FYI the SRII has an 180 degree shutter so at 24 fps the exposure is 1/48th of a second and 1/50 is close enough. SRIII had a variable shutter. A 172.8 degree shutter is common on many cameras of that era which gives 1/60th of a second exposure @24 fps. I produced and shot many NFL Films TV shows using both the Arri SRII and SRIII. The art of actual film making is almost entirely gone now. I was lucky enough to ride it out to the end of the film era and you guys have no idea how easy it is to produce great quality footage these days compared to when everything was shot on motion picture film. It was a true labor of love back in those days and its nice to see you enjoying your SRII.
It depends on the frames per second. 24 (theater projection) 25, 29.97 (TV sound sync) and 30 fps were all common and standard frame rates. 32 fps was common sports fps to capture the action and add drama when replayed on TV at 24fps or 30fps telecine transfer speeds.
There is no other content creator on this planet that pulls off the atmosphere and spirit you do. You have my fill respect and admiration. I dont usually even bother looking at channel sponsors, but I will definetly look into this one! Thank you so much for such quality videos.
I have an Arri S, I shoot all my home movies of my grand kids on 16 mm and Super 8, I have a Beaulieu 4008 that just came back from Jersey with a full overhaul. I’m 55 and I’ve been shooting since I was in my early 20s. Back then there was film and there was video. I hated video. I wouldn’t shoot it. Back then it was a little cheaper because it was the standard work flow. Anyways, you are right, there is something magical about film. I still get the nerves before I get the film back, and the excitement when I get it back and it all came back.
I'm happy to see the younger generation embrace film. You have so many advantages now that you have digital post production. You can explore the best of both worlds. One thing you didn't mention that I think you should explore is reversal film. Try a roll of Ektachrome 100D or maybe some black and white Tri X. You won't have the same latitude as negative, and the opposite is true about over/under exposure. With reversal film, it's best to err on the under exposure side and bring it up in post. This can bring out contrast in bright colours and flesh tones. Men's magazines in the pre digital days often shot slide film and underexposed 1-2 stops.Ektachrome film has a uniquely different look than negative. Buffalo '66 was shot on 35mm Ektachrome 5239. The stocks are associated with 70s retro newsfilm, schlock horror/T&A looks. I never got to work with the SR, but I did get to work with the S, M and BL in the Arriflex 16 family. I shoot film on occasion when I can can, especially when it's called for and somebody else is paying for it. I still have a Canon 814 AZ super 8.
Hear me out: I think the camera itself doesn’t contribute that much to how this footage looks, but the film and the scanner used to digitize it does. The camera might be 50 years old, but what we are seeing has been digitized by a modern digital sensor (and that’s fine). To me, that’s the best thing about film: thanks to it being a physical medium, we can always rescan the negatives and get more resolution as technology advances
The camera matters in that it lets you pair a great lens with usable footage by being feature rich and reliable. The claw, shutter and various mechanisms matter in a camera because they're setting the stage for the film to be loaded and exposed correctly. Crappy cameras require a ton of work to get great looking footage because film is so finnicky, without the careful frame prep afforded by a good camera you'll be fighting with it instead of working with it. If you have nothing but a roll of film and a great lens, you still have no photo without a camera. A camera is a machine that brings the magic together.
I agree that the camera doesn't play a huge role in the look of the footage, but I'd argue that the digital sensor is actually doing a poor job if it's imparting anything on the footage! In my experience projecting a color positive film like Tri-X or Ektachrome straight after development will give you an image more beautiful than anything I've seen straight out of a scanner. This is why many modern films (Oppenheimer) are choosing to project 70mm IMAX film created directly from the negatives, completely bypassing any scanner! The digital sensor should just be trying to replicate the experience of directly projecting the film as closely as possible, so I'd push back on it contributing too much to how "good" the footage looks - film doesn't need much help to look great!
Do you know the thing I like about this? Is you remind me of myself when I was probably exactly your same age, but in the opposite direction. My dad passed away and left me his photography equipment so I started getting really into it and around that same time some of the first digital cameras started coming out and I was just blown away. And it’s funny some of the same things you’re saying about film I was saying about digital. It just made my creativity go through the sky just because I didn’t have to sit around and wait and I could sit there and take 20 pictures of the same thing over and over and really kind of fine too what I was seeing. Of course I felt that way with film is a lot of gratification in it. But it’s just funny to see things go full circle. There’s gonna be a point where everybody’s just sick of instant everything. Instant gratification only takes you so far.
So thankful for folks like you, who keep the medium alive. Questions, if you are interested to read and answer: 1- Would you ever consider shooting titles and credits as they give the real film look and gate weave and texture, as digital text looks like something stuck on top, but not part of the world. I want to shoot also and there is some type of film thats made for titles, mostly black and white high contrast or "Blue Ultra" or something, which is cool on its own to shoot something to show blues and reds only. There is shooting title cards or you can do creative ways to make your film name logo, like how they did The Thing with props, fire, smoke. Its really fun to experiment and to be on film. 2- Would you ever consider Color Timing. I think its done on print film to project, where you expose it with RGB light values to get the grade. It doubles the cost, but, if its for a movie you want to sell or show with tickets, why not, that looks much better than digital color grading where we MAY sometimes overdo. Ive noticed a lot of people tend to force cyan/teal in a warm grade, it looks off to my eyes at least. There is a way to do it right but a lot of people do it wrong. 3- Would you ever consider recording your voiceovers and sound effects on Tape and then adding them digitally on your digital film scan render. If you combine Film footage with Tape audio, it's perfect, because one of the things that keep film from being film completely is digital audio, it feels slightly alienating. Just like film has its own exposure curve and roll off, the audio also has its own range of high to lows and the tape texture and everything just compliments it. 4- Would you consider anamorphic, as it completes the visual cinematic look with the barrel distortions, warping on edges on side tracking and oval bokeh/waterfall effect.
I learned Back on the 80"s on an ARRI S and Bolex, THen on the 89 I Knew the first video camera 3/4 Inches a huge tape and recorder. Film is Beautiful.
It's great to see a young dude with old gear. I still have my Eclair NPR that was also converted to Super 16 with 12-120mm and a 24-240mm Angenieux back in 1976. Got two spare motors too. I now shoot on Panasonic HP 370 cameras with my own customized-set menus that gives me very similar results. Good-going!
"Fulfilling and fun" is what film (and photography) was created for in the first place. it's not about what equipment you have, how good it is, or how much money it will make. As long as you are having fun and learning something, you are truly filmmaking. If Keep doing what you love, not what others do. Great video 👍
Long live celluloid!!!! I shot 7 years of NFL games on a SR2. Shooting roughly 8 400ft rolls of Kodak Vision 3 film every Sunday. It was truly a dream come true coming out of film school.
ah yes love that this popped up on my feed. currently deep in my 16mm rabbit hole. got my Bolex Rex3. eyeing Arriflex 16S but now you got me wandering into others lol. good stuff my dude.
Awesome man! Great to see someone doing this. The SRs were brilliant little cameras for their time. I shot a feature film with the SR3 (which was natively Super16, dead silent, had an electronic display like the 435 and a video tap). Shot plenty of short films and music videos on the SR2 way back in the day also. Good times.
I used the SRII a lot in film uni. All types of Alexas down the road, the SRII is still the most ergonomic camera I've ever used, especially for handheld. It's just perfectly balanced on your shoulder AND compact, that means it basically just sits there on your shoulder without you having to use force to balance it out or any parts sticking out. That is truly something that's been lost in today's cameras, only exception being the full-size Alexas.
The PMac reference 🤣 damn it dude...I've been shooting 35mm film on a Canon A1 for a while now and really love it. I've been on the fence about shooting video with film but this...this really sways me. It's a very cool process and the bike film really did look beautiful. Totally worth the extra hassle.
I love this honest approach haha. Especially the lighting discussion. Film just looks so good, and when you get it in the hands of someone talented like yourself it always turns out beautiful. Great video!
I was lucky enough to shoot on an SR a 3 times in film school. To this day it is still the best camera I have ever used. Better than the big brother 35mm arriflex I tried once (that camera was 60 lbs!), better than any digital camera. The only one that was close for me was the Arri Amira because the form factor was similar and the colors look nice. 16mm is a great format and might be the one true future proof film format. 16mm is also more affordable than 35mm, which is seemingly becoming more out of reach for most filmmakers. A high quality scan of 16mm can provide both clarity and character which cannot be achieved in a color grade. The camera is small enough to go almost anywhere, but heavy enough to give pleasing handheld footage.
film is fun, so much fun, I only do still photography but my god it's so much fun on film. It feels like it captures moments and people in a way digital just doesnt
This is fun and there is some inspiration at the end supporting using film. Also, the Arriflex SR sells used for about $5,000 and if the SR2 gets your interest, that's about $15,000. Something to consider.
This is great.....love the energy for shooting film. I shoot film (stills).....and totally get the feeling that while shooting you do shoot much more focused. I work with lots of expired large format peel apart film...which aint cheap.....every shot has to have meaning.....not just shot gun shooting. Great video. Greeting from Glasgow
I am so glad I found your channel! I’ve begun my descent into film madness, on the photography side 😂 I know exactly what you mean about the process, every photo is going to be a well-composed, thought provoking composition How do you scan film for video? It’s something I have always wondered. Do you need to buy a special scanner and effectively feed it through and it scans frame by frame to create an image sequence? Or do you have a lab which develops + scans, what resolution scans do you usually get/do?
LightMe is great! The framelines are a nice lil extra feature I've been playing with especially switching between 135 and 120. Excellent video and so grateful to have found it. I recently got an old Arriflex 16ST that used to be owned by the Navy and I've been dying to shoot with it. Before full committing though, I wanted to familiarize myself with the process. Starting on 8mm might be a safer bet as I have no real motion picture experience, but film photography has got me hooked and I'm really excited to take a dip into shooting motion picture film. Subbed (:
Great stuff, thank you so much for putting out there! This might be sacrilege, but also try the OG Blackmagic pocket camera, it is a digital camera with a super 16 sensor. In my mind the nearest you get to actual film.
One of the greatest shows every created, True Detective SE1, was shot entirely on Kodak 35mm film, except for the famous 6-minute long take in episode 4 which required digital cameras due to the shot length. Cinematographer Adam Arkapaw praised the "beautiful natural 35mm film look" of the show, noting it gives a gritty, earthy quality that was harder to achieve with digital. The cinematographer mentioned that shooting on 35mm film provided excellent latitude and rendered skin tones beautifully, especially in harsh sunlight conditions.
Great video. Yes, young people often mistake the electromechanical technology of film cameras for the electronic tech of video cameras, thus finding themselves "surprised" that an ancient camera can produce sharp, stunning footage. A film camera is as good as its lenses and film stock (and processing/printing/transfer/presentation format). Outside of those variables, the relative image quality of various modular film cameras is n/a.
As someone who made his living as a camera assistant, I enjoyed your take on the 16mm process. I would quibble on a detail or two, but that those are not important. The important thing is you are enthused to create. The end result is all that matters really. However, if you find a way, be it digital or film and it gets you where you want, that is all that is important. I see other pros have responded. Hopefully, you have spoken to them to get the little tricks that make working with the Arri SR even better. Contact me if you wish. I must have run 10s of thousand of feet through the SR back in the old days.
Very cool! Also yeah, color and B&W negative film is very forgiving in terms of exposure latitude, especially if you are scanning it for post production. My general rule is to overexpose by +2/3 to +1 of a stop, because you always want more density than less density (can't bring back something that's not there). The opposite is true for digital and color reversal film (like Ektachrome), but color reversal film really requires you to nail your exposure within -1/2 and +1/4. Where did you get your film developed and scanned? I'm not very familiar with motion picture film, but I know Kodak still runs motion picture development labs in Atlanta & NYC, but they are probably quite pricey for small runs. I develop my own photo film at home, but haven't tried doing ECN-2 motion picture film yet.
Amazing. Really appreciated this beautiful behind of the scenes. And I love this series already, such candy for the senses. Super excited about what is to come and also to see more about the process! Thanks a lot, Leep em coming!
Have you heard about the Yolklab Y16 camera? It’s currently still in development but will probably be the most exciting thing the 16mm world has seen in decades.
Great video. I'm planning on purchasing an arriflex sr2 myself. I was wondering what lenses are compatible with the SR? I've read that a lot of newer lenses won't fit into the body because the lens "socket" is too shallow. Is this true?
very nice, i dream one day of being able to shoot some 16mm film, love the look of it so much....my previous house had a dark room which would have been helpful, but I no longer have access to one ...
I totally agree with you on the cost forcing you to be more methodical and pre-plan shoots for quality. I mostly do still photography on 35mm, so not nearly as costly as 400 ft rolls of 16 mm motion picture film! But still costly enough for me to not just shoot off frames as I please.
If it's literally on the same shaft. My brain breaks a little. Because. A spool that's almost empty and spinning at a certain fps would spin faster than a spool that's almost full spinning at the same fps. And only when they are both equally full do they meet on the same rpm. Which would make building the mechanism kind of hard. You can see this discrepancy on audio tape machines as the empty spool spins so much faster than the almost full one. Yet, the speed over the read head stays nicely constant throughout.
@@jmalmsten one spool is driven by a cog on the chassis, the other is driven by the shaft. Theyre coaxial but not coupled. Think like coaxial helicopters with two rotors that spin in opposite directions
at around 4, how did you film that? is the frame rate lower? the effect looks really cool edit: 4:59 (commenting live) I can really see how it makes your filmmaking better! these few leaflets or the shot in the wild and the girl walking looked so crisp and nice!!
That bit about how film requires one to take each exposure more seriously is something I haven't thought about for awhile, since just using digital. As an amateur photographer, there's a sense with digital that "it doesn't matter" because you have an "endless" supply of medium, and that means one might put less thought into, "What is it that I am trying to achieve here?" I have so many images just taken without thought of the end product, I am overwhelmed with the task of organizing them. I can see how people might try to use a program to do that. Otherwise would need to retreat to an island for years to sort it all out.
Can you do a film rolling shutter test? To this day we have no example of motion picture rolling shutter tests but theoretically there should be considering the camera uses a mechanical rotary shutter
When digital camcorders were new, they were still SD. It was not possible to shoot in HD or UHD or 4K. And even the SD digital was expensive. The only affordable camcorders were SD analog ( vide 8 or VHS-c ). It was frustating because i knew television was going to evolve to HD. So i started to use Super 8 to get it transfered later in HD. I also modified the camera like yours so the aspect ratio became 14:9. There was articles about television becoming wider, yet most cameras were stuck to 4:3. Using old cameras to futureproof footage.
Hi America 🙂... For anyone struggling with "cheers" : the infinitive of the verb for what you're doing there is "to toast". You're "toasting". Saying "cheers" as a toast means you're wishing people good cheer aka happiness. You can toast (wish for and/or celebrate) the success of a project, or a marriage... anything you like. And the thing you say plus the action is the toast. "Cheers" is *a* , very short, toast. If anyone wants help with how to express the feeling that someone *isn't* classy, how to say that a team is the most successful ever, how to say that it's *not* possible for you to care *less* about something, or how to say something is the best thing you've ever seen, hit me up 👊😜❤ Absolutely freaking beautiful and awesome work btw dude. Genuinely inspirational 🙏
I wish I had a camera like that. I have a little keystone 16mm with a way nicer lens than a cheap camera needs. At least 16mm film is relatively cheap xD
Super nice video and content man! :) Its a definite subscribe from me. Only could you lower the music level or boost the voice, it got messy for my ear :)
Be very careful with the inner coating of the magazines. I was at arri in munich some months ago and they told me that it’s really special and they don’t know how to produce it anymore because either the engineers who developed it are already dead or very old and retired. So it’s not that easy to maintain them…
Fuck yeah dude. Film is the truth. I own eight film cameras and zero digitals, not even once. The perfect real to life crispness that you get from high-end digital cameras just does nothing for me. I would take a shitty 240p digital camera over a high-end one simply because it has charm. Beauty is in the imperfections and I believe that to my core. It's like visual art, like painting. Who picks up a paintbrush and tries to paint something exactly how it looks? The whole point is to abstract this thing to make it fulfill your own personal image of beauty. Art that is perfectly imperfect, that's the good stuff.
Tbf top high-end cameras don't give you perfect "true to life" images, they dump raw data that you're gonna bring to life in post. It's also time consuming but its just a different type of art. Film has its in-built look, digital raw cine cameras give you the flexibility to create your own look. Apple to oranges but with how much storage, gear and computing power to post-process those images you get from an Arri or Red camera... the process is also tedious but has its own magic.
Long Live film. It's all I schoot with. Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino shooot all their movies on Film. Oppenheimer was schott on film and so was The Walking Dead. Keep your light meter in a gadget type of bag you know you are always are going to bring. Or if you can find a few for cheap and keep one in your vehicle.
Cool project, have fun! All the best from ARRI 💙
A fridge full of film and nothing to eat. Truly the 16mm experience.
truly a starving artist
tired: the camera might eat my film
wired: my DP might eat my film
I grew up on this camera, best camera in the world, a real workhorse!
FYI the SRII has an 180 degree shutter so at 24 fps the exposure is 1/48th of a second and 1/50 is close enough. SRIII had a variable shutter. A 172.8 degree shutter is common on many cameras of that era which gives 1/60th of a second exposure @24 fps. I produced and shot many NFL Films TV shows using both the Arri SRII and SRIII. The art of actual film making is almost entirely gone now. I was lucky enough to ride it out to the end of the film era and you guys have no idea how easy it is to produce great quality footage these days compared to when everything was shot on motion picture film. It was a true labor of love back in those days and its nice to see you enjoying your SRII.
172,8 shutter on 24fps is 1/50th of a second
144 degree shutter would be 1/60, no?
It depends on the frames per second. 24 (theater projection) 25, 29.97 (TV sound sync) and 30 fps were all common and standard frame rates. 32 fps was common sports fps to capture the action and add drama when replayed on TV at 24fps or 30fps telecine transfer speeds.
@@trackstick_travel yes I am aware, but 172.8 is not 1/60 for 24fps. It's 144.
24 X (360÷144)=60
There is no other content creator on this planet that pulls off the atmosphere and spirit you do. You have my fill respect and admiration. I dont usually even bother looking at channel sponsors, but I will definetly look into this one! Thank you so much for such quality videos.
I have an Arri S, I shoot all my home movies of my grand kids on 16 mm and Super 8, I have a Beaulieu 4008 that just came back from Jersey with a full overhaul. I’m 55 and I’ve been shooting since I was in my early 20s. Back then there was film and there was video. I hated video. I wouldn’t shoot it. Back then it was a little cheaper because it was the standard work flow. Anyways, you are right, there is something magical about film. I still get the nerves before I get the film back, and the excitement when I get it back and it all came back.
I'm happy to see the younger generation embrace film. You have so many advantages now that you have digital post production. You can explore the best of both worlds. One thing you didn't mention that I think you should explore is reversal film. Try a roll of Ektachrome 100D or maybe some black and white Tri X. You won't have the same latitude as negative, and the opposite is true about over/under exposure. With reversal film, it's best to err on the under exposure side and bring it up in post. This can bring out contrast in bright colours and flesh tones. Men's magazines in the pre digital days often shot slide film and underexposed 1-2 stops.Ektachrome film has a uniquely different look than negative. Buffalo '66 was shot on 35mm Ektachrome 5239. The stocks are associated with 70s retro newsfilm, schlock horror/T&A looks. I never got to work with the SR, but I did get to work with the S, M and BL in the Arriflex 16 family. I shoot film on occasion when I can can, especially when it's called for and somebody else is paying for it. I still have a Canon 814 AZ super 8.
Hear me out: I think the camera itself doesn’t contribute that much to how this footage looks, but the film and the scanner used to digitize it does. The camera might be 50 years old, but what we are seeing has been digitized by a modern digital sensor (and that’s fine). To me, that’s the best thing about film: thanks to it being a physical medium, we can always rescan the negatives and get more resolution as technology advances
Lens, film, and scanner. The camera itself is, as you say, largely irrelevant to the look. But it's a beautiful piece of machinery nonetheless!
@@stevenpam can’t believe I forgot the lens hahaha 😅😅 totally agree with you
The camera matters in that it lets you pair a great lens with usable footage by being feature rich and reliable. The claw, shutter and various mechanisms matter in a camera because they're setting the stage for the film to be loaded and exposed correctly. Crappy cameras require a ton of work to get great looking footage because film is so finnicky, without the careful frame prep afforded by a good camera you'll be fighting with it instead of working with it. If you have nothing but a roll of film and a great lens, you still have no photo without a camera. A camera is a machine that brings the magic together.
I agree that the camera doesn't play a huge role in the look of the footage, but I'd argue that the digital sensor is actually doing a poor job if it's imparting anything on the footage! In my experience projecting a color positive film like Tri-X or Ektachrome straight after development will give you an image more beautiful than anything I've seen straight out of a scanner. This is why many modern films (Oppenheimer) are choosing to project 70mm IMAX film created directly from the negatives, completely bypassing any scanner! The digital sensor should just be trying to replicate the experience of directly projecting the film as closely as possible, so I'd push back on it contributing too much to how "good" the footage looks - film doesn't need much help to look great!
The only benefit is that you get practically global shutter with a film camera. Then again, you get global shutter with CCD. Film is overrated.
Excellent. Glad you have found the magic. The magic of Film. The magic of light burning life onto a roll with holes. 😊
Do you know the thing I like about this? Is you remind me of myself when I was probably exactly your same age, but in the opposite direction.
My dad passed away and left me his photography equipment so I started getting really into it and around that same time some of the first digital cameras started coming out and I was just blown away.
And it’s funny some of the same things you’re saying about film I was saying about digital. It just made my creativity go through the sky just because I didn’t have to sit around and wait and I could sit there and take 20 pictures of the same thing over and over and really kind of fine too what I was seeing.
Of course I felt that way with film is a lot of gratification in it. But it’s just funny to see things go full circle. There’s gonna be a point where everybody’s just sick of instant everything. Instant gratification only takes you so far.
So thankful for folks like you, who keep the medium alive.
Questions, if you are interested to read and answer:
1- Would you ever consider shooting titles and credits as they give the real film look and gate weave and texture, as digital text looks like something stuck on top, but not part of the world. I want to shoot also and there is some type of film thats made for titles, mostly black and white high contrast or "Blue Ultra" or something, which is cool on its own to shoot something to show blues and reds only. There is shooting title cards or you can do creative ways to make your film name logo, like how they did The Thing with props, fire, smoke. Its really fun to experiment and to be on film.
2- Would you ever consider Color Timing. I think its done on print film to project, where you expose it with RGB light values to get the grade. It doubles the cost, but, if its for a movie you want to sell or show with tickets, why not, that looks much better than digital color grading where we MAY sometimes overdo. Ive noticed a lot of people tend to force cyan/teal in a warm grade, it looks off to my eyes at least. There is a way to do it right but a lot of people do it wrong.
3- Would you ever consider recording your voiceovers and sound effects on Tape and then adding them digitally on your digital film scan render. If you combine Film footage with Tape audio, it's perfect, because one of the things that keep film from being film completely is digital audio, it feels slightly alienating.
Just like film has its own exposure curve and roll off, the audio also has its own range of high to lows and the tape texture and everything just compliments it.
4- Would you consider anamorphic, as it completes the visual cinematic look with the barrel distortions, warping on edges on side tracking and oval bokeh/waterfall effect.
I learned Back on the 80"s on an ARRI S and Bolex, THen on the 89 I Knew the first video camera 3/4 Inches a huge tape and recorder. Film is Beautiful.
It's great to see a young dude with old gear. I still have my Eclair NPR that was also converted to Super 16 with 12-120mm and a 24-240mm Angenieux back in 1976. Got two spare motors too. I now shoot on Panasonic HP 370 cameras with my own customized-set menus that gives me very similar results. Good-going!
"Fulfilling and fun" is what film (and photography) was created for in the first place. it's not about what equipment you have, how good it is, or how much money it will make. As long as you are having fun and learning something, you are truly filmmaking. If Keep doing what you love, not what others do.
Great video 👍
Long live celluloid!!!! I shot 7 years of NFL games on a SR2. Shooting roughly 8 400ft rolls of Kodak Vision 3 film every Sunday. It was truly a dream come true coming out of film school.
ah yes love that this popped up on my feed. currently deep in my 16mm rabbit hole. got my Bolex Rex3. eyeing Arriflex 16S but now you got me wandering into others lol. good stuff my dude.
Awesome man! Great to see someone doing this. The SRs were brilliant little cameras for their time. I shot a feature film with the SR3 (which was natively Super16, dead silent, had an electronic display like the 435 and a video tap). Shot plenty of short films and music videos on the SR2 way back in the day also. Good times.
This is class Shaffer. The colours in the first Stanzas video were so fresh and vivid. Cracking camera.
I used the SRII a lot in film uni. All types of Alexas down the road, the SRII is still the most ergonomic camera I've ever used, especially for handheld. It's just perfectly balanced on your shoulder AND compact, that means it basically just sits there on your shoulder without you having to use force to balance it out or any parts sticking out. That is truly something that's been lost in today's cameras, only exception being the full-size Alexas.
The PMac reference 🤣 damn it dude...I've been shooting 35mm film on a Canon A1 for a while now and really love it. I've been on the fence about shooting video with film but this...this really sways me. It's a very cool process and the bike film really did look beautiful. Totally worth the extra hassle.
I love this honest approach haha. Especially the lighting discussion. Film just looks so good, and when you get it in the hands of someone talented like yourself it always turns out beautiful. Great video!
The quality of your videos is insane. I love this channel
Just wanna say love your content bro, found you and Jake Frew at the same time and can't wait for both of your videos. Greetings from Lithuania :)
Used the SR II in film school back in the day, awesome camera system!
The snowboarding segment is insane!!
I was lucky enough to shoot on an SR a 3 times in film school. To this day it is still the best camera I have ever used. Better than the big brother 35mm arriflex I tried once (that camera was 60 lbs!), better than any digital camera. The only one that was close for me was the Arri Amira because the form factor was similar and the colors look nice. 16mm is a great format and might be the one true future proof film format. 16mm is also more affordable than 35mm, which is seemingly becoming more out of reach for most filmmakers.
A high quality scan of 16mm can provide both clarity and character which cannot be achieved in a color grade. The camera is small enough to go almost anywhere, but heavy enough to give pleasing handheld footage.
film is fun, so much fun, I only do still photography but my god it's so much fun on film. It feels like it captures moments and people in a way digital just doesnt
Another banger! So cool to see you shooting YT on film!
This is fun and there is some inspiration at the end supporting using film. Also, the Arriflex SR sells used for about $5,000 and if the SR2 gets your interest, that's about $15,000. Something to consider.
A dream 16mm camera to own. Keep it coming.
This is freaking awesome. I have dreamed of doing this. Thank you 🙌
This is great.....love the energy for shooting film. I shoot film (stills).....and totally get the feeling that while shooting you do shoot much more focused. I work with lots of expired large format peel apart film...which aint cheap.....every shot has to have meaning.....not just shot gun shooting. Great video. Greeting from Glasgow
I am so glad I found your channel! I’ve begun my descent into film madness, on the photography side 😂
I know exactly what you mean about the process, every photo is going to be a well-composed, thought provoking composition
How do you scan film for video? It’s something I have always wondered. Do you need to buy a special scanner and effectively feed it through and it scans frame by frame to create an image sequence? Or do you have a lab which develops + scans, what resolution scans do you usually get/do?
LightMe is great! The framelines are a nice lil extra feature I've been playing with especially switching between 135 and 120. Excellent video and so grateful to have found it. I recently got an old Arriflex 16ST that used to be owned by the Navy and I've been dying to shoot with it. Before full committing though, I wanted to familiarize myself with the process. Starting on 8mm might be a safer bet as I have no real motion picture experience, but film photography has got me hooked and I'm really excited to take a dip into shooting motion picture film. Subbed (:
Great stuff, thank you so much for putting out there!
This might be sacrilege, but also try the OG Blackmagic pocket camera, it is a digital camera with a super 16 sensor.
In my mind the nearest you get to actual film.
One of the greatest shows every created, True Detective SE1, was shot entirely on Kodak 35mm film, except for the famous 6-minute long take in episode 4 which required digital cameras due to the shot length.
Cinematographer Adam Arkapaw praised the "beautiful natural 35mm film look" of the show, noting it gives a gritty, earthy quality that was harder to achieve with digital.
The cinematographer mentioned that shooting on 35mm film provided excellent latitude and rendered skin tones beautifully, especially in harsh sunlight conditions.
Great video. Yes, young people often mistake the electromechanical technology of film cameras for the electronic tech of video cameras, thus finding themselves "surprised" that an ancient camera can produce sharp, stunning footage. A film camera is as good as its lenses and film stock (and processing/printing/transfer/presentation format). Outside of those variables, the relative image quality of various modular film cameras is n/a.
As someone who made his living as a camera assistant, I enjoyed your take on the 16mm process. I would quibble on a detail or two, but that those are not important. The important thing is you are enthused to create. The end result is all that matters really. However, if you find a way, be it digital or film and it gets you where you want, that is all that is important.
I see other pros have responded. Hopefully, you have spoken to them to get the little tricks that make working with the Arri SR even better. Contact me if you wish. I must have run 10s of thousand of feet through the SR back in the old days.
Very cool! Also yeah, color and B&W negative film is very forgiving in terms of exposure latitude, especially if you are scanning it for post production. My general rule is to overexpose by +2/3 to +1 of a stop, because you always want more density than less density (can't bring back something that's not there). The opposite is true for digital and color reversal film (like Ektachrome), but color reversal film really requires you to nail your exposure within -1/2 and +1/4.
Where did you get your film developed and scanned? I'm not very familiar with motion picture film, but I know Kodak still runs motion picture development labs in Atlanta & NYC, but they are probably quite pricey for small runs. I develop my own photo film at home, but haven't tried doing ECN-2 motion picture film yet.
Love the energy lol.
Very cool, thank you for sharing!
You're living the dream, my man. Keep up the good work.
Always good stuff
I lost it when you said you “have more film in your fridge than food… that’s fun!” 😂
Amazing. Really appreciated this beautiful behind of the scenes. And I love this series already, such candy for the senses. Super excited about what is to come and also to see more about the process! Thanks a lot, Leep em coming!
the shots in this video alone are insane man, subbbbbd
Have you heard about the Yolklab Y16 camera? It’s currently still in development but will probably be the most exciting thing the 16mm world has seen in decades.
Hadn't heard of that but I just looked it up. That's so exciting 🤯
Great video. I'm planning on purchasing an arriflex sr2 myself. I was wondering what lenses are compatible with the SR? I've read that a lot of newer lenses won't fit into the body because the lens "socket" is too shallow. Is this true?
very nice, i dream one day of being able to shoot some 16mm film, love the look of it so much....my previous house had a dark room which would have been helpful, but I no longer have access to one ...
I totally agree with you on the cost forcing you to be more methodical and pre-plan shoots for quality. I mostly do still photography on 35mm, so not nearly as costly as 400 ft rolls of 16 mm motion picture film! But still costly enough for me to not just shoot off frames as I please.
Did I just watch the Einstein of movie making captivate me with lessons from a 50 year old camera??? Damn that was good
Coaxial magazine is referring to both spools sharing the same axis of rotation or in other words, they spin on the same shaft.
If it's literally on the same shaft. My brain breaks a little. Because. A spool that's almost empty and spinning at a certain fps would spin faster than a spool that's almost full spinning at the same fps. And only when they are both equally full do they meet on the same rpm. Which would make building the mechanism kind of hard. You can see this discrepancy on audio tape machines as the empty spool spins so much faster than the almost full one. Yet, the speed over the read head stays nicely constant throughout.
@@jmalmsten one spool is driven by a cog on the chassis, the other is driven by the shaft. Theyre coaxial but not coupled. Think like coaxial helicopters with two rotors that spin in opposite directions
at around 4, how did you film that? is the frame rate lower? the effect looks really cool
edit: 4:59 (commenting live) I can really see how it makes your filmmaking better! these few leaflets or the shot in the wild and the girl walking looked so crisp and nice!!
I love this channel
Bro's aura gives pure authenticity in EVERYTHING he does
I thought " We're all gonna die" was going to be the title of the next video lol!
Just a friendly reminder 😂
Great video! I love the film footage
it is crazy how good the quality is even if it is a 50 yr old system!
love the videos! excited for the series.
Coaxial magazine is fun to say! 🤩
The footage looks amazing! Not practical for me in anyway but I respect it.
This is BEAUTIFUL
That bit about how film requires one to take each exposure more seriously is something I haven't thought about for awhile, since just using digital. As an amateur photographer, there's a sense with digital that "it doesn't matter" because you have an "endless" supply of medium, and that means one might put less thought into, "What is it that I am trying to achieve here?" I have so many images just taken without thought of the end product, I am overwhelmed with the task of organizing them. I can see how people might try to use a program to do that. Otherwise would need to retreat to an island for years to sort it all out.
"We all gonna die". Promising
Can you do a film rolling shutter test? To this day we have no example of motion picture rolling shutter tests but theoretically there should be considering the camera uses a mechanical rotary shutter
This would make a lot more sense with a digital and film comparison that no one ever does for some reason.
I love you… and your coaxial magazine
this is so cool!
Legend
Do you ever use digital to practice the shots before you go for it with the film?
Love film : )
We need more 16mm youtubers
A jaqueta da Bolovo me pegou demais
Damped not dampened, unless you were getting the film wet. Bro for real though you are doing amazing work.
Hey are you in Gunnison? 🤙
When digital camcorders were new, they were still SD. It was not possible to shoot in HD or UHD or 4K. And even the SD digital was expensive. The only affordable camcorders were SD analog ( vide 8 or VHS-c ). It was frustating because i knew television was going to evolve to HD. So i started to use Super 8 to get it transfered later in HD. I also modified the camera like yours so the aspect ratio became 14:9. There was articles about television becoming wider, yet most cameras were stuck to 4:3. Using old cameras to futureproof footage.
What film stock did you use for the shots in this video?
Is that a stork house on your head?
I sure wish I could afford this lol
why r u using a bolovo jacket:?
Video Yippeeeee! :D
long live film
Hi America 🙂... For anyone struggling with "cheers" : the infinitive of the verb for what you're doing there is "to toast". You're "toasting". Saying "cheers" as a toast means you're wishing people good cheer aka happiness. You can toast (wish for and/or celebrate) the success of a project, or a marriage... anything you like. And the thing you say plus the action is the toast. "Cheers" is *a* , very short, toast.
If anyone wants help with how to express the feeling that someone *isn't* classy, how to say that a team is the most successful ever, how to say that it's *not* possible for you to care *less* about something, or how to say something is the best thing you've ever seen, hit me up 👊😜❤
Absolutely freaking beautiful and awesome work btw dude. Genuinely inspirational 🙏
Are you German? Just kidding, but normally only _Germans_ are discussing things like that on a film/video channel ;-)
What camera did you use to shoot Kung Fu Panda?
I wish I had a camera like that. I have a little keystone 16mm with a way nicer lens than a cheap camera needs. At least 16mm film is relatively cheap xD
Super nice video and content man! :) Its a definite subscribe from me. Only could you lower the music level or boost the voice, it got messy for my ear :)
Where do you find the money to shoot on 16mm?
subscribed.
Be very careful with the inner coating of the magazines. I was at arri in munich some months ago and they told me that it’s really special and they don’t know how to produce it anymore because either the engineers who developed it are already dead or very old and retired. So it’s not that easy to maintain them…
A literal Instagram REEL
Fuck yeah dude. Film is the truth. I own eight film cameras and zero digitals, not even once. The perfect real to life crispness that you get from high-end digital cameras just does nothing for me. I would take a shitty 240p digital camera over a high-end one simply because it has charm. Beauty is in the imperfections and I believe that to my core. It's like visual art, like painting. Who picks up a paintbrush and tries to paint something exactly how it looks? The whole point is to abstract this thing to make it fulfill your own personal image of beauty. Art that is perfectly imperfect, that's the good stuff.
Tbf top high-end cameras don't give you perfect "true to life" images, they dump raw data that you're gonna bring to life in post. It's also time consuming but its just a different type of art. Film has its in-built look, digital raw cine cameras give you the flexibility to create your own look. Apple to oranges but with how much storage, gear and computing power to post-process those images you get from an Arri or Red camera... the process is also tedious but has its own magic.
E X C E L L E N T !
K but whats the lens
Subbed.
Long Live film. It's all I schoot with. Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino shooot all their movies on Film. Oppenheimer was schott on film and so was The Walking Dead. Keep your light meter in a gadget type of bag you know you are always are going to bring. Or if you can find a few for cheap and keep one in your vehicle.
This couldn’t be more gen z 🤦♂️
Film > Food
Great job brother. I like your passion for film. I shoot 35mm motion picture film these days. Check out my behind the scenes.
delicious ;)
BUT HOW???