Matthew B Clark

I couldn't resist posting another _______ _ Clark, back to back, so I'll add: I am very glad Ferrania lit a fire under Kodak's ___, and we now have not only reversal stocks being manufactured, but a competitive marketplace developing around it. The key now is to support both companies, but probably Ferrania in particular, I must say. So that both can justify their bottom-lines, and these products can "make sense" economically to their companies. I'm really happy about the potential for 100D in 16mm as well, which should be really useful, and open new options back up, however I have to admit, I'm more excited about a new b/w stock from Ferrania to compete with Tri-X. P30 in 16mm would clean up the default use of Tri-X for everything. Right now I'm shooting on something with tons of expired 7265 reversal, just because of the lower ASA. An authentic P30 would probably make me buy a fridge full on release day.

Thanks for the suggestions, this is a big help to have as a specific trouble-shooting guide / tips regarding this camera. The idea of the mirror mechanism hitting something is scary, but I suppose it's possible. Where would I look specifically in order to check the ground-glass frame hitting it? So far, I have just been pushing the rotating mirror mechanism while depressing the trigger very softly with my finger a few times now. Just to get it moving again. But it does jam at times in a position that is visibly "slightly off" from the usual 'straight up and down' resting position. Hopefully it doesn't let too much light in behind it through the gate. Especially when it's loaded with film, or I'll be flashing a bunch of takes each time I take the lens off to fix this manually. Thank you for your help, everyone. Gregg, Tyler and Aapo, thank you so much.

Wow, wish I could delete this thread, but I'm equally technically-un-savvy there I guess. I called Duall, who gently explained to me that I can simply turn the viewfinder until I focus onto the grain, then lock the screw down. I had been just turning the screw that locks it in place...wow. My brain...is officially melted. May this hopefully help the person who is just as brain-melted.

I need your help. I have had a K3 for years, and it works great. Never had an issue with focus or anything. Even after S16 mod last year, it was fine. Today I shoot a roll of film, and it starts out focusing fine, then the trigger stopped, and it turned out the shutter/rotating mirror inside (behind the lens) mechanism started jamming, so I pushed that with my finger to get it moving. Maybe that was a bad idea, because I touched the mirrored surface, and since then, the camera viewfinder has been total blurs. Progressively worse and worse though. I tried to tune the diopter by opening the lens up and focusing on the viewfinder grain, but there is no grain! I tried a 50mm the stock zoom, an 8mm, and a 135mm, and ALL are blurry and will not put anything into true focus. I am wondering what the hell I did! I am really really sad because this camera used to work so well for me. And I paid like $500 to have Duall overhaul it and convert it less than a year ago. Any advice on how I can test this or fix this? Is it the mirror? Is it that sensitive? Another issue that I found is those cheap rings they use to re-center the lens after widening the gate to S16 are made of aluminum, anbd they shed like hell from even basic lens changing. I think the original stick ring is steel, and I keep seeing little aluminum dust bits in the ring and on the lens threads, and sometimes in the inside of the camera...I blast it with air to push it around and blow it out. Maybe I am going about this all wrong? Totally sad by this, as I want to fix this up and get shooting

I had my girlfriend hold up a sheet of 8.5 x 11 paper using the Peleng 8mm, and walk it into the lens, and it covers the field of view at about 9" from the lens.

I set up my camera and tried out some lenses with a piece of paper simulating the mirror so I could calculate depth of field needed to capture both subject and the plane of the mirror. It looks like I'm stuck with a huge mirror placed quite a bit aways from the lens from what I can tell using this depth of field calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html It's going to be shot on Super 16 using 7265 black and white reversal, which puts me at 80 ASA and then I'm going to lose light with the mirror too, so I'm going to have to blast the hell out of that place with light to get into the middle of the lens, and probably because of these opticals, I'll have to scoot to the f/11 and f/16 end of things... Anyway, the point is, I think 4" x 5" is going to force me to put the glass right on the mirror, and because the only lens I have that's usable here is probably a peleng 8mm, I think I'm screwed. I have to figure out a size of mirror that will stay in focus with the subject behind it (10 feet away) and still cover the whole field of view of a Peleng 8mm lens on a Super 16 frame. I also have a 50mm and a 135mm (which is absurd for this)

It doesn't have to be that high of a grade, but that's a wonderful resource to have. I need about an 18" x 18" mirror that lets light in the backside (I've got wiggle room here, it can be bigger of course). I need the sort of mirror that lets light in the backside, and also reflects on the front side, so that whatever's on the right side of the camera on the set easily composites back into the camera when the mirror is placed at 45 degrees from the cameras lens. I'm building one of those boxes that has a pair of glass sheets with mattes on them at front and right sides, with 45 degree mirror between them, letting light in the front and reflecting the small scale set at right of camera back into the lens through a series of mattes that are made to counter the respective portions of each part of the composite image. To do this, I know I need a two-way mirror, about 2 feet or so (to allow camera flexibility) but I need a cheap one, that just lets me get both parts of the image looking solid in camera. Not like Peppers Ghost at all...which is all half transparent and "ghostly". I need this to be two solid parts matching (for the most part) in camera, allowing small scale sets. Schufftan style. But I dont want to remove the silvering of mirrors, hence the box design and paper mattes. Would the metal back prohibit me using it the way I described up there? I'm wondering what this would be used for, but this is a good thing to know about. Thanks. Thanks for this link. I checked it out. Do you think this would achieve something like what I described up there? Thanks again.

Can I just use any simple square 50/50 mirror for some old school in camera effects? I'm looking to build a rig that could use a 50/50 mirror and mattes to composite images in camera. The biggest challenge is overcoming my own brain, which tells me, "Matt, there must be a 'special' 50/50 mirror that you need for this". Any input or resources would be welcome. Thank you.

It's cool. Overall it's just an eye test. I mean the main concept is...the idea of comparing the inherent funk of bad reversal with the inherent funk of great super 8. Doesn't really require me to get insanely into the cataloging of measurables to catch a whiff of the true vibe.

So I've heard (re: tightness of V3 50D). I've shot a little of it, but on 16mm, not 8mm. I might try to do an experiment using some of this 16mm Wittnerchrome laying around...then repeat the shots on 50D super 8....same lighting etc. Would be cool to see what a bigger guage film with crazier loose grain (and different color sensitivities) does comparably to a smaller guage with that really exceptionally tight grain. Gotta do this and get a 2K side by side. I just wanna see which one gets me closer to this idea in my head...next shoot I'll stick this into the bag.

There's something cool about the magic of a great camera operator, great lighting, great models, great stock, great lens......all piped down into the microcosmic rendering of 8mm film guage. Maybe it's all those factors that make you forget you're looking at super 8 (which is typically amateur shot and shows). But when it's a full production, it kinda automatically does this sort of "in-camera aging process" for those looking to get the look of weathered, antiquated, but QUALITY older 16mm films. It's very interesting to me. Also the push/pull of this process interests me a lot. You are willing to fight back against the stock limitations and also dive into it knowing its limitations are going to need to be twisted and bent to your needs. I like that quality about it overall.

Thanks for all these informative replies! The pressure plate is an interesting idea. Also, I had never looked into Neat Video, so that's nice to see. I think what intrigues me about whatever he did (in particular) is that his results capture a sort of best of both worlds. You can clearly see the vibe of super 8 is retained, but all the nasty stuff and pitfalls have been lopped off, "rounded-off" highlights, diffused details almost, but still sharp, and still with that particularly vintaged look. I was just really curious about how he got this because I myself have a really strong tendency toward 60's and (early) 70's filmmaking. The problem is, most people tend to think "yeah I'll grab some super 8 and that'll do it", which is clearly not the magic bullet solution to getting those vibes. So any time I see something that exudes that special magic, I feel like I have to pick at it. It's important to figure out! Thanks.

Just curious if you had an answer to how you did that. What program/recipe makes the image that much sharper. No reply, so maybe someone else can chime in to help me out. There are certain things that I like about Super8 that 16mm cannot give me (and vice versa), but the one major drawback at times with Super 8 can be the "seeming" sharpness of the image, and if I could surmount that obstacle sometimes, I'd definitely choose to shoot more of it. Just looking for a little help on that front. At least the knowledge of who to go to, so I can reliably enter a workflow using Super8 and know the results won;t be confined to the blurred version of it...just need to know where to go/what to do.

I realize that shooting in a graveyard without a permit while asking graves to help is like breaking pretty much every rule of both filmmaking and life. But I'll get the shot!

Yes, that's why I threw out the idea almost as soon as I had it. Although....there are alme graves there that have huge statues on top of them, and I don't need the top of the grave shown. So I could just get Mary or Jesus to help me out by holding the rope. Where I'm at now is: A) grab a ton of bean bag chairs, old couch cushions, stuff that's easy to move with some "give" to it, and lay wood planks over it...then....push a wheelchair over it. B) make a little race track looking mini track with adjustable legs and just hold the camera against the back wall of this track while sliding it mounted to a little baby tripod rig. All of these sound like much more effort than renting a circular track and just shimming it up and being quick. Probably where I'm headed.

I may try the rope. I actually had thought of taking some kind of bungee cord and making it tense against a fixed point, then keeping the camera in a certain feel...tense...just hold onto it! I feel like that elastic tension against it would eliminate a ton of little wiggling.

I'm guessing the answer is: Rent a circular track and run.

Ok...really need to pick a brain on this one. -No permit -360 shot (4 full rotations in a continuous take) -At a graveyard (shot circles a headstone, so rough terrain, grass, mud etc. Not level.) What the heck can I get to quickly accomplish this without getting thrown out?

I feel like it's the mentality that develops around training someone to work in a specific medium. If I learned to paint in acrylics, I'd be thinking in terms of capturing opaque, solid colors, and the way I developed texture or light and shade would have absolutely zero to do with ideas like glazing or even really "layering". Certainly all principles like "fat over lean", which apply specifically to oils would be out the window entirely. I don't know anything near as much about digital and film as those two, but it's a screaming analogy. Digital has a limitation like acrylics to be stuck in " that moment". Film, like oils, seems to allow for a longer life of layered pushing and pulling. I'm again, not an expert so correct me please if I overstep my bounds definitely in the interest of getting this right and proper here, but I do assume, possibly rightly, I don't know, that many digital filmmakers are just so used to seeing things in the flesh translated to monitors and they really don't have to think about layering, or in other words, too many other processes, which may impart another feel to the result. Now, I don't want you to think I'm bashing digital it's all good whatever you want to shoot on or paint on or eat of drink or whatever I don't really care. I like oils and film and could care less what anyone else likes!

Thank you. That is very good direction for me.

I mean in reality this whole process is just a way to try to resort to analog as often as possible instead of resorting to convenience. I also just really like masochistic processes. It forces you to do things a lot slower and dwell in the tedium of it. It's kinda like flogging yourself and has a little bit of a parallel to I guess how monks would force themselves into discomfort for what they believe in. It's not really something about "ease". Or even "quality". Unless by quality you mean it in the sense of being fingerprinted. I can't shoot optical with a K3 obviously but I'll be doing the rest of this just doing MOS and foley and all that and basically making a wreck for myself to clean up, which is all the fun because it's all the challenge.

Gregg I see what you're saying when it comes to a straight edit left as a composite unit, but I think id want to just use the flavor of the optical audio by dumping it off into WAVs for re-import to a tape machine mix. So there would be a transfer (digital or analog, it would end up getting taken off the optical for edit) So I guess making multitrack recordings full of that stuff, soundtracks and mixing foley and other overdubs on the Tascam alongside the pulled in optical stuff from takes. I'm just thinking out loud of a way to incorporate the strange sonic characteristics that optical recording impart on audio. I probably actually might even see a use for some of those hard cuts that blatantly butcher the heads and tails and split off into no mans land at times! I kind of like the jarring effect of that sometimes. It also subliminally makes people think you're making a "bad" decision, which can be a useful piece of wool to drape over the minds eye of a viewer. I'd probably have a place record that optical to a separate WAV file and then put it to tape on a mix as needed later on my 8 track in places and do fades and stuff to just keeps the craziness off the heads and tales for the most part. Probably just watching the film over and over again. Rewinding. You know that old button that used to do an actual action haha! Lot of work but a lot of fun to think about! And certainly unique. Or I could just have a guy hold a Zoom and go "that's what other people have done" and call it a day! As for projecting work prints...I'm totally coming alive to that idea thanks to some kind folk from here who have been helping explain it to me! I'm really loving how this place sort of unravels it's totally awesome collective knowledge.

Oh, it's nice to know you can shoot on any stock! For optical sound cameras.

Thank you for summarizing that. It's actually the specific quality of the optical audio degradation that interests me the most about the Auricon, or other optical systems I suppose. The sound is unlike even magnetic tape. Magnetic tape tends to round off the highs and depending on the machine, accentuates the mid tones, and definitely saturates in much more pleasing ways (hey, kind of analagous to other analog media....hmmm!). Anyway, optical sound has a very "certain" ancient quality to it as well, which is a particular aesthetic, but I can see it servinv very particular needs too. That and I'm just used to hearing it on really bad, old films that are restored from surviving prints. It's something you just can't replicate. As far as heft goes, I have one of these at home I plan on doing overdubs with for an upcoming 16mm short. If I ever got a crytal sync motor for my K3 (unlikely for a variety of reasons) I'll be dragging this to shoots! It's kind of like in a world stuck between an overgrown cassette 4 track and a Nagra...depending on how you look at it. It's integrated mixer may or may not come in handy, but it will certainly keep me far away from digital junk. And, it frankly sounds good. It's simply but very warm. the best part though, is that this machine LOVES and I mean looooooves mid range frequencies. So it really helps round off the human voice in a naturally pleasing way, with natural compression....and because the tape width is skinnier than a Nagra (Nagra's are basically 2-track mix-down decks on 1/4" tape, which is still a lot of headroom - this Tascam is on 1/8" tape and 8 tracks....much thinner and lower hedroom), it actually distorts and compresses much sooner and I guess, you know, offers that effect. It's something a lot of the old farts would understand but not many kiddies my age. The pleasnatries of analog saturation and "distortion". The whole goal for me is to actually make stuff that feels like its from the period I actually love. The 60s and 70s. Particularly arthouse and exploitation and "genere" cinema that has more of a high-brow quality to it while still being uhhh....not "trashy", but certainly...."direct".

Wait, what would be the typical workflow on something like this? Transfer etc? I'm assuming you'd need special lab facility of some kind. What sort of "kit" (mics etc) would pop this plan into action? And what is that film, just regular 16mm with an optical sound strip on the side?