Ian Cooper

I'm using a Sekonic L358. I came across the 12%/18% issue when I first got it, trying to shoot reversal stills film - all the results were dark! I've now tweaked the 'compensation' function of the light meter so I can get 'correct' exposures every time using Velvia 120 stills film, predominently using just incident metering. On a clear blue-sky sunny summer day (they do occasionally happen in the UK!) the meter will confirm the "sunny 16" guide. In 'cine' mode the meter assumes a 180 degree shutter (which the camera I was using was also set to), and I had the fps of the meter set at 25 to match the camera speed. I get the same readings if I set the shutter speed at 1/50 as well. My stills photos taken on reversal film in the same location (and other similar places) using similar metering techniques don't appear particularly dark to me. For the pumping station shots I was using both incident metering and comparing it to reflective readings (taking care not to let bright windows in the field of meter view influence the reading). Generally speaking the reading I was getting was between f4 and f5.6, and my setting of the lens tended to err slightly on the side of over exposure. The meter reading outside was about f45, so 6 stops brighter. To get the outdoor shots on the same film I had to use 2 stops of ND and still have the lens fully closed at F22. In the background of the indoor shots the detail seen through the open door and through the windows is clearly brighter and slightly overexposed, but to me it only seems perhaps 1.5 stops or so over - certainly not the 6 stops brighter than the lens setting that I was metering and exposing the main subject at. In the past I've tried rating the entire film slower, effectively overexposing it all by 2/3 stop and the results came back just as dark as when I don't deliberately 'overexpose'. At the end of this film I shot a couple of seconds in my flat at night lit just by a 100W and a 60W domestic light bulb - the meter reading was just below f1 (at 500asa), whilst the lens was wide open at f1.8 thus underexposing by just over a stop. The Tk result looks dark, but is no darker than other shots where I'd deliberately overexposed about 0.5 stop. To be fair I'd expect a best light Tk to even out exposure variations, it's just what they're being leveled out to that I'm less sure about. I'm not an expert on the zone system, but I have followed the basic principles and do on occasion use it when I'm exposing, developing and printing my own B&W stills film - I've also used it to adjust the EI I rate B&W film at to match my development techniques and enlarger contrast. I think you're probably right about expectations, both yourself and Stephen feel the straight Tk results look fine. Personally I'd have expected the shot of the pressure gauges to be similar brightness to the BetaSP frame grab, with the majority of the highlight detail reaching around 80%, and the white notices appearing white up around 100%. The Tk result however is down near 20%-30% with no detail above 40%, and the white drawings appear dull grey (to me). I've tried asking and explaining to the labs what I'm hoping for on previous occasions, but seem to largely get Tk results looking the same. If the consensus of opinion is that these already look bright enough - then that would explain why! Thank you for letting me know your feelings.

I realise it isn't a direct comparison, but this was shot on BetaSP a couple of years ago: To me the frame appears bright and neither over nor under exposed. That's the type of brightness I'm hoping for from Tk'ed film. This next frame grab is almost the same view shot under almost the same lighting conditions but on 16mm film, with a 'best light' Tk. To me it appears dark and dull with almost no highlights, the histogram seems to suggest the same to me as well. If I then adjust the levels I can produce: The image now seems well exposed, and the histogram seems to look better balanced as well - just a shame there's all but no image data left to fill it smoothly! What am I doing wrong, not understanding, or not asking for with the Tk??

Which, the unadjusted version?! Oh well, perhaps it is just me then. I'd have thought this: would look closer to this: Likewise, would seem to represent a polished brass makers plate like: and this looks rather dull and flat to me compared to this version: From the film at Easter there was this frame shot on a bright sunny day: Yet watching it on the TV it doesn't seem to have any highlight bright areas, it just seems dull. This version seems more consistent with the levels of broadcast TV channels and commercial DVDs to me: Thank you both for your comments, I'm even more puzzled if that IS seen as bright though!

Over the last couple of years I've used three different labs here in the UK to process and Tk my 16mm neg film to BetaSP & MiniDV (the only formats I can handle). They've all offered a 'best light' service as standard. The results I get back seem to be consistently dark and look underexposed, irrespective of where I've gone. The obvious suggestion is that I'm the one at fault, that I'm underexposing the negative! I have had a process & workprint done as a camera test, the print on that occasion came out looking fine, and the report with it seemed to suggest the exposure of the neg was correct as well (30,34,29 , I'd tried overexposing the neg about 1/3 of a stop). With stills photography I almost exclusively use medium format reversal film, so I'm no stranger to using a totally manual camera with a seperate light meter - and needing to get the exposure right! When I had some more 16mm film processed back around Easter time the results were once again dark. On this occasion I got back in touch with the lab, explained the problem and asked for their help. They suggested I send the neg back down to them and they'd check the density etc. The result once again was that apparently the neg was exposed fine. Having reviewed the Tk the lab did agree the levels on one or two shots were perhaps a little on the dark side, but overall their comment was: "...In general I thought this was a very good rushes transfer (given the limitations in an overnight rushes scenario) We do our best to add as much to the grade as possible overnight but of course there is, more often than not in all projects, room for some improvement in Post Production..." I can obviously lighten the material myself on the PC to a certain extent, but the results can be so dark I end up with images riddled with noise! I don't think I'm expecting anything special, just neutral colour, average brightness, no special 'effects' - the video equivalent of a workprint really. This weekend I've just received back some more film and once again I feel the Tk results are very dark and appear underexposed. Here's a quick rough cut of the Tk with no fiddling of my own: Unadjusted rushes Bearing in mind the bright sunny afternoon weather, the outdoor shots look like dusk! The sequences in the boiler room I knew were going to be a struggle as the illumination was a single 2k blonde, but everything after 1:11 in the engine room was lit largely by ambient with just some artificial fill. Generally the exposure was sitting between f4 and f5.6, I was taking both incident and reflective light readings and the two were usually comparable. I'm slightly surprised to see detail outside the windows in a number of the shots - the light readings outside were about 6 stops brighter than I was metering and exposing for inside, so even allowing for the window glass dimming it down a bit I'd expect the windows to be totally blown out and overexposed - they didn't factor in my metering for the scene at all. I'm at somewhat of a loss: The results I get back from a best light rushes Tk is (to me) too dark to really do much with other than check focus - there's almost no highlight info in it, yet I'm told these results are 'good', and my own experience seems to suggest this is indeed the 'standard' brightness for such a service from more than one company. I'm led to believe my exposure of the 16mm negative is good, and experience would tend to suggest I could get a 'normal' brightness workprint - yet getting an equivalent brightness Tk seems impossible, despite explaining and asking. A camcorder on autoexposure doesn't give similar dark results, a C41 still film printed on 'auto' settings in the high street doesn't give dark results, when I expose reversal film I don't get dark results, and nothing broadcast on TV looks that dark. Is there something specific I'm not understanding about the process/service? ...and more to the point, what do I need to do or request to get nice bright well exposed Tk? I've tried shooting grey cards at the start, I've tried explaining I want to be able to just edit the results together to burn to DVD and have similar brightness/contrast to normal TV pictures, I've tried just asking for 'bright' results, I've tried explaining I don't want any futher Tk or grading etc... when I've got back to the lab they've been most helpful, checking the neg for me etc, but ultimately they don't seem to be seeing the darkness problems I am. The labs themselves are all a long distance from where I live, so calling by in person isn't really an option. Any clues as to what I might be doing wrong, and/or what I need to do next? Does the Tk above seem dark to anyone else? This is the same rough cut after I've tried adjusting the gamma and levels on the PC - watch out for the objectionable noise/grain, although the compression has mushed and hidden a fair bit. PC adjusted rushes

Some of your symptoms sound similar to some problems I had with my NPR motor, assuming they are both the same. I know it's not very clear on this snap, but this is the motor on my camera: My problem was that everything would run fine, then for no apparent reason the motor would just stop. In this condition the switching FET bolted to the top of the box would heat up (thus warming the box). If the motor was removed from the camera then it was possible to see the motor shaft would turn slowly, but it didn't have any power behind it to drive anything. With a bit of fiddling I seemed to track the problem down to the green connectors used to connect the motor and its feedback encoder to the control circuit board inside: These appear to be unavailable these days, and there isn't much space in there to fit alternatives. I did solve that problem by carefully applying "silver conductive paint" to each of the contacts, then pushing the two halves together whilst the paint was still in its liquid state. Once I'd sorted that problem, I then found it would run fine for 100's of ft of film before suddenly starting to play up and stall for no apparent reason. If the switch was turned off and the manual advance knob given a tweak then suddenly you'd see the motor wake up and return the shutter to the 'park' position again. I never did quite find a definate reason for that one, but think it might be related to load on the camera. I found that the 'problem' seemed to be related to how well seated the motor was on the camera, and the exact angle of alignment between the two. By shuffling the motor position I was able to make it complain a lot more frequently, or almost not at all. Since sending the camera off for service/lubrication I don't appear to have had a repeat of the problem (touch wood). I was put in touch with a chap here in the Uk that does camera electrical repairs, and is used to working on the NPR motors. He explained how circuit diagrams have never been available, and even supposedly motors of the same type have different value components - suggesting each one was tweaked on assembly. The green connectors going a bit dicky is a frequent problem, and if he can't fault find the circuits fairly quickly then it works out more effective to replace the circuit with a board of his own design. If you're not 'into' electronic engineering, then there's nothing to see and nothing to adjust inside the box, but with a bit of care and a screwdriver it shouldn't be beyond someone being careful to open it up and wiggle the green connectors to see if they've got an intermittent connection, or dose them with conductive paint to see if it sorts things. You mentioned that the motor runs fine when it's disconnected from the camera. Does it do the problem if you load the output wheel by rubbing it against something, or carefully squeezing with your fingers whilst not on the camera? If the camera hasn't been serviced in a long time then perhaps that's getting a bit stiff and needs a touch of oil? The fact that your times gradually reduce until you let it rest for an hour or so suggests something in the circuit is heating up (not just the switching transistor bolted to the motor box). Sorry I can't really say what's wrong, hope you get to the bottom of the problem.

Well if nothing else, it worked on the feed side :) - just making it necessary to find a 'proper' one for the take-up! ;) I'm not sure how yours was 'ground' down, but certainly if it's turned, including with the top edge taper, then appropriately deburred all on the lathe, there won't be any balance issues as it will all be concentric. There must have been some other factor at work - hey ho, it was only an idea off the top of my head. Back to the daylight spools then! :rolleyes:

One other possible area of confusion, concerning whether the film should be exposed at 40asa or 25asa: If you were using a seperate external lightmeter then it should be set at 40asa when exposing Kodachrome 40 under tungsten lights, or if the film is exposed in daylight then the conversion filter will loose 2/3 stop, so the meter would want setting at 25asa to compensate for this. HOWEVER, if you are used a camera with a 'through-the-lens' light meter, you should leave the camera meter's asa dial at 40asa (the true film speed). When you put the conversion filter on the front of the lens it will not only cut the amount of light reaching the film by 2/3 stop, but it will also cut the light reaching the light meter by 2/3 stop as well, so the meter reading will automatically be adjusted to suit the film. It will depend exactly on your circumstances as to which setting you should have used. If you were using a through-the-lens meter, then you should have set the speed at 40asa and your footage will be 1 stop underexposed (ie. request a 1 stop push). If you were using a seperate non-through-the-lens meter, then it should have been set at 25asa and your footage will be 1-2/3 stops underexposed (ie. request a 2 stop push).

It'd probably be easier to request a 2 stop push. The extra 1/3 stop is neither here nor there, but won't do any harm to try and extract slightly more out of the inky black shadows. If what you've shot is of value and can't be replaced, then the only way to see what it will turn out like is to expose a second 'test' roll at 80asa and ask for that to be pushed X stops to see what it'll turn out like. Based on that you can send the original roll for processing.

Looking at an on-line manual for the 4008 ZM II I'm not sure I can actually see the reference you're referring to and the context in which the statement is made. But irrespective of the camera - if you set a lightmeter to a higher speed rating than the film you're exposing then the results will turn out underexposed, if you set a lightmeter to a lower rating than the film you're using, then the results will turn out overexposed. I can't see from the photo you've posted, but in the on-line manual (page 21) it seems to suggest there are x5 marker dots alongside the film-speed dial. The centre one is coloured green and represents the actual speed being metered. If you want to overexpose the film, there are two further white dots positioned to the right of the green dot. You need to move the film's speed setting away from the green dot in a clockwise direction to line it up with one of the white dots. However, if you look at what is now aligned with the green dot (the actual meter setting) you will see it is a lower asa value than your film. This may be where your confusion is stemming from? Assuming the ring with the numbers on rotates along with the knob until the desired number lines up with a dot/marker on the orange body (as shown in the online manual), then to move the film speed from 25asa to 80asa will mean turning the knob in an anti-clockwise direction.

Reply posted in your other thread.

Well I can be absolutely certain it won't be over-exposed. Metering and exposing at 80asa rather than the correct 25asa means your meter was set for a more sensitive filmstock, which would require less light than the 25asa you actually used. However, all that means is all your footage will be underexposed, rather than overexposed, so it still doesn't help very much. The difference between 25asa and 80asa is 1-2/3 stops. In round figures that's almost two stops, so it will be very dark! I suppose you could ask for a 2 stop push (not pull), but that's probably going to result in quite a bit higher contrast.

I guess a certain amount might depend upon what it is you're wanting to shoot. An Arri S is essentially a small hand-held non-crystal sync noisy MOS camera that takes internal 100ft loads. A CP16 is a larger shoulder mounted crystal sync 'silent' camera that takes 400ft magazine loads. Two rather different beasts. Ok, the Arri can be fitted with a crystal sync motor, and can be fitted with a 400ft magazine (which makes it even louder), it also can be fitted in a blimp to make it quiet. The Arriflex also has the legendary Arri engineering & build quality making it very rugged and reliable. What condition are both cameras in? - when were they last serviced/adjusted? In good condition both cameras are capable of producing fine films, but they are perhaps optimised and most suited to different situations. If you want a fairly lightweight and reasonably discrete camera that doesn't draw much attention to itself, and you aren't trying to record sound, then perhaps the Arri might be best suited. If you don't mind something a little heavier, want to record sound, or need the convenience of 400ft loads, then perhaps you're better choosing the CP.

From the look of the photos (I've never seen an ACL 'in the flesh') the adapter 'platters' just look to be smaller diameter versions of the 400ft ones used in the NPR. If that's the case, then it might be worth also keeping an eye out for some NPR ones if you know of someone (or a friendly jobbing engineering firm) who could pop them in a lathe to turn the outside diameter down! ;) Lol. For the DIY approach, I might recommend you visit the post I just made in the Bolex forum I'd also personally tend to start off with a commercial 100ft load whilst testing the camera, before worrying about respooling my own.

First of all, 34 metres is only 111.5ft - that will easily fit on just one 100ft spool. A commercial 100ft load of film will actually contain an extra 10 or 20ft of film to allow for some to get fogged whilst you load it in daylight anyway. If you're filling your own spools, then you can get even more than that on with the sides of the spool still protecting it from the light. The 400ft cans of film don't come on a spool, it's just on a core. ie. there's a central hub, but then the rest of the film is just wound around that with no side support at all. That's the reason why it's essential not to open or handle the film in light - because it will all get fogged! The only film you can safely handle in the light is a "100ft Daylight Load". Any other film you buy is almost guaranteed to be on a core. The core of film is fairly robust, the friction between the film means it doesn't instantly collapse in a big mess infront of you, but if you tried spooling off with no form of side support at all (not even on one side), then chances are you'll end up with a tangled mess! The split reel is simply a film spool that breaks in two down the middle, you can then put the core of film in the middle and join the reel back together again to support the sides. However, if you haven't got one, then it isn't essential - there are other ways of doing the same thing on a budget... When I first started, I enquired about the cost of a split reel and was left choking on the price, a set of new rewinds (needed to wind the film from one spool to the other) aren't the cheapest things in the world either. If you were going to respool large quantities of film, or do it on a frequent basis, then it'd be worth getting the right tools for the job. In my case I just do 400ft or so every now and again. Rather than perform the procedure vertically, I do it horizontally! That means I only need to provide support for the core of film on one side, and don't need a split-reel! ;) I have a length of wood that I cleaned up and painted with gloss paint, to prevent dust, dirt and splinters from the timber contaminating the film. Fixed in the wood are two metal pins, just the right diameter for a 100ft spool to slip over the top. At the bottom of the pins are a couple of washers (to prevent the spools rubbing on the wood, wearing the paint off and generating dust). For the core of film I have a circular disc of metal of large enough diameter to provide support (could be any rigid material though) with an adapter that's the right diameter to push in the centre of the film core (I think 1" OD rings a bell). In use, (and in the dark) the core of film goes on one side (left in my case) and an empty 100ft spool on the other. I always work with the perfs at the 'bottom'. I thread the film into the spool, then wind it with my finger until the level of the film is a small step below the edge of the sides. Whilst doing this I'll apply a little pressure with my other hand to the core of film to provide some tension (don't touch the emulsion side of the film!). I've now got a full 100ft spool of film that's wound as if it's just passed through a camera (ie. the wrong way!). I now put the core of film back in its tin again, then transfer the full 100ft spool to the left and put another empty spool on the right. This time I double check the perfs are at the bottom, then I wind the takeup spool in an anti-clockwise direction. This means when the film has transferred over it's orientated correctly for loading into the camera. Pop the full spool of film back in its can, then turn the lights on - simples! :) ...alternatively, (with the lights still off) get the core of film out and do the whole thing again. If you're respooling a full 400ft can of film, then the last spool will probably hold noticabley less than 100ft - that's because you won't have been too precise on all the previous ones! Lol. It probably sounds quite complicated how I've written it, in practice there's nothing difficult. You just have to make sure everything is as clean and dust free as possible, and be methodical about how you work so you're not left fumbling in the dark trying to find things, or find you've forgotten what stage you're up to! Personally I always return the core of film back into its can if I'm not actually using it, the last thing I want to do is forget I'd left it sitting on the side when I turn the lights back on! :angry: Lol

Well of course I care about getting results as well - I don't enjoy wasting money! But if I get my fingers burnt from using old stock then it isn't quite as disasterous as needing to reshoot something before a deadline, or for a paying client! ;) Don't forget that EXR and 50D have different looks, so you might struggle to seamlessly intercut between the two in the same project. Also, if you're going to have to push the boat out to afford £8 for 200ft of film, then I'd consider early on the cost of subsequent lab work. I haven't found any labs in the UK prepared to handle quantities less than about 400ft, so by the time you've added VAT and carriage you'd need to be budgetting at around £120-£130 to get your results back. Not really sure to be honest. From what I've read, the EXR stocks were higher contrast than the modern Vision/2/3 series. Add to that the fact that I overexposed it slightly to compensate for fogging (2/3 stop), which will also tend to increase saturation a bit.

Personally, faced with your choice I'd probably buy both - 100ft of film for £4 is dirt cheap, if the 7201 short end is more than 100ft, then it works out to even better value! Buy it whilst you can. As to which one to use, that's a harder choice. Even stored in a fridge, the EXR is still 15 years old. You'd probably want to rate that perhaps a stop slower to try and rise above any natural age fog. The 7201 is probably in better condition (assuming it's been kept cool). But if the 7201 is a short-end or recan, then there's always the remote risk the film has been exposed to light and totally fogged! The standard response is to get a clip-test done on the film before using it, but in the past I've not really had labs falling over themselves to help me when I've tried enquiring about getting it done. What are you planning to film? How important for you is it to get good results? Personally I'm only shooting 'home movie' type projects, so if I get naff (or no) results then I haven't got to worry about reshooting. So far I've not a had problem, so the cost saving of using old stock and respooing myself has been significant. Ultimately, only you can make the decision. If you've got access to suitable facilities respooling in the dark isn't difficult, you just need to be organised about what you're doing.

Generally I've done it by feel, sometimes it works out to be a bit under 100ft, sometimes a little over. If you've already got a commercial 100ft spool of film, then you can feel how much below the edge of the side cheeks that is, then aim to replicate it yourself. If you want to be precise; then it is possible to calculate the correct diameter for 100ft of film, then make a gauge to check if you've wound enough on or not.

Depends whether your bathroom is totally dark or not! ;) My bathroom doesn't have any windows, but does 'leak' light around the edge of the door. I wait until night, then turn off all other lights in the flat before retreating into the bathroom, closing the door and respooling film. Yes. :) Just make sure you finally wind the film on the spool in the right direction, with the perfs on the correct side of the spool. ie. With the spool sitting horizontally and the perfs on the 'bottom', the emulsion should be facing inwards and the film should come off the spool at the bottom towards the left (or off the top towards the right). "____O" You'll either need a set of rewinds and a split reel to spool the film off the core, or else some other home-brewed equivalent.

"normal" 200ft daylight spools are just like a 100ft spool, only bigger! They have the same sized square drive hole. If you've bought 200ft short-ends, I wouldn't automatically assume they're on daylight spools. Apart from the A-Minima loads (which are different anyway) film isn't generally available on 200ft daylight spools these days. It is still possible to buy empty 200ft spools new (eg. from here), but not ready loaded with film. I would tend to assume any short-ends you buy will come on a 'core'. ...so it's best to open the can in a changing bag first to find out - you don't want to see it isn't on a spool! ;) Regarding using A-Minima loads in an ACL, I found this reference on an older thread: Looking on page 35 of the Aaton manual would tend to suggest the A-Minima loads come on core with a standard diametre hole in the middle and removable side cheeks. If you need a manual for the ACL, a copy can be found <<online here>> On page 13 it shows a core sitting on the 'core adapter plate'. In practice it isn't anything too fancy. Obviously that's not too much help if you haven't got any, but as a last resort it shouldn't be too difficult to fabricate something suitable if you have access to a workshop. Best of luck with your 'new' camera! :)

Are you trying to use autoexposure? If so, that will open the lens right up and then start adding gain to try and get an 'average' exposure from the darkness - hence the noise you're seeing. If you use manual exposure, you can light your actors appropriately then manually set the exposure so it's correct for them, leaving the area outside where you've lit to fall into darkness. If you're already using manual exposure but still seeing noise, then you've probably not got enough light on the actors. The more light you throw on the actors, the less gain and smaller the aperture (/iris) you need to use on the camera, and consequently the darker the background and the less noise you'll see.

Ah, right. Thanks. I've read various comments about different R16 problems, or things to be careful of, but hadn't come across that one before. I don't know if the design changed between early and later models, but on mine there's a chrome post that goes between the feed and takeup sides to prevent them rubbing against each other. Either way, whether the film rubs or not, it's not desirable for the camera to damage the perfs in the first place - perhaps something for me to watch out for in future. <<Loading an R16 link>>

If it needs to be Super-16 then that rules out the Beaulieu R16 (which can't be converted to S16), and whilst the K3 can be converted, you'd need to find something other than the standard lens that comes with the camera - as that won't cover S16 (at least not at the wider end). The other thing to consider is that the K3 can suffer individual 'quirks'. It's a good basic camera, but some examples are better than others. I'm not about to argue with John's comments regarding his experiences of the R16, and I would agree an Arri 16S would be a much more rugged camera, but my experience using my own R16 (on a non-commercial, occasional basis) hasn't shown any problems. I suspect so long as you look after it, the R16 can perform fine. My own example arrived with a distorted turret - it seems a common problem experienced when people try fitting and using heavy zoom lenses that weren't designed for the camera. I sent it away for a full service and had the turret plate changed for the fixed single-lens version, designed for heavy lenses. Since then it's given me good service and steady pictures. Film maker Leo Dickinson used the R16 whilst filming on the north face of the Eiger (along with a Scoopic), and also took the R16 to document a group kayaking down the Dudh Kosi from the base of Everest - so they can't be too fragile if looked after properly! Don't forget both the R16 and the K3 are loud noisy cameras. With care it can be possible to record sound outdoors whilst filming with them, but trying to record sync. speech will be a 'challenge', seeing as neither camera is crystal-synced. Dependant upon exact model, it is possible with care to adjust the R16 to be very close to 25fps by monitoring the roll-bars on a TV, but I still wouldn't recommend it for anything requiring much more than very occasional (short) synced speech.

Personally, I'd try contacting Les Bosher to see what he says. I've been happy with the service and adjustment work he's done on both my R16 and NPR.

Oh well, still got it wrong then! If I'd thought slightly harder, the fact that the 435 is the current MOS offering should have once again given me a clue. ...think I'd better shut up - might be safer! :lol: (I think the MOS 35-III is an early 1980's camera isn't it?)