Jump to content


Photo

Which camera good for beginner


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 wildgrace

wildgrace

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 February 2006 - 10:29 AM

I'm a screenwriter, looking to learn about film and filmmaking. And it looks like Super 8 may be the way to go.

I want something that will allow sound to be sync. Can you get a Super 8 that will do a widescreen picture similar to at 35mm? If so what and where and what should I look for. I live close to Toronto if you can give me the name of a shop.

Can you blow-up Super 8 to 355mm? And if so, what are the results? Any other info you think might be useful to me, feel free to share.

Like processing, and editing.

Thanks.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2006 - 10:57 AM

You're not going to get an unbiased answer on the internet, but although I do believe that Super-8 is a great way to learn filmmaking...

IF your primary goals are: (1) shooting dialogue; and (2) you want widescreen; plus (3) you hope to blow-up to 35mm, then Super-8 is weak in all three areas. The cameras aren't that quiet and it's hard to find crystal-sync ones; they aren't naturally widescreen, although you can either just crop them to widescreen (the simple solution) or somehow widen the gate; and it doesn't blow-up well to 35mm. Plus you've got the costs of telecine transfer just to get the footage into a computer to edit.

So get a Super-8 camera if you want to learn about cinematography, creating images with film. Or if you want the Super-8 look for a project stylistically.

Get a decent 24P DV camera if you want to learn about shooting and covering lots of dialogue, get something of a quasi-film-look, and be able to easily edit the footage without dealing with a telecine and the costs.

Or get a Super-16 camera if you really want widescreen, a good image for blow-up to 35mm, with sync-sound capabilities. Or rent one after you've been practicing filmmaking on the Super-8 or DV camera...

It's certainly possible for you to solve all the problems of Super-8 (finding a crystal-sync camera, modifiying the gate to widescreen, etc.) but it may be more work than you want to do if you're a screenwriter, not a cinematographer.
  • 0

#3 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 14 February 2006 - 04:16 PM

Hello Wildgrace,

If you want to get into film, then Super 8 is a good way to start. Before you think about sound or anamorphic widescreen I would get shoot some test rolls of film to see how you like it. Rick Palidwor (who is on this site) shot a feature lenght movie on Super 8 called SLEEP ALWAYS (highly recommended viewing) and he also teaches a course on Super 8 filmmaking (in Toronto). You may want to get in touch with him. As David Mullen mentioned there are some problems shooting sound and widescreen in Super 8, but it's not impossible as many Super 8 filmmakers have found out.

To rent a Super 8 camera in Toronto check out Exclusive Film and Video. But, get in contact with Rick as he is the KING of all things Super 8 in Toronto!

Mike
  • 0

#4 Grainy

Grainy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:23 PM

hey there, not sure whether you want to use super 8 just to "learn" or to make a film that you want to send out for other people to see -- but there's only two people that I know of (no offence Rick Palidwor) that've been able to make movies on super 8 that actual people see in actual theaters, and that's Neil Young (Greendale) and Guy Maddin (Saddest Music in the World and a few others).
Notice that those two people have one other thing in common: they're already really well known (well, Maddin is in film buff circles, at least).
Pragmatically, unless you've got a really good reason for shooting in super 8 that a distributer will embrace, they'll probably shy away from spending the 50k + to blow it up to 35.
If you're hoping to shoot on super 8 for 35 blowup check out these films on DVD but also in the theater if at all possible. Maddin's from canada so they could have a retrospective in toronto. They look very cool but are also very grainy.
That said, I've shot super 8 for years and love love love it for my own use.
Grainy
  • 0

#5 Retrogorilla

Retrogorilla
  • Guests

Posted 14 February 2006 - 05:46 PM

hey there, not sure whether you want to use super 8 just to "learn" or to make a film that you want to send out for other people to see -- but there's only two people that I know of (no offence Rick Palidwor) that've been able to make movies on super 8 that actual people see in actual theaters, and that's Neil Young (Greendale) and Guy Maddin (Saddest Music in the World and a few others).
Notice that those two people have one other thing in common: they're already really well known (well, Maddin is in film buff circles, at least).
Pragmatically, unless you've got a really good reason for shooting in super 8 that a distributer will embrace, they'll probably shy away from spending the 50k + to blow it up to 35.
If you're hoping to shoot on super 8 for 35 blowup check out these films on DVD but also in the theater if at all possible. Maddin's from canada so they could have a retrospective in toronto. They look very cool but are also very grainy.
That said, I've shot super 8 for years and love love love it for my own use.
Grainy



Unless you're planning for exhibition on a grand scale, it would sound like DV is probably a better medium for you.

You have to factor in how much all the necessary things will cost you (e.g, film, lights, talent, everything....) when you're doing your thing. Digital will allow you to film whatever much more cheaply and burn it easily to some sort of medium to pop in your player to show everyone.

Super 8 has it's charms, but like every film medium - it can get expensive if you want to do something ambitious. The sound issue can be overcome, but it's labour intensive.

Edited by Retrogorilla, 14 February 2006 - 05:47 PM.

  • 0

#6 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 14 February 2006 - 07:50 PM

Unless you're planning for exhibition on a grand scale, it would sound like DV is probably a better medium for you.

You have to factor in how much all the necessary things will cost you (e.g, film, lights, talent, everything....) when you're doing your thing. Digital will allow you to film whatever much more cheaply and burn it easily to some sort of medium to pop in your player to show everyone.

Super 8 has it's charms, but like every film medium - it can get expensive if you want to do something ambitious. The sound issue can be overcome, but it's labour intensive.

Hello All,

Hey all you dudes...you need to turn down the digital just a notch. While you guys are at it, you should have told him, "Isn't film dead?"

If you read the post there are some key words there, "I want to learn about film and filmmaking". In case you guys haven't noticed there are about 3 billion (OK, maybe not 3 billion) websites where you can find out everything you want to know about digital video. On the other hand there are just a hand full of safe harbors where you can learn about Super 8 filmmaking...and of course this is the Super 8 forum.

You dudes are telling this dude to grab a DV camera on a Super 8 forum? To paraphrase Jim Morrison, NOW IS THIS ANYWAY TO BEHAVE ON A SUPER 8 FORUM?

Super 8 was good enough for the Lizard King to learn on, so it's good enough for me.

If CHEAPER and EASIER were the only things in life that mattered, we would all be living in a Wal-Mart married to Pamela Anderson.

Your honor, I rest my case.


Mike
  • 0

#7 Peter Duggan

Peter Duggan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Sound Department

Posted 14 February 2006 - 08:54 PM

Great reply. As wonderful miniDV is as a cost saving device, it's really something that is overused and poorly substituted for film.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:29 PM

Now you know why I prefaced my original answer with "you're not going to get an unbiased answer..."

Either you can be an advocate... or you can just hand out some practical advice, lay out ALL the options (including digital) and let someone make their own decision.

Obviously the guy is interested in Super-8 or he wouldn't post here, but it seems all the things he expects the MOST out of Super-8 (sound, widescreen, blow-up to 35mm) are the things it does least well, so I felt the need to make him aware of that. If Super-8 were so easy to shoot dialogue movies for blow-up to 35mm widescreen, I think we'd see more of them...

He should shoot Super-8 because he thinks it looks beautiful and it suits the projects he's going to be making.
  • 0

#9 Peter Duggan

Peter Duggan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Sound Department

Posted 14 February 2006 - 09:50 PM

Now you know why I prefaced my original answer with "you're not going to get an unbiased answer..."

Either you can be an advocate... or you can just hand out some practical advice, lay out ALL the options (including digital) and let someone make their own decision.

Obviously the guy is interested in Super-8 or he wouldn't post here, but it seems all the things he expects the MOST out of Super-8 (sound, widescreen, blow-up to 35mm) are the things it does least well, so I felt the need to make him aware of that. If Super-8 were so easy to shoot dialogue movies for blow-up to 35mm widescreen, I think we'd see more of them...

He should shoot Super-8 because he thinks it looks beautiful and it suits the projects he's going to be making.


I was more in agreeance for the guy who just basically said that he needed to get digital because it's cheaper.
  • 0

#10 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 14 February 2006 - 10:31 PM

I wouldn't recomend anyone to shoot a film for 35mm blowup theater print on S8. It's great for a million other things, including knowlege you will need to shoot S16. And I wouldn't recomend anyone to shoot 16mm for a project without experimenting with S8 first. You can shoot and transfer 400 ft of S8 film for pretty cheap, using some of the same film stocks most commonly used in 16mm and 35mm.
  • 0

#11 Brant Collins

Brant Collins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Producer
  • Little Rock, Arkansas

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:05 PM

Having learned on DV and used to sing it's praise, but now after 10 years in the business I feel limited by not knowing film. EVERYONE HAS A XL-1 OR A SONY FX-1 and a laptop with FCP. I need to break away from the pack. DV has giving me the ability to learn how to frame, produce and run a crew but once I feel comfortable film I can make the jump from local car commercials to something bigger.
  • 0

#12 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:14 PM

Now you know why I prefaced my original answer with "you're not going to get an unbiased answer..."

Either you can be an advocate... or you can just hand out some practical advice, lay out ALL the options (including digital) and let someone make their own decision.

Obviously the guy is interested in Super-8 or he wouldn't post here, but it seems all the things he expects the MOST out of Super-8 (sound, widescreen, blow-up to 35mm) are the things it does least well, so I felt the need to make him aware of that. If Super-8 were so easy to shoot dialogue movies for blow-up to 35mm widescreen, I think we'd see more of them...

He should shoot Super-8 because he thinks it looks beautiful and it suits the projects he's going to be making.



Hello David,

First off, I have to say I have an incredible amount of respect for your talent and your craft, and I also respect those three letters after your name...for those who don't know, they just don't hand those out, you have to earn them the hard way.

David, check this out...this is all I'm trying to say. Digital video and HD and all the other forms of video are really fun and they are part of this "Brave New World" that everyone wants to plug into, but there is a ground swell of young, independent filmmakers out there with not much money, but a whole lot of vision and talent and passion and Super 8 is their "get out of jail free" card. They can't afford 35mm or Super 16mm, but they can afford that Super 8 Bolex off of eBay. And with their pocket change maybe this is as close as they are going to get to the BIG GAME. They love film. They love the way it looks, the way it captures light, the way it makes them feel.

David, of course you are right. 35mm and Super 16 can do it all so much better and there is so much more equipment out there that was made to do the job right. However, The land of Oz will only hold and allow in so many cinematographers and directors and lady luck only smiles on a very few.

Super 8 is not for the faint of heart, but it can get you "in" as in "I'm in, baby, I'm in". Ben Crowe shot his short film THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF on Super 8 and it was the ONLY British film that was screened at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival. Even though it was projected digitally, by all accounts it looked very good. Cindy Stillwell just had her film HIGH PLAINS WINTER (shot on Super 8) screened at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and it too was projected onto the big screen with excellent results. It can be done. Sure, perhaps it could have been all done better on 35mm or Super 16, but Super 8 was the only way these dudes could get it done. I say more power to them.

Now, David, you can't tell me, in your heart of hearts that if someone offered you the chance to shoot 30 minutes of 70mm film with any actor in any location with any budget or the same with an HD camera...which one would you choose?

I ask you this: If film dies, it is not that pixels are more beautiful, but rather there is more profit in one pixel than there is in a 1,000 feet of film. Should it be profit that decides how we will capture light from a single red rose?


Mike
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 February 2006 - 11:47 PM

First of all, I don't really buy the implication that the difference between Super-8 and DV is like the difference between 70mm and HD. The second scenario is a more obvious technical quality difference (70mm beating HD in almost every category except cost & size), while the first are very different ways of shooting on a very low budget, with very different visual results, a lateral move in quality, so it would depend on my particular needs and goals for the project in terms of which I'd choose (that answer works for the second choice too of course...)

Hopefully film won't die until most visual artists no longer could tell a difference anyway between it and digital. And even then, ideally film would remain an option for some artists.

But in reality, processes & formats change all the time for many reasons, often economic.

3-strip Technicolor was replaced by an inferior color process, Eastmancolor color negative, yet obviously now we hold color negative in very high regard. But we switched to it before it had become as good as 3-strip Technicolor mainly for cost & convenience -- and politics. Studios could shoot Eastmancolor negative in their own cameras and process it in-house, whereas shooting in 3-strip Technicolor involved going into a co-production deal with Technicolor Corporation, who provided cameras and cameramen, etc.

Plenty of people (like me) are nostalgic for lost processes (3-strip Technicolor, dye transfer printing, 3-camera Cinerama) or under-used processes (b&w, 65mm, VistaVision). But from a practical standpoint, our best bet is to push current technologies to get better.

You can question whether economics should decide what technologies are available for artists to use, but it's a rather pointless question since we live in a capitalistic world working in an artform that requires many different companies to provide our tools -- so OF COURSE economics is going to be a factor. After all, if it weren't, many of you shooting in Super-8 might also be shooting in 65mm just for fun.
  • 0

#14 wildgrace

wildgrace

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 February 2006 - 12:04 AM

I'll clarify a bit now. I want to learn to shoot s16 to blow up eventually to 35mm. At some point I'd like to film a feature.

But I know nothing about film, Super 8 looks like a good way to start.

I wanted widescreen, so I can frame widescreen shots. I wanted to sync sound to get practice doing it with larger formats.

And, I didn't really expect to blow it up to 35mm, but I thought I would ask.

You can edit film by hand by splicing, but I think I read somewhere some company will dump the Super 8 to a disk/harddrive so it can be edited digitally. (Aren't most films now edited digitally, even big Hollywood films on an Avid system?)

I'm looking for a cheap format to practice, learn and make mistakes, without them being too costly.

What is a good editing system for a beginner to edit with? Any suggestions? So I guess I'm looking for a camera I can convert to widescreen (where to I get widescreen film, can you use regular Super 8 film?), where do I go to convert to widescreen (cause that I can't do), what camera is a good candidate to convert to widescreen. and could the camera to sync sound (as nice to have to practice).

And does this guy in Toronto have a store?

Edited by wildgrace, 15 February 2006 - 12:06 AM.

  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 February 2006 - 12:19 AM

Well, the simplest thing for widescreen would be just to matte (letterbox) your video transfers of Super-8 to widescreen, let's say to 1.78 : 1 (16x9). All you'd need are some framelines added to your camera's viewfinder showing the top & bottom cropping marks.

Otherwise, you're talking about getting the gate to your camera enlarged somehow to expose more width.

As far as sound, film cameras for the most part are double-system -- meaning the sound is recorded separately to a sound recorder (DAT, Nagra, etc.) You need the camera to run at a constant speed -- 24 fps is "normal" for most sound movies. "Crystal-sync" motors for cameras are just very precise and accurate in terms of frame rate. Otherwise over a long take, the separately-recorded sound, even though put in sync with the head of the picture in the editing room, may start to drift afterawhile. For short takes, a "constant-speed" motor shooting at 24 fps may be accurate enough to hold sync.

The other advantage to crystal-sync motors is that they handle the pulsing of 60hz discharge lamps better (like ordinary fluorescents, streetlamps, etc.)

While you can certainly learn a lot about filmmaking by shooting Super-8 reversal, cutting & tape-splicing the original film using a viewer/editor machine and a splicer, and then projecting the results (how I learned), I would reserve that for silent movies with just some non-sync music playing in accompaniment with the Super-8 projector.

Most films are cut on a computer these days, which means transferring your processed camera rolls to video. At which point, you can digitize the video footage into your computer, along with the sound, and sync them up in your editing software. At this point, it is similar to cutting DV on your computer.

I learned by making silent Super-8 short films, cutting the original reversal, and projecting it in Super-8. I learned enough doing that to shoot 16mm, at which point I started dealing with sound as well. I avoided sound in Super-8, but this was before the days of cutting Super-8 on a home computer using a video transfer.
  • 0

#16 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 15 February 2006 - 12:34 AM

You can order a Beaulieu with a modified widescreen gate and crystal sync 24fps for audio from Pro8mm, but it will cost you probably over $1500 for the whole package (ask them for a real quote). If you just want the look, you can crop and pan in NLE real easy like David mentioned. Simple programs that come with most OS, like windows movie maker or Imovie, will give you the basic fundamentals to move easily into more advanced NLE programs.
  • 0

#17 Mike Crane

Mike Crane
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 February 2006 - 10:23 PM

To begin with, I would forget about expensive wide screen and sync cameras. Start off with a small, cheap camera you can experiment with. This may help you figure out if super 8 or 16mm is the way to go. In addition, you will learn the basics on how to shoot, expose, process, transfer film. With this experience you will gain a better understanding of your true needs.

Unfortunately, Ebay will eat a novice alive with non-working cameras, rip-off bidding, etc. Not a good way to get started. It will all take time to learn the models, correct questions to ask and fair pricing.

For a beginners first time camera I would recommend checking out some refurbished models on Spectra's camera page. They have reasonably priced, refurbished, film tested cameras there for under $100.00 to get started. In addition to the camera, they offer some fantastic shooting advice with the understanding that beginning filmmakers do not have a lot of money to spend. When you are done, get some film and processing from them as well. Go out, shoot and learn about the process of filmmaking for as little as possible. When you are ready, you can break out some more serious money for your project.

Good luck!
  • 0

#18 Steven Budden

Steven Budden
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • San Francisco

Posted 22 February 2006 - 01:15 AM

The only thing is check the prices on quality scanning to digital. You might be better off to edit the original and then scan what you come up with and then cut sound in? It really isn't worth it to scan all your waste footage just to snip and throw away on the hard drive. Also, there are many film festivals for super 8mm on film which could be fun if you just work on film and stay on film.

Try to find old George Kuchar films to get an idea of what can be done without much equipment. None of his is sync sound but he finds interesting ways around the problem.

Most people do edit on computers but not all people. There are still surprisingly many, especially in the smaller gauges, editing film film.

Right now I'm working on black and white shorts in regular 16mm. Honestly, when editing film with splicers and a viewer the most difficult area is sync sound, but there are ways around this. I edit original now (carefully) and then print a silent version to film or with a musical soundtrack and then once that is finished I might scan and work with sound in the digital realm. Anyway, I have the cost down to next to nothing. It's completely the wrong way to do it (edit original) but i can't afford the right way and I like when traces of handling appear on the film.

See your limitations as inspiration and it really helps.

Steven

Guy Maddin shoots in 8mm? I could've sworn it was at least 16mm for saddest music.
  • 0

#19 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2006 - 08:22 AM

B)-->
QUOTE(Steven B @ Feb 22 2006, 01:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Guy Maddin shoots in 8mm? I could've sworn it was at least 16mm for saddest music.
[/quote]

For "Saddest Music..." Guy had something like at least 6 super8 cameras on set. Mostly Bauers. Also his own wind-up Bolex 16mm. And a 35mm "camera A" doing master shots. Typical for that "guy", he often had all the cameras running at the same time during takes, with him running around shooting whatever caught his fancy with either one of the super 8's or the Bolex. Dialogue is all post-dub. Like a lot of indie filmmakers who never had to struggle under rigid dictatorships on Hollywood film sets on their way up, or formal film school, he never really learned "the rules". It's something that works for him, and against him.
  • 0

#20 Rick Palidwor

Rick Palidwor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 February 2006 - 11:44 PM

Rick Palidwor (who is on this site) shot a feature lenght movie on Super 8 called SLEEP ALWAYS (highly recommended viewing) and he also teaches a course on Super 8 filmmaking (in Toronto). You may want to get in touch with him. As David Mullen mentioned there are some problems shooting sound and widescreen in Super 8, but it's not impossible as many Super 8 filmmakers have found out.

To rent a Super 8 camera in Toronto check out Exclusive Film and Video. But, get in contact with Rick as he is the KING of all things Super 8 in Toronto!

Mike


Thanks for the plug Michael.
Wildgrace, if you are looking for a camera contact me (send me a PM). I sell (but don't rent - not worth it). I have sold over a hundred cameras in the past few years and you don't have to spend too much to get a decent unit. If you want to rent there are two sources in Toronto: LIFT (co-op - you have to join) and Exclusive Film and Video. But you can buy for the price of a few days rental!

Mitch Perkins in Toronto does widescreen conversions (simply filing out the gate - with all the pluses (inexpensive and easy) and minuses (extra frame not visible in the viewfinder, vignetting at certain lens settings). Some people find our method too flawed but others have seen the value: you expose more emulsion and therefore have to enlarge the image less during telecine, resulting in sharper and tighter images. For more info check our website: www.friendlyfirefilms.ca .

Matting the normal image in post is not the same - you just take some of the image area and mask it, but there is zero gain in image quality. Worth it if you want the impression of a wide aspect ratio, but that's all it is - an impression. Pro8 in the US offers Max8, the widescreen idea but done "properly", but it's expensive. Your call re: how much you want to spend. If you are just using it as a learning too, don't spend too much. You can convert a camera by our method (supr-dupre 8) or a mere $50 and it will still funtion as a regular super 8 if that's what you choose to use it for. There are several facilities in Toronto that will transfer the super-duper (or normal super 8) images at a reasonable cost.

And if you are looking for a course, my next super 8 class at LIFT is March 4. LIFT membership has numerous benefits (sound and audio gear and edit suites available for rent). They also have a facility to do optical blow-ups for super 8 to 16mm or 35mm (and samples there to show you what you can expect).

If you are eligible to join Hart House at U of T (alumni of UT or other university?), I teach a super 8 class there on Sunday March 5.

Rick



hey there, not sure whether you want to use super 8 just to "learn" or to make a film that you want to send out for other people to see -- but there's only two people that I know of (no offence Rick Palidwor) that've been able to make movies on super 8 that actual people see in actual theaters, and that's Neil Young (Greendale) and Guy Maddin (Saddest Music in the World and a few others).
Notice that those two people have one other thing in common: they're already really well known (well, Maddin is in film buff circles, at least).
Grainy


No offence taken. We did not intend Sleep Always to make it into theatres as that is a completely different business model and difficult at the best of times, even when shooting on 35mm. Young and Maddin can get things in theatres, regardless of what they shoot on. Our intended product was DVD for the home movie market.

Any time anyone intends to get a movie into theatres I quiz them about their business model and financing and intended audience and definitely don't recommend super 8 if it's really intended for the big screen. But depending on the movie, maybe it's a wise choice. Would depend on the script and the intended look. But having seen miniDV originated footage blown up to 35mm, which typically looks like crap, I don't see any disadvantage to super 8 (compared to miniDV). But realistically, do you expect to get it into theatres? Probably not.

Rick
  • 0


Visual Products

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery