Super 16mm Krasnogorsk-3 footage shot with Peleng 8mm

[Andy Boreham]

Some clips from a test reel I shot on a recently acquired Super 16mm modified K3.

 

Kodak Vision stock... telecined with Spirit Datacine.

 

Go to http://www.frozenflameweb.com/k3s16 to download the footage :)

[Andy Boreham]

Oops - file wasn't attached :blink: Should work now.

[adam berk]

Some clips from a test reel I shot on a recently acquired Super 16mm modified K3.

 

Kodak Vision stock... telecined with Spirit Datacine.

 

Go to http://www.frozenflameweb.com/k3s16 to download the footage :)

 

 

awesome....

 

is there anyway you could post here or on that site some full res stills? I'd be most interested in seeing some full res grabs from the CU of the boy towards the end...the same shot as the pic on the right on your page

[steve hyde]

...I think the problem is the lens. Looks like worn elements to me. Couldn't be the telecine if you used a Spirit and if the film stock is fresh you should get way more color out of it. Did you test any other lenses with this camera?

 

Steve

[Andy Boreham]

...I think the problem is the lens. Looks like worn elements to me. Couldn't be the telecine if you used a Spirit and if the film stock is fresh you should get way more color out of it. Did you test any other lenses with this camera?

 

Steve

 

Yeah, tested a few others. The 'problem' with the film stock is that it's actually Tungsten balanced without any correction filters.

 

The test was really to see which lens covered the S16 frame etc, so getting a good image wasn't really an issue - which is why a lot of the shots are less than well exposed :)

 

awesome....

 

is there anyway you could post here or on that site some full res stills? I'd be most interested in seeing some full res grabs from the CU of the boy towards the end...the same shot as the pic on the right on your page

 

Sure thing, will do that tomorrow...

[steve hyde]

a cheaper way to test lens coverage is to take the lens down to your camera shop and ask them to project charts though it. It's an easy film-free way to test if a lens will cover the S16 frame..

 

Steve

[Andy Boreham]

awesome....

 

is there anyway you could post here or on that site some full res stills? I'd be most interested in seeing some full res grabs from the CU of the boy towards the end...the same shot as the pic on the right on your page

 

 

That frame should be on the site now, http://www.frozenflameweb.com/k3s16 :)

Edited January 15, 2007 by Andy Boreham

[Will Montgomery]

Very fun lens. That's one of the great things about the K3, picking up relatively inexpensive lenses for effects.

 

Interesting that the distortions seemed to be roughly centered; I would have expected them to be slightly off since the lens/gate isn't recentered, the gate is just widened on one side.

 

Another lens worth looking into is the Zenitar 16mm which you can buy new from Russian camera importers. It also covers the full S16 frame, is wider than the Meteor Zoom, and much less distortion than the Peleng.

 

Also, find a 50mm Pentax Super Takumar 1.4 for really sharp (and low light) shots. Sometimes you have to buy a camera too to get this lens but then its fun to have a 35mm still camera to mount all these M42 lenses without adapters.

[Andy Boreham]

Very fun lens. That's one of the great things about the K3, picking up relatively inexpensive lenses for effects.

 

Interesting that the distortions seemed to be roughly centered; I would have expected them to be slightly off since the lens/gate isn't recentered, the gate is just widened on one side.

 

Another lens worth looking into is the Zenitar 16mm which you can buy new from Russian camera importers. It also covers the full S16 frame, is wider than the Meteor Zoom, and much less distortion than the Peleng.

 

Also, find a 50mm Pentax Super Takumar 1.4 for really sharp (and low light) shots. Sometimes you have to buy a camera too to get this lens but then its fun to have a 35mm still camera to mount all these M42 lenses without adapters.

 

Oh excellent, I'll keep an eye out for that Zenitar lens - sounds great! I really hate the distortion on the Peleng but it *could* be useful in some situations...

 

By the way, the lens / viewfinder on my K3 has been re-centred.

[Robert Houllahan]

Oh excellent, I'll keep an eye out for that Zenitar lens - sounds great! I really hate the distortion on the Peleng but it *could* be useful in some situations...

 

By the way, the lens / viewfinder on my K3 has been re-centred.

 

 

Did they do a full super16 mod to this camera, there seems to be an emulsion mark in the super16 area of the footage. When converting a camera to Super you have to mill all of the surfaces which come into contact with the area of the film just widening the gate will not assure a scratch free negative.

 

-Rob-

 

BTW I use my Peleng 8mm lens in a nikon mount on my eyemo, now thats wide! O

[Patrick Cooper]

Out of curiosity, is the 16mm Zenitar lens that much wider than the 17mm end of the 17-69 meteor zoom? Are we only talking about a slight difference or a considerable difference in field of view? There is only 1mm in difference in focal length but then again, the Zenitar is a fisheye lens.

[Andy Boreham]

Did they do a full super16 mod to this camera, there seems to be an emulsion mark in the super16 area of the footage. When converting a camera to Super you have to mill all of the surfaces which come into contact with the area of the film just widening the gate will not assure a scratch free negative.

 

-Rob-

 

BTW I use my Peleng 8mm lens in a nikon mount on my eyemo, now thats wide! O

 

Yeah there is scratching on the cell side of the film so I might have to get things looked at to find out what is going on... I really don't know exactly what was done to this camera other than that the lens and viewfinder were centred, the gate was widened and the loop formers were removed...

[Robert Houllahan]

Yeah there is scratching on the cell side of the film so I might have to get things looked at to find out what is going on... I really don't know exactly what was done to this camera other than that the lens and viewfinder were centred, the gate was widened and the loop formers were removed...

 

 

You might want to look at the gate guides on the emulsion side if the rail on the S16 side has not been milled to the S16 dimensions it will likely scratch the emulsion because of the pressure being applied by the pressure plate. The other culprits might be the clip in rollers which hold the film around the center ssprocket.

 

-Rob-

[Will Montgomery]

Out of curiosity, is the 16mm Zenitar lens that much wider than the 17mm end of the 17-69 meteor zoom? Are we only talking about a slight difference or a considerable difference in field of view? There is only 1mm in difference in focal length but then again, the Zenitar is a fisheye lens.

 

The Zenitar is slightly wider obviously than the Meteror at 17, but it covers the entire Super 16 frame while the Meteor lens only covers it above 24 or so.

 

The results aren't fisheye on a 16mm camera... only on a 35mm camera. The distortions are there, but MUCH less than the Peleng. Keep in mind that on the Peleng if you use it on a 35mm, its a TRUE fish eye and you get a completely round shot while 16mm cameras basically use the center "half" of the coverage area.

[Patrick Cooper]

"Keep in mind that on the Peleng if you use it on a 35mm, its a TRUE fish eye and you get a completely round shot while 16mm cameras basically use the center "half" of the coverage area."

 

Correct.

[Will Montgomery]

Out of curiosity, is the 16mm Zenitar lens that much wider than the 17mm end of the 17-69 meteor zoom? Are we only talking about a slight difference or a considerable difference in field of view? There is only 1mm in difference in focal length but then again, the Zenitar is a fisheye lens.

I checked both lenses and as expected there is very little difference in viewing area. The only advantage on the 16mm Zenitar is the full Super 16 coverage and it is smaller & lighter. Not even sure if it would be sharper. But if you have a Super 16 K3 I highly recommend it.

[Scott Cohen]

Did they do a full super16 mod to this camera, there seems to be an emulsion mark in the super16 area of the footage. When converting a camera to Super you have to mill all of the surfaces which come into contact with the area of the film just widening the gate will not assure a scratch free negative.

 

This is a consumer camera that can produce professional results.

 

For the money you'd spend to re-center the lens, take out the gate rail (beyond just widening it the aperture) and then build a viewfinder system that really covers the full S16 apertue you'd be better off buying an modified Eclair NPR.

 

For people who want to get pro results do these simple steps andd save your money for film.

 

1. Buy a working K3

2. Have the gate widened to Super 16mm

3. Have the loop formers removed.

 

Leave the rollers alone (they are plastic and won't scratch your film). Leave the viewfinder alone, a quick pan before shooting will let you know what you will have in the extra area. Don't re-center the lens, incredibly waste of money.

 

AND... MOST IMPORTANTLY...

 

Before you load every 100 foot spool. Take your pinky finger and run it back in forth between where your nose meets your face.

 

Liberally apply this "nose grease" to the film gate, concentrating on the side of the gate that has been widened.

 

As long as you don't have a small bur on your gate surface... A single application of "nose grease" will let the film pass over the wider gate rail (wider than the widened apertue) without any scratching issues.

 

You have an emulsion pressure mark, not a scratch.

 

"Nose grease" makes a $500 dollar Super 16mm K3 solid gold!!!

 

SC

[Satsuki Murashige]

Also, find a 50mm Pentax Super Takumar 1.4 for really sharp (and low light) shots. Sometimes you have to buy a camera too to get this lens but then its fun to have a 35mm still camera to mount all these M42 lenses without adapters.

I own this lens, but it's in K mount (bayonet). Did Pentax make this lens in M42 mount as well? I have a 55mm f1.8 regular Takumar (no super-multi-coating) in M42, but it's not as sharp as the other lens.

[Stephen Williams]

Keep in mind that on the Peleng if you use it on a 35mm, its a TRUE fish eye and you get a completely round shot while 16mm cameras basically use the center "half" of the coverage area.

 

Hi,

 

Thats a 35mm still camera your talking about, on a motion picture 35mm its not a true fish eye.

 

Stephen

[Charles MacDonald]

I own this lens, but it's in K mount (bayonet). Did Pentax make this lens in M42 mount as well? I have a 55mm f1.8 regular Takumar (no super-multi-coating) in M42, but it's not as sharp as the other lens.

yes.

 

There are both "regular" and "super multi coated takumar" versions in screw mount.

 

One thing to watch is that many of them used Thorium Glass, which can turn yellow in time. I cleared mine up by leaving it in the sun for a few days! (although I had one follow swear that that would change the refractive index so much that the lens would not work - Seems to work OK :) )

[Will Montgomery]

I own this lens, but it's in K mount (bayonet). Did Pentax make this lens in M42 mount as well? I have a 55mm f1.8 regular Takumar (no super-multi-coating) in M42, but it's not as sharp as the other lens.

I bought a Pentax 35mm still camera to get this lens actually... 50mm 1.4, Super Takumar. Beautiful shots from it although you have to back off from your subject since its somewhat telephoto on a 16mm camera.

 

Here's a still from my Super 16 K3 with the 50mm lens on Double-X negative b&w stock. The nice scratch on the right I first thought was the gate but I haven't seen it since this reel so it was probably dirt on the gate or something.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Nice shot, Will - is that your kid?

 

Charles, my 55mm f1.8 lens is piss-yellow, I just thought that's the way it was supposed to be! I'll try leaving it in the sun for the next few days.

[Will Montgomery]

Nice shot, Will - is that your kid?

Yes, my youngest of two.

 

I like that Double X negative stock. Haven't tried the Plus-X negative yet.

[Charles MacDonald]

Charles, my 55mm f1.8 lens is piss-yellow, I just thought that's the way it was supposed to be! I'll try leaving it in the sun for the next few days.

Can't hurt! It may be the same problem!

[Patrick Cooper]

Ive just projected some Tri-X exposed with my K3 and a Takumar 200mm lens. I know people keep going on and on about the sharpness of Takumar lenses but I wasn't overly impressed with this particular lens. It's not a bad lens but I found that in terms of sharpness, it was a bit ordinary. Not exactly razor sharp. I can't recall what f stop I was using but I think I may have been close to mid aperture. Of course for some of these shots, I was filming through a glass window and after shooting, I discovered that there was some dust on the lens' front element so this may have affected the image quality slightly. However, there were a few shots from a previous day that were exposed outside with the Takumar 200mm that looked okay but nothing outstanding.