don’t let this happen to you! If you’re renting your gear, ask the rental house to go over every detail of mag loading, threading and camera operation. They should be happy to help and watch you do it yourself a few times. Get a dummy roll and practice on your own. If you’re using unfamiliar gear, don’t shortcut these steps. When everything runs smoothly…at least in the camera department!.. you’ll be glad you did.
Bruce
August 13, 2008
I read a lot of posts these days with a lot of confusion concerning film formats. In a short blog I can’t get into the smaller details, but I can provide a general outline that will at least get you started. Many young filmmakers coming up have not actually worked with physical film, and now they want to go out and shoot some– but what film should they shoot? Super 8? 16mm? Super 16? 35mm: 2 perf, 3 perf, 4 perf, 4 perf anamorphic? Super 35? 8 perf 35mm VistaVision? It’s a jungle out there! More so now than in years past, because the digital revolution has changed the way we think about film.
In the old days, the film image acquisition format had a lot to do with the final, deliverable print. Formats smaller than 35mm would take a lot of money to get blown up to a 35mm print for a movie theater. Regular 16mm was the way to go for educational, industrial or student films. Super 8 was the home movie format. That has all changed. Since nearly all film footage is now transferred to a digital format for editing and/or release, the old rules that got you to a final film print no longer apply.
Super 8 is now routinely used as a professional format. It has its limitations in resolving power and grain, but what a great way to get a vintage home movie look, or as an inexpensive way to get a feel for what film is like. Kodak and others provide amateur and professional films packed in 50’ cartridges for anyone to try. And though my beloved Kodachrome 40 is no more, the new Ektachrome comes pretty close. Best of all, you can still project (wow!) the reversal film as soon as you get it back from the lab and enjoy the rich and subtle colors.
!6mm has come a long way. Originally designed as the “amateur” format (the Super 8 of the 1920’s and 30’s), it quickly became the format of choice for motion pictures that were not destined for the movie theater. I have to admit that as a member of my junior high A/V Crew, I was the kid sitting in the back of the darkened room threading the old Bell & Howell projector. The invention of relatively small, silent 16mm cameras made 16mm the choice for documentary filmmaking in the 1960’s. With continual improvements in film stocks, 16mm was sometimes used to shoot dramatic theatrical films that were optically “blown up” for 35mm release in theaters—a very expensive process. Sven Nykvist, the Swedish cinematographer, championed the development and acceptance of Super 16, a format that used the additional film area reserved for the optical soundtrack for picture instead. This development made 16mm a viable alternative to the theatrical standard 35mm, especially with the continued improvement in film stock. Even today, Super 16 holds its own in the world of HiDef digital video.
The wide dynamic range and resolving power of film still make it a great way to capture images, no matter what the final deliverable will be. The wonderful qualities of digital video are not to be denied, but one of film’s disadvantages really works for me. That is the high cost of shooting film. It seems counterintuitive, but the fact that I have to think really hard about my frame, focus, exposure, camera moves, etc., before I pull the trigger makes me a better image maker.
Next week I’ll delve into the confusing world of 35mm film formats; it really gets wacky.
Bruce
August 5, 2008
This week a batch of my lenses went off to Paul Duclos of Duclos Lenses for service. Some of them need general service, a dropped one needs to be sorted out, and the gigantic Ekran 25- 500mm zoom needs a restoration. Regular maintenance service is such a big part of maintaining precision machinery to assure long, trouble free life. So many machines these days require no service, they are used until they break and then thrown away. Even machines as maintenance intensive as cars need a fraction of the service they did 25 years ago. But even now, a timely squirt of the right kind of oil or the occasional cleaning can add years of life to most tools.
Many years ago in high school I had a wonderful machine shop teacher that I think about even today. Johannes Thompson was old school German and a master at his craft. He was quick to point out the flaws in our work. Some of the kids never got past the first project—they just filed and filed but couldn’t get the 45 degree chamfer correct on the tie rod end we were all required to make. Mr. Thompson’s pet project was two steel plates that he hoped to make so flat and square that air pressure alone would keep them stuck together if you pressed one to the other. Particularly memorable for me were the three metalworking lathes Mr. Thompson had saved from a factory that was being torn down. They were from the 1880’s, when a single shaft ran across the factory ceiling to power all the machines with long leather drive belts. He fit each salvaged lathe with its own electric motor and a short leather belt, and two or three more generations learned how to operate them.
What always stuck with me, more than the clever modifications that made the tools useful again, was the fact that they were maintained and repaired regularly. It was the regular oiling, cleaning and adjustment that got at least a hundred useful years of use out of these precise machines. Many of the imaging tools we use now are not that different. Care and regular maintenance will keep our tools accurate and reliable for years. It might be time to take a look at your ditty bag and see what needs to be cleaned, oiled and adjusted. Precision tools, well taken are of, will last for many years and give excellent service.
Bruce
July 23, 2008
I have to admit, I have more of a “tech geek” in me than I like at times. This whole thing got started when I bought a Russian 35mm camera from a guy in NY that couldn’t get it to work for a music video he was trying to shoot. I already had some 16mm gear and I thought, “for $500 I can shoot 35mm film? —go for it!” I still don’t have it running. It did, however, lead me down a dim path to the Soviet film gear from the ‘80s. So between my tech geek side and curiosity about the former Soviet Empire, the project lurched forward. Eventually it was clear that the only way I was going to get everything I wanted was to turn it into a business, and Indi35 was born.
It seems like a simple idea. Buy the gear, send the pieces around the world to get the modifications done and voila! a business is running and we’re making money! Not so simple, of course. The actual project has taken about two years, and a bigger investment than I originally anticipated (duh!), but Indi35 is now open for business. The objective is to make 35mm film production more affordable than ever before, and with some planning it is simply amazing how inexpensively it can be done. I recently loaned my 2 perf (Techniscope) Kinor to a fellow 2 perf owner and DoP whose rig fried its electronics. He was shooting a 60 minute featurette with a director friend of his. The cost of film, processing and HiDef telecine (5:1 shooting ratio) came to $7000. No I didn’t mistype- $7k. You couldn’t shoot Super 8 for that kind of money. I believe the entire budget for the film was under 20k, it’s the sort of thing anyone can do with a belief in a project, a lot of drive and a couple of credit cards.
I have read so much lately about how film is dead, RED is the uber digital acquisition tool, HiDef video cameras make images as good as film, etc., etc. No doubt there is great new digital gear these days that can make wonderful images. But any way you slice it, 35mm film is the standard to which all of these new formats are compared. So why not use the real thing if it’s right for the project?
The mantra is this: plan your epic in 35mm (in anamorphic ‘scope [2.35:1], Techniscope 2 perf [2.35:1], or flat [1.33:1- 1.85:1], buy short ends (I’ll tell you where), process and telecine where the deals are (again, I’ll tell you where), and…rent my gear! Or someone else’s. The point is, you can do it. Make your film.
