Aapo Lettinen

fs7 has different signal processing and generally lower quality sensors even if the sensor is "the same" than on the F5. This can be seen as a slight difference in colour reproduction and pretty obvious difference in noise levels. have you considered the FX9 ? it has way better sensor than the fs7 models. though if the fs7 is used and cheap then it may make sense

It is possible to convert the normal rheostat motors to crystal sync as well but that is lots of mechanical work so it makes the conversion a bit expensive and time consuming (I was developing a conversion like this last year and finished making the plans and everything but abandoned the project because no one was interested in it and it would have been thus too risky to start to order prototype circuit boards etc. for it if never getting any money back from the project)

Don't know though if venice has internal pulldown option to ruin the image but it does not sound practical at all (because you would lose all the benefits of the framerate alteration if playing back the shot at normal speed doing in camera pulldown. That would be just a stupid design flaw and you should just alter the shutter angle instead to get the same effect without the pulldown artifacts)

I don't know any current camera which would do pulldown processing in this type of situation. They will just store the captured image frames as is an mark the metadata info differently to the file. So for example you will get the same frames shot at 100fps sensor framerate whether the camera stores them to a "50fps" file or a "24fps" file. The files differ in that the 24fps file is marked as 24fps and the 50fps file marked as 50fps so that one knows in playback how it is played "correctly". If you would change the metadata later to say that the clip is now "25fps" it would not change the captured frames in any way, the playback software is just instructed to play them back at different rate. So the sensor framerate and shutter speed are important but the project framerate is not unless it affects monitoring or compressing options. For example in nature etc.documentaries I work with the sensor framerate can be anything high-ish which gives the best performance in that shooting situation with the subject. The project framerate can be anything depending on the camera model. I think it can be 8 or 10 project framerates in a movie like this. Then everything conformed to 24fps for editing and post. No frames or quality lost because it is only metadata which is changed and no one is touching or altering the actual frames in the image stream

it can become even weirder if one has flickering lights on different phases of the input power. it can fool flicker reduction and cause other interesting effects :) making a high speed pulse width modulation circuit to drive leds or tungsten lights is relatively simple. if using very high frequencies or high voltages it would become trickier but for example having a 12v light run at 50kHz or 100kHz at, say, 200w output is pretty easy to build from scratch (not that there would not be any eBay solution for this but just saying that it is easy to design a circuit like this from scratch if needed)

don't know about documentation but this kind of Russian mirror shutter cameras (kiev16u is another example) are especially sensitive to the shutter's angle wormgear lubrication. you will notice it first and then the pulldown claw system. those are easy to get access to by just taking off the front of the camera (4 screws under the glued-on front cover) . the problematic ones are all the other mechanics which necessitate removing the whole "main plate" from the film chamber to get access to the rest of the mechanics. there is lots of gears and slide bearings inside which may not keep the lubrication for very long. messing with the main plate necessitates removing the sprocket wheel first and one needs to be careful when installing it back because it can be misaligned on the axle which would cause jams. but it is really easier than it sounds like. just need to open it completely to get access to the whole mechanism

the USSR stuff is totally fine as long as you are able to service them by yourself. The Bolexes are definitely more reliable but the K-cameras are pretty OK as long as they are very regularly serviced and lubricated. The M42 mount does not really solve any problems unless you want to shoot exclusively extreme telephoto shots like 400mm lenses and such. btw you can fit those lenses on Bolex very easily if needed. Personally I would take two of the Kransnogorsk cameras if wanting to replace a Bolex with them. this way you can wait for the film tests to come back after servicing them one at a time and still being able to shoot with the other one. By my opinion, the whole advantage of the Russian cameras is that they are cheaper so that you can purchase two of them instead of one Western made one.... this way it is not the end of the World if something happens to one of them during use or when servicing them :) the K-cameras have brighter viewfinder image as well. the Bolex has generally better lenses; the KMZ lenses for Krasnogorsk are pretty OK for most uses but the look is not nearly as nice and they are generally less interesting looking

I like to treat everything under -3 or 3.5 stops on film "potentially unusable so considered black even if there is information" . all Vision stocks including the 19. but that is a matter of personal taste based on experienced grain and flattening contrast on darkest tones so it is not scientific in any way. On the highlight side, it depends on the scanner you use and how much time you have to tweak it in scanning to get the best possible results. It has much more dynamic on the highlight side than 6 stops though. With a pretty good average scanner it should be more than 10 stops in any case (of available highlight response above middle gray without using dual pass or hdr or very high end scanner) . You should look on how large density difference the scanner can approximately handle with the settings you are using and then comparing this to the characteristic curve on the datasheet. It is only a matter of where the "clipping" on the scanner fall on that curve when you are scanning the film: both on the dark tones and on the highlights. Grain and sensor noise are another matter and are subjective. all in all, the question is very subjective and mostly a matter of taste and depends on the exact scanner you are using and the exact settings of it as well. But every modern scanner should be able to handle at least -3 under and at least +8 over on that stock in any case, subjective or not

PM sent.

Nice to hear that people love to still use the Krasnogorsk cameras! I kind of abandoned all the Krasnogorsk crystal motor designs because it is too much mechanical work to adapt the electric motor to work with the cameras. Additionally the cameras need a complete overhaul to be able to work with any electric motor system and even if serviced, they are still mechanically unsuitable for running very large amounts of film through (that is just my opinion but for example the bearings of the camera need constant care if you are intending to shoot thousands of feets of film with it in a short period of time like would happen if shooting for example a feature film with it). So the combination of large amount of mechanical work + the camera body being not very optimal to be used for filming extensive film amounts by my opinion + the relatively small profit one could possibly make modifying these compared to the large amount of work it would require.... that is why I decided it is not worth it financially to modify these cameras. Maybe in a country where the work hours cost less than here (China, India, Russia, etc.) . However if you are able to do the mechanical parts of the modification by yourself it would be possible to adapt some of my existing crystal sync designs to work with the camera. basically meaning that a suitable motor and speed "tachometer" encoder design would be chosen and you would handle all the mechanical stuff by yourself, I would just provide complete control electronics for the camera according to the specs. The stuff I need to know is what kind of encoder sensor the system uses and how many pulses that encoder provides per one exposed film frame (taking into account all the possible gear ratios between the motor and the film movement, the encoder slot number, etc.). and what kind of motor it uses (brushed, brushless, the exact specs of the motor, operating voltage etc.) and the battery options you are going to use with the system. It is a bit easier to adapt a brushed motor to work with the camera because there is more suitable motor options then. Most of the brushless options I have found are plain bad for camera use (unsuitable RPM, noisy, bad driver boards, etc. or unsuitable Hall outputs for crystal sync which necessitates still using a separate encoder disc system with the motor which ruins all the benefits of the brushless in the first place) . Let me know if you are interested in adapting the K3 to electric motor use by yourself and would need the complete Crystal electronics for it so that you would only need to handle the mechanical parts of the modification. The complete control electronics would probably be somewhere around 400 or 450 USD I believe depending on what you need (the basic would be a 12-speed crystal sync system with a rotary selector to select different speeds. no display or extra features)

if you want to do pinhole stuff on a PL camera it should be possible to purchase laser cut pinhole plates separately and glue or tape them to inexpensive PL adapters or various types of extension tubes (PL, M42, EF or other). https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=pinhole+laser&_sacat=0&_sop=15

the physical dimensions of the EF mount prevent installing it inside the PL mount deep enough to enable infinity focusing. If shooting macro stuff, almost anything could be done however. You can for example attach the taking lens to the PL adapter with tape or glue if that is the most practical way to do it. the lens just does not focus very far, probably only to couple of inches or so. You can get cheap macro bellows in M42 mount and attach them to PL camera using a simple and affordable M42 to PL adapter (the RafCamera ones or the Chinese ones for example) . You can use M42 extension tubes in between of the adapter and the bellows if needed. Attaching the Canon mount bellows to the PL adapter should be possible too if using some time and machining it a little bit.

the described job is basically taking the sensor, the physical body and the optical parts from the original F35 and making most if not all of the camera electronics by yourself from ground up. Similarly demanding than purchasing a plain image sensor from Mouser and building your own digital cinema camera from it doing all the control and signal processing electronics and custom software by yourself. This is probably not a good solution for any cinematography related use... just wanted to say that it is possible and how it can roughly be done if one is experienced enough and has tons of spare time for the project. it does not make any financial sense compared to purchasing a used cinema camera or a new mid range movie camera because the amount of work is huge. maybe a youtuber or similar person could make a project out of it... they have lots of spare time and funding available to do things which do not make any financial sense :P if not having the sensor documentation one could maybe probe the sensor outputs with oscilloscope to find out how the timing control and signal outputs of it work. without that information one can't even start working with it.

3ccd tends to have different, more efficient way to handle colour separation (colour-reflecting dicroic coatings instead of traditional substractive filters) so if done well it should be even more efficient than the traditional single-chip system using "normal" filters. I have understood that the A/D conversion is the most challenging part on the CCD cameras. Is that F35 sensor handling anything on chip level or is the conversion external like in the traditional CCD? it should be theoretically possible to hack a sensor if having the documentation for it but it is extremely demanding and time consuming so probably not worth it for that camera, better to purchase a used Alexa instead ( I would assume it would be a 2 year job for a person to do something like this to the F35). If you can get the sensor data efficiently from analog stream to digital format then you can probably do a custom system using powerful fpga's for signal processing. CMOS cameras are easier in this regard because you already have a digital output on the image sensor level so you "only" have to handle the timing control etc. stuff and the very high bitrate data streams coming from the sensor which is a perfect job for a powerful fpga's to do if one has the expertise to custom program them for the job

I would check the camera with a dummy roll of film to hear if there is any problem with the film transport or possible magazines. The lens should be checked to have functional focusing and aperture. the aperture checked for possible oil on the blades (one can manage with oily iris on a lens but it can show in reflections pretty easily so one should expect more flaring and uglier flares then) . If the camera is affordable you should look for stuff which is outright broken or missing or expensive to repair. you may need to arrange a CLA for the camera anyway before you use it for serious filming so if nothing is actually broken and the motor and film transport work and the lens is functioning correctly and not scratched then it should be OK to buy

I would try Resolve for the correction. or if wanting to use fcpx you could maybe make a correction LUT in Resolve for just the flicker removal and import it then to the FCPX and keyframe it there

I think it doesn't make much sense purchasing native Z-mount lenses. I mean, the camera bodies themselves are not very good (I mean they are good for photography purposes but they are not top notch in any way) so it makes no sense to commit to the Z-line of cameras in the long run. In couple of years you will want to switch to another camera line and then you have lots of unusable expensive lenses in your hands which need to get rid of. What DOES make sense is to purchase the older Nikon F mount lenses (pretty much every model which has the mechanical aperture tab on the back of the lens's mount) . They can be adapted to most other cameras and you can use them with the Nikon Z line of cameras too with the Nikon's own adapter and have full electric controls. I am regularly using the kit zoom 24-70/4 with the Z6 when shooting making of stuff but I don't use any other Z-mount lenses or would ever want to purchase them over the NF mount ones

it is pretty random flickering in most cases. you will have to try to keyframe it out the best you can. make a correction node which has just the green channel pulse adjusted out and then enable/disable it when there is a green "flicker" frame keeping it otherwise disabled. check the rgb waveform or parade to find out how much the flicker pulse lifts the green tones and how to reverse its effect. lots of manual work but should make the shot usable and the audience will probably not notice the flicker anymore

I use similar style RC batteries too to power Konvas cameras. They work very well in that application but the cheapest ones have crazy self discharge rates which is why I need to charge them at least couple of days before shooting with the camera or they don't have any charge left for filming. The cells which have higher mAh rating compared to size tend to self discharge faster by my experience and the "overrated" mAh capacity may indicate that the battery is a bit lower quality than the counterparts which use physically similar sized cells with less rated capacity. You did fully charge the batteries before testing them with the camera or were they left charged for longer period and then you tested the camera assuming that the batteries still had the full charge in them? in case of those rc batteries they may have something like half of the charge left if you store them couple of weeks or a month. Can be even almost empty if storing for couple of months and they are bad quality ones

The Cameflex crystal modification project is cancelled because of low interest. I will make the Type24 motor's crystal modification for my own camera in the Summer but it will not be available for sale. This decision is to save developing money and time for other projects.

when optimising the design it was practical to streamline the design in various ways. it enabled adding more speeds at the same time so why not. I haven't built the prototype boards yet to test how the new speed will work with the actual camera but I think it will have the following specs or very close to these. - selectable speeds: 12fps, 16fps, 23.976fps, 24fps, 25fps, 29.98fps - automatic exposure which compensates for the different frame rates. - probably powered by a 9V battery. - availability TBA but I will first make a prototype for my own use which uses external circuit boards and then we can start to discuss if anyone would be interested in ordering the final version. If no one is interested in it, then I am more than happy to use the prototype one for my own documentary projects even if it is the only Leicina 2x8 in the World which has Crystal Sync ?

I have done some experimenting with the Kiev and I think it might be useful if I'll test using a completely new add-on motor with it. Possibly a brushless motor if I'll find a suitable model (just testing some Chinese made ones which could work). The same motor could maybe be used with the Krasnogorsk cameras as well if modifying the output axle etc. connectors. Could be useful I think. I will continue the Kiev project with open schedule. I am working on the Konvas 15EPSS motor system which should be finished in January. will post pics of it then :)

One of the surprising fields which is lacking in the low budget shoots is the use of sandbags on stands and how many are needed for this and that situation. People will of course do what they are told but they may not have a basic hunch of how many bags would be at least good to have if the light is down vs. fully lifted up on the stand and that compared to the possible wind conditions. Generally speaking, people tend to hate carrying heavy objects around so most likely they are using way too few sandbags for the job. Everyone can imagine what could be the problem with that :P

The g&e is a huge grey area in the indie shoots and there is lots of additional risks because people may not be experienced enough or their skills may lack in specific areas which are not apparent to other crew members. Rigging safety is one of these fields and basic electric planning is another. So I would be extremely cautious in situations which involve overhead rigging or enough lights to burn fuses or overload the genny. (because I have seen literally dozens of people who can't count in their head how much wattage one can take out of a certain amperage fuse or have any idea how to rig something properly to the ceiling. Large frames etc. Can be an issue as well. The problem is that they may be confident enough to try. I have seen for example 5k worth of lights plugged to the same household socket which can only supply about 2k)

overscan generally means that you will get the whole frame and a part of the sprocket holes visible and some small portion of the adjacent frames as well. if you want to see the whole sprocket holes (basically the whole width of the film) then it is sometimes called "superoverscan" depending on the place. I have no idea what they mean by "full frame image" but probably it is the whole image area of the frame without much of the borders or sprocket holes visible or them even left out so it is just a little bit cropped full image area. So I believe that they mean it is not cropped to the correct aspect ratio like you do in telecine transfers so you will get the uncropped image area but possibly not the frame borders. thus "full frame". I haven't had anything scanned on 4k Spirit (they only have 2k/hd versions here) but I have been impressed with the quality of the 4k Scanity scans on 35mm. One would need to consider the price-quality ratio when choosing the scanning options so if the Spirit is more affordable then it might make sense to use it even if there is a quality difference (I get stuff scanned on both Scanity and Blackmagic Cintel because the Scanity has better picture quality but the Cintel is half the price per minute of material. I also get stuff best light telecined on Millenium2 in HD because it is affordable and I love how that machine handles the colors)