Mike Lary

I own one. I shot some real sweet images with it, but ran into the scratching problem and could never get it working properly after making the mods - it does a great job holding down loose papers on my desk, now. When it ran, I enjoyed the simplicity of the design, the durability of the camera, and the quality of the images even when shooting with the lens open. I wasn't keen on the relatively awkward winding key (as opposed to a Bolex crank). The auto feed mechanism is a joke. You have to disregard the instructions and place/zigzag the film into the path with a vertical motion instead of loading it the way logic would dictate. This doesn't always solve jamming problems, however. K3s were mass produced and do not all meet the same quality level. If the rollers are off by a hair in relation to the baffle plate, your camera will do little more then shred film every few feet. If you luck into getting a K3 that doesn't scratch the film OR jam, AND has a good stock lens (there seems to be a lot of variation in the lenses), you'll be in business. If you get a bum model you have the choice of trying to fix it, which is no easy task, or buying another one at $200 plus as much as $85 for shipping (if it's from the Ukraine). If you buy one from overseas that is listed as 'new', there's a chance it's been collecting dust for years and was never actually used (mine was used despite the seller's claim - and he sells a lot of K3s). Personally, I'd spend my money on a fifty year old Bolex before shelling out another dollar for a ten year old K3.

Thanks, Dominic. They sure didn't correct shot-by-shot as promised, so it wouldn't surprise me if the setup was wrong, too. I guess I'll try a Spirit transfer next. Thanks for the input, everyone.

Hi Sam, Yes, the reversal stock was Kodak Plus-X. Is Cintel a bad choice? If so, which telecine process would you recommend for Double-X Neg? My motivation for switching to neg was to take advantage of the wider exposure latitude, and I plan on telecining my next project straight from neg. Thanks, Mike

Hi Stephen. It was a Cintel, either DAV Turbo or MkIII. Mike

Hi all, I just had some Kodak 7222 Double-X Negative telecined with scene-to-scene correction and transferred to uncompressed QT and the results were horrible. :o The highlights are blasted out and there's some nasty posterization. The neg looks really sharp on a lightbox viewed with a loup (it's the best I can do without a print). Three rolls of reversal that were transferred on the same order look really good, so I'm wondering if the operator might have set a best light for the reversal and not made an adjustment for the neg. :unsure: Can someone with telecine experience please take a look at these images and tell me what you think the problem might be? Here are some samples of the bad transfer, full resolution at highest jpeg compression. http://www.oxygenhabit.com/telecine/bad03.jpg http://www.oxygenhabit.com/telecine/bad02.jpg http://www.oxygenhabit.com/telecine/bad01.jpg And here is one of the good transfer. http://www.oxygenhabit.com/telecine/good01.jpg Thanks in advance for your help, Mike

"Although personally I'd say learn all that stuff on a 35mm SLR, and the rest on DV" I second that advice. I think people are forgetting we're talking about an eight year old kid here, or maybe forgetting what it's like to be that age. Young children grow faster when they are given creative freedom. Forcing him to learn about film speed, fstops, color balancing filters, loading a projector, splicing film, watching his project get scratched, jammed and destroyed in an old projector might frustrate him more than anything and push him away from the medium. Unless he has a really nice projector and a large, high quality screen to project the films on, he probably isn't going to appreciate the aesthetic of film over the crisp image from DV on a decent TV. He also won't have sync sound if he shoots 8mm or S8, which I don't see being very attractive unless he has an overwhelming desire to make silent films. Besides, I wouldn't let a kid with small fingers _touch_ a splicer, let alone edit his home movies on one, especially when he has an older sibling that Mom says she wouldn't trust with a camcorder. :blink: This isn't about the superiority of one medium over another; it's about the best way to nurture the creative spirit in a child and help him learn the most fundamental aspects of making movies. As he gets older, if he maintains his current level of enthusiasm, he can look into film equipment and learn how to use it. In the meantime, an old SLR would help him learn the technical aspects of rendering an image on film.

Ellison needs to sit in a corner and scratch his mad spot... Nowhere do I see 'Stephen Spielberg's War of the Worlds' in the trailer or advertisements. I do see 'a Stephen Spielberg film', which is par for the course, especially when a big name director is associated with a film. It clearly states on the collateral and in the trailer that the film was based on a story by H.G. Welles. 'Based on' is simply that (it states the FULL extent of the writer's contribution to the filmmaking effort), and the right to base a movie on another's work is something that is bought and paid for. Expecting the writer to get top billing is ludicrous and arrogant, regardless of how famous the original work might have been. The writer didn't make the film (or the radio broadcast, for that matter). Besides, what goes on a movie trailer or poster has much more to do with drawing an audience than anything else. Few 15-25 year olds will rush to see a movie that is advertised as an adaptation of a story by Welles. They never sat around a transistor radio listening to broadcasts on a Saturday night, nor did their parents. Few of them read, let alone read classic Sci-Fi stories. Names draw numbers. That's why Spielberg's name is there, and it's also why Cruise has equal billing on some of the adverts. If Spielberg is really such an egotist, I find it hard to believe he would allow the ad to read 'Cruise.....Spielberg'. Hey, why isn't Ellison ripping Cruise as well? <_< Ellison has always struck me as a blowhard looking for attention. He's such an obnoxious egotist that I'll never give his writing the time of day. I agree with him that Spielberg is no Kurosawa, but neither is any other filmmaker alive today. Making comparisons like that is what word crafting weasels do when they can't create a valid arguement. Maybe Ellison is priming himself for the day a big name director adapts one of his books and doesn't bill it as 'from the magnificent mind of Harlon Ellison.' :D

I would stick with video (maybe a Hi8 or digital8 camcorder) because working with film is a trial and error process that could be very expensive and frustrating for an eight year old. Video has an instant gratification factor that would probably work better with kids because your son can show his friends (cast and crew) the 'dailies' right away, which could in turn keep them enthusiastic about working on his movies. The camera should have a firewire port and your mac/pc will need one as well (unless you have a Buzz capture device or similar product). You should pick up a sturdy tripod as well, preferably one that pans and tilts, but stability is more important if you have to choose between models. As far as editing is concerned, you can download Avid's free editing software. If you're on a Mac you can use iMovie. There are some other basic editing apps that are Freeware or Shareware that you can find if you search the web. Someone brought up still photography. There's a great film on the Twelve Monkeys DVD that was made almost entirely out of still images with a narration that plays over them (it's not kid-friendly, but you could watch it for reference). Your son might have fun constructing a movie in that fashion as well if you have a digital still camera, and it would help him to see how compositions from one scene to another affect one another as well as how to develop rhythm. I'm not pushing digital because I think it's better - I'm a film guy all the way. But, considering your son's age the important thing is probably to make the medium accessible and relatively simple so he can maintain his enthusiasm and have a lot of creative freedom. As far as getting your son to play outside is concerned, maybe you could inspire him to make films outside by reading stories to him about adventures that happen in outdoor settings. If he sees some behind the scenes footage on filmmaking, he might want to go outside, scout for a good location to shoot (even if it's the backyard), and take some still images before making his movie.

I found it very helpful. Also The Filmmaker's Handbook and Film Lighting are good. Between those three books, I breezed through my first year of film school. Another book that I really loved was The Elements of Cinema Toward a Theory of Cinesthetic Impact by Stefan Sharff. It's not an easy read, but it concentrates more on mise en scene, which I think makes it a nice companion to the more technical references.

This is a shot in the dark, but I know that flies (coincidentally) love beer! Some farmers use cups of beer to attract, disorient and drown slugs. I've also heard of people using cups of beer to attract hornets and bees that evade capture indoors. They fly over the cup, get disoriented and fall in. Since you're not looking to execute the little bugger, maybe you could just put a couple drops of medium bodied ale where you want the fly to land (or maybe a small resevoir in the trap itself?) If it's the hop aroma that attracts them (and I'm not sure that this is the case) you could pick up some fresh hop buds from a local homebrew shop and smear them on 'the landing strip'. Fresh hops are quite pungent, but they smell much better than dog feces. :)

There is some free NLE software out there. Avid has a product they call FreeDV. You can download it here: http://avid.com/freedv/index.asp It has some limitations, but you're getting more than you paid for since it's free. :)

John Schwind. I used to buy 8mm stock from this guy. He sells Super8 and 16 as well. http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/JohnSchwind.html

I have a Canopus ADVC-100 that is basically one of their video cards in a metal box. You can switch between analog and digital IN, and it supports S-video, RCA and DV, in both directions. There's also a separate Audio In. I've had very good results going from VHS to DV. I've heard that analog to digital can result in quality loss depending on the card you're using because the codec is optimized for digital compression, but the Canopus codec worked very well for me. I was able to drive the box with Premier (a version or two back) on a Mac. It cost around $300 a year ago - I don't know if that model is still being made, but Canopus has a good reputation from what I've heard from other end users, so a similar model card might yield good results as well.

My registration was spot on. I filmed some tight compositions (a few inches wide) and the result was a very crisp, stable image. I didn't have a loose dial like yours, but K3s certainly have their quirks. The pistol grip screw on mine was about a millimeter too high and I had to grind it down to make the grip flush with the base of the camera; otherwise it jiggled back and forth. The only advice I'd give you is in regards to making modifications to the camera if you have a problem with scratches. My K3 produced beautiful images, but the cheesy plastic guides on the film transport scratched the film. I made the modifications exactly as some other folks have, step by step, and disaster was the result. Once you remove the baffle plate (which you need to do if you want to remove the guides), you're opening yourself to the possibility that the camera will never work again. K3camera.com hints at this in their FAQ and wouldn't respond when I told them about my problem and asked for advice (or an estimate for repair). Hopefully your K3 will run fine without scratches. If that's the case, I wouldn't change a thing and have fun shooting. :D

On my K3, there is a red dot next to each camera speed on the dial. In order to run at a marked speed (24fps, etc) you need to align the red dot next to the number with the red dot on the outside of the speed ring. If the dots are not aligned, the motor is running somewhere between the marked speeds. I don't know how you would verify the actual speed outside of analysing the projected film.

You are mistaken. There are two versions. One has an M42 mount and the other has a bayonet mount. http://www.k3camera.com/k3/k3mount.stm

Thanks for the advice, David. The final product will be digital. I planned on getting one-light prints so I'd have something to look at during the shoot (which will take at least a few weeks), identify problematic shots, and play around with rough cuts. I can't afford to telecine as I go, and from what I understand it's best to telecine all at once to ensure consistency between rolls. This is my first venture into shooting neg for telecine, so I'm not sure the best route. I appreciate your input. Mike

Thanks for the responses. I plan on telecining from the bw negative. The only prints I plan on making will be one-light dailies, so print quality is not a big concern. It looks like I need to research the telecine limitations as well as that of the film. Mike

"My big thing is wondering if anyone makes a replacement front panel so as to take a Nikon lens mount instead of the M42 or Bayonet?" You might check with duallcamera.com . They'll convert the M42 to arri style bayonet. Maybe they do a Nikon mount conversion as well. I have not heard of a replacement front panel for the K3. Mike

You should search the forums for K3 lens questions. This has been discussed before. Some like the lens. Others think it's horrible. It depends who you talk to. It's a cheap lens that is sold with a cheap camera, so don't expect it to compare with a lens that cost more than both combined. The K3 only accepts 100 foot spools. If you have a 400 foot roll, you need to transfer it to 4 spools. I would not do this in a changing bag. I would bring it to a photo lab and have them do it. When you load the spool into the camera, the camera must be in darkness or subdued light. Otherwise, the light will destroy your film. This is standard procedure. Mike

Daylight spools can be loaded in subdued light. The sides are solid, so light has to work it's way from the top layer, through each consecutive layer of film to ruin it. The faster the film, the less time it takes for this to happen. During a normal, jam-free load, no more than a few feet of film is burned. If you're nervous about the process or don't want to lose even a few feet of film, practice loading a dummy roll until you can do it in complete darkness. Then use a changing bag or closet when it comes time to load the real film. It's always a good idea to run gaffer tape around the film bay door, just in case there's a light leak, especially if it's an old camera. I'm not entirely sure what you meant in your other question, but - yes, the takeup spool is what you send to the lab. The spool your new film came on becomes your new takeup spool. Good luck, Mike

Does anyone know the range, above and below target exposure, in f-stops, for this film? I'm shooting some test shots this weekend that are mostly interiors with low light, and I'm trying to figure out what to expect in regards to shadow detail in particular. I'm not sure how to interpret the curve data on Kodak's site - if anyone has advice on that, I'd appreciate any pointers. Thanks, Mike

Yes, he's doing the right thing. I got estimates from two camera shops and they both said it would cost about $400 to replace the glass, less if the glass could be swapped out from another bum lense. They encouraged me to buy a new lens, which makes sense since they start at around $185 on eBay if they're in decent shape.

I am indeed the lucker winner of that auction. :unsure: I was skeptical, too, but I couldn't see from his photo whether or not there was a filter on the lens and my student budget requires that I take risks, unfortunately. I think it was an honest mistake on the seller's part, and he's offerred me a refund. Still, it's frustrating because of the wasted time and money spent on shipping. Even more so because I'm scheduled to start shooting a project in two weeks and I haven't been able to land a working camera. I contacted duall camera and they said it would probably cost more to fix the lens than to buy another used one, and the glass is a special order item.