Matt Pacini Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Phil, I think you have to accept that you haven't given film a decent chance, and there are many different cameras out there. For instance, my CP16R/A has a terrible viewfinder, BUT there are replacements that are better. I just happen to not have one. My Canon Scoopic M (which cost me $331) has a nearly gigantic image in the viewfinder, clear as a bell, and it doesn't flicker at all. You just happened to get hold of a camera with a crappy VF. I'm sure you would agree there are video cameras with crappy VF's, right? Matt Pacini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Goldstein Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 Looking at the website it looks as though that place is using a canon xl1 for video transfer instead of a true telecine like a rank or spirit. If you are unhappy with your results, I would try sending your negative's to a professional telecine lab.you may still get good results...I've seen a lot of "homemade"transfers that looked pretty darn good. just be aware that this is not a professional method for transfer that this place uses and might not be the best your film can look. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I noticed this as well. What is a company you would recomend for a good telecine? Another thing which I was completely unaware of was developing film. Me being the idiot who doesn't take the time to read about these things, I sent in the film undeveloped. They contacted me and told me, but were kind enough to do it for me. Is developing something I could do at home or it something else I would have to send in and get done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Donis Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Is developing something I could do at home or it something else I would have to send in and get done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You'd have to send it in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 15, 2005 Hi, > I'm sure you would agree there are video cameras with crappy VF's, right? Not that crappy. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 I noticed this as well. What is a company you would recomend for a good telecine? Another thing which I was completely unaware of was developing film. Me being the idiot who doesn't take the time to read about these things, I sent in the film undeveloped. They contacted me and told me, but were kind enough to do it for me. Is developing something I could do at home or it something else I would have to send in and get done? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well there are lots of great places and most of them are listed here http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/...=0.1.4.15&lc=en I just got stuff back from movielab.... movielab.com ,and I must say i'm impressed.they do a good job for reasonable rates. Duart.com is mentioned alot so I believe they are probably one of the best.If you look in the news section they have a deal for students...$100 for 300 ft telecined and processed + $35 per additional 100ft.if you're not a student you could probably still call and get that rate if you are not filming professionally yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I am also preparing to shoot for the first time on film sometime next month (hopefully) with the K-3. I am SICK of the crappy video look, and want to learn film before I get to college. It's a western short, about 5 minutes long, all hot daylight except for one short scene inside a cave. What would be the easiest way to light the cave? What would be the easiest way to light the daylight scenes? I have an arri kit, 3 650's available, would it pay to get a genny and throw up some lights? or could I just use bounceboards? I'll probably be shooting on kodak 250D (or 50D?...i forget which i found out was better) Also, is it easy to obtain close-ups with the K-3? I saw that there's a "close-up adaptor" for the lens, which i guess makes it more telephoto, but how effective is this, and does it degrade image quality? I might be able to get free film stock through my video production teacher, but it will probably be different stocks. How hard is it to match stocks in post? Is that what i'd have to do, or is there some kind of practical filter that would fix it? Could I shoot at different times of day to get the stocks looking the same? Thanks, and sorry for the barrage of questions David Sweetman P.S. Phil, i don't understand how you can like video. I know it's easier; it looks like crap. Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico (blasphemy to Leone), both visual train wrecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted April 19, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 19, 2005 i don't understand how you can like video. I know it's easier; it looks like crap. Man on Fire, <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Man on Fire" was shot in HD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Schilling Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) "Man on Fire" was shot on Ektrchrome 100D Edited April 19, 2005 by Skratch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JONATHANEDWARDS Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 P.S. Phil, i don't understand how you can like video. I know it's easier; it looks like crap. Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico (blasphemy to Leone), both visual train wrecks. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> David i would suggest you watch man on fire again, personally the two films are incomparable. BLASPHEMY. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 19, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 19, 2005 Hi, > Phil, i don't understand how you can like video. I know it's easier; it looks like crap Maybe it looks like crap when you shoot it! But doesn't this seem ironic to anyone else? "It's easy" - "it looks crap." Or more accurately, "it's hard to make it look good." But then is anyone going to tell me it's easy to make anything look genuinely good? It's easier from an administrative and engineering standpoint, that much is clear, or it wouldn't be worth shooting - I just don't think film offers enough for the enormous expense, inconvenience, discomfort and general unpleasantless of having anything to do with it. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 But then is anyone going to tell me it's easy to make anything look genuinely good? Well point me anything shot on video that looks good, especially on SD? HD is approaching good, but it's also enormously expensive. I don't get that general unpleasantless you say, one have to be willing to do something for a good picture. There is much more pain to feel in other departments. I can say I'm happy to twist my back a little bit to see the viewfinder, rather than spend a day on a special effects team prepping explosives, or on a rigging crew etc. That said, I'm also happy to do all of that, but it's hard work and doesn't always feel pure joy. To me, this sounds like pointless whining. If you are thinking from an administrative or engineering standpoint, you should be doing something else. Because film business really doesn't make sense, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Maybe it looks like crap when you shoot it! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, a good looking image is one thing I get right. My point is the best looking video can't match the best looking film. I will have to take another look at Man on Fire, i'd heard from a friend it was HD then only saw a few scenes from it...wierd anyway, i would appreciate any answers to my questions David Sweetman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 (edited) No, a good looking image is one thing I get right. My point is the best looking video can't match the best looking film. I will have to take another look at Man on Fire, i'd heard from a friend it was HD then only saw a few scenes from it...wierd anyway, i would appreciate any answers to my questions David Sweetman <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well it sounds like you already have a game plan for shooting your scene. Only thing that I can contribute is maybe suggesting not using the stock lens for close ups. check out m42 lenses on ebay. zeiss flektogons come in 29,35and 50mm lengths and are very nice as are super takumars( I have two of these myself) The mc zenitar 16mm is really really sweet and so is the mir 3.5 20mm Any of these can be had for under $200 ...some much less and would be great for close ups and would take pounds off your camera. Edited April 20, 2005 by jeremy edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 The mc zenitar 16mm is really really sweet and so is the mir 3.5 20mm <{POST_SNAPBACK}> will this work? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 will this work? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...ssPageName=WDVW <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No,it has to say m42 mount or pentax screw mount ...unless you have one of the rare bayonet mount k3s Remember 50 mm is a long focal length. Move your stock zoom to 50mm and look through the viewfinder. It will be too shaky to handhold at 50mm but you will get a nice cinematic DOF. Search m42 in camera and photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 No,it has to say m42 mount or pentax screw mount ...unless you have one of the rare bayonet mount k3s Remember 50 mm is a long focal length. Move your stock zoom to 50mm and look through the viewfinder. It will be too shaky to handhold at 50mm but you will get a nice cinematic DOF. Search m42 in camera and photo <{POST_SNAPBACK}> search item #7507291329 I could kick myself but i really dont have the cash right now lol! this is one from my wish list and it looks as though it will go for under $100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Remember 50 mm is a long focal length. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't that what I would want for closeups? a longer lens, rather than a wider lens? I can't check it out on the k3 because it's not mine, it's a friends and I haven't gotten it from him yet Wait a minute a 200mm would be extreme telephoto right? and a smaller number would be a wide angle? All the numbers kind of confuse me at this point, so forgive me if I can't keep up...although i finally got the concept of f-stop down, if not the practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 (edited) Isn't that what I would want for closeups? a longer lens, rather than a wider lens? I can't check it out on the k3 because it's not mine, it's a friends and I haven't gotten it from him yet Wait a minute a 200mm would be extreme telephoto right? and a smaller number would be a wide angle? All the numbers kind of confuse me at this point, so forgive me if I can't keep up...although i finally got the concept of f-stop down, if not the practice <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well you can do close ups two ways: Get really close to the subject ,which requires better close focusing than the meteor zoom can do or you can use a longer focal length which the meteor stock zoom can do.You can stand far away and 'zoom" in close. Like I say ..when you get your hands on it ...look through the finder with your stock lens with different settings(you can see the numbers on the zoom lever) to detemine what kind of shot you want.it goes from 17mm to 70mm.You know if you can afford to fool around with 16mm you should probably buy your own K3.They're pretty cheap! Remember on a 35mm still camera a 50mm is normal but on a 16 its a telephoto almost.Something like an 8mm like the peleng would be considered wide-angle ,a 28mm would not.Personally I want the 16mm or 20mm for my close shots. As far as f-stops go....luckily the k3 has a built in meter....just set the speed of the film to match up with the frame rate (fps)pn the side dial and keep the needle in the middle by adjusting your f-stop..its an approximation though...not super accurate. I find the meter reads a tad low in most situations so far . Edited April 20, 2005 by jeremy edge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Actually watch the video under the thread: "S16mm Four Tet music video with bodymount" He used a 9.5 mm lens for close ups. See if thats the kind of close up shot you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I want to get closer than that, so the face fills most of the frame, if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Josh Hill Posted April 26, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 26, 2005 5.9mm should do you fine. Watch Eddie Presley if you can, there are some good close up shots using a 5.9mm lens where Duane Whitaker's face fills most of the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Goldstein Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 Hello again. After quite a bit of complications, I got the tape back from the conversion. I'm not sure how/why the color is the way it is, but i'm going to take a crazy guess and assume it has something to do with the light meter? I also don't know why it is very blue. Seeing it made me instantly think 8mm. Here is the clip with no color editing- no color editing and then here is my no-experience attempt at trying to color it with a adobe premiere's color correction filter- color corrected ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jeremy edge Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Well, there is some weird stuff going on here. The flashes of light look like the film was exposed to light somehow...or perhaps the exposure is grossly off.Also how old was the film stock and what type? The blue tint can come from using tungsten film without a daylight filter. Also where was it transferred? odd they didnt crop that little extra off the frame there to give you a nice even border.Definitley some strange results.the motion looks pretty fluid so I dont think its the camera. Maybe some guys on here who have had more experience can help diagnose but these are my observations.definitely way different looking than the first few rolls ive looked at from my k3.i would check what stock you were using and how you metered the exposure.if youre using the internal I would rate 100t at 50 or 75 and 500 at 250 or so ..and so on.make sure you have the right number lined up with your framerate.then keep the needle as close to the middle as you can. if you use tungsten stock ex. 100t tell the lab you dont have an 85 filter when you send the film in.i assume you used the stock lens.I believe the stock lens does however come with a nd filter which will help tame down bright sunlight.Its the one that is clear and appears to dim when you put it on.dont mistake it for the close up diopter which is clear too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Goldstein Posted May 18, 2005 Author Share Posted May 18, 2005 Here is the film I used. Bought it from there as well. So yeah, I guess it being tungsten had something to do with it. My K3 only came with one lens, which I'm not sure what it's for. Refering to this picture, I belive it is the darker yellow one, though mine doesn't seem as dark as that. I loaded the film in a room with no lights on or anything on a very cloudy day, so it was pretty dark. The fog doesn't really concern me though. What stock would you recomend using with the filter(or without a filter) I have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 A 77mm 85 filter (plain 85, 85A or 85B) would do the job fine. I'm getting some similar stock transferred and used an 85 filter for it, so I'll post it when I get it back, k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now