Ira Ratner

I'm dying here, because I love the old stuff and will be shooting 16mm: What exact effects do you get from it?

Adrian, I built one of these old-style teardrop travel trailers a few years ago--a little itty bitty thing that sleeps just two, but has a full galley/kitchen that opens outside in the rear. The entire thing is built on a cheap bolt-together 4' by 8' Harbor Freight utility "trailer." And cooling and refrigeration is like the BIGGEST area of discussion on the forums I go to, especially where I live in south Florida. In case you didn't know (hah hah), it's HOT down here. I have air conditioning in mine (a small window unit mounted in the front wall), but some who don't use silica to remove the moisture from the sleeping cabin, which lowers the temp.

They don't do b&w at all?

Can I ask an amateur question? A really stupid one? Shooting so many fps gives you better quality, correct? So is it resolved in your answer print? Or when you Telecine? See--I told you it was going to be stupid.

What's great about the silica is that by removing moisture, it raises the cooling efficiency of the ice, in that you'll need less ice to cool to the same temp. So that's an additional bonus. In a lot of commercial coolers/refrigerators, they use silica panels to remove that moisture so the compressor doesn't have to work as hard to cool. And removing the moisture lengthens the life of stored fruits and vegetables. I guess that's a tidbit for the Food web site and not here, but maybe that correlates to film as well.

Can you tell me a scene or two from One to look for this? (Even after seeing the film a gazillion times, we still bought the DVD from Wal-Mart for like a buck and a half.) This is interesting stuff.

Glen, what the heck is France's problem with people using words in the manner that they want to use them? For Christ's sake, the country even has a governmental agency trying to "protect" French from foreign language influences. As a democracy, don't you see how retarded this is? Who CARES!? Do the French actually think that the French language is so important and fragile as to require governmental intervention? We're dealing with this same stuff in the U.S., from people afraid of Spanish. Three pages of posts for THIS nonsense?

We're allowed to talk politics here? And people from across the pond are saying that both U.S. presidential candidates suck? Even though we've heard this same old tired argument FOREVER!? Folks, the simple choice of electing a new president IMMEDIATELY affects economic conditions, even before the guy is sworn in and does a damn thing. I lived through the Jimmy Carter years, and things IMMEDIATELY improved under Reagan: They improved economically (Wall Street was on fire in a good way), and Americans started feeling good about themselves again. And the same thing happened when Clinton beat Bush One, so this has nothing to do with party affiliation. It's psychology. Yes, it DOES matter who is elected, because nowadays, economics is largely based on confidence anyway. And the incredible thing about the U.S. economy is that it can turn on a dime and democracies and economies by their very nature will always have their ups and downs. Now if we could only get off this damn oil fixation, things would be PERFECT. They can't grow a single ear of corn in those countries, so let's see how long they last eating their crude for breakfast.

You can buy inexpensive lamps if you know how to use them and know what you need. It doesn't have to be thigh-end pro for casual shooting. But for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, you need the good lights--or they'll melt or explode right in front of you. As a learning experience, sketch and post here--or explain it--one scene that you want to shoot, and ask for suggestions on how to light it. I guarantee you that you CAN do it just fine with inexpensive lights from Home Depot or Lowes, with some improvisation and proper set-up.

A large shower scene? And no one asked who's in the shower? You guys have to get out more. So I'm asking.

Thanks, guys. I understand a lot more now. Except Rod Serling is long dead and will be of no help at all.

Pentax used to be owned by Honeywell way back when, so all of those old (high quality) cameras and lenses either said Honeywell Pentax or just Pentax. So if you see lenses that just say Pentax...no Asahi...my guess is that these are the OLDER ones, where Honeywell didn't have a need to brand it with Honeywell--it was just common knowledge in those days that Pentax meant Honeywell. After Honeywell sold the brand to the Japanese, you started seeing Asahi. This is what's so hard about buying old lenses--you just don't know. But I sure paid attention to the good reviews here for the 50mm Takumar. In 75% of cases, these 3rd party manufacturers weren't all that great, with the exception of maybe Vivitar. And even then, most photographers still preferred the native brand.

I saw this too, or another eBay sale just like it. But that's a lot of coins for a little metal ring.

Will, I know about grey card metering, but how does that help me with more involved complete set testing? Also, with that test image you posted, exactly how am I supposed to use that? I understand the greyscales that are there, but otherwise, what is there that will tell me anything else? If the Indian vomits, then it's no good? Also, would I use that test card at al distances/focal lengths? I want to do dual-testing not just for the camera, but for the set as well, to achieve that silent film genre look I'm going for. My set will be set under a canopy in my backyard at night, so I thought it important to test with the lights, backdrop, and a subject or two. We're talking 6 ASA here.

Making final payment tomorrow with my Ukraine connection for my 1990 model K-3, so I'll have it in a few weeks. This is what I figured I would do about testing the thing with Tri-X reversal, so tell me if this makes sense and if I missed anything: 1) I was going to create a controlled lighting situation at night in my backyard with artificial lights to test the in-camera meter versus a hand-held (which I don't have but can borrow). However, because the old K-3 can suffer from light leaks, I don't know if night testing makes sense, which won't accentuate those leaks. 2) So if I do daytime testing instead, using a clapboard, I would do that seem meter testing, but do it first without taping the film door...then taping the film door..and then also taping the film COUNTER, since I read about a K-3 owner here who had a problem with this. Anything else you can think of? Like, should I test all of the fps settings as well? I don't think I want to screw around with the zoom yet, because I'm pretty sure that's going to be okay. Bit I know that can wreak havoc with the tests, so for now, just ignore that?

Well, someone got drunker than me today--because that someone (Jagermeister, probably) just moved ahead of my max bid (of $15) by 50 cents, with the auction ending tomorrow. And he can have it: His extra 50 cents saved me around 40 bucks on the camera and shipping, plus money for the lenses that it doesn't have, plus a whole lot of other headaches.

And Leo--thanks for that advice! That means not to just order off eBay.

Not worried about sound, and I just discovered that Spectra in California sells brand-new, fresh 2-perf high contrast b&w reversal film under their own label, and that's all I wanted for this anyway. I'll also try it on my K-3 eventually, which takes both 1 and 2.

Thank you James for bringing up this VERY important point, since I might be winning a paperweight then. Like I said, I'm a total newbie to this.

Thanks, Saul. After doing my eBay search just now, I can see that there are some choices available for this out there. It's a screw mount, with a small diameter. But if I win the camera, I think I'm going to really want to find the old lenses, right? If at all possible? I guess the best plan of actionif I win the auction is to take a good look at it and try to figure out how the thing works, how it feeds, etc., and clean her up. And THEN worry about putting lenses on her.

HAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what the heck is a C-mount lens? And I assume I'll need three, correct?

Zamir--I have the same fascination with this stuff as well--although it might be considered a morbid one. The fact that everyone associated with the film is long, long gone...but the film lives on. And Brian, in the next to nothing reading I've done on the silent era in the last few weeks, no one at all thought that any of these films had any value at ALL after their initial theatrical run. They sure didn't envision TV and DVD to come, and since they didn't even look upon what they were doing as "real" art, it went in the garbage.

There are no lenses in its turret....I have a max bid in on it for $15 (with an $18 shipping cost)...so was I a total idiot for bidding on it? I just couldn't resist: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...rksid=p3907.m29 I have a bunch of stuff coming due via eBay this weekend, so I can not well afford this "little" expense and I regret the bid. But if you tell me that I can find SOME lenses to work with this turret, that will make me feel better.

Vik, doing push-pull or pull-push for your first time on an important project is kind of risky without doing a bunch of testing first. I don't have a background in 16mm film yet when it comes to this, but I do have background with 35mm still film: I may have a roll of 100ASA/ISO film loaded, but the lighting conditions require 400. What I would do is simply set my light meter to 400, then shoot as if I actually had 400 film in the camera--and then tell the lab to "push" it to 400. This will give me a correctly exposed image, but with grain that isn't always desirable. (But in your case, it might be). The processing lab just adjusts the time the film sits in the developer (the chemical), and that's it. He'll let it sit in the developer longer to compensate for the less sensitive 100, now turning it into 400 film with that grain that isn't always wanted.

Richard, I'm not kidding, because I missed it--what's the point ? As long as you have the house and cars, it's cool? And John, once you have a medical practice in Greenwich, Connecticut (or anywhere), you can't just dabble in acting. It took him at least 10 years working as a doctor (probably more) just to pay off his student loans. And by that time, at that age, forget it. And Matthew--going into the "clergy" is the easiest and highest paid way to get into acting that there IS. They have to come up with a new word for what most of THOSE guys actually do. As George Carlin said, "God needs MONEY--but you have to send it right now."