Seth Sherwood

I searched high and low for a free download, but couldn't find one. But I cheaply picked up one from this place: http://www.photobooksonline.com/books/userbk41MPC.html They don't have the DR listed by name, because B&H themselves didn't make one specific to the camera. The manual for the 70-DL, 70-S, 70-H is what they used, with a different intro attached up front. At any rate, I picked that one up for $12 and it answered all my questions about exposure tims and shutter speeds.

This forum is great. I'm glad I posted what i did-- even if it was wrong, cause pros end up giving mee great info!

I've heard that most 70's crime films flashed their film and that is responsible for much of the "look" of 70's cinema.

I've been searching online for any good calculators, or even reference charts-- but all i can find them for are 35 and medium still formats. Anyone know ofs a good resource for 16mm lens charts?

If you watch ebay close enough you could possibly get at least 2 of 3 on your intial list for $500. Certainly both a DR and K3. K3's will cost you around $200 DR's anywhere between $100-$250 Bolex's are all over the place depending on what sort of accessories they have. Some are dirt cheap, others way overpriced. When it comes down to it, the K3 is easiest to use as you can see through the lens and just point and shoot, but also has the most chance of causing you technical difficulty. The DR and H16 require a bit more skill, but if they are well maintained, will probably get you better images. I think ultimately you need to plan out your shoot. This thread, and the others dedicated to the DR and K3 all seem to agree on the pros and cons of either camera. Knowing that, you should get your script/treatment and storyboard it. If you plan out all your shots in advance you can get an idea of what you need the camera to do. If it looks like a series of long shots with minimal movement, the K3 would be better as you can set up a tripod, look through, focud and shoot. If you have a lot of frentic camera movement and tricky focal distances, the K3 will probably wear you out and the smaller Bolex or B&H would be better.

!!! I didn't think of that either! Awesome suggestion. I did some fun still ifes with a 4x5 camera 10 or so years ago doing exactly what you're saying with billows. It didn't even occur to me that it woul translate to a motion film world.

Film can be gotten direct through Kodak. if you're here in LA, you can drive down and buy a spool for $15 with a student discount. If you're elsewhere I think you can order from their website. Is the $500 your entire budget for the project, or just what you can spend on a camera? The three cameras you identified at the top of this topic are the best for beginning along with the Canon Scoopic. Most beginning Cinema 16mm classes at film schools lean towards one of those four cameras. Like others have said, if you've never shot any film before, Super 8 might be cheaper and easier to start with-- but I never bothered. Since Kodak isn't actively making it anymore, it is a dying format. The film stock you'd by for one of the 16mm cameras is the same stuff used by pro 16mm projects which are a lot of lower budget and indy films, music videos, and even a handful of TV shows. So even if the equipment is antiquated and cheap, the format is something that is a standard and still has a place-- so knowing how to work with it can only be good.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if one wants to get the cool choppy motion that handcranking would provide, wouldn't they need to be worrying about the exposure as well? On my Filmo for example, I meter for 1/40th for 24fps. If I am cranking around 24 but I want thaat stuttered look, how much under or over will I get before i get into a different exposure range?

Yeah, I was planning on some guess work and a lot of trial and error by trying to do this with a non-reflex camera! I pretty much ruled out any sort of rackover option because for the cost I could easily do it another way. I hadn't considered adapting 35mm still lenses though-- that might actually cause some happy accidents. One reason I am doing it with this camera and not my K3, is because I am almost sort of hoping for some sort of crazy focus issue or distortiont hat will end up looking like an interesting effect. Thanks for the reply, it's given me plenty of ideas!

Hi all-- I have a B&H Filmo 70DR, and I want to do some extreme close up work of some toys/miniatures. The filmo takes c-mount lenses, does anyone know of a good, inexpensive macros lense I could use for this sort of work?

Just my 2 cents as somebody who has shoot 16mm for a b-movie / horror film project as well using the K3 and the Film 70DR... Both cameras are really low down, dirty, and pretty simple. To shoot a feature on them would require A LOT of creativity. As most have said above, they are both MOS cameras-- to loud to record sound near, and not in sync anyway. And both require a lot of wrist killing cranking. The advantages of the K3 are that it isn't hard to get a decent image-- especially if you are outside in decent light. The zoom is pretty good, and even though it isn't an amazingly high quality lens, it works fine for the format. If you get the version with the m42 mount, you can use 35 SLR camera lenses to some degee. The downside to the K3 is that (again as stated above) even if you buy a new one, you never know how it will treat your film. Some work fine, some will jam and eat away at it. Even if you know how to load it like a pro, and can listen for the changes as it runs, you might still get screwed. While the lens is great for wide shots, it's no good for close stuff. 2 meters is as close as you can get. Also-- the camera is heavy. Great for tripod work, and if you get the shoulder brace, you can do some handheld stuff, but mobility is limited. You won't be running, jumping or diving with it. Some people pay to have the autoload mechanism stripped out of the machine-- it becomes a lot more dependable if you do that, but it also makes it cost a lot more. The advantages of the B&H Filmo is that your lens options will be better (depending on what you get). For the same price, if not cheaper, you can find a filmo with a full turret of 3 lenses. You can usually find one with the comat or cooke lense that is good for being about 1 foot away from your subject. Add that to the size of the camera and you can do some pretty cool handheld/close up work. It's the size of a camcorder, but weighs enough that handheld movements are pretty smooth with some practice. It also mean you have a lot of freedom of movement with it-- so not only can you do cool handheld hots, but you can run, jump, dive or fold yourself into the smallest poosible space for a cool shot. These cameras were used by war correspondents so they can take a bullet. Plus, if you're going guerilla, the Filmo is a lot easier to be sly with than the K3. It also takes c-mount lenses so there are a ton of lens options out there from super cheap to way expensive. The downside to the filmo is non-reflex viewfinder. The side viewfinder has a turret as well, and if you get a complete one, you'll have objective viewfinders that give you a decent idea of what you're looking at, but it isn't exact. Plus, if you're buying it off anyone but a pro that has used it, you can't gaurantee that the viewfinder lenses are matched to the lenses you got. I watched eBay for aa month before Ibought mine, and no two of them ever had the same lens combo. It takes some doing to get used to the lenses you have. If you're new to this sort of thing, you'll be taking a lot of measurements to ensure you're in focus. The easiest thing to do is to figure out the hyperfocal distances of the lenses and just try to keep your subject in the area. It is a pain, but like I said, these cameras were used in the war for battlefield footage, so pointing them in the general direction of action often works out better than you'd think. Overall though-- I was shooting hoping to get that gritty old-school 60's/70's look and was pretty suprised that footage from BOTH cameras came back looking a LOT better than I expected. The thing to remember is the look of older horror movies may have more to do with the film than anything else. 16 stock is a lot nicer now, and a lot of those films may have employed flashing or lesser than quality developing proceedures to get their "look." If you get it transferred to DV/HD though, suites like Magic Bullet or DigiTools 55mm cna tweak it to the look you want.