Jump to content

Fabrice Ducouret

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fabrice Ducouret

  • Rank

  • Birthday 03/15/1981

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Paris, France
  • My Gear
    I own over 50 cameras (Super-8, 16mm, 35mm, Video, digital...)
  • Specialties
    I am a filmmaker and director of photography who also takes pictures and draws. I have directed over 160 short films since my youngest age in the 1980s, until now, in various genres and formats.
    I also build or tweak lenses to obtain surreal or ethereal effects. Some of my photographic inventions are listed on my website, contact me for ideas and any kind of project.

    My showreel (feedback is always appreciated!): https://vimeo.com/110965369

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.fabulousrice.com

Recent Profile Visitors

2641 profile views
  1. This is great, Pavan - care to share some pics of the repair process as well? (if you have) - thanks!
  2. Congrats on fixing the Webo! I think you should offer servicing for the cameras you know how to fix - when I rounded up Hollywood camera repair shops, no one knew what the Webo was or how to fix it (thankfully it wasn't broken...). You might be able to make some money repairing people's 16mm cameras. One thing that might hinder people's google searches when looking for you is that the title of your webpage for the Webo is "Canon 814/1014/1218 repair" (also here). Congrats for your efforts in fixing the camera. Are you planning on using it? Feel free to share some footage if you do!
  3. Webster, Thanks so much for following this discussion and adding your contribution. Your rig is super - congratulations! But double or single focus? I'm sure you can always find a smaller anamorphic someday either by luck or if you win the lottery... (Are you in the anamorphic shooters group on facebook?) I'd love to see your anamorphic footage. To be honest, I don't get why people place anamorphic lenses in front of a digital camera. For me it only really makes sense in front of a film camera... If you use a 2x anamorphic on a no-crop-needed setup, you end up with a output image after anamorphosis that is 7680 x 2160 for stills and 3840 x 1080 for video as seen here - pretty useless imho. But when you're working with a square-ish format, now we're talking... By the way, how do you offset the anamorphic or the lens to align them? Here's my Pathé and the Schneider Cinelux seen from above, they're not aligned because the lens of the Pathé and the tripod socket are not on the same axis. If you know the name of the lego piece I need for my Fotga rail - it'd be much welcome!
  4. If you read the rest of the discussion, you can find out that I prefer cameras with a reflex viewfinder and a flat front turret. I think it's a decent camera for someone who doesn't need a reflex system, solidly built and easy to manipulate!
  5. Simon, a lot of people have been using anamorphic projection lenses to capture anamorphic footage of photography. There's a lot of resources online about this, it allows for guerilla filmmakers and low-budget productions to access anamorphic technology at a fraction of the cost it would be with actual anamorphic lenses. Tito Ferradans has reviewed pretty much every option available in his youtube channel. I personally use a Schneider Cinelux with either film or photo cameras (turns a 35mm SLR into a panoramic camera, makes it feel like a Hollywood still...). The tests with the Bolex were absolutely non-conclusive - not even impractical, just impossible. I'd have to use two tripods. But then how do I focus? I'd have to align everything on the top lens position, focus... then move everything back? Nah... It's much easier with the Webo. The camera and the scope fit on the same rail mount. I just need to offset the camera by a couple of centimeters to the right... This is what the Webo's reflex viewfinder sees. And once anamorphosed... (The actual results will not vignette and be better aligned...)
  6. Dom, I will try to keep it short, but I really appreciate the effort you put into your answer, and the immense knowledge you have brought to this discussion. Maybe I didn't google very hard (I actually use DuckDuckGo, which I prefer), but I didn't know the full names of the cameras. As it turns out, I consider most of the ones listed here as oddities, and I would *never* consider using them. They all look extremely cumbersome, in the 3-5 kilos range, or are not with a reflex viewfinder, which rules them out right away. What are the "flat base Bolexes" you mention? The Rex-5? All the ones I have seen have a really bad balance / center of gravity that prevents putting them down on a table the right way up. Hard to forgive such a design flaw. And the high-up lens mount prevents using scopes, as I said before. Although my Super-8 Bolex, the 150 or 160 Super, has a really amusing design that reminds me of a 1960s kitchen appliance - or a camera you'd see in a comic book. I'd never use it either, because of the complicated types of batteries needed and the cumbersome design, but nonetheless a weird object to stare at confusedly (I think the designers at Bolex were taking something...). I own over 50 Super-8 cameras and the Bolex I had were the absolute worst, so maybe there's some of that in my feelings about the brand... Back to 16mm... Example #1 of the Bolex being super wobbly, weakly built, coming apart, badly designed, makes it difficult and scary to even handle. Example #2 of the Bolex being wobbly, and having parts that move that really should absolutely never, ever move, since they are optical, fragile outside elements. Example #1 of the Webo being sturdy as a tank, and wonderfully easy to handle very firmly (while lighter than the Bolex). Example #2, because, you might want to hold it firmly on either side of the body? Do not try to reproduce with the Bolex... Here's the front plate of the Webo, almost perfectly flat... Here's the front plate of the Bolex, unnecessarily encumbered and not flat at all... Which results in lenses like this one, not being mountable on the Bolex! But on the Webo, it fits like a glove... Another example of the really bad design of the front plate of the Bolex, preventing to use this amazing Canon Macro Zoom Lens... And the Webo wears it without a problem. Also, yes, I wouldn't mind teaching 16mm using a Bolex, but I've seen a lot of USA schools teach students with a Krasnagorsk-3, which I think is a better camera than the Bolex. Cheaply built, for sure. Proprietary mount, alas. But definitely cheap, affordable, very easy to hold and manipulate for hours, and with a reflex viewfinder. I liked the joke about Fontainebleau, but my first Webo was given to my by a teacher that had used it across Europe for 30 years and it ran perfectly even when I used it. If the videos in this post do not convince you of how much sturdier it is...
  7. Thank you Simon for this well-documented answer. A pleasure to read it. I find difficult to find a reliable database of these cameras, where I could read more about them and see pictures of them (the Super-8mm format, for some reason, has generated a larger amount of wikis and databases than 16mm - maybe a larger user-base, although less professional?). When I consult the pictures of the Bell & Howell Filmo B or DB (of which there are no more than 2 photos on the whole internet, not sure how easy it is to get one), it seems it has some of the issues I have with the Bolex: difficulty to place on a flat surface, and oddness of the gravity center, because of the vertical position of the spools inside the camera. Which would be especially bothersome for high-speeds since a good grip is even more important. I could not find a single photo of the "ETM P-16", the "Victor" cameras, or the "Pentacon Ak16". Is this the Pentaka 16? This article seems to have the only existing image of this camera. Interesting if it is reflex. The Ciné-Kodak Special is the one that most grabbed my attention. The Cine-Kodak Special II look like a Webo with less features and a bunch of oddly-placed knobs which would make firmly holding the camera a bit cumbersome (might be a real pain to avoid flicking this little guy during prolonged use, or to not scratch anything with these sharp protruding viewfinder pieces! OUCH!). But you say the reflex system is unusable during filming - why? Again, that defeats the purpose a bit if one if following moving subjects. The Bolex 16 that you recommend (with reflew finder usable during filming) is the one I *thought* I had purchased, only to be severely disappointed when I realized I had to do the whole process of focusing on the viewfinder plate, changing the lens position, etc every-time I'd shoot something. It makes the use of Scopes impossible. But I think it'd be impossible to use scopes even on the H16, given the offset of the lens from the tripod socket and the height where the scope would be in relation to the shape of the camera; the weight would be too high up to hold the camera vertically effectively. And how many times did someone focus, then forget to put the focused lens in front of the film gate position? It's really a bad idea all along (no chauvinism intended! Plenty of bad French cameras exist...). I am also very confused with the naming conventions of the Bolex Cameras, I cannot find a reliable source giving the names of each model - the one I have doesn't have a model name on it, but online photos of my (non-reflex) model show up with "H16" in the name, and the one you have which is different is also called H16? I however disagree that the Bolex cameras c-mount disc accepts more lenses than the Webo. The annoying metal lever that is supposed to help the user rotate the mounting disc gets in the way with some wider lenses, and the middle axis is a huge bump that some lenses touch when mounted - the front plate of the Webo is almost completely flat. "Mechanically, the H-16 is superior to the WEBO M. No chauvinism intended", I would love to hear more about your findings in this field (the mechanical comparison, not the chauvinism! haha), while I have both a Bolex and a Webo at hand to compare. But I sometimes wonder if the designers at Bolex intentionally made their 16mm cameras easily breakable (difficult to hold, the adjustable optical viewfinder on the film door is wobbly, the non-reflex viewfinder at the top by the handle is wobbly...), to make sure there would be profits from servicing them. The Filmo 70-DL makes me feel like the Kodak K-100, in the way that it offers its user to place little "fake" lenses on the viewfinder to "simulate" the lens crop. But these little viewfinders can be hard to find, screwed on in their wrong position, slow to install, etc, where a reflex viewfinder would cut through these steps. It also seems a bit heavy, and therefore hard to handle? My Bolex weights 2.6 kilos, without lenses or film inside, whereas the empty Webo is 2.3 Kgs. And I can't imagine how heavy a G.I.C. ETM P16 must be, if you say it can withstand a meteorite hit! The Arriflex as well... "If you can live with a NON-REFLEX critical focusing system" - I could, and was going to when I purchased the K-100 (2.6 kilograms btw), but I really want to use scopes! There really has to be a very good reason for a camera to not have a reflex viewfinder for me to consider it. In range of film cameras I use, I use a lot of bellows cameras for medium format, for example, because they are very portable and convenient, although not reflex (I use the laser rangefinder mentioned earlier or a Blik hotshoe rangefinder). How do you quickly focus with the Filmo? And the Kinamo 35mm I have for hand-cranked 35mm filming - well, it films 35mm 4-perf and weights an outstanding 1.4 kilos!
  8. Hey Simon, Thanks for the input. The thing is, for me the Webo 16mm is simply the best 16mm camera out there, so I am bound to buy that one model that I am the most comfortable with again and again (hopefully I don't lose the new one, there's no reason to!). Let me explain myself: -Spring-powered is a plus for me, not a limitation. I cannot be bothered having to charge batteries if I shoot all day or looking for adapters if I travel the world, -Reflex viewfinder is a must for me. I use weird lenses (see my answer to Dom above with the benchmark link), and I need to be able to not only change focus while filming but also use scopes like the Schneider Cinelux 2x, -Interchangeable lens system, because one single lens rarely does it for all kinds of situations, -It has many features that I love, like slow motion at 80fps and fast motion at 8fps, and several choices in between, and possibility to change frame rate while filming, -You can do in-camera cross-fades, which I find much more pleasing than digital cross-fades (explained here), -And, last but not least - it is incredibly compact and easy to handle. Now, for some people who are tripod-bound, that is not a big problem, but that is an indeniable strength of the Webo over, say, the Bolex 16mm, which has a high center of gravity and is very difficult to hold firmly, see this chart of grip positions of the Webo I made here. Other cameras I have owned and used are the Krasnagorsk, Bell & Howell "Gun" Camera 16mm Type N-9, Kodak K-100, Bolex 16... None of them really compares! But if you have suggestions of models that I should try out, or if you want to share the 16mm cameras you enjoy using the most, please, tell me!
  9. You were absolutely right. I carried out more extensive testing on a test bench with a laser rangefinder, and I actually understood where my doubt was coming from: Some lenses, made for newer TV cameras, do not focus at the distance of the ring due to their slightly different screw threads. For these lenses, we must not rely on the markings on the ring, and simply rely on the reflex viewfinder to focus. I attach photos of my benchmark testing of the c-mount lenses, and results here. Thanks
  10. I grew up using an amazing Pathé Webo 16mm, that I was very attached to. It disappeared under sad circumstances during a move. After being extremely disappointed by a Bolex turret 16mm and a Kodak K-100 that I thought I would like just as much, I just got another one after years of missing it dearly, but it seems that the "pellicle" part is missing, because when I put a lens in the mount, the focusing is wrong (for example I put a lens on and focus on an object that's 7ft away and the lens marking reads infinity). Everything else works perfectly well... I assume a previous user just broke the pellicle while trying to clean it, as seems to often be the case for this model. I found this thread, which was very helpful, but the OP doesn't explain how he solved it. I'm trying to understand better what the pellicle's job is - since I am able to see clearly through the reflex viewfinder, but the focusing is off from the markings. Can I still use the camera, and, if I achieve focus, that means the shot captured on the film will be sharp as well? And is it easy to fix? In the post I linked to, someone mentions a Webo repair shop that is gone now. The one mentioned here is gone as well. I called a few people around town, but if I'm unable to fix it or have it repaired (I'm in L.A.), I'd like to find a picture of an intact Webo front, in order to explain the seller why I am returning it. If anyone can help with any of this, it would mean a lot to me.
  11. Hey Evan, Were you ever able to fix your issue? What exactly do you mean when you say the viewfinder wasn't working? Was it not focusing right, the way a reflex viewfinder is supposed to, or was there just no light inside? THanks
  12. I grew up shooting a lot of 8mm and 16mm and I recall using several cameras that allowed you to dissolve shots in the camera. I've been wondering for a while now if a dissolve between two shots will look identical when done in Camera and when done in Post. How does the "dissolve" option work when done in camera (in my humble experience)? There are different ways of doing it. I've used cameras that did it in an automated way and cameras that would do it manually. Simply put, in automated cameras, the camera will shoot Shot A and when the user switches the "Dissolve" button on, the camera's iris will progressively close for, say, 3 seconds, then rewind the film 3 seconds back. Then the user can shoot Shot B (and I'm assuming with fully open iris, or anyways automatic exposure), thus overlapping the last 3 seconds of Shot A with Shot B - since Shot A was terminated by closing the iris, becoming darker, the image captured for Shot B will become brighter. When done in-camera, the last 3 seconds of Shot A are going to be exposed again with Shot B at full brightness. This produces a double-exposure effect (easily replicable in film photography). That is to say, that if during the 3 last seconds of Shot A there are areas of the shot that are very dark, these will allow Shot B to be visible in these areas very early as Shot A dissolves. Another way to do this is by closing the aperture and rewinding, and then opening the aperture for Shot B. I've used the first method more often because it is automated and was never able to replicate the feel of these dissolve transitions in digital. In digital, a cross-dissolve (for example the default ones in Premiere Pro, but I'm assuming it's the same in other programs) will fade the images of Shot A from 100% opacity to 0%, and will bring Shot B to visibility the same way but in reverse. There are no possible overlapping effects when applying the dissolve, the overlap will be perfectly even even in darker areas of Shot A. I wonder if anyone could clear this up for me. Maybe the cameras with automatic Dissolve features would open the iris of Shot B from 0 to 100 but in many cases I would shut down the camera and shoot Shot B in different circumstances so maybe the camera wouldn't "remember" to dissolve "in" for shot B. But whenever I see cross dissolves that I know have been edited digitally, they never have the feeling of a double-exposure image, where dark areas of the image show the second image more clearly (in-camera dissolve resembling more of a blending mode...)
  13. I just got a Kinamo 35mm camera, and I'm really excited to play with it soon. Unfortunately, it comes without a user guide, and these are hard to find, even today across the world wide web. I've taken a picture of it and labeled some of the parts in case someone out there can help me figure out what everything is. The model I got has only one little defect, which is that once rewinded the motor just goes straight away, whether or not the shutter is pressed. So I might look for a cover, and only use the hand-crank. I've been able to open the film compartment and the film holder inside, but I'm not sure how to load film it it yet.
  14. Hi Juha, Did you find a solution to your problem? I would love to see how you fixed it.
  15. Can it be used to film? I haven't found a manual online, but if it can shoot at lower speeds than 150fps I'd be interested. I'm also curious/worried about the power supply..
×
×
  • Create New...