Aapo Lettinen

the biggest issue of the film workflow is that you need to wait before you can verify that the end result was what you intended it to be and to see if something has to be reshot or not. For the director and the DP the wait time can be OK but the producers really really hate the extra waiting because there is always the 20k to 200k usd uncertainty in their minds that something has to be reshot. with digital they can ask the DIT to quickly check everything on the card and make a extra copy for them and then clinge on the copy and tell themselves that the scene is perfect now and no uncertainty can chew on the budget of that shooting day anymore. So the main thing is the producers fearing to go over budget if shooting on film. To them there is a additional risk when using any film based workflow and they always want to eliminate all the risks they can. The artists working for them generally have very little to say on that.

forum member David Sekanina was making a new silent super16 camera. Don't know about the current status of the project but I think that is the only new sound sync 16mm camera in development at the moment (modifying the existing camera models does not count) Custom electronics are relatively straightforward to do but custom precision mechanics are challenging and time consuming ( = EXPENSIVE) to make. there's another threads about the issue with exactly the same conclusions: silent and precise movie camera is not cheap to make from scratch and it takes enormous amount of time and resources. There is very few persons willing to pay the real costs for making this type of product. Meaning that one needs to do certain amount of free work to make this type of camera available, making it a "semi-commercial" project which is not likely to get any funding unless a kickstarter or something could work

well, most of it is like discussing whether you can play the same melody (the same notes) on synth and grand piano. People playing the same melody on both and then testifying that no one could tell the difference because the notes were the same! it starts to become a problem when you are trying to use the piano to play a melody originally composed for a cello or violin... well it has to work because the notes were the same so no one shouldn't be able to tell the difference heh ? of course it is understandable that for some persons and institutions cinematography is just like choosing a paper for a book which will be published. no one cares about the exact specifics of the paper as long as it is not super annoying to handle and the print quality is good enough. so "not annoying and not too cheap looking" just like most of the Netflix stuff and the Marvel type of stuff which is very good looking but every movie looks always exactly the same (no difference in the visual style), only the character count will increase every time ? for other persons and projects it is like choosing the right instrument for playing a concert piece. If "not annoying and not too cheap looking" is not good enough for the persons and institutions, then the format choice DOES matter and people start to feel it. maybe if playing some crappy pop music it does not matter that much (you can play pop music by whistling the melody and drumming the table to get the beat. no need to use real instruments for it, no one will care. Kinda like making a movie with the iPhone: as long as you can hear and see what is happening then it is perfectly OK and does not need to be enhanced further ) . if playing classical stuff, then it might matter a little if you are whistling the melody or if you are playing it with a cello or something. BTW how many of you are annoyed by the look difference when you are replacing tungsten lights with led units? especially on low colour temperatures like 2500 - 3200K-ish? to me, most low temperature LED stuff looks like crap for skin colors and it is why I am still using tungsten if wanting anything under 4000K and if it is not too difficult to do with real tungsten lights. For higher temperatures the LEDs are generally OK because one is used to making high temperature "cool" lights with HMI or fluorescent so the poor spectral distribution/response is not a problem in most cases.

Led lights have gotten significantly better in recent years so that may be the sole reason. That is why I don't want to purchase any used led lights... the old ones tend to be aged, green and nasty

There is another thread where I had an idea of making Krasnogorsk2 or 3 crystal sync and adding a video tap but then I shot my own ideas down because the camera body is not good enough to justify a 1k - 2k usd conversion. That is exactly what has happened here. The camera body is not good enough to justify that amount of work hours and expense. It is a nice demo project but does not make any financial sense unless it is just for getting content to a youtube channel and you will get the revenue from ads and sponsors. Btw I could sell a simple user installable crystal sync controller for 200 to 300 usd which could run this type of camera. One would need add a motor and encoder but still the crystal conversion would only be couple of hundred usd if user installed. No need to pay 1k for it....

yep I needed to use a ear plug all the time on the camera side ear when shooting with the Cameflex. never need to do that with Konvas

well, there is "loud" cameras and LOUD cameras. for example the Konvas is a loud camera (sounds like a industrial sewing machine or some kind of power tool) but the Cameflex is a LOUD camera (we used the camera running sound as a actor cue mark when shooting a short film. saved a lot of film that way, I just instructed the actor to listen when the camera starts running, then wait about 1.5 seconds and start acting. Worked like a charm up to over 100ft away even with background noise present ? it was silent film of course) "loud" camera you can live with to some extent if shooting for example outdoors using tele lenses and some blimping. With the LOUD cameras you can't do much other than shoot MOS or do ADR

personally I would get a BL3 or 4 with pl mount and spend the rest on the accessories, spare parts and CLA. if you end up having some money left you can always purchase a 35-3 and use it for high speed and mos on your shoots

max. 10k for the camera body + mags OR with lenses and all the accessories? you will need a good tripod and lenses and other stuff which will cost about half of the total price of the package. I would probably look for a silent sound camera with pl lens mount and some kind of video tap possibility. Most likely either a serviced Arri 35BL (bl2, 3 or 4) or the Moviecam Compact. Someone suggested the 535b which is a good option too. The arricams are too expensive and most other options are too loud for sound shooting. One option is to get the Kinor35N (sometimes listed as "35H" if cyrillic not translated) if you can find one with a good lens set and which is modified to BH perfs (the camera shoots originally KS perforated film and needs to be converted for shooting modern Western stocks) . The Kinor is basically a Soviet copy of the Moviecam SuperAmerica with their own lens mount and some Soviet engineering. Every one or two years one pops up on eBay but they are relatively rare and may need some repairs before use (not that unserviced Western cameras would need any CLA before use as well)

By my experience, the biggest problem with Konvas cameras is that people don't have any experience with them and don't know how to use them correctly which gives an impression that they are bad cameras and unreliable. Additionally, persons who shoot with them expect them to work right out of eBay which is never the case with cameras which have been stored unused 30 or 40 years in a box in someone's garage in Ukraine. Of course it is in bad condition and dusty and all the lubricants are dried and it may even have small rocks inside (that is the one I use the most after servicing it) . The advantage of the Arri 2C's over Konvas is that the Arri has always been much more expensive so the previous owners probably could not afford keeping it in the garage all the time. They had to use it to get the money back from it and that means that someone took care of the camera and serviced it regularly. Thus it is in better condition "out of the box" than the garage camera but that does not mean that the garage camera could not be cleaned and lubricated and adjusted and then shoot wonderful images just like the Arri could. The Konvas has the advantage of having orientable viewfinder and massively cheaper lenses which I stated previously

as mentioned before, sync sound is expensive. As well is 2perf and 3perf modifications. The more noisy and difficult to operate the camera is the cheaper it generally is... just like with the 16mm cameras, first people purchase the S16 modified silent ones which are ergonomic and great to use and when those are sold, then it is time to trade the crappier ones which are not worth that much. If the camera can be noisy with bad or mediocre viewfinder system and can be lacking in ergonomics or can be a bit more challenging to use, then it can be got for cheap. Another option is to purchase a non-working higher quality camera like the 35BL2/3/4 and hope that it can be repaired to a working condition without needing the kind of spares which were sold out decades ago

to me a camera body costing between 5 and 11 k is not "low cost". By a "low cost camera" I generally mean anything which costs under 3k serviced and with basic accessories and mags but without lenses. But there seems to be some confusion what the OP was looking for... by a "low budget camera" did the OP mean to ask for a camera which is inexpensive OR a suitable owner-operator camera for shooting movies which are low budget? Those are completely different things and explain the funny comments where I am saying that Arri 35-3 's are "expensive" and then another member writes that Arris are not expensive at all and there is lots of "very affordable cameras in the 5k to 10k range" ? So which one is it? Looking for a camera for a movie which is "low budget" or looking for a cheap camera body? And what do you mean by "cheap", how much it can actually cost to be an option?

there seems to be couple of Arri BL packages on eBay but they are either sold non-tested or are missing parts like magazines and such. So I would add 2k for the overhaul and the missing stuff to make the set complete. That would get them closer to the the 5k price range. There is used Moviecams in the same from 4k to 8k price range. Might need some service as well but which camera doesn't :) If you want a low cost MOS option and don't need wider lenses than 28mm then I would probably go with the Konvas 1M and let Olex service it before use. Orientable finder, affordable lenses etc. The 15epss motors can be converted to crystal sync though it is very time consuming modification (Olex is capable of converting and I am just finishing the first conversion of this motor type). It helps a lot when you can use the 15epss motors because the original Konvas crystal motors are very very rare nowadays and converting the 15epss costs about the same than purchasing the original crystal motor (if you could ever find one of the original ones...)

downside of all low budget 35mm movie cameras is that they are either noisy or extremely noisy. if you need reflex viewing then you are pretty much limited to Konvas cameras, the Cameflex Standard or CM3 and the Arri 2A/B/C. Sometimes you can get a Arri 35-3 for good price but that is very rare. The Konvas cameras tend to be from 250 to 800 USD without lenses depending on the motor and accessories and if it is serviced or not. If you want it to have a crystal motor then it is from 800 to 1k without lenses. The lenses, however, are pretty affordable being typically couple of hundred usd for a prime lens if it is not a rare model. The Cameflexes are typically from 600 to 1000 USD without lenses. The original lenses tend to be from 1k to 4k a piece but you can get Cameflexes which have one mount on the turret converted to Nikon F which allows using the very affordable Nikon lenses with it. I have diy converted my own Cameflex having a M42 mount as well, so the turret has one Cameflex mount, one Nikon F mount and one M42 mount. That should cover most uses this type of camera is good for. The Arris are typically well over 1k for the camera body and motor and a magazine or two. The lenses can be expensive depending on what you want but it is possible to find lower price lenses (something like 400 or 500 usd a piece) if you can wait and look around long enough. These prices don't include any overhaul / cla costs. If you need motor modifications it is best to find out about the possibilities beforehand because there is only two or three persons in the world doing crystal conversions for these cameras

if the camera can be loud then you can always purchase a Kinor and have Olex convert it to crystal sync. The original motors have bad control electronics so you can't use the camera without the crystal conversion update ( I have never seen a working original motor, they always have faulty original control board. but the motor itself is usually OK and can be converted to crystal relatively easily). The 16CX-2M camera itself is fine once it is CLA:d correctly. Olex can arrange that too ? I'd expect this package go for something like 550 to 800 USD because it has the full prime set included. https://www.ebay.com/itm/144041443852?hash=item21898a020c:g:tyEAAOSw1JNgnRmd Another Kinor package, probably will go for something around 600 USD or so: https://www.ebay.com/itm/144037985247?hash=item2189553bdf:g:y7wAAOSwQshgnQ-c

that is the same than developing a completely new stock. One needs to redesign all the coating process and so on

of the 35mm stills stocks I have tested I would recommend the Ilford HP5, the Orwo UN54 and the Agfa ST9 for movie use. If one wants a older style grainier look then the Fomapan 400 or the APX400 and quite excellent. The Superpan200 is interesting but not enough so to justify shooting a movie on it I think. PS. Kodak b/w motion stocks are decades old outdated technology which is blown out of the water by modern b/w stocks. The look of the Kodak stocks is interesting but if one wants less grain and more resolution, almost all the alternatives are technically better and most of the alternatives are cheaper as well. If the camera can handle KS perfs and shorter rolls are OK then there is no much need to limit yourself to only Kodak stocks. Especially if comparing the TMAX to the b/w stock I mentioned... one can get 4 or 5 rolls of Fomapan400 at the price of one Tmax roll and even the "expensive" Ilford stock is almost 3 times cheaper than the Tmax

T-max has been too expensive for me to try but I have shot for example Fomapan 400, the Orwo UN54, Rollei Superpan200, Agfa APX400, Ilford HP5 and Agfa ST9 with my Konvas. The ST9 is very interesting looking and very high resolution. it is about 12 ISO but perfect for shooting in the Summer when you would be between T11 and T22 with 100 ISO stock all the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFLUux-W6og

the main issue with old boards is that many of the components are obsolete and replacements are not easy to come by. the most difficult ones are the hybrid IC's like the later Cinema Products models have, they are custom made and there is no standard parts existing which could replace them which is why it was easier to design a completely new system than try to make up a replacement solution for every custom component in the original system. I could make a very simple user installable crystal sync system for the CP16 which would cost maybe 1/3 of the price of my current design but user installable systems will always need lots of simplification and they need to fit as many cameras as possible (the original CP cameras are often customised in the factory and they can have all kinds of add-ons and additional features which complicate their updating) . One has to leave lots of features out then to make the installation easy and for this type of camera one does not want to cheap on features even if it costs more to update the body. Like with all cameras, about 90% of the modification cost is the actual labour costs and the boards and components are relatively affordable (if one does not count the time needed for designing the boards and writing and testing the software which will be maybe about 5000 usd or more starting cost)

"The camera runs louder than my other NPR." that is always a bad sign

All of the cameras discussed have electronics which are over 50 years old. Of course they can have issues. The advantage of the cp16r is that the camera body itself is relatively cheap so you can afford throwing in about 1k of extra money to update the electronics right away and then they wont bother you anymore. The update I have designed does not use any of the old electronics except the motor itself and the original batteries if you want to keep them. Even the speed sensor is new. If you pay from 4 to 5k for a used arri or aaton + x amount of money for servicing it and THEN if develops electronic issues you are totally screwed budget wise compared to the cp16r which can be got for less than 1k with a zoom lens and then maybe 500 ?? for mechanical overhaul and 1k for crystal update .

Yes the current system with 12 preset crystal speeds is installed inside the camera body. I will have a external box which can be plugged in if one needs more speeds (any speed can be set in 1/1000th fps increments)or a display with footage counters etc. This is because the back panel of the camera is relatively small and does not allow installing much more than a simple rotary selector and couple of buttons. Probably the ext box electronics could be fitted inside the crystasound cover. Not all users have the crystasound unit but could maybe be an extra option if someone would want it :) the 12 speed version fits inside the camera body in place of the original circuit board so it is very compact

the options are pretty much the Arri SR1 & SR2, Aaton LTR, Eclair NPR and ACL and the Cinema Products CP16R. The other cameras are quite noisy or have other disadvantages which make them unsuitable for shooting serious projects by my opinion and the newer ones are all S16 so more expensive. Do you already have the lenses you would want to use? with these older cameras you can be pretty limited lens wise... most cheaper Arris are with Arri Bayonet mount. the Aatons are probaly Aaton mount but it allows adapters so less of a problem. The Eclairs have their own mount and most have C-mount too (lenses are easy to adapt to C-mount but it is not mechanically optimal for cine use (rotating and too weak mount). The Cinema Products cameras have their own proprietary mount and good lenses are very rare and you will not going to get a good lens set for them so you will need to get the mount converted to PL mount or similar to get the most out of the camera. As long as the camera is mechanically working it is good to go. Regular service is a must with film cameras. The old electronics may be in bad condition but they can be updated with modern ones if needed (there is technicians able to do this for Arri, Aaton, Eclair. I am building a crystal update for the CP16R at the moment so Cinema Products can be updated too)

I have one similar meter which needs calibrating too. I took the sensor apart a while ago to see how complicated it would be to calibrate but there is lots of trimmers affecting the calibration so it would be at least good if someone could advice which trimmer affects which adjustment