camera choice

[Olivier Egli]

okay, so this might be completely obsolete to many of you guys but this question is driving my crazy.

I am in preproduction for a 15 minutes short which I will be directing and doing camera on.

The thing is it is going to be low budget (what a surprise) and extremely guerilla-dogma like.

It will all focus on one really tight and as I think good story.

 

The problem now is the picture:

I really want to shoot film. N16 or S16. But which one makes more sense?

Second:

Should I finish up with the telecine dub to digibeta, make my NLE edit and then use the digibeta master and maybe do a faz sometime in the future?

Or should I do a negative cut from the start. But what then with my Super16 stuff? If I do not blow it up to 35mm then I will have to go back to N16 in order to be able to use an optical track for sound..?

 

Then the camera:

I need something that's easy to carry, handheld and load and handle.

Something that will let me record sound, not too perfectly, but still more or less okay sound.

Something that has a quite stable transport, does not to have super sync.

Something that offers okay lenses.

I was thinking of the K3. But it uses 100foot daylisght spools... is it very noisy? reliable?

What about the Super16 option? Decent? Are Pentax screw mount lenses not too telephoto for handholding? Is the meteor lens any good?

Another option seem the scoopic. But I know hardly nothing about it. Loud? Picture steadiness? Speed accuracy?

And my favorite option: an eclair npr. I could get one really cheap: 1900 Dollar for a npr with a canon 12-120 and switar 10mm, not converted, with beala motor, kinoptik eyepiece and a battery belt.

What do you think, folks? done deal?

any hints?

 

thanks

[Matt Pacini]

I have a CP16R/A and a Scoopic.

I love my CP16, and I finally have some really good lenses, so I'm getting great footage.

I haven't used the Eclairs, but a lot of people like them.

 

The K3 and the Scoopic are ridiculous choices for sound - too noisy, and like you said, only handle 100ft loads. (The K3 is a windup too - yuck!)

Film cameras don't record sound anymore, as there's no sound film being made.

 

Matt Pacini

[John Sprung]

Will the seller let you shoot a test on the NPR? If it's in good shape, it's a deal. If it needs help, maybe not. Given that you're shooting handheld, the NPR is the classic choice.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Bill Totolo]

Why don't you just rent an Arri SRII or SRIII? They're relatively cheap.

 

Then just hire a guy who owns his own equipment to do sound. That way it's done right and you won't be kicking yourself later.

 

Shop around for prices and rates. I'm sure you'll find something in your budget. If it's worth doing you may as well make the most of it.

 

Once you rent (instead of purchase) you'll have money left over for a proper head, sticks, batt's, mag's, mattebox, filters, hi-hat, dolly and all the other do-dads that make you're shoot look decent.

 

If I had an idea of your budget I could be a lot more specific but I've wrangled the above mentioned equipment and a grip truck with a lighting package for less than a thousand bucks.

 

If you have less than a thousand bucks you're probably going to have to seek out private owners, who as long as you're professional and polite, may be surpisingly helpful.

 

I would shoot super16, especially if this is for projection.

[Laurent Andrieux]

I basically second Bill.

 

I would shoot Super 16, even for video, since tv - and especially for fictious films - likes wide formats more and more. Unless you are found of 1.37.

 

Aaton is a very good choice too. It's cheaper than ARRI, even more convenient handheld, easy to use...

 

The best I think concerning the post process (I mean the chaepest) would be to have your neg telecine, edit in NLE and then output first in digibeta, then go 35 if you can afford it and have the opportunity to release in film projection.

 

You can always try to show it for sells with the video copy and then print it if there is a opportunity.

 

You don't have to care much about going back to 16, it doesn't have so much sens. If you don't go on 35, then digibeta is just fine for festivals, tv sales...

 

Unless the american market still uses 16 mm projection somewhere, may be some festivals ?

 

Buying is worth only if you plan to make many films, rent your material or you with the camera as a dp... But, I confess that I think the NPR is not such a good choice. It's quite noisy (you have to put loads of jackets on the blimp when shooting sync inside) and it's not easy to handhold at all. Another point is to be sure it works properly, meaning you need do to perform precises tests and eventually afford some maintenance, may be have to find spare parts...

 

I defenetly would rather rent an Aaton or arri s16 sr, also because you have the security of the quality of the maintenance on rented cameras.

[Brett B]

A great camera to use would be an aaton ltr-7 or ltr-54 modified for super 16. It is a quiet camera and would not cost much to rent. Then just record the audio with a DAT. Aaton cameras are great to hand hold. Best of luck.

[Olivier Egli]

how about this:

 

as this is going to be a guerilla style short, I decided to use a sr2 as maiyn camera for the sync action and a super16 converted K3 for the footage that does not require sync sound or where sync sound is not difficult (exteriors, long focal lengths, car/ train shots...).

This way I save money on the rental (sr2 are still quite expensive around here) and I have a camera that's really good for documentary type hand holding.

 

what do you think about that?

[Olivier Egli]

okay, it aint easy, that's for sure, now I am facing another problem:

 

If I am using a K3 for handholding in the super16 format, then what lenses can I use?

The Meteor 1-5 that comes with it will only cover as far down as 27mm which is quite long for most handheld stuff. it will be shaky as hell and cause people to have nausea.

and with the pentax screw mount m42 I can use 35mm lenses that will cover the super16 range but how wide must such a lens be in order to be wide in the S16 format? it is quite hard and expensive to find such a lens let's say a 10mm for 35 will easily go for 500 bucks, right? and yet it will be quite tele... what would I need? the peleng is a fisheye, am I right?

[Chris Keth]

okay, it aint easy, that's for sure, now I am facing another problem:

 

If I am using a K3 for handholding in the super16 format, then what lenses can I use?

The Meteor 1-5 that comes with it will only cover as far down as 27mm which is quite long for most handheld stuff. it will be shaky as hell and cause people to have nausea.

and with the pentax screw mount m42 I can use 35mm lenses that will cover the super16 range but how wide must such a lens be in order to be wide in the S16 format? it is quite hard and expensive to find such a lens let's say a 10mm for 35 will easily go for 500 bucks, right? and yet it will be quite tele... what would I need? the peleng is a fisheye, am I right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

15mm would be a pretty wide lens for 16, 10mm would be getting really wide and a fisheye in 16 would be under 10mm, getting more and more distorted the lower it got. On ebay I've noticed some good zeiss m42 mount lenses in the 10-15mm range that end up selling for a couple hundred. Really good prices on great glass, actually.

[Olivier Egli]

wait...you're talking about a 10mm lens in 35mm for SLR cameras which will turn out a bit more tele when used on a 16mm camera, right? What field of view would a 10mm 35 SLR lens on a K3 give me? Is this equivalent of a 20mm Super16 lens?

[Matt Pacini]

15mm is not very wide at all in 16mm.

I shoot at 12.5mm and 9mm all the time, and neither one looks "fisheye" at all.

You're confusing 16mm with 35mm still format, I think.

 

Matt Pacini

[Matthew McDermott]

15mm would be a pretty wide lens for 16, 10mm would be getting really wide and a fisheye in 16 would be under 10mm, getting more and more distorted the lower it got.

 

Actually, a 15mm lens on 16 is not particularly wide at all. It's more like a normal lens. A 9.5mm is definitely wider but really is just an average wide angle lens, nowhere near fisheye. To get that degree of coverage you'll have to go out to 4mm or 5mm.

 

What field of view would a 10mm 35 SLR lens on a K3 give me? Is this equivalent of a 20mm Super16 lens?

 

There aren't 35mm SLR lenses, other than Nikon and Sigma circular fisheyes, as wide as 10mm. The widest lenses that are in the 14mm-16mm range. Nikon and Canon make zoom lenses for digital SLRs that go wider but they don't have aperture rings on the lens, so you couldn't mount them on a motion picture camera.

 

You've also got your logic backwards; a 10mm lens on 16 would give very roughly the same field of view as a 20mm in 35 motion picture, or a 30mm lens in 35 still film. A 10mm lens on 16mm gives about 60 degrees of coverage.

[Olivier Egli]

alright so if I use a 35mm lens with focal length of 35mm on my k3 which is s16 it going to give me the same field of view as a 17mm s16 lens?

[Matthew McDermott]

No. You still have it backwards.

 

A 35mm lens has about a 60 degree angle of view on 35mm still film, about 45 degrees on 35mm motion picture, and about 20 degrees on Super16. It goes from being slightly wide angle to slightly telephoto.

 

You are right though that a 17mm lens on S16 has about the same angle of view as a 35mm lens on 35 motion picture film.

[Matt Pacini]

Nope.

A 35mm lens is still a 35mm lens, no matter what camera it comes off of.

 

It will look like a different focal length compared to another format, but it's a function of the film format, not the lens.

 

Matt Pacini

[Chris Keth]

Actually, a 15mm lens on 16 is not particularly wide at all. It's more like a normal lens. A 9.5mm is definitely wider but really is just an average wide angle lens, nowhere near fisheye. To get that degree of coverage you'll have to go out to 4mm or 5mm.

There aren't 35mm SLR lenses, other than Nikon and Sigma circular fisheyes, as wide as 10mm. The widest lenses that are in the 14mm-16mm range. Nikon and Canon make zoom lenses for digital SLRs that go wider but they don't have aperture rings on the lens, so you couldn't mount them on a motion picture camera.

 

You've also got your logic backwards; a 10mm lens on 16 would give very roughly the same field of view as a 20mm in 35 motion picture, or a 30mm lens in 35 still film. A 10mm lens on 16mm gives about 60 degrees of coverage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Isn't 50mm a regular lens for a 35mm size frame? So ~25mm would be regular, right...? I haven't shot enough to know offhand, I just know what I was told...

Edited January 6, 2005 by Mr. Bunnies

[Matthew McDermott]

Isn't 50mm a regular lens for a 35mm size frame? So ~25mm would be regular, right...? I haven't shot enough to know offhand, I just know what I was told...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just got confused. We've been talking about 35mm SLR lenses, 35mm and 16mm lenses. You're saying that something around 25mm is a normal lens on which format?

[Chris Keth]

I just got confused. We've been talking about 35mm SLR lenses, 35mm and 16mm lenses. You're saying that something around 25mm is a normal lens on which format?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

16mm

[Matthew McDermott]

A Normal lens for 16mm is about 13-15mm, not 25mm.

 

It's a bit of a contentious subject as I think what we consider a "normal" lens has actually gotten wider over time, but in general a normal lens in defined as one that is equal to the diagonal of the image area. This supposedly approximates the natural perspective of human vision and approximates an angle of view where vision is most sensitive (about 40-45 degrees). However, I've always found that definition a bit misleading. I've found that my natural perspective is in the 60 degree range. If I shoot with a classic normal lens I really feel like I'm zooming in and isolating what I'm framing compared to how I regularly see it.

[Olivier Egli]

yes, I understand that, but what I am concerned about it the field of view I lose when using a 35mm camera on a K3 that has been converted to S16.

If I use a 35mm lens it will still be 35mm but with a different (narrower) field of view.

How much less?

 

let's say if I want a field of view of i.e. 7' and I know that the meteor gives me that at 27mm, what 35mm lens would I need in order to get the same field of view?

see what I mean?

I am being a bit religious here, right? <_<

[David Mullen ASC]

yes, I understand that, but what I am concerned about it the field of view I lose when using a 35mm camera on a K3 that has been converted to S16.

If I use a 35mm lens it will still be 35mm but with a different (narrower) field of view.

How much less?

 

let's say if I want a field of view of i.e. 7' and I know that the meteor gives me that at 27mm, what 35mm lens would I need in order to get the same field of view?

see what I mean?

I am being a bit religious here, right? <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what depth of field / field of view charts are for.

 

A 25mm lens in 35mm 1.85 photography sees 45.5 degrees; focused at 50' it sees 44' wide.

 

A 25mm lens in Super-16 photography sees 26.5 degrees; focused at 50 it sees 23.6' wide.

 

So in 35mm, it sees nearly 2X more basically, slightly less (1.7X to 1.9X).

[Matthew McDermott]

yes, I understand that, but what I am concerned about it the field of view I lose when using a 35mm camera on a K3 that has been converted to S16.

If I use a 35mm lens it will still be 35mm but with a different (narrower) field of view.

How much less?

 

let's say if I want a field of view of i.e. 7' and I know that the meteor gives me that at 27mm, what 35mm lens would I need in order to get the same field of view?

see what I mean?

I am being a bit religious here, right? <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The angle of view will change from about 60 degrees to 25 degrees. If you want the angle of view of what your 27mm lens is giving you on S16 , you still need a 27mm lens from 35.

 

I don't really think in terms of feet when discussing field of view, but the American Cinematography manual has extensive tables showing field of view in feet for different lenses in different formats, based on subject distance from camera.