Matthew B Clark

Added to cart... Thanks for that. Also, I apologize for starting this thread outside the "Books for Cinematographers" area. I hope the moderator can usher it home...

I want to get myself a bible or two for the basics of my religion, which requires me to abstain from all ones and zeros. And each book I find generaly useful is almost equally clunky due to the inclusion of all this digital converage, which I find to be cumbersome. What (presumably older) books would anyone suggest for me that would be the equivalent of an all film ACM? Or what edition does the American Cinematographer Manual start leaning heavily digital? And if you have any to sell cheaply, old editions etc that meet this criteria, I'd love to learn from them. I would like to focus on the old ways. The honest truth is I'm very much a process-lover. And I can't really separate the two parts of image-making that film offers (the marriage of the mechanical with light...that dichotomy is very beautiful, and is all too quickly becoming the sacrificial lamb to the dagger of necessity and horse-blinders of convenience). The idea of a sampling device imparting itself as a medium is the entire core of a beautiful analogy of what truly (to me) constitutes all those over-used adjectives like "painterly", in which the camera not only in fact imparts a "brush stroke", but it does in fact become another kind of medium itself, an extension of the artists arms and eyes, like a translator between worlds. The ethereal emotive qualities of the minds perception of imagery in day to day life and the cold, hard truth of the "light that's there" can speak the same language with a channel like that. Because of it's blending of qualities. Nothing can poetically ramdomize itself the same way film grain and imaging does, which goes a long way for me as you can probably tell! Bla blah blah. I am sorry, but when I get this deep into it, the thing requires a little depth of explanation to properly convey itself. What's strange is that I don't mind the delivery on digital. But I just feel like it needs to be properly captured in a way that imparts a poeticism that mingles not only the best aspects of the lenses on a human eye as a recorder, but also the human heart and soul, and the entire processing of those signals through flesh in a very human way. Film offers an elegance that is unparalleled in my opinion when it comes to the analogous representation of such potent and beautiful processes that naturally inspire us daily, and in fact inform our live daily. What better process could you pick to inform others? This is why I cringe at the lunging and racing to the bottom in terms of technological processes and their coverage. Well, to me it's the bottom. Because it isn't the direction I'm headed in.

Hi Ruben, Your K3 looks like it produces nice images to me. Which M42 lenses did you use for this in particular, if you don't mind me asking? Also, I have a very similar fear of doing my own post/color, even on tests. Even though I have an MA in graphic design, and should know the basic ins and outs of managing color on video, I have totally becomes struck with the paranoia that it is over my head, and that it is it's own delicate art to be respected. Coupled with the knowledge (or habit) instilled in me right away...to acknowledge any digital editing as essentially destructive to the original resolution, or some "re-sampling" etc., I have totally resigned from the idea that I know what the ____ I am doing in that department. Now, this doesn't stop me from picking up a camera like an idiot either though...so, another day in paradox, I suppose! FYI, Video and Film Solutions offer a nice rate for color done in house. If Tommy does it, they don't have to mess with setting up the basic curves or stuff from the scan to their liking, so they are already pretty ready to roll on their gear and essentially pass that off as savings onto you instead of trying to pretend like it's a huge hassle. Last I checked it was a tasty rate doing 2K and going straight into grading there, so may be worth investigating if you want to take that load off your chest. Way cheaper than other places anyway.

Thanks David. It sounds like a little bit of every phase of production...and becomes a sum of all it's parts in the end. This is very interesting to me...the difference between perception and reality (manufacturers specs in a bubble versus actual, usable looks), or I guess, it's of interest to me this idea of finding the totally malleable and fluctuating sense of image making...the art of "handling" that orbit of different modes of thought, meaning between knowledge of specs and real applied changes and shifts in image making...almost how a painter sets up layers of oils on the canvas. It seems like a lot of people who start painting try to do it in one layer (one step), and that seems to be what I'm getting over in my own mind when concepting shots. That it needs to be positioned for subsequent and future steps.

Apologies for the poor spelling. My phone and my haste to ask are a marriage made in grammar hell! Another note too...I guess diffusing the light first may cause a little "garbage in garbage out" to happen, since I'd be then trying to "un-diffuse" the blacks by adding sharpness or contrast. Maybe I should focus on low key lighting and controlling what ISN'T illuminated carefully to keep rich blacks and make the light so the blacks are super deep and dd the yellow or red filter first to help that along if needed, then diffuse whatever is left on the top end? It's exciting seeing how theory turns into reality. Images are pretty insane things.

Ok, renting a couple sets Black Pro Mist and Soft FX filters. I'd go for the regular Pro Mist except but I don't want to lose all the darks. This will e for a short film on 7266 stock and it's got to feel very rich in the blacks with dreamy and creamy pastel white halos busting out of the highlights (while retaining sharp and deep blacks). I was wondering if stacking a Yellow filter with Black Pro Mist might compensate for the back loss? I also have a few colored circular filters....and needless to say I'm curious if there are any real qualitative pitfalls to the idea of combining consumer circular filters directly on the lens with other 4x4 filters in the matte box. I have 2 trays so I can already see using my circular colored filters with ND and diffusion for this in the MB. Mostly curious about the compensation of blacks for black and white stocks though. I'm not sure the order to stack them in. Though I'm thinking if the light signal gets diffused first, it softens the entire image (which even softens the darkest parts of shadows and all the shadow edges, producing a little less graphical look), but maybe then the diffused light could be treated to compensate in sharpness of blacks only...possibly through careful use of color filters...scene by scene depending on the composition of what's in te frame and what needs focus. This is tricky though, because affecting color spectrum only could break down the overall "look" and instead be really amoebic feeling the way it would kind of slide around the scenes affecting the viewers attention to different things but without any natural uniformity. Anyway...other options is to see what's out there that might just add back in uniform contrast. ND? Polarizers? It's going to be fun doing tests with my gear to see, but it's also something I figured id ask about.

Hi Jose. What kind of post work are you doing to this film to make the colors pop and add sharpness to the image? You show examples of some software treatment you are applying. What is this exactly?

Na, it's not nerdy. It is a big help! PS, do you think if I do the super16 lens re-centering ring conversion later on (it shifts the lens axis over 1.17mm) it will cause any issues down the road? That's one thing I'm also trying to account for now rather than later if it happens. If that small lens shift is not going to cause any issues with a matte box (in real life practice anyway), then I would leave it be and get the normal mount made. If it's sounding like a red flag let me know and I'll probably just account for that while getting this made. Sorry for all the questions. But if there's one thing I've learned it's to swallow your pride and actually ask. No matter how silly it sounds to whoever. Because if you don't know, then I mean, you don't know. And I kind of want to know....right?! Haha! Alright.

Gregg, thank you so much for providing those drawings to me, and really to all. That's really generous of you to step up and get into it to that degree, so thank you!

That looks tempting, except I don't have the slightest idea what to use to connect that to my camera threads (except maybe a random screw!) The Zacuto I was referring to was this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=587442&gclid=CJrQtYHrosICFUmCMgodHiUAzA&Q=&is=REG&A=details One of the photos shows it sliding over to accomodate weirdo cameras like mine. If there's a cheaper way, I'm all ears. But I think that one on eBay is just inviting me to flub the job with my driling skills.

Wonderng if the Zacuto Universal Baseplate can be slid side to side up to a full 1" while staying stable...

Gregg! I got to the last line with a cookie in my mouth! I'm already feeling the guilt. But, thank you for the tips here. I measured it up... The mounting thread is exactly 1 inch off axis. Here is a photo of the bottom of a K3 to help show it exactly in practice: Lens axis to base measures 3 inches (76mm) roughly. I'm sure there's a mm or two give on that. But that's pretty accurate. I measured from the grooved center of the aperture ring down to the base on a flat surface. And from mounting thread to end of the zoom lens (fully extended) is just under 8 inches. So for my shopping list, I guess I need: 16" rods Baseplate that slides the mount side to side at least 1" Any recommended brands of stuff like this? Especially on the cheap.

I mean, I know it sounds dumb, but I'm freaking out about lens height. Because everyone with these gizmos shoots with little baby sized DLSRs and Blackmagic cameras and such. So they aren't really "designed" for an old Russian 16mm camera with a fat zoom lens on it, ya know? Anyway. Is this workable? Sticking these 16" rods into this other complete baseplate system? Baseplate/system overall: http://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-BPR-Making-System-Release/dp/B005HTMYTO/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1417286065&sr=1-2&keywords=fotasy+rail 16" rods to stick in there: http://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-Rod_40cm-16-Inch-Mattebox-Cleaning/dp/B00DUK1K3I/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1417286065&sr=1-4&keywords=fotasy+rail Good to go? Sorry for being mentaly challenged on the subject.

Wow, apologies for the terrible spelling.

Well, after careful considerartion I've found some units that I can live with for the price. These are very low cost units, yes, but they have the features I'm looking for. Especially on the matte box, which is hard for to spend much on considering I only shoot my own projects, so I don't need to have something too rugged for now. Follow Focus: http://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-FF2B-Camcorders-Release-Tension/dp/B005ERZVX0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1417280546&sr=8-2&keywords=fotasy Matte Box: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Bundle-Swing-away-French-Rubber/dp/B006EK9O4I/ref=pd_sim_p_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=10BH336CKA6S6HCX08KW The problem is...I am having the HARDEST time ever figuring our how to get a proper 15mm rods system for all this. I am using a K3 16mm camera, and a basic Manfrotto tripod that's meant for DSLRs, but I have no doubt it can carry this load. What exact pieces would you recommend for a rods system? I am really clueless on that. Because everything seems made for DSLR on this end of the spectrum. I need a cheap system to connect it all to the tripod with. Totally clueless unfortunately, despite searching all over the place for searches like "what rods for Bolex" and "15mm rods baseplate for K3" or "16mm rods system". It's truly like the internet swallowed this intire system of info gathering. Or I'm a fool. Either way, my last resport is to beg and plead to the good folks here for that info/suggestions. Please help! Thanks.

I'll give the nylons a try first. They usually look sexy. Hopefully my lady doesn't notice a missing leg. Hey-o!

All of the above. With some dolly movement and pulling in spots too. Some weird shots. There's one with wind blowing this girl in slow motion that involves the dolly creeping into her face.

Check out 44:30 here: What's that making such a subtle flare on the rim lights? It comes and goes in terms of how noticable it is. I know this is mostly achieved through excellent sets and lighting. But there is definitely some kind of treatment going on with the photography too.

It's this exact balance I'm pretty much after. By the way, this is an amazing short film by Walerian Borowczyk. Check out around 2:25. The way the light bounces around in the highlights but keeps stable in the blacks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1HT9SHaN7E I was going to suggest this but they took it off the web. Good thing it's getting a new transfer. This is epic.

I found this guy's tests on 16mm stock. This Black Warm 1 looks nice.

Bill, do you have any screen grabs you can share of something done with the PM 1 on 16mm? I'm curious. But not "blow $200 to test it" curious!

2K on a Scanity. I hope that catches whatever's on the film!

I have several scenes to shoot in which a young woman is descending a staircase while sleepwalking, and there is a lot of ambiguity in whether or not it is "a dream". I'm trying to select 4 x 4 filters to provide a "dreamy" look - without going overkill. I would specifically like something that keeps a stable, sharp image overall, but "scatters" the highlights or "rounds things off" into a haze or burred rim of light. I've heard lots of good things (and viewed examples) of Pro Mist and Black Frost filters but I cannot figure out if these are only noticable on 35mm film stock. Since I am shooting on 16mm, I am wondering if the effects of these filters are going to be as perceptible as they would on a standard 35mm format, or how you would "transpose" their use from 35mm to 16mm? For example, would a 1/4 Pro Mist need to be bumped to a 1/2 on 16mm? Is the idea similar to the transposition of a 50mm lens on 35mm system to a 25mm on a 16mm system?

Similar story here (common story it seems). Needed something that balanced ease of use with a good image. I'm not an old pro at this, and I have not used any other cameras besides my own. All I can speak to is that I settled on a K3. I may have gotten lucky, mine was running beautifully, the lens was clean and sharp etc., but it really boosted what I could do with the image well above the limitations of super 8. And that's all I wanted. A camera that would provide the simple ability to get a better image. It boils down to how you envision yourself. Your path. Your needs. Not your wants, but your needs. Can you live without shooting sound? Can you live without the ability to shoot shots longer than 25 seconds? If you CAN live without those things, then you'll probably find the K3 to be a steal and realy useful to you. It doesn't do those things, no. But what it does do makes up for it - it produces a nice clean image with a very nice stock zoom lens, and allows (if you get the M42 mount version) you to dive into some very decent prime lenses, which is actually a pretty big benefit when you start growing out your set up a little more. You just will have to consciously know going in that A) you'll either be upgrading eventually if you desire those other things, find them limiting to the point of dysfunction or artistic cramping of your vision etc., or B, you will be working this way forever happily limited to the walls of your own homemade....uh.....home? Yeah something like that. In any case, the biggest piece of advice I can give to you is to critically assess ON YOUR OWN TERMS what aspects of a piece of gear are, or are not, of benefit to only YOUR unique situation when it comes to making your films. If you hear a comment from somebody about versatility in "every" situation, or growth path concerns etc, you have to carefully weigh if this comment reflects your needs, or if it actually reflects that person's own concerns (remember often times people here work a LOT, and are doing many paid gigs, and so they can very often come from a highly experienced/educated BUT particularly pro set of experiences that don't always apply to say, a one man band or someone shooting their own films with a small group, etc. - and you can literally be financially ruined chasing one piece of expensive gear you don't "need" for "you" right down a rabbit hole, and that's just the start!). I can definitely tell you I fall into the one man band sorta camp, and although I aspire to make bigger and better productions, I also know what I "need". The K3 seems fine for that. Now eat candy and make love.

I actually happen to have a useles iphone at my disposal. Well, two really. But one can go on a camera, sure. What kind of adapter? I'm really green on this subject (and many other subjects). Thanks again.