Ryan Puckett

CargoLargo used to have a retail store here in Sacramento. It's kinda like a huge surplus dealer. They get their merchandise from lost shipments, overstock, auctions etc. It's about as reputable as you can get for a surplus dealer. The store here was a massive warehouse that always had the most random stuff at absurd prices. I used to scour the camera department every few days for new stuff.

My first reaction is that the 70s color had much less to do with the stock, and a lot more to do with what was in fashion at the time. Deal with the color in art direction. 70s era 35mm being a bit more grainy, you might be able to get away shooting a modern stock in 16mm. Definitely use older optics, and maybe pull process to bring the contrast down a bit. Milky blacks, and hard lighting.

When I first started doing music videos I had a lot of the same complaints. I kept thinking back and reminiscing over how awesome most of the videos were when I was younger. After getting a chance to see a bunch of old music videos I realized that they have always been pretty lame, and repetitive. There are usually only one or two standout videos a year, and all the rest are knockoffs of a previous style. Everything comes in waves, and this isn't any different then other pop culture products.

This is by far one of my favorite ebay sellers. Most of the stuff is on par with name brand equipment both design and qualitywise. I've got quite a few C-stands and lightstands, and have to say they are just as good as the matthews stuff i've used. The only complaint about the c-stands is that the grip heads don't have the fiber, or metal washers between the knurled plates, but it's pretty easy to get some and just slap them in. I don't think I've paid over $60 for the biggest stand, so I won't even complain too much.

Does it have to be a kino? Or just a florescent tube? It would be easy just to use a cheap commercial flo lamp/ballast, and let it flicker like it naturally wants to. Opposed to taking something specifically designed not to flicker, and then downgrading it...

I've got the same Harrison tent, and the extra expense is totally worth it. Lots off room to work in, and you don't have to fuss with the bag material getting in the way.

I think it's just a picture through the viewfinder.... Thankfully when it wasn't in his pants.

"whipped it out and started shooting!" For all these years I've thought it was a camel hair brush used to clean lenses. Hmm, learn something new every day. I hope he at least sterilizes it for the highest bidder. :D

I had it done two years ago, and I would do it again in a heart beat. Glasses where constantly fogged or scratched (and expensive). And dealing with diopter changes on viewfinders was really irritating. I've tried various contacts twice, and had more problems with those then glasses. It has made my life significantly better. I was told that if the vision shifts over years as it naturally will in all people, the operation can be performed one more time. Or you can use contacts or glasses like before. It isn't for everybody, the surgeon will be able to tell you if you are, or are not a good candidate. I was very nearsighted with an astigmatism, and they had no problem being able to correct it to 20/20.

Its for the final scene in the office building looking over the city. They used a handfull of halogen work lights as practicals. I recall that they were gelled with probably a half CTB to go with the overall blue tone of the scene. They did use a ton of those "budget buster" clip lights in the earlier portions of the movie though.

Lasik most definitely uses lasers. The cornea gets partially sliced off with a razor type thing which might possibly be the strangest sensation I've ever felt. Lasers do all the shaping after that, then the cornea gets placed back over the newly shaped surface. I was both very near sighted, and had an astigmatism. The drawbacks of using glasses, contacts, or diopters, outweighed the drawbacks of the surgery. It's been over a year, and I can say that there are no differences in perception of latitude (definitely not 8-bit vision). And there hasn't been any loss of focus in either my near or far vision. The only common side affect I experinced were halos around lightsources at night for the first 6 months or so while the scar tissue was healing. I never noticed it in viewfinders though, so it was never an issue, just a slight annoyance when driving at night. If I had to make the decision again, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I've got a book on alchemy around here somewhere...*rifles through desk*

Leon / the Professional

I can't believe they still use the word "theory". Between the two opposing views one has a long list of facts and evidence that spans over millions of years. And the other view has... um... a story.

quick draw holster for windex and a squeegee?

deaeaeglbabdeba&d I forgot to pick up my scantron forms at the student store, did I pass?

I'm interested in what set behaviours and expectations you have? Especially if they became a deal breaker? You shouldn't have any problems finding people who operate in a very professional manner for the rates you are complaining about. Unless the request goes beyond standard business ethics.

I assume your talking about 16mm. I guess dependent on where the K3 camera came from, it's possible the flange focal depth could be off. You probably should have done a focus test on one of those rolls. That would have given you a better idea of what is wrong, and by how much. If that is the case, things in focus in the viewfinder, will not be in focus at the film plane. The K3 lens is kind of low contrast, but you probably wouldn't mistake that for soft focus. Try examining the negatives with a strong loupe, or scan a portion of it at high rez on a flatbed scanner that can scan film. Like Phil said color temp isn't absolute. The 85b filter just gets you to the theoretical color balance. Scene to scene color corections won't have any problems correcting out any other slight color casts. As for the ND filters... It shouldn't affect balance in any way, unless you were doing something different with the exposure. I run a 4 ND occasionally when I'm really trying to cut the depth of field down outdoors. But generally I would expect to use a slower speed film so I don't have to use so much filtration The viewfinder in that camera is already a little dark. You don't need to make it harder on yourself.

This ones a little complex.. stay with me here... Razor blade, and screwdriver... :D You just need to peel the thin sheetmetal plate off the front, to get to the screws. There are a couple of medium sized screws that hold the front of the camera body on. Once those are out it pulls right off. There are 3 or 4 little flat head screws in the center of the shutter. Pull those and your home free. Just mark the shutter and shaft with a permenent pen first so you know it goes back on in the correct orientation. I polished the shutter really good while I had it off too just to make it a little brighter.. It's also a good time to clean the ground glass with some rubbing alcohol while you have extra room. Cake! Let me know if it works out.

I was bothered by the same problems. I tend to frame things fairly tight, so guessing at what you can't see always makes me a little uneasy. When I had my camera completely torn apart I tried to figure out a way to modify the viewfinder. My conclusion was that it would be easier to build a new camera from scratch then to try and modify the K3. The light path and prisms are set into the cast aluminum. There is no easy way to shift the ground glass, and maintain that path without a complete remachining, and creation of brand new parts. The second problem being that I don't think the eyepeice will be near wide enough to see the full aspect ratio very well. You would only see the middle of the frame, and would really have to struggle to see one side or the other of the framing. For a sub $200 camera you can't complain about it too much... I was totally tempted to modify the shutter too. The shutters are so easy to take on and off that I was considering buying an extra one or two off ebay, and welding in little wedges to make some tighter shutter speeds. I'm sure tape and plastic sheet would work too, as long as you make sure it doesn't get knocked off and jam the film movement.

The normal photography meter will work just fine for your needs. The cine meters on ebay usually run around $300 to $600 USD. Not cheap, but better then store prices. You just have to compare readings with another meter to make sure they are calibrated correctly when you recieve them. They are nice to have, but certainly not a requirement by any means.

I'd rather see the creepy model lady behind the screen.... I wonder what the background would look like on a breezy day.

Doubling the focal length is a good general approximation. It doesn't translate perfectly because of different aspect ratios. The K3 does not have a 180 degree shutter though. It has a 150 degree shutter, so at 24 fps you get a shutter speed of 1/60th. At 32 fps, you get a shutter speed of 1/80th. This works well if you are using a non cine lightmeter because it correlates close enough to 35mm still camera shutter speeds. If you have a cine light meter, just input the 150 deg. shutter angle, the film speed, and the FPS and let it do the math....

I watch the Konvas packages on ebay regularly just to see what comes up and what things are selling for. I've been slowly building up an Anamorphic MOS 35 package for cheap this way. I'm not saying this is true in every case, but when you have a camera auction with misspellings and incorrect information it's usually a red flag. The kicker being that this particular individual has questionable feedback from other sellers, and no feedback from buyers. There are all kinds of fraud alerts from camera buyers and sellers on the Konvas user group. The only accepted payments are personal check or money order too. Which might be ok if you plan to hand deliver the payment and pick up the camera at the same time. If it is legitimate, It shouldn't go for less then $3500 to $4500 even with the sketchy factor. I've bid on some shady stuff before, but I would definitely hesitate with that auction.

If we are discussing 16mm film tests in the extremely low budget range. What I have done is just shoot 100 ft. spools of the 16mm stock I want to test on my K3. You can then scan individual frames from the negative on a regular flatbed scanner that can handle negatives and transparencies. Far from a perfect or elegant system. But reletively cheap, and you are actually testing the particular film stock in question. It will give you extremely good scans to judge the grain and exposure too. You won't be able to visualize the "boiling" of the grain in actual projected or telecined versions though.