Jump to content

John King

Basic Member
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John King

  1. Whatever happened to the Maurer camera and gear you were telling us about? Is it still for sale? Already sold?

    Thanks & God Bless!!!

    Mark King

  2. Hoe this helps! :) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bolex-H16-RX4-H16-SB-H16-SBM-Repair-Manual-/200371428419
  3. Thanks to you both! You guys are the greatest!! Also please excuse my typo, the lenses are T1.3 (not 1.4~~ oops!) so yes, they are pretty fast. Yes it was reading that other thread that I became aware of the "prism problem" I had not idea! Back in 2008, I shot some footage on a Bolex EBM I have (also Super 16) with some "TV lenses" I got off ebay really cheap. Some of the fellows here were worried that the footage might come back a little on the soft side. The footage came back to me pretty good though, much better than I was expecting, and in fact rendered a pretty good picture-- so I was prepared to use those lenses for a feature I was shooting (and actually still would) If I recall, I was using a 25mm or a 12.5 in the footage I shot. So I thought the Kowa's being faster lenses would do better, but again this prism problem worries me. I still want to try and find a set of the Kern Switar primes because they are basically Bolex "brand" (Kern-Palliard being parent company). Will look into those mounts! Again thank you both so much!! God Bless!!! JMK
  4. I originally posted this in another thread, but looking again, saw the tread was a bit old (2008) so thought I might ought to post it fresh here. If I am mistaken in doing that my apologies in advance. I am looking at buying a set of prime lenses for a Bolex EL (also converted to Super16) The set is described as super-fast with 1.4 apertures, made by KOWA and are fitted with PL mounts originally on an Eclair NPR. Will these lenses work OK with the EL in Super16? Also, what adapters will I need for the mount or is the PL lock for the Eclair the same or similar to that of Bolex? Here is the list of lenses: KOWA Lenses fast lenses with 1.4 apertures 12.5mm 16mm 25mm They are PL mount for Eclair NPR Thanks in advance for all help and advice! God Bless!!! Mark King
  5. I am looking at buying a set of prime lenses for a Bolex EL (also converted to Super16) The set is described as super-fast with 1.4 apertures, made by KOWA and are fitted with PL mounts originally on an Eclair NPR. Will these lenses work OK with the EL in Super16? Also, what adapters will I need for the mount or is the PL lock for the Eclair the same or similar to that of Bolex? Here is the list of lenses: KOWA Lenses fast lenses with 1.4 apertures 12.5mm 16mm 25mm They are PL mount for Eclair NPR Thanks in advance for all help and advice! God Bless!!! Mark King
  6. Greetings Mr. Houllahan!! You just made a sale!! ~~haha! Your price CANNOT BE BEAT! I will be contacting you soon! Thanks and God Bless!!! John Mark King
  7. Mr. Tuohy, Yes, it is a spiral type tank capable of taking multiple reels. A very old stainless steel tank (the rubber drain tube is dry rotted and needs replacing) It looks like it was set up for 400ft. 35mm to me, VERY large. Also THANK YOU SO MUCH for the info on 100ft dual chamber tanks. I did not know they did not handle color films too well, and would have guessed that because of their operation that they would have. So you saved me from making a drastic and costly error (Dang! I love this site!) So thanks for the education there! I owe you! But over all, I have to agree that .11 cents a foot CANNOT BE BEAT, so I think I will go with Cinelab on this one!~~ haha! Thanks again! God Bless!!! JMK
  8. Thank you both for your replies, I appreciate it so much! :) Thank you Mr. MacDonald for your advice, yes, I had not considered the Rem Jet backing, but will study up on that too. And yes, the stock is pretty old now, and my only hope is that my keeping it froze has kept it in good enough shape. Mr. Tuohy; Actually I have two tanks, the one I was talking about is a rather large (and old) stainless steel tank that (according to the advertisements) is capable developing 35mm or 16mm. I cannot recall the name of it now, but will try to get that and report back later. Just operating from memory mind you, I am going to guess the circumfrence of the tank to be a little better than 1 foot in diameter. I also have a smaller tank, that is like the one you mentioned, capable of taking 100 foot loads and having dual compartments. I have tried on several occasions to get a Lomo tank on eBay, but they are pretty popular and I was always outbid (now I know why) I'll still look for one as I desperately hope to retain the S16 format. If I get a Lomo tank how hard will it be to get instructions to use it in a way to retain the S16 format? Again, I thank you both so much for your advice!! God Bless!!! John King
  9. Hello all, I am in a big bind, and am going to have to develop my own film stock. I tried to find investors for a film project, but had no luck. I got several thousand feet of fuji color negative stocks in a freezer, but it is all out of date (by a few years now-- though I have tried to take good care of it) If possible I don't want this film stock to go completely to waste, so am thinking I will go ahead and shoot a feature with it, and develop the film stock myself. I KNOW IN ADVANCE THAT A LOT OF YOU HERE WILL TELL ME NOT TO DO IT BUT-- I really got no choice. I got to shoot this stock and do it all myself as I cannot afford a lab, and it probably is so out of date I might not get nothing anyway. So PLEASE if anyone out there feels inclined to help me with some info, I'd greatly appreciate it. I have a good quality devlopeing tank that can do 400ft reels at a time and here are a list of the film stocks I am working with: All stocks are Fuji film 16mm / single perf /color neg: 64D 120D 500T 500D What process (chemistry) would be best for each stock and any other info will be greatly appreciated. Thank you all in advance :) John M. King
  10. Hello All, First of all let me start this off with the acknowledgement that there are perhaps a million reasons why I should NOT develop my own negative, but the fact of the matter is I have film that is already out of date (therefore it may not develop anyway) and I am basically forced into doing this (Least the film just sits in a freezer and rots!) But the fact is, I have decided to shoot my project without investors, and develop the film myself (as I cannot afford a lab) Again this is PURELY a desperate move as the film is out of date, and who knows worse comes to worse it will at least be a valuable learning experience. So with all that said, I have Fuji film stock color negative (not Eterna) in 400 ft. rolls. Most of it is 500T (yeah I know so fast it wants to expose itself!) and some 64D and 250D I was wondering what the best chemistry for developing this stock would be. Back years ago I developed some 35mm Black and White, but this stock is COLOR and as I understand it, a LOT harder to handle. I can see already that there are a lot of posts on here that I will be reading up on and studying. But just for beginners starting out, please tell me what chemistry is best. Thanks in advance! God Bless!!! John Mark King
  11. Welcome aboard Mr. Adams, Once you get out there and start playing around with your camera, and start seeing what all is possible with your camera, settings, lenses, and film stocks you will love it even more!!! Look forward to talking with you more about this most worthy passion! Again Welcome & God Bless! John Mark King
  12. Originally Posted by Herbie Pabst: "The original K3 zoom vignettes a bit on the wide end, but I also have a 12.5mm prime that covers the U16 gate. The Zoom on the NPR also doesn't cover the U16 gate at the wide end and I have a 10mm Switar S16 prime that does. Point being is that not all R16 lenses cover the U16 gate but many do. I also use Nikon primes on the NPR which cover the U16 gate." Read more: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=49996#ixzz1Cy1a0TPl Thank you Mr. Pabst! This was very informative and helpful. Common knowledge is that "R16 lenses will cover U16"-- I have long heard and believed this, but we now see that is not necessarily the case, there ARE exceptions. Thank you for sharing your experience with us! I also have another observation and question about U16 and S16 and perhaps Mr. Korver would like to weigh in on this one too: The whole reason forconverting to Ultra 16 is because it is an easier and cheaper way to get more frame area out of your 16mm stock and in a native "widescreen" format. If I recall, U16 gives a native 1.85:1 aspect ratio in the frame, whereas S16 gives us !.66:1 Now my absolute favourite is 1.66:1 (which is closer to the old Academy Aperature 1.33:1 but still a wide screen format) I LOVE the 1.66:1 aspect ratio. I have a Bolex EBM that is converted to S16 and I love the format, but I also got some R16 cameras that I love too, such as Arri S and BL a Mitchell, and my great beloved Maurer 150. Now I was thinking about making duplicate gates, and having these filed out to U16 (saving the original gates) but given the specs.(something like .07mm on each side isn't it? If I recall properly) we get the 1.85:1 aspect ratio which is not bad, and which I like (just not LOVE as I do the 1.66:1 ratio). So I got to thinking (Yes, I know Danger! Will Robinson!) That if the gates were filed out LESS than the .07mm (or whatever is the case) on each side, could it be possible to get a U16 rendering native 1.66:1??? If so would this send us all back to the drawing board to find new gates and such in developing labs to support it??~~ (haha!) OR even more so, would what's required to mask off an R16 frame to 1.66:1 aspect ration enough to warrant the bother of trying to figure up a newer gate width!? Just mask off an R16 frame to the desired aspect ratio and let it roll!? OK, as many of you can see I have been up waaaay too long past my bed time. Good night all, and God bless! JMK
  13. Gosh! This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Of course the title of this thread caught my eye, and when I started reading the responses here, I knew I just had to reply. But PLEASE don't any of you all report me to the Digital Video or HD guys or they might find me and beat me up! :( Anyway, the thing is I'm a diehard FILM guy and absolutely do not like video images. It's hard to describe, but to me video images lack something,some sort of spatial quality. They seem to me vapid, airless, utterly devoid of any texture or atmosphere. And I find this true of most digital video images too, even though they may be a little less "videoishy" than older formats. Although I can't go as far to say that digital video images are "bad"-- but they are different, and yes, I can tell a difference. I felt a little vindicated in my position by this excerpt from MovieMaker Magazines' Complete Guide To Making Movies 2011 [issue 89 Vol. 17 Fall 2010] Article: "So Many Fish In The Sea" Author: Frederick Schroeder First Mr. Schroeder talks about 35mm compared to digital video images: "Still the best image source after 100 years, the quality of 35mm film cannot be beat in terms of color fidelity, latitude and resolution. (Resolution of 35mm film ranges between 5K and 8K.)" So film is definitely better not just in my opinion either! ~~haha! BUT he goes on to write: "Even shooting with the smaller Super16mm format...will give you BETTER color fidelity and latitude than ANY digital format currently available." [Emphasis Added by me] It's true, I simply like FILM images, and have always liked the look of films shot on 16mm. But I put HD, I think to the ULTIMATE test, and it happened quite by accident. A buddy of mine recently bought a new Blu-Ray disc player. One day I head over to his house for a visit and he has Kubricks "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) on the wide screen TV. I can't believe what I am seeing. So I ask my buddy-- "What's wrong with it?" He replies "What do you mean what's wrong with it? This is in HD, just like audiences saw it when it first came out"-- NO, it wasn't either. It looked like VIDEO to me and not even decent video either, but the thinnest, most vapid video you can imagine -- like soap opera video only worse (if that's possible, and looking at this I'd ahve tosay yes, it's possible!) So this was the much vaunted HD that I'd heard so much about! YUCK! It took Kubrick's BEAUTIFUL film images and made them look like cheap soap opera video! I was horrified, and stupefied as to WHAT all the fuss over HD was about anyway?? I am being honest with you I cannot stand to look at HD images, saw "Teh Book of Eli"on his machine too (shot on digital RED One camera) and he had it set on HD and this time it looked like the images in a video game. The colours were whacky (someone told me that was done deliberately in colour correction-- OK if that's what they want to call it) but again,over all the thing just looks so videoishy to me, and HD is worse, not better as far as my eyes can tell. If digital cinema and HD truly are the future of cinema, then I am afraid I will have no future in it, not only as one making movies, but even as one who watches them. Anyway, had to get this off my chest, and this thread looked like the ideal place to do it. Thanks & God bless! JMK
  14. Hello Mr. Seguin, I'm not very knowledgeable about Bell & Howell D-series of 16mm cameras (although I own one, I do not own a 400ft mag for it) but just judging from the pics, the 400ft. magazines for the Bell & Howell D series of cameras LOOK like they would mount to the Maurer camera, as the Maurer uses the same central locking screw (between the "mouse ear" film compartments) as the Bell & Howell. Now what I don't know, is whether or not this particular Bell& Howell magazine is gear driven (like the Maurer) or utilises a belt drive like the Mitchell cameras. I don't know the answer to this, but maybe someone who does will see my post and reply. I'll keep an eye out for some for you though as the odd film magazine comes on eBay from time to time. Anyway, I hope this helps! God bless! JMK
  15. Hello Mr. Boroski, Cool right at Oscar time too! :) And the winner is.... Haha! Well I've only been on here for about 4 years myself, so I'm still catching up. But I remember posting something here singing the praises of my old Maurer (in fact that just might be the title of the thread "My Old Maurer"??) and I don't see how this thread got by me! ~~haha! Yes, I REALLY love my Maurer, and want one of the later models with the additional buckle trip switch, not that mine has ever given me a minute of trouble about losing loop or anything, but I just love this camera so much I decided that if possible I wanted to collect the different variants. The engineering of the camera is a testament to straightforward simplicity at its best with the main drum type of drive mechanism. And talk about tough! The thing looks (and weighs!) as if it were hewn out of a single solid block of aluminum. It's thick walled body, and the simplicity of its drive mechanism (less all those intricate series of feed rollers) might explain why the Maurer (or mine anyway) is such a quiet camera for one catagorised as a MOS camera. But believe me with a thick blanket (and well oiled magazine gears) you CAN shoot sync sound scenes with this camera. Anyway, as you can guess I am just smitten with the Maurer camera and would love to collect some other models/variants and other accessories (ie. I have a matte that is rounded, but I have also seen pictures of a squared hard matte on this camera that looked like a stock fixture in the pics). All I can say is that if you want a camera that generally doesn't cost too much, and you see one on eBay, you can't go wrong in my humble opinion. Just better beat me to it!~~ Haha! God bless! JMK
  16. I have a Maurer 16mm and I LOVE it. Was actually surprised how quietly it runs (can baffle sound well enough with thick blanket) and it is indeed robust. It's internals are pretty simple and straightforward, Not like Mitchell, Auricon, or even CP-16R (and NOTHING AGAINST these cameras, they are great too) Parts might be a problem to find, but doubt much will break on this one. Only drawback is that camera is VERY heavy -- NOT recommended for those of you who like to shoot hand held all the time ~~haha! Hope this helps! God Bless! JMK
  17. Hello all, I don't get it. I STILL don't see any "writing on the wall" other than that so many are willing to give up QUALITY for ease and cheapness. I have YET to see ANY video format (digital, digital HD, whatever) that looks as good as film and YES I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE. I think those who say they can't must not be looking, they just want to believe the quality is the same, but these eyes haven't been fooled yet. Video formats (ALL video formats) -in my not always humble opinion-- have this vacuous, vapid, look that is totally devoid of any texture or atmosphere. There are some scenes that look OK in some movies I have seen (mostly interior sequences) but most times the video image is greatly lacking as far as I am concerned. I have shot 16mm and my film looked much better to me than anything I have seen on video (and I am NOT a particularly "great" cinematographer, but film just looks good if properly exposed, or exposed to desired effect) I started buying 16mm gear back in 2002, people were unloading it then to buy the newer DV cameras. I got lucky as prices went fairly low then, but I think they have been coming back up (on eBay anyway)-- Let people sell them, as long as I can afford them I will buy them, and as long as Kodak and Fuji will make film, I will shoot on FILM. Thanks & God Bless! J.M. King
  18. Hello Mr. Halloran, My hats off to you sir, as I prefer to work in analog systems too. I also have a Moviola Flatbed. If you do not have a manual for yours, let me know, and if your model is the same as mine I will scan my manual and send copy to you. Hope this helps out! God Bless! J.M. King
  19. "...the classical ballet of film rather than the Irish jig of digital." Mr. O'Doherty, You've just insulted Irish jigs. How could you compare something with so much life to those awful vacuous, vapid, atmosphere lacking, lifeless video formats! If we lose film, we lose all the beauty of cinema. God Bless! Mark King
  20. Hello Mr. Rose, Yes, I am somewhat aware of the debate going over Ultra 16 and whether or not it's even necessary. I have talked with a cinematographer in Canada (Oliver Glaser) who is very satisfied with his Ultra 16 cameras (one of which is also an Eclair). He told me that side by side with Super16 the Ultra16 is almost identical. I do know that Super16 offers a native 1.66:1 aspect ratio, whereas Ultra16 offers a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. As for labs covering the format. I know that Colorlab can handle some stuff in Ultra16 format, but not sure what all they can do, but just research their site: www.colorlab.com Hope this helps! God Bless! Mark King
  21. Posted by Chris Descor: By these colours are you talking about some sort of tinting? Are you referring to the coatings used on lenses? I recall reading that lenses manufactured in the USA use an orangey tint to them, whereas lenses manufactured in Europe, used a bluish tinting. This affected a lot of the look of movies from these two continents. It could be this tinting you're talking about??? I'm not sure. Anyway, hope this helps. God belss! Mark King
  22. Mr. Borowski, I must say I have to agree with your opinion, but it is much more than just "CG". This whole business of making movies on digital video is not "cinematography" in the strictest sense, which as you say is PHPTOGRAPHY-- celluloid, photochemical processes, not bits do computer data. I laugh inwardly everytime I see a movie shot on DV (or even HD for that matter) and they have the credit fade in "A Film by________________" Really funny. I call it videography myself, and just refer to the whole business as "moviemaking" rather tahn "filmmaking" as this is a much safer term as regards accuracy. Anyway, I guess we're just two sour old dinosaurs--haha! God Bless! Mark King
  23. Hello, I don't know if you've already considered this or not, but here's one thing that can help you with the shooting ratio problem. You take a video camera with you and do rehearsals on video Even an old VHS camcorder would work here, because all you're wanting is something you can watch with your actors to evaluate their performances. So you shoot the scenes over and over in video, sit back and watch them with your actors and make notes, comments, and generally give them more direction from the monitor. When you feel that they are starting to nail the performances on the video, then you go over and shoot it on film. Now of course, things still happen, and takes can be blown for just whatever reasons, but I have found that this can be a real saver of film. But with all that said, I certainly DO recommend getting some more film, and increasing your shooting ratio. Also remember that everything you get on the first take increases your film budget on the back end (ie. increases your shooting ratio from say, 2:1 to 3:1 and so on). Anyway, if you haven't considered this already, I hope it helps! :) J.M. King
  24. Hello, Yes, the slower the film speed, the sharper the contrast (an better transfer results in electronic formats) higher film speeds are generally more grainy. Best results are to shoot slightly over-exposure (with colour stock) to get a denser negative so that blacks do not look muddy in shadowy areas. Hope this helps! God Bless! J.M. King
  25. I have Arri 16S and BL also, the mags are simple 400 ft. displacement types. These are very similar to the 400ft. displacement mags for the Bolex cameras I used in the summer of 2008. These I loaded and unloaded the recans in a typical changing bag. I had no trouble-- maybe I was just lucky. But I guess as with all things, practice and get the feel of the magazine's layout. Practice over and over again until the parts feel more familiar in your hands. Then practice it out of the bag, but not looking at what you are doing, that or (like I did) practice in the bag with old film. Hope this helps! God Bless! John King
×
×
  • Create New...