Jump to content


Photo

CP-16R footage


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Tesh

Mike Tesh

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 March 2006 - 12:16 AM

Hey everyone do you have links to some CP-16R footage?

Thanks
  • 0

#2 Josh Hill

Josh Hill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 258 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 24 March 2006 - 04:12 PM

Footage from a CP16R looks the same as footage from any other Regular 16mm camera if used with the same lens and the same lighting conditions.

I have one and I shot with it a month or so ago (400 feet of 7222) with the Ang 10-150 lens and it looked great.

The camera is just the box for the film.
  • 0

#3 Mike Tesh

Mike Tesh

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 March 2006 - 04:49 PM

I know that and you know that but it would help sell the idea of buying one to the guys I make films with if I could say "look at this, it was shot on a CP-16". Because right now they're in digital mode and can't understand why anyone would ever want to shoot film.

I tried a google search but surprisingly didn't come up with any results besides the Blair Witch Project which isn't the best example.
  • 0

#4 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2006 - 05:41 PM

Because CP16R footage will look just like any other 16mm footage, just show them any good-looking film shot on 16mm, and tell them "this is what it will look like."
  • 0

#5 rbg

rbg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Director
  • Santa Monica

Posted 24 March 2006 - 06:30 PM

Because CP16R footage will look just like any other 16mm footage, just show them any good-looking film shot on 16mm, and tell them "this is what it will look like."




Amen Brother! I have a CP-GSMO and the footage looks the same as any other 16mm camera.
It is all about the lense you put on the box, how you meter it, and how good the lighting is. I've seen
stuff shot on an SR-3 that didn't look any better than some of the stuff I shot out of my little GSMO with
some nice glass in front of it. That's it. Good luck.

RBG
  • 0

#6 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 24 March 2006 - 07:36 PM

Well, that's not 100% true, because some cameras have better registration than others.

That's more a factor of the condition of any one particular camera though, not as much with manufacturers.
I have a CP16R, and it makes some fine images, but I don't have anything online to link to, so sorry about that.

That's not the best way to show your partners anyway, since anything online will have been likely highly compressed, down-rezzed, etc. for better bandwidth.

A better option is to show them some quality footage on DVD.

The Brothers McCullen was shot on a CP16. I haven't seen it, so I don't know how good it looks, (or what lenses he used), but it's pretty certain to look better than some tiny window streaming bad looking footage.

MP
  • 0

#7 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2006 - 07:57 PM

Actually, I saw "Brothers McMullen" in the theater, and I remember it as being murky, and the grain seemed to change from scene to scene and even shot to shot (I bet they were using short ends)... so maybe that's one movie you don't want to show your friends as representative of good 16mm work. The problem is that since the days "El Mariachi," most 16mm features have been shot on Super 16, not regular 16mm, and there is a discernable difference in quality. I think someone mentioned that "Tigerland" was shot on regular 16mm, for an intentionally grainy effect (I never saw it). I'm not sure about the original "Evil Dead," but I think that might be straight 16 - and it was a lot of fun. Anyway, pick something you can rent on DVD, and have a pizza and movie party for your video-centric buds.
  • 0

#8 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 27 March 2006 - 03:32 PM

Oh yeah, I did see Tigerland.
Pretty sure it's Super16, but anyway, it definitely doesn't look overly greainy.
It looks as good as a lot of 35mm features, I thought.
MP
  • 0

#9 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 27 March 2006 - 04:20 PM

Actually, I saw "Brothers McMullen" in the theater, and I remember it as being murky, and the grain seemed to change from scene to scene and even shot to shot (I bet they were using short ends)... so maybe that's one movie you don't want to show your friends as representative of good 16mm work. The problem is that since the days "El Mariachi," most 16mm features have been shot on Super 16, not regular 16mm, and there is a discernable difference in quality. I think someone mentioned that "Tigerland" was shot on regular 16mm, for an intentionally grainy effect (I never saw it). I'm not sure about the original "Evil Dead," but I think that might be straight 16 - and it was a lot of fun. Anyway, pick something you can rent on DVD, and have a pizza and movie party for your video-centric buds.


---I've only seen a couple of scenes of'Brothers McMullen' on TV and it had quite sloppy camra work. So the inconsistent grain could be due to inconsistint exposures, mostly under.

'Never Been Kissed' was shot on regular 16mm, mostly the defunct Fuji 64T. It was grainless and sharp.
Of course, not enough DPs want a slow stock despite grain advantages, don't expect Kodak to bring out a 50T.
Turnerclassicmoviess.com lists 'Tigerland' as a blow up from S16.

as for CP-16s. 'Angelo My Love' was shot with a CP16R and CP/Kowa hi-speeds and Angie 10-150mm on 7247. The angie looked out of whack in some scenes. But low light scenes which would have to be the Kowas looked very good.

---LV
  • 0

#10 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 28 March 2006 - 06:21 PM

'Never Been Kissed' was shot on regular 16mm, mostly the defunct Fuji 64T. It was grainless and sharp.


No way! Really? I remember seeing this in the theater (one of Drew Barrymore's better efforts) and can't believe it wasn't 35mm. Are you sure?
  • 0

#11 Ian Marks

Ian Marks
  • Guests

Posted 28 March 2006 - 06:32 PM

I just checked "tech specs" for Never Been Kissed in IMDB, and it says it was shot Super 35!

Edited by Ian Marks, 28 March 2006 - 06:33 PM.

  • 0

#12 Justin Marx

Justin Marx
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hollywood, FL

Posted 28 March 2006 - 06:51 PM

Deck out a CP-16 to make it look like an SR3? Just get an SR3, much more reliable, and if your ever going to do any transfers to HD, super 16 is the only way to go.. Otherwise, spending all the money to change the mount, and worry about the camera's registration is not worth it, also the viewfinder on the CP-16 SUCKS! Good luck seeing anything with an ND3!! Threading, or drop in loading mags.. hmmmm.... It's all about the $$$.... But I'm sad to say, I'd take the new P2 Panasonic HD over a CP 16.. I LOVE FILM! But I hate that camera..
  • 0

#13 Robert Glenn

Robert Glenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 247 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 March 2006 - 12:28 AM

CP 16 seemed kindof flimsy when my friend used it for his cinematography class in college. The drive belt for the mags squeeked and there was shutter stutter. It no doubt needed servicing, but that camera's design went beyond servicing issues with me.
  • 0

#14 Josh Hill

Josh Hill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 258 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 29 March 2006 - 10:38 AM

Definitely a servicing issue. CP16s are hardly flimsy (they are quite robust cameras) at all when you consider that they were originally news cameras and, at best, they are over twenty years old. I don't know what the shutter stutter is you are talking about (I'm assuming you mean in the viewfinder), but a Panavision Gold has the same effect when you turn it on (mirrored shutter and all).

CP16s are also wonderful for learning to load if you're going to ever need to load a Panny since the mags load the same and the movement is from the same general lineage (Mitchell).
  • 0

#15 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 29 March 2006 - 01:17 PM

No way! Really? I remember seeing this in the theater (one of Drew Barrymore's better efforts) and can't believe it wasn't 35mm. Are you sure?


---Sorry about that. It's just plain 'Kissed'. I'm thinking the original title was something like 'Never been fu**ed', which obviously had to be changed for marketing reasons, but cannot verify this on the "web", which still can't beat a wellstacked university library, 'best prices for...'

You actually paid money to see a Drew Barrymore movie? Though I will admit that in 8th grade I paid money to see a couple of John Drew Barrymore peplums.

---LV

Edited by Leo A Vale, 29 March 2006 - 01:20 PM.

  • 0

#16 dpoperator1

dpoperator1
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2006 - 03:09 PM

With so many nice S16 cameras available used why must you buy a CP 16????
If you do.
1. don't get the butterfly shutter version.
2. get some extra clutch belts
3. tape everything to avoid light leaks
4. ND will make the image in the viewfinder practically dissapear
5. get new batterys have the chargers checked out.
5. Have the whole camera, really carefully checked out "whitehouse AV" is best for this.
These cameras are really old and a very outdated design even when they were built.

Consider an older Aaton Ltr, An Eclair 1.5 or II, An older SRI, all much more modern cameras with many better features, and not much more money.

Also consider some photography classes. The big difference in image quality is the person behind the lens.
The great advantage of "digital" is that you get what you see. The great problem of film shooting is that you get what you plan.
  • 0

#17 Josh Hill

Josh Hill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 258 posts
  • Other
  • New York, NY

Posted 02 April 2006 - 01:13 PM

The problem is all the over cameras you just listed, I've found, cost significantly more than a CP. You can get a CP on ebay from somewhere between 500 and 1200 dollars (I got mine for 1200 with tripod and fluid head, which were worth about 700 dollars alone) and with an overhaul you'll have spent maybe 2400.

If you're buying a second hand camera it's good to get an overhaul anyway, so all of the cameras you just named (which generally go for 2000 for the ACL to 5000 for the LTR and SR1 on eBay) would cost at least about 1k more after overhaul than an overhauled CP.

Also, all of the problems you have mentioned can all be fixed during an overhaul (including expanding, ever-so-slightly, the mirror to stop smearing). I say if someone only has a couple of grand to spend, might as well get a CP and overhaul it so that they will have a sync sound camera to work with and not have to spend anymore money (let's be serious, most of the people who ask for advice on cameras here, like myself, are hobbiests and they are most likely never going to make their money back with their cameras so a larger investment is only detrimental to their ability to shoot film which is, after all, kind of expensive).
  • 0

#18 steve hyde

steve hyde
  • Sustaining Members
  • 446 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 January 2007 - 02:21 PM

....all the talk about CP16 footage looking the same as any other camera does seem a bit strange especially since the CP16 with the bowtie shutter has a reputation for producing a smearing effect. I have been told that the CP16 with halfmoon shutter looks as good as Arri footage, but that is from the guy who wants to sell it to me.

By the way, I found something on Youtube (listed as CP16), but its nasty Youtube compression so it is not much to go by -

here it is:


  • 0

#19 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 23 January 2007 - 04:32 PM

And it's also a student film, probably shot on a junked out film school camera, so who knows what a good one would look like? I wonder if Whitehouse or Visual Products, or some pro user has any test footage they could throw onto the net?
  • 0


CineTape

Abel Cine

The Slider

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

CineLab

Opal

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Opal

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post