Patrick Cooper

M42 is the official name given to the 'pentax screw mount.' So there is that option or the bayonet mount option. I think the choice of which one to get really depends on what sort of shooting you plan to do. As you probably already know, when a lens designed for a larger film format is mounted on to a camera designed to expose a smaller film frame, you will only be using the middle of the lens - hence you will get a significantly narrower angle of view. So with an M42 screw mount, most still photography lenses will give a telephoto effect. Even if you use a moderate wide angle lens like a 28mm or 20mm lens, the angle of view that you will get with the K3 will not be much different than a 'normal' standard lens. And even if you get hold of a super wide angle lens like a 17mm, this will only become a slight wide angle when mounted on the K3. M42 wide angle lenses that were designed specifically for the 16mm format are almost non existant. Basically your only choice if you want a really generous wide angle in this mount is the Peleng 8mm. I bought the K3 with the M42 mount because I planned to use this camera mainly for filming wildife. So the extra magnification that i get when mounting still photography lenses really comes in handy. And of course for this sort of filming, I have limited use for a wide angle lens...so that wasnt really a big consideration. On the other hand, if you need a variety of short focal length lenses for your filming, then the K3 with the bayonet mount would be more suitable. I believe there are a number of lenses (both wide angle and telephoto) that were made with this mount.

Hello Kathleen! If you own a reflective light meter rather than an incident type, a grey card can be a very handy accessory. For years in still photography, I took light readings from mid toned areas within the scene around me and although the majority of my exposures turned out fine, there were still many frames that I had ruined by overexposing or underexposing. Of course what looks like a mid tone to our eyes may not reflect exactly 18% of the light falling on it. So it's quite easy to get fooled. When I bought a grey card, my exposures became much more consistent. Bear in mind though that grey cards do become lighter over time and this can lead to underexposure and so they need to replaced every once in a while. A brand new grey card should last a fair while. I guess you'll be shooting negative film so if you overexpose a little bit, you should be fine. By the way, last I heard - Teds Cameras had some Jessops grey cards in but that was a few months ago.

After reading the description of this 8mm home movie on ebay, I think it could turn out to be quite a powerful visual experience. http://cgi.ebay.com/8mm-Home-Movie-1-Huge-...1QQcmdZViewItem

Well I guess we can both agree that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a classic adventure film - probably the only thing that we can agree on! Going back to discussing Temple, I really am in awe of that scene where Indy and his companions come across that enormous cavity / cavern with the multiple Khali worshippers and the giant statue of Kahli and that fiery pit where people are sacrificed. The set design was very impressive. The ceremony was fascinating too. Then when all the worshippers leave and Indy climbs down to investigate this menacing and sinister place, the viewer feels a chill down his/her spine as the suspense builds and one wonders what's going to happen next. And for outright adventure, you can't beat that scene towards the end where Indy is faced with Khali worshippers on either side of him on a rope bridge which he cuts in two. The lucky ones are merely slammed into a cliff face. The unlucky ones fall hundreds of meters into crocodile infested waters. Very attractive location too. I actually wasn't aware that the writers of Temple had also worked on Howard the Duck. It goes to show that writers are capable of producing hits and misses. And Temple is definitely a hit!

I must be one of the few people who wasn't overly impressed with the third film 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.' Certainly not a bad film by any means - it was good entertainment but in in my opinion no way in the same league as the first two films which were fine examples of legendary, rip-roaring adventure. Crusade did have it's moments. There was certainly some good humour in there - like Indy (dressed as a ticket inspector) punching the German officer out the window of the blimp and then telling the passengers this is what happens if you don't have a ticket - I still laugh at that when I think about it. Though the archaeology segment near the end was not as interesting or imaginative as the exploring of ancient temples in the first two films. That bridge forming over the gap looked cheesey. And that skeleton dressed in knight's armour having a conversation with Indy just looked a bit odd to me. I have to say that the introduction of Indiana's character in the beginning of Raiders is so well executed and memorable. Most of the characters are in shadow and you see a close up of a gun being cocked. Then a whip unleashes and knocks the gun out of the guy's hand, and then the viewer sees the first appearance of Indiana Jones - emerging from the shadow - classic!

"I think film was born into my blood..." I hope that won't cause blood contamination. Kidding! Good luck on your venture into 16mm film. I have a K3 too and Ive just recently run my first negative film through it. Actually, a few years ago at a flea market, I picked up a pile of out of date B&W 100ft 16mm films for $3 each - that was the reason why I later picked up the camera.

"Who said you needed expensive equipment here in this thread?" All the camera equipment mentioned previously in this thread would be considered quite expensive....compared to super 8. "IDK why you'd want to shoot S8 for a serious production..." Who said one needed to use a narrow shutter angle for a serious production? I was assuming that the original poster simply wanted to know how to acheive this effect. Though I guess I shouldn't even mention the use of S8 in so-called serious productions such as 'JFK', 'Natural Born Killers' and 'In My Image' - an independant feature film shot mostly on S8. "My old beat-up Auricon has a really nice adjustable shutter..." Out of curiosity, what frame rates does that Auricon have? Sounds like an interesting old camera you have.

'Lets Spend The Night Together' was shot on 35mm? Woah! I wonder if it ever had a cinema release. That time lapse sequence during the song 'Going to a Go-Go' was very well executed.

By the way, you don't need expensive equipment to produce that strobing effect seen in 'Saving Private Ryan.' Some super 8 cameras have a variable shutter. I paid $150 for my first super 8 camera (a Canon 1014 Autozoom Electronic with variable shutter) together with a projector. To be honest, I didn't like the use of a narrow shutter angle in the first battle scene in the beginning of 'Gladiator.' It just looked a bit odd to me. I would have preferred that they shot the footage with a regular shutter angle.

Always good to read a post of yours, John - informative as usual. How are you doing these days?

If you have a lot of telephoto shots / close ups planned and like to play around with shallow depth of field, then you are going to love 35mm format lenses.

If shooting 500T under tungsten lighting with no filter, setting 320 on your light meter will overexpose the negative. If you are shooting 500T under daylight illumination with an 85 filter in place, setting 320 on your light meter will expose the negative normally.

I enjoy wide angle photography too - I especially like the dramatic, imposing look when shooting from a low angle with a short focal length lens. Going back to The Life Aquatic and it's visual look, I do recall reading that an Ektachrome film stock was used for all the mock vintage documentary footage in the film. Clever use of reversal in a feature film.

There were some really interesting segments in that film like skiing on that mountain in Africa. Good snowboarding footage in there too. When I was making my way to the cinema, I was actually expecting it to be projected on film but I got a nasty surprise. Besides the image quality being awful thanks to supposedly 'state of the art' video projection, they were having trouble with the sound. The first several minutes of the film were in complete silence and the audience were getting agitated. Someone yelled out: "Refund!"

Agreed - Cold Fusion is a great ski / snowboarding film. I saw the premier at the local cinema and i hate to say this but it was projected on video and the resolution / colour was appalling. Good photography though. And a classic snowboarding film shot on 16mm and featuring stunning cinematography of big mountain riding is TB5.

Ive just done some more research at the Canon Museum and apparently, there are two Canon 16mm movie cameras with interchangeable lenses. And only one of them has 'Scoopic' in the model name. This one is the Canon Scoopic 200S10 released in 1972 and features a bayonet mount. It sounds like this was a unique lens mount developed by Canon. Though Ive never heard of a set of lenses produced with this mount. The lens that was supplied with this camera may well be the only lens available with this mount - but i can't say with any certainty. The other camera is a Canon Systema Sound 16 which was released in 1979. This camera uses an Arriflex mount. It seems that all the Canon 16mm cameras were aimed largely at newsgathering. The Systema Sound 16 model was the last 16mm movie camera that Canon produced because of the TV news' transition from film to video at the time. More information is available here. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/cine/f_index.html

Ive had little experience with shooting negative cine film (only used it once recently) but it's a well known and common practise to overexpose it slightly in order to reduce grain. Many cinematographers deliberately overexpose neg film by half a stop or two thirds of a stop to produce finer grained footage. I notice that 5218 is rated at 320asa in daylight with an 85 filter so (when filming outdoors during the day) you could set your light meter to 250asa, or alternatively keep it set at 320asa but always remember to open up the aperture half a stop or two thirds of a stop from the recommended reading. (Easier just to set your light meter to the desired asa rating.) Some negative films have an exceptionally wide exposure latitude and can be rated a whole stop slower and sometimes more but I would do some research on the particular stock before overexposing to that extent. Apparently, some unintentional 'noise' can be introduced into the telecine if the film is overexposed too much. Some sources claim that overexposing neg film can also give an increase in contrast which is a good thing if you are after sharpness. A contrasty image can give the viewer the impression that the image is slightly sharper than it really is. And of course use high quality prime lenses at mid aperture for optimal sharpness. And don't stack too many filters on those lenses!

As most of us are generally aware, the various Canon Scoopic models (with one exception) are among the few 16mm movie cameras produced with a fixed lens. It was not too long ago when i discovered that there was in fact one Canon Scoopic that did have interchangeable lenses. Very little is discussed about this camera and I have never seen one advertised for sale. It must be quite a rare camera and I would expect that bidding on Ebay would sky rocket on the few occasions when it does make an appearance on that auction site. Out of curiosity, has anyone here used this camera or knew anyone who has used it? Any comments (either positive or negative) about it?s general design, functionality and performance? I?m assuming it uses C mount lenses?.

If you film this dancer woman standing still at 3 fps, I hope that there is no breeze blowing her hair or her clothing....though you never know, it could make an interesting (unintentional) effect.

Although I have never used a Beaulieu R16, I have heard from some users of this camera that it's really critical to seat the gate properly when loading film. Otherwise, all your footage will be jumpy. However, I'm not sure if this 'faint flickers of light over darkness' that you are experiencing is the same thing. It sounds like it could well be a different problem altogther. Perhaps the movement of the rotating shutter is not synchronised properly with the claw pull down. The flickering you are seeing in the viewfinder while you are filming is normal. The shutter has a mirrored surface and reflects the image coming through the lens on to the viewfinder when the shutter is closed. When the shutter is open, no light passes to the viewfinder and so the viewfinder image goes black. Hence the flickering image.

"1938 Model 8, 16,60 Monocular view finder Audible footage signal, convenient pocket size There must have been some big pockets back then." That reminds me of a joke from the 70s UK comedy The Goodies. In the episode about movies, Graeme Garden talks about a so called 'pocket sized' movie camera and brings out this movie camera that's larger than a man's torso. One of the other Goodies asks how that can fit in a pocket. Graeme replies: "Well you need the right type of pocket" and reveals that his trousers have an oversized pocket running the whole length of his leg and stuffs the camera in there.

I hope your room mate doesn't mind you stealing his/her camera!

I have conversed with several people who have bought 35mm movie projectors for around AU$400 - $500 which seems like a damn good deal for such equipment. Though I don't know any specific details about what the particular projectors they have or the performance. For a long time, I have been attracted to the idea of buying an old but compact 35mm cine projector for a similar price and buying commerically made prints (cartoons, trailers and hopefully even a feature or two) to project. Though one guy who has operated theatrical motion picture equipment for a long time claims that all the old 35mm projectors in that price range are very rough and have poor picture steadiness. Is this generally true? Is there such a thing as a compact 35mm projector that has good picture steadiness for around AU$400?

'March of the Penguins' Plus many other fine nature documentaries like 'Dragons of the Galapagos' and 'The Skeleton Coast.' And I'm not even 100% sure if this particular film was shot on 16mm but I assume it was - the Rolling Stones concert film of their US 1981 tour - 'Let's Spend the Night Together.'

"Don't you find it fascinating that when it comes to table top scanners a super-8 frame may require a higher resolution scanner than 16mm or 35mm even though the super-8 frame is smaller and has less resolution." This is similar to the relationship between the size of the film format and the resolving power of the optics required to produce good results. It's well known that in still photography, lenses designed for 35mm film have extremely high resolving power because of the high magnifications needed in this format when printing. Medium format lenses generally have lower resolving power because magnification in this format is usually less, compared to 35mm. And large format lenses have even less resolving power - but the quality of the images are still amazing! Going back to super 8, when discussing the acquisition of commercially made prints (movies, cartoons and travelogues etc), I have seen quite a few impressive looking prints in super 8 and also quite a few soft prints in this format also. However, the vast majority of commercially made 16mm prints that I have seen are of very good quality. I have only come across two soft 16mm prints in the 10 years that I have been collecting and hiring 16mm prints. The reason behind the varied quality in super 8 prints is obvious - the super 8 frame is tiny and so you need an extremely high quality print to get a nice, sharp images. In 16mm, this is less critical because of the larger frame. For while, I was a bit hesitant whenever considering buying super 8 prints because from my experience, I found that quality was a bit hit and miss. Though when buying 16mm prints, I found that the quality of the prints were usually quite good most of the time.