Mike Williamson

Camera sold locally

Konvas 7M -- 35mm MOS motion picture camera $950 + shipping costs Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikewilliamson/sets/72157627718094154/ I am selling my Konvas 7M camera package complete with a large selection of prime lenses that I built up over several years. I used it to build my reel as a cinematographer and shot several projects that are still on my reel, however I haven't shot any specs spots in the last year so I have to let it go. The camera works well and the lenses are very good, I find that they are comparable to Zeiss Standard Speed primes. I can provide links to footage that I've shot with the camera but you must email me for the info (trying to avoid spam). It's a great MOS workhorse camera, hopefully it can serve someone else now. I'm located in Los Angeles and local pick-up is welcome. Here are the contents of the package: Camera body (housed in large Konvas case) Rotating viewfinder Base plate attachment/adapter Variable 17EP-16APK crystal synch motor Battery cable - modified to 4-pin XLR female Battery cable - unmodified for original Konvas batteries Back body cap Prime lens set (housed in grey Pelican case) 18mm T3.4 28mm T2.3 35mm T2.2 50mm T2.3 75mm T2.3 135mm T5.0 (2) 400' magazines (housed in Konvas magazine case w/ shoulder strap) (1) 200' magazines all mags have matching cavity covers Adjustable mattebox (housed in small Konvas hard case) (2) filter stages including rotating rear filter tray (4) 3"x3" filter trays (3) metal donuts small French flag spare fuses spare cores

I would check out some of the Japanese cinema from the 60's, specifically the films Criterion has put out on DVD. "Sword Of Doom" and "Branded To Kill" come to mind as having unique lighting and framing, there's a number of other scope B&W films they've released as well. I'm also remembering "Hud" shot by James Wong Howe and "Jules et Jim" shot by Raoul Coutard.

I would add Paul Strand and Robert Frank to your list:

Absolutely correct, Michelle. One of the major problems that I think we all see in the low budget world is people placing themselves in the position of employers without an understanding of the responsibility that entails. I think anyone producing a film would do well to first think of themselves as an "employer", and then look into what that entails legally. There are labor laws that define certain parts of the employee/employer relationship and, luckily, they set limits about what is and isn't acceptable.

I think it's how I started out, but electronic viewfinders just don't do it for me. While you're right that they can give you the same amount of information as a well set up and shaded monitor, I also don't light from monitors most of the time. I usually light standing next to or in front of the camera, looking through an optical viewfinder being my second choice. It's a habit that was reinforced by one of my teachers, I feel like you see details that are easier to miss on a monitor.

While a movable electronic viewfinder is great for operating as you point out, if I'm shooting and operating I would greatly prefer to have an optical viewfinder to look through. Maybe it's because I started shooting film, but I haven't used an electronic finder yet where I get the feedback on my lighting that I do from an optical one. Obviously electronic finders have there place, but it would be a great to have the option of using an optical finder with the upcoming Reds.

When I was at AFI, I got a great set of Zeiss Digiprimes from Band Pro free of charge. They very generously set aside one set of lenses that they donate to student productions, as I remember it was in very heavy rotation and constantly booked. I don't know if they're still doing that program, but you should contact them and find out, make sure to give them some lead time. I'm assuming your in LA by the way, you should confirm your location for us. Besides Band Pro, I also got a deals on different B4 mount lenses from Clairmont Camera as a student, they had a very generous discount for AFI but you way be able to get something similar. They have a number of good cine-style zooms I've used, both Canon and Fujinon, they also have the Canon primes which I've been told are very nice. As Michael notes, you will need to get insurance certs for any rental houses you're dealing with, presumably your school has a policy and can help you with that.

To add one more thought, another great reason to talk with a lawyer is that many (if not most) contracts in the non-union film world are often illegal in part or in whole. For example, as Michelle points out, very rarely do we fit the legal definition of independent contractors, even though this is generally how production companies draw up their paperwork. The issue Daniel raises is exactly the kind of thing where finding out what the state's labor laws have to say is of primary importance. Even if the production company would like to hold you responsible for L&D and put some kind of language about it in your contract, there are laws in place that dictate whether it's legal to hold employees financially responsible for the upkeep of the company's equipment. If you jam the copier at the office, do you expect the repair bill to come out of your check at the end of the week?

Given the size of your lighting package, I would suggest testing a one stop push on 5260 (maybe rated around 640 or 800 ASA) in case you find yourself underpowered, specifically in night exterior situations. I have not tested that stock, although I saw tests and a resulting contact print of a friend's short film shot anamorphic that used 5279 pushed one stop to 800 ASA that looked very good with minimal grain. If 5260 is as close to 5279 as I've heard, it would be helpful for you to know whether you're willing to push or not. Good luck with the shoot, post some info when you're further along with it!

You need to talk to a lawyer. I've never heard of anyone being held personally responsible for L&D on a film I've worked on, my guess is that if you pursue it, they'll have to prove that you were negligent in order to withhold any money from you. But I'm not a lawyer and, to reiterate, I think you need one.

Trailer looks interesting, Max, lots of great compositions and nice lighting. Hopefully it makes it's way to the US so we get a chance to check it out, congrats!

Some labs have demos of different film stocks they can screen for you, I've heard of this typically when a new film stock comes out but perhaps they have a handful of these tests collected. Kodak and Fuji are often generous with donating a roll of a particular stock if you know what you want to test, it also worth talking to the lab and camera house you plan on using to see if they can help you out.

The phrase "optimized for India" is 1) definitely a sales pitch, and 2) probably meant to refer to having a better balance in skin tones. As I understand it, in the past Kodak has optimized skin tones for Caucasian skin which lead to more red saturated flesh tones in previous lines of stocks (EXR for example). I think what they're advertising with 5207 is a more neutral tonal scale especially related to skin tones, presumably rendering Indian skin tones better (or more accurately or neutrally) than in the past. I remember reading something about an older film stock that Kodak created for the India market which was balanced more towards a yellow fleshtone rather than red, but I have absolutely no idea where or if it was still or motion picture.

I just finished gaffing a feature where we used my Digital Rebel XT to take set stills to send to the dailies colorist, also looked at them for references for matching scenes and going back for pick ups. The film was shot on 35mm and the DP timed the stills in Photoshop and sent them off to the colorist. Having seen only a little bit of downconverted SD dailies, I would say the Canon stills were fairly accurate but the highlights blew out much faster. I overexposed the Canon stills by 2/3rd's of a stop because it seems to match my meter better and I'd rather have more exposure for the 35mm negative if the DP ends up making an exposure decision based on a digital still. It's a useful tool for me, we had all the stills on one flash card and it was nice to be able to scroll through the movie and see all the lighting set ups, especially if you needed to match a scene.

Ultra Primes should cover a 4 perf Super 35 image area which is larger than Academy, but I would be surprised if they cover a "full frame" still camera negative. So if you're talking about the proposed specs for the S35 Epic chip, Ultra Primes should work but it's doubtful they'll cover the full frame chip. You should look into which lens sets have been used for Vistavision and 65mm, as those may be the best bet for motion picture adapted glass that produces a larger image than S35.

There's an interview with John Alonzo in "Masters of Light" where he talks about the film, some very interesting topics including how he kept the close ups from looking weird while using the 40mm lens.

CFL's are nice if you want to balance your practicals to daylight, I think the 5600K ones look better than blue dipped Photofloods. I've also used the 3500K bulbs with a low CRI to get a fluorescent look in an urban/industrial setting, in a clamp light in a warehouse for example. Otherwise I'd go with regular tungsten bulbs, they have better color rendition as already mentioned, and have the advantage of being dimmable.

Seasons 1 -3 of "The Wire" are some kind of 4 perf 35mm, don't know whether it's Academy or Super. Seasons 4 & 5 are 3 perf 35mm but framed for 1.33 aspect ratio, presumably just to save some money on stock costs. Pretty sure it was a Panavision camera package throughout. There's an article online somewhere that discusses this, if I recall correctly, the primary reasons for maintaining the 1.33 AR was that it feels more like real life and less like a movie according to David Simon. Actually, I just found the article here's a link. I'm halfway through season 4 (so no spoilers please), but I can definitely see a difference in resolution between the newer episodes and the first three seasons. It's definitely an amazing show, I got the complete "Wire" series and the first season of "Mad Men" for Christmas and I'm loving both of them, it seems like the high end TV shows keep getting better.

Good link, Craig. These would be great for practicals but you'd want to test them if they're meant to play off camera providing illumination for the scene, it's tough to say how strong they would be.

I worked with a key grip who had made up a special device for this purpose, came in very handy and should be cheap to make. You need to buy or construct a light weight cube, doesn't matter what it's made out of as long as it's reasonably light. The one we had was roughly one foot across on each side. On one side, you attach a pigeon plate (the one with a junior pin), that side is the bottom. The junior pin then sits in a combo stand allowing you to spin the cube. On each side, apply that shiny silver material they use on the hard side of a reflector board. On top of this, on one side you will apply a heavy red gel. On the side opposite that, you'll put a heavy blue gel. You have now constructed the cube. Take a hard light and shine it at the cube. Spin the cube. You now have a moving light that alternates from white to blue, back to white, and then to red.

It looks like a good resource Ryan, it's nice of you to put it up. I was glad to see you talked about the green/magenta color axis, I think it's possible to elaborate on that a bit more. When talking about color, I often point out that color temperature is a linear measurement which is not enough information if you are trying to create a specific color (matching an existing light source for example). You need to add in a second axis to be able to find that color which is where the green/magenta axis comes in (would be nice if there was a term for this). This is why color space models have to be at least two dimensional (perhaps some are 3D?), so maybe if you had a graph of REC-709 color space you could show how that works and how color temperature is a part of that. A simple example of this idea would be to show two photos of a subject with matching color temperatures, one lit with a tungsten lamp with CTO, the other lit with same lamp but using CTS instead. The color temperatures would be matched, making the differences in the green/magenta axis apparent.

To my eyes, the movie looks much sharper than anything I've seen from Speed Panchros. The idea of using older, softer lenses seems out of line with the visual style of the film: sleek, angular, modern and crisp. Would this have been too early to be using Cooke S4's? Or perhaps a mix of Ultra Primes and something else? Sounds like it's time to rewatch it more closely, thanks everybody for the help on this one.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly, but the comparison I'm making is between the size of a 35mm anamorphic negative and the effective size of the Red camera's sensor when shooting anamorphic for a 2.40 image. When shooting 35mm anamorphic, the vertical height of the negative is 18.59mm tall. The height of the Red camera's sensor is 13.7mm tall, assuming you're using the full height of the sensor (which you should be unless I'm mistaken). So compared to shooting anamorphic on a 35mm camera for which all the lenses were designed, your lenses effectively become 1.36 times longer when used on a Red camera because the target size is reduced. That's not a massive conversion factor, but it could be a problem in certain shooting situations or if you're going for a wide lens look. I get the impression that it wasn't a big deal on your shoot which is good to hear. I'm not sure I'm following your explanation of the difference in anamorphic cropping between Build 16 and Build 18. Are you talking about how it displays in the viewfinder? Because I can't imagine that it would change how you're cropping the image to produce a 2.40 aspect ratio, but perhaps I'm confused here.

One issue that comes to mind for me is that since you're cropping the images, all your lenses effectively become longer. So if you want a wide lens, you're forced into using a really wide lens which is not where anamorphic lenses excel (particularly in terms of distortion). Did this issue come up for you, Jeremy? I'm curious what the conversion factor becomes and whether this makes shooting anamorphic with a Red camera excessively difficult.