Flashback Recommendations …

PLUS ...

Flashback -- 16mm Hand Crank

Hello all,

I'm shooting a S16mm feature for DI mostly on 7217 and 7218. We have a bunch of flashback sequences that are not factual but the product of the main character's fevered imagination. We considered a bleach bypass (or some such silver retention process) but cannot afford it.

We considered swing and tilt lenses but cannot afford them. We tried to get some grain going by pushing Fuji F400 2 stops; we also tried underexposing Vision2 2 stops (rating 17 at 800) but we couldn't get enough grain going with either emulsion to feel really different than the normal stuff and the colourist was not able, even with lots of contrast, to create a distinct look.

These flashbacks are shot as night interiors, so we can shoot nothing that requires too much light, so shooting Hi Con B&W positive not an option, loading the film backwards is not an option, Kodachrome is not an option, and finally Vision1 is not an option as it is no longer available in 16mm and the only EXR stock available in 16mm is 45 which is not option as we can't light to stop like that. Shooting standard 16mm or Super8 are options, though not great ones as they would mean (for us) shooting without a video tap.

Any other thoughts welcome. Please bear in mind our very tight budget.

Much obliged,

Byron Shah
DP Los Angeles

Hi Byron,

How about step printing stuff. You could shoot at 6fps and maybe get away with shooting reversal. Have a look at the stuff in "JFK" and "Chungking Express".

Ruairi O'Brien,
Cameraman,
Ireland.

Byron Shah writes :

>>These flashbacks are shot as night interiors, so we can shoot >>nothing that requires too much light,

I've always liked low frame rates for flashbacks, like 6fps or so, which solves the low-light problem for just about any stock, and makes it cheap to shoot. For psycho dreams I've successfully shot print stock as negative before, which is really cheap, but you need f.2 in daylight at 24fps with an 85. The colours and contrast are _REALLY_ whacked and it's super sharp, a really interesting result. 2383 would be tough to shoot - no RemJet and Estar base only - maybe some EXR still available. I used to be able to get lo-con print stock 35mm BH perf in 1000' cans - is that totally gone? For the ultimate in quick and easy, consider using tape - a Z1U at 1/15 second or longer, and whack it good in the DI (grain, contrast, RGB registration, etc) or give it to a VFX artist to play with. Another idea - hand cranking.

Tim Sassoon
SFD vfx & creative post
Santa Monica, CA

Byron Shah wrote :

>Shooting standard 16mm or Super8 are options, though not great >>ones as they would mean (for us) shooting without a video tap.

Hi Byron,

Have you considered getting a Super16 ground glass made up with a Super8 sized frame marked up in the centre. Bang off a quick frame leader and then in TK/scanning you can zoom in and transfer only the Super 8 sized frame in the middle of your neg (with the added advantage of being able to compose for your 'correct' aspect ratio - presumably 1:1.85 - from the get go). The only downside would be finding lenses to be able to shoot wide angle - though you're no longer tied to a set that properly covers Super16, since you're not trying to cover that format.

Just the other day I was in a TK transferring Super16mm footage and a small amount of 'B' roll shot in standard 16 by the director on their Bolex. I was genuinely surprised, considering that both cameras had occasionally rolled on the same subject, with the same lighting, stop & stock, how much more appreciably grainy the Standard 16 was.

You could do a quick test by shooting a subject framed on the long end of a zoom lens then several times more, each time zooming out to a slightly wider focal length. As long as there was a marker placed on the edge of frame at each size you could then perform the opposite zoom in TK - each time cropping into the neg to find the original composition. This would give some indication as to how small your new 'Super 8 style' frameline would need to really be on the ground glass to provide the optimum increase in grain.

Et Voila! No change needed to your shooting stock or camera body and the ability to use a video tap. The only downside being the need to get a custom ground glass made up (though that doesn't necessarily need to be a 'sophisticated' mod) and the possible addition to your lens selection of a 5.7mm or something similarly 'super wide'.

Tom Townend,
Cinematographer/London.

Hire a new colourist. Honestly, if you can't get a distinct look there's a problem. I've seen amazingly different "takes" on looks from the exact same footage. Send a couple of stills to some different colourists and see what they can deliver. (Or send them to me and I'll broker the whole process.)

You don't even have to drop your current colourist for the body of the film.

Just find somebody new for the flashbacks. (Though if your colourist can't do the flashbacks, you'll probably be happier with someone else for the whole film.

Steve Hullfish
Verascope Picture
Co-author of "Colour Correction for Digital Video"

>>"Shooting standard 16mm or Super8 are options, though not great >>ones as they would mean (for us) shooting without a video tap."

Byron,

One option to give a super 8 grain, but with a video tap is to mark up a ground glass of your super 16 camera with a super 8 sized format, shoot a frame leader and mask the video monitors too for this format and shoot within those markings. Then TK zoomed in for the frame leader and you get a super 8 sized grain, though steadiness is improved. An option around this is to use a handcranked Super 16 camera with the above method.

Advantages are you use your main camera and lenses and video playback, so no extra costs other than marking the GG. Disadvantage is the knowledge of how much neg is being wasted...makes one shiver!!

Good luck.

Simon Richards D.O.P.
United Kingdom/ EU

>Any other thoughts welcome. Please bear in mind our very tight >budget.

All good suggestions here. Frame rate and heavy diffusion are some of my favourite flashback tools. Since you keep saying "limited budget" I would check your post route and create your look there. I'm all for creating the look in-camera however if you do it in post you have an out when folks change their minds.

As always if budget allows shoot some tests.

Joseph T McDonnell III
Cinematography/High Definition
IATSE 600
New Orleans, La
Los Angeles, Ca
818-675-1501

Hey Byron,

Here are a few "go-to" flashback looks that I liked using on "CSI".

Flick the on/off switch to give yourself flashframes and strange motion jumps in the middle of action. The effect works better if you can get your hands on a speed control unit and actually dial the frame rates up and down so that the "flash frames" are more pronounced. We would often combine the on/offs with a step-printed 12-for-12, or 6-for-6 fps look.

Another fun look was when we took two split diopters (a+1, and a +2 I recall) and mounted them on a filter tray so that there was a small open gap between them. This allowed for a clear center image with strange optical distortion on the top and bottom of frame. Also the light played really interesting games when it refracted off the edges of the diopters. It worked best on a longer lens, so that the filter edges were more blurred.

If you can place a lot of highlights in your frame, the "streak" filters can give you an interesting look, especially if you combine it with off-speeds.

I know you said Kodachrome is out, should I then assume cross processing reversal is out for you as well? If not, there is another suggestion.

Good luck

Nathan Hope
DP LA

Nathan

Awesome suggestions

What do the streak filters look like?

How did you get your grain?

Did you shoot 85?

Thanks man

Byron Shah
DP Los Angeles

Byron,

Why not just shoot wide and blow up an 8mm size portion of the frame in telecine. Use your video tap to mask your (approximate) frame.

I've done this quite often, sometimes with severe (up to 3 stops) underexposure, to get a quick and easy nasty look.

You could use underexposed reversal as well.

Paul Hicks

Byron Shah wrote:

> We considered swing and tilt lenses but cannot afford them.

Greetings Byron,

Besides the low frame rate, there is a cheap alternative to swing and tilt lenses which you might want to have a look at.

The "Zoerk" and recently discovered the "Lensbabies". Worked with them on several low budget commercials and videoclips and it occasionally did the trick very convincingly. Cheap solutions.

My two eurocents,

Regards,

Emmanuel, Munich

Assistant Caméra - Camera Assistant - Kamera Assistent
BVK- European based
Mobil# Munich +491608036889 - London +447910034443

(please use German number)
CML-Listmum

>and the colourist was not able, even with lots of contrast, to create a >distinct look.

I am surprised at this. Your colourist should be able to create a very distinctive look in TK. We have done several wildly different looks from the same shot. Hi con, B&W, lo con Martian landscape looking, oversaturated etc. It's all there. If you want to give some of our colourists a try, we'd be happy to give it a go. You wouldn't have to totally chance your post facility, just for the flashbacks, perhaps.

Good luck. You can also try some heavy rag in the telecine gate, gives a distinctive very wacky look for just pennies.

Sincerely,

Ed Colman, President
SuperDailies, Inc.
Cinematographer Supervised Video Dailies
www.superdailies.com

What are you referring to when you say "heavy rag"?

best,

Kevin Sarnoff
DP

Kevin Sarnoff wrote:

> What are you referring to when you say "heavy rag"?

That would be some kind of stocking, net, or even tights stretched and slid into the telecine gate. We have stretched various textiles and taped them to the sides of the gate to maintain the stretch.

Depending on which colour and thickness of net, you can get a variety of effects. Add to that manipulation of colour, contrast, focus, etc and the possibilities are limited only by the skill and daring of the colourist.

Sincerely,

Ed Colman, President
SuperDailies, Inc.
Cinematographer Supervised Video Dailies
www.superdailies.com

> What are you referring to when you say "heavy rag"?

We used the lab bag that the film turned up in, once. Bled the highlights into the midst and gave a very interesting random optical distortion that worked very nicely....this was on a rank 3.

Nick Paton
Director of Photography
High Def./Standard Def./Film
Aaton Xtr Prod owner operator
Brisbane, Australia
www.npdop.com

> We used the lab bag that the film turned up in, once. Bled the >highlights into the midst and gave a very interesting random optical >distortion that worked very nicely....this was on a rank 3.

You go, Nick. Never mind those sissy stockings. Our best was a piece of white tights material. Very dense, it made some painterly images.

Lot of bleed and we pushed the chroma through the top. This was on an Ursa. I don't have much experience with the Spirit and nets. We have access to a Diamond that works just fine as well.

Sincerely,

Ed Colman, President
SuperDailies, Inc.
Cinematographer Supervised Video Dailies

Ed Colman wrote :

>That would be some kind of stocking, net, or even tights stretched and >slid into the telecine gate.

Ok...this reminds me of something that a colourist told me a couple of years ago which sounded pretty cool. We were idly chatting about putting diffusion into the spirit gate (standard stuff like ProMist) and he mentioned that he'd once used a can of 'dust-off' to produce an interesting effect. The method I was familiar with is simply using the jet of air to 'flutter' the neg as it passes through the gate to ripple the image in and out of focus but what he'd done is turn the can upside down so that all propellant(?) residue came out of the nozzle and froze onto the neg.

He did this just at the point where the neg was going into the gate so that the ice crystal appeared in frame before being instantly melted off by the heat of the scanner lamp. He had to wear a glove because the tip of his finger kept freezing up.

It apparently looks amazing though.

I should point out that I'm well aware that the propellant in canned air is highly flammable and it's entirely up to the colourist as to whether they feel confidant about spraying it so close to a source of
heat. Of course one could always get a runner to do it.

Tom Townend,
Cinematographer/London.

Another great gate effect, although very risky to the neg (make sure it's transferred and you'll never want to transfer it again) is to lift the neg edge gently as it goes through the gate so it goes in and out of focus and distorts and shifts around in the frame. A very analogue and funky look.

Most of the time the neg survives.

My favourite in-gate filter is a Soft Effects with the little dimples in the glass. It flares the bright parts of the neg ( the shadows ) only and so gives that nice shadow bleed to the picture without over affecting the rest of the tonal range.

Paul Hicks

Flashback --16mm Hand Crank

An option around this is to use a handcranked Super 16 camera with the above method.

What 16mm (could be standard or super) cameras -- other than a Bolex -- can be handcranked?

Is it possible to mistime or pull the shutter out of a 16mm or super16mm camera?

How risky is it to change the ground glass in the field (on, for example, an Aaton X Prod) assuming you don't have a lens collimator with you?

Thanks in advance

Byron Shah
DP Los Angeles

>how risky is it to change the ground glass in the field (on, for example, >an Aaton X Prod) assuming you don't have a lens collimator with you?

Not risky at all, its a click out, click in operation. No collimator required. 5 seconds...that is why there is a tool in the handle.

Nick Paton
Director of Photography
High Def./Standard Def./Film
Aaton Xtr Prod owner operator
Brisbane, Australia
www.npdop.com

>...what 16mm (could be standard or super) cameras -- other than a >Bolex -- can be handcranked?...

Good question.

I don't think you can call Bolex *hand cranked*. The hand-crank on a Bolex is for winding the spring tight - IOW, the movement is driven by the spring tension NOT a direct drive relationship between handle and movement.

David Perrault, CSC

> ... what 16mm (could be standard or super) cameras -- other than a >Bolex -- can be handcranked? ...

The Filmo comes immediately to mind...

Tim Sassoon
SFD vfx & creative post
Santa Monica, CA

The old Kodak Super Cine-16 has a hand crank option. It is a pretty cool camera for its time. It will take 100 or 200 foot spools, has a two lens turret, single frame option, and nifty brass masks that you can insert into a slot in the top of the body to do split screen, vignetting and other effects in camera. It has a crank that can both rewind for those effects or crank forward. I think it is only available in standard. In fact, I have one sitting in my closet right now. It is about the size of a small shoebox and built like a tank.

They are available on eBay for a couple of hundred dollars. Good Luck.

Sincerely,

Ed Colman, President
SuperDailies, Inc.
Cinematographer Supervised Video Dailies

>how risky is it to change the ground glass in the field (on, for example, >an Aaton X Prod) assuming you don't have a lens collimator with you?

>Not risky at all, its a click out, click in operation. No collimator required. >5 seconds...that is why there is a tool in the handle.

Nick

While I would generally agree with you, Abel CineTech always asked that I sent in my XTR Prod's every time I ordered new ground glasses. Just to confirm the new ground glass was aligned and collimated with my others.

It is my understanding that Aatons ground glasses 'could' vary. I certainly saw frameline/gate alignment issues between them. I never saw focus collimation issues though.

I always made it a habit to note my diopter setting before changing out a ground glass in the field. If it changed when I put in the new glass that was a big red flag. I would also look through the port, roll camera with Aatonglow on and observe the 50/50 alignment of the framelines with the gate. Two simply and speedy in the field checks.

Best
John Chater
San Francisco

>>Two simply and speedy in the field checks.

Never had an issue on my xtr prod - 1.78/tv and 1.85 GG's ...as far as position I always shoot a frame chart and have never seen mine drift for focus. Good checks, though. Never can be too careful.

Nick Paton
Director of Photography
High Def./Standard Def./Film
Aaton Xtr Prod owner operator
Brisbane, Australia

>...what 16mm (could be standard or super) cameras -- other than a >Bolex --can be handcranked?...

>The Filmo comes immediately to mind...

We are not talking about winding up a spring that then powers the camera, we are referring to actual handcranking and varying the speed during that hand-cranking, the way movies started 100+ years ago.

The only 16mm camera that I can think of is the Éclair CM3 (aka Camarette), which shoots both 16mm and 35mm film (by changing the gate and the magazines).

I owned one briefly, and I had, in addition to several electric motors, a simple gear box and hand crank that fit on to the main drive gear when the motor was removed.

I never actually used the handcrank on a shoot, but I carried it with me as an emergency back-up if all motors and/or batteries failed.

I did try it out, and it did advance film and move the shutter.

The gear box had three settings, as I recall, 8 frames per revolution of the handle, 16 frames per revolution, and 1 frame per revolution (presumably for stop motion).

Good luck finding one, however. I sold mine years ago, and haven't seen one since.

Doug Hart
1AC, NYC

> We are not talking about winding up a spring that then powers the >camera, we are referring to actual handcranking and varying the speed >during that hand-cranking, the way movies started 100+ years ago.

Well, I can think of a few more -- limiting it to cameras designed for handcrank, not adapted for it (like, say, an Arri 16s with home- made crank).

Starting with the Kodak Model A, the first 16mm camera, which was handcrank only unless you had the optional electric motor.

Kodak Cine Special. Bolex. Pathe Webo and successors. Mitchell 16. Vitascope (the 1931 one). B&H Filmo (with the optional crank attachment). Kodak K100 (with optional crank). I'm sure I could think of more, but it's late.

Jeff "doesn't have the Webo" Kreines

AFAIK both the Bolex and Filmo cameras can be hand cranked. On the Bolex, if memory serves, there were two cranks, one was one frame per revolution for an electric motor or animation motor and 'tother for 8 frames per revolution.

The crank that came with the camera is very short so it may be difficult to get a steady speed. You may have to lengthen the crank handle to make it more comfortable to use.

There are quite a few clockwork Bolexes out there that have been converted to Super16. They are still used quite a lot for time lapse. Do bear in mind though that there are quite severe restrictions on the types of lens you can use. Wide angle lenses (such as the Optec Super Cines) need to be re collimated to compensate for the prism.

Another way is the shoot on an old 35mm camera, UK DoP John Adderley did this recently for a film and there is a great article about this in the current issue of Zerb, the GTC magazine.

Brian Rose
UK based Technical Manager
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8868 1729
Mobile: +44 (0)7768 635 788

>>On the Bolex, if memory serves, there were two cranks, one was one >>frame per revolution for an electric motor or animation motor and >>'tother for 8 frames per revolution.

Same crank size, two shafts as you describe - the 8 frame shaft is for rewinding for effects but goes forward also. The single frame shaft gives you "the manual Norris".

>>The crank that came with the camera is very short so it may be >>difficult to get a steady speed. You may have to lengthen the crank >>handle to make it more comfortable to use.

I had someone do this. It's not pretty but it works. Also had it extended outwards so to clear the "pie plate" turret.

Sam Wells
film/../nj

Call Dave O'Neal at Panavision/Hollywood 323-464-3800. They have one that they converted from an Arri S

Here is a link with some pics of it :

http://homepage.mac.com/edgutentag/PhotoAlbum10.html

Contact info:
Ed Gutentag
Cinematographer
310-283-5379
WEB Page : www.edgutentag.com

That's an Arri M camera. Looks cool.

Kent Hughes
Dir/DP
SoCal

What’s the difference between the Arri S and the Arri M?

Since you all are being such nitpickers at least give us and education in why you are nit pickers if you are going to nit pick explain why you are such good nitpickers, share your nitpicking with us all and educate us with your nitpicking knowledge of cameras and explain the difference between the 2

I think there should be a new list CML-Nitpickers

Ed Gutenberg

That's NOT an Arri S - That's an Arri M.

(subtle distinction, but we here should be nit-pickers).

Doug Hart
1AC, NYC

>>That's NOT an Arri S - That's an Arri M.
>>(subtle distinction, but we here should be nit-pickers).

Or not so subtle in that, with the 16M you've got a gear driven magazine;

100' spools would be OK but you've got a takeup problem hand cranking film with the Arri S torque motor drive mag...

Sam Wells
film/.../nj

Ed Gutentag wrote:

>>What's the difference between the Arri S and the Arri M?

The main differences.

S - Can accept 100' daylight spool.

M - Magazine only -- that's what the M stands for.

M mags are gear driven and go up to 1200'. S mags (400') are driven by an external torque motor which was prone to problems -- primarily with the electrical connections.

The M door is hinged, the S door comes off completely.

Many of the accessories can be shared -- motors, lenses, bridge plates,
matte boxes, viewfinder periscope, etc.

The movements are identical as is the movement in Geoff Boyle's favourite
camera.

The M evolved directly into Geoff's favourite..

That's all I can remember, but I'm sure I'll be reminded of something I
forgot.

Brian Heller

It should indeed be captioned Arri 16M (not S) assuming that the S is an Arri 16ST.

OK. The 16ST was a mirror reflex 16mm camera that took 100' rolls. You could also attach 400' mags to which you had to fit a separate torque motor.

The Arri 16M was a 400' loading mirror reflex camera, with the mags directly driven from the camera body. Not sure of the dates. but I would guess it pre-dated the 16BL (a camera much loved by Geoff Boyle!)

As for education about cameras:

ACS Manual
David Samuelson's Hands On Manual for Cinematographers
Working as a prep technician for a rental company
Experience

I do appreciate these are quite old cameras, so you may not have come across them. It's not really a case of nit picking.

Education comes free for the first question, otherwise I charge £450.00 (Pounds Sterling) per day.

Brian Rose
UK Based Technical Manager

Hi,

Ed Gutentag wrote:

>what’s the difference between the Arri S and the Arri M?

As I own an Arri S mag for sure I can say the mag is different, less
bulky, also the Arri M has a magazine locking device upfront.

Regards

Emmanuel, Munich

Assistant Caméra - Camera Assistant - Kamera Assistent
BVK- European based
Mobil# Munich +491608036889 - London +447910034443

(please use German number)
CML-Listmum

Brian Heller writes :

>>That's all I can remember, but I'm sure I'll be reminded of >>something I forgot

You can shoot in reverse with them...

John Babl

Brian Heller wrote:

> The M evolved directly into Geoff's favourite..

Which was originally named the 16MQ (for, I assume, Quiet -- but that
proved to be false advertising!).

Check the first ads and look closely...

Jeff Kreines

Sam Wells wrote:

> 100' spools would be OK but you've got a takeup problem hand >cranking film with the Arri S torque motor drive mag.

Ha! One only needs to explore cinema history, and take a trick from Pathe's 28mm KOK projector -- which could be had in a version that used a generator, powered by the hand-crank, to light the lamp.

Sadly, most of them, including mine, were converted to AC with a transformer.

But as it's come back for hand-crank radios for survivalists, it is certainly possibly. Perhaps next: the Aaton XH -- with cranky power supply?

Jeff "my crankiness dovetails with my hand-crank cameras" Kreines

>>Ha! One only needs to explore cinema history, and take a trick from >>Pathe's 28mm KOK projector -- which could be had in a version that >>used a generator, powered by the hand-crank, to light the lamp.

And for the truly buff, you can run the popcorn machine...

Yes well you could power the torque motor directly off the battery bypassing the camera (done that, don't ask )

Better yet, make a crank for the magazine takeup and upgrade a PA to mag cranker...

P.S. you can run both "S" or "M" in reverse....

-Sam "Momentum Fitness, say What ?" Wells
film/../nj

> ...you all are being such nitpickers at least give us and education in why >you are nit pickers if you are going to nit pick explain why you are such >good nitpickers...

Obviously, if we allow posts like this on CML-Pro (with the
emphasis on the "Pro"), we can't be too nitpicky.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
https://cinematography.net/

I haven't used either one in years, but the major difference is that the 16S takes 100ft. internal loads on daylight spools OR 400ft. ELECTRIC MOTOR-driven magazines, and the 16M does not allow an internal load, and must be used with 400ft. GEAR-driven magazines (like the 16BL magazines). The geared magazines were much more dependable.

As I recall, those small cylindrical 16S motors are also used in the 16M.
Lenses, matte boxes, accessories, etc. are all interchangeable between the 16S and 16M.

The door of the 16S comes completely off the camera, the 16M door is hinged.

That's all I can think of without opening a book, hope this answers your question.

Doug Hart
1AC, NYC

Jeff Kreines wrote:

> Which was originally named the 16MQ (for, I assume, Quiet -- but >that proved to be false advertising!).

class="style18" style="font-style: italic">> Check the first ads and look closely...

My Time Machine is currently out on a long term rental so I can't check their first ads. However, my understanding was that the 'Q' was for quick, as in quick loading -- which compared to the S and all other contemporary cameras, it most certainly was. I never heard the quiet claim.

(If they return the Time Machine before they took it, how do we charge for it?)

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP

Brian Heller wrote:

>However, my understanding was that the 'Q' was for quick, as in quick >loading -- which compared to the S and all other contemporary >cameras, it most certainly was. I never heard the quiet claim.

But then why would the silenced version (later known as the Bxxx) be called the MQ, and the regular M called the 16M?

The 16M always made sense if you wanted to use mags -- the 16S with
mags is a PITA!

Jeff Kreines

Jeff Kreines wrote:

> But then why would the silenced version (later known as the Bxxx) be >called the MQ, and the regular M called the 16M?

Er, ask Arri?

>The 16M always made sense if you wanted to use mags -- the 16S with >mags is a PITA!

The external ground wire -- a later modification -- eliminated a lot of the pain.

S mags were a lot cheaper than M mags.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP

Jeff Kreines wrote :

> Which was originally named the 16MQ (for, I assume, Quiet -- but that >proved to be false advertising!).

What does 'BL' stand for then? 'Bloody Loud'?

Tom Townend,
Cinematographer/London.

Tom Townend wrote :

>What does 'BL' stand for then? 'Bloody Loud'?

Originally, it stood for blimped. However after 40 years of use most of the rubber mounts, etc. have dried out and hardened. So what was once a rather quiet camera may by now be 'Bloody Loud' indeed …the same holds true for the 35mm versions.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP

(Granted a tad "off topic" ... but good stuf anyway!!!)