Matthew B Clark

I love the spiritual life of crickets in macro description! Thanks for the info on the FF rings, and candid advice too. I never will shy away from candid advice. That's the nut under the shell. Hard to get to sometimes. Adrian, I really appreciate that offer frankly. I'll PM you to discuss this a little... In a nutshell, I have two reasons why I am trying to do the auteur deal on this one (not that it's set in stone yet)...but long story short it isn;t hubris, that's for sure. My lack of budget (me buying film stock, paying for a nice data scan and grading) is all I have. So really, it's all amateurs and volunteers on a collision course with destiny. This makes em embarassed to ask professionals to work on it frankly. All I can offer is well-catered actual tasty food every day. And obviously, you know, some stipend or minor pay for major roles (DoP etc) if they come into the fold. But it's basically self-funded. You're talking to mr. money bags (har har)! Fortunately, that works for it too. The upside is, nobody can tell us what to do, what to cut, etc., and it will still get scanned and released. I already plan to self-release the thing and do a DCP or a film out eventually (depending on the results). So I am not in one way concerned at all about the fact it is going to "get done", but I feel a definite sense of "amateur" desire...which I know I can glide into this project and make it work (this is kind of the story of my f*cking life so far - do poop. Make it happen. Forget the rest.)...but you know...the issue is...other people may bring their "experience" to the table and scoff at what I'm trying to do and that's just sort of something I don't want poisoning the camp. I love nice peopel though, of which I am already pretty fairly sure you are one. So if you're willing to talk, maybe plane tickets and a place to crash may be in the cards (your schedule permitting). But again, PM coming on that jazz...but you get my jist? I respect professionals a GREAT deal, and trust me, I'd let them do "their" thing, but I also just don't want my idea to be batted back completely either. I mean you have to understand the dynamic on a production like this will not exactly be one where a DoP has to "fear" being "fired" or something! Hahaha! I am just "the guy trying to make it work". And I will. But anyway, I've talked this to death. Onward! Thanks Lance! The Redrock focus ring idea sounds good. I'll check around to see if there are any wider ones out there since the time you made your buy, but I think that's a fair assessment; the 1/2" jutting out of the lens. It sounds about right. I know it's not like 1.5 inches or anything insane. Tell me...how long have you had your FF, and how often do you use it? I'm curious if you've noticed any real breakdowns in the gear mechanism or the alignment over whatever time you've had it. Hey...as for Chicago, that makes two of us so far! I think I'll either take the plunge on the Cavision MB or not, so don't worry much about that, BUT, it's always good to meet folks in the area. Thanks. Michael, thanks again for the detail (really, especially the specific brands - which helps me with some very basic questions about reputation etc. for brands). For my purposes, which are more about "trying my hand at DoP", and doing a couple of productions over the next year, well...in my budget, I am really ok with trying a low-rent FF, as long as it holds up for a feature or two. You know what I'm saying? I feel like I need to watch my cash - do a little robbing of Peter to pay Paul or whatever you call that idea - where a cheap FF for now that "breaks down in 2 years" is only $300 vs. $1,000 - leaving me $700 to spend on scanning and grading later. Etc etc. So don't get me wrong, I am not even close to disputing your point here on quality - not at all. I just need less now... As for the light leaks - a nice strip of gaffer tape across the top of the filter trays? $700 savings?

and apologies for the continual questions. I have to ask or I won't learn as effectively. Some lessons need experience....but pitfalls...those are best avoided by asking the guy way up the road, "hey, is there a f*cking CLIFF up there?"

Thanks Gregg. The Zenit 17-69 zoom that comes on the K3 is one of those of the type that actually extend and retract in size when focus changes. Before I get into bed with a specific FF, does this prohibit me from using any certain designs, or require me to get a certain design? I imagine the grips...the lens rings will glide off the actual FF wheel when it goes too far...is that a known issue for zooms like this?

Thanks Matthew/Michael/Lance for the input. Hey Michael, are you referring to the bellows (accordion fold) style Cavision MB? How could that have light leaks in it (unless there are holes in the creases?) Isn't that essentially a solid trapezoid of cloth? Maybe you're referring to their plastic one? As for FF, Gregg, that Tilta has hard stops. Did you find it to feel smooth when you handled it? It's hovering in the $500 range and seems solid. PS, the feature I'm writing now (shooting late summer) involves a LOT of amateur talent (for a very good reason)...but this will be a really interesting learning experience for me since I have Chinese arri clone lights to worry about already on set, am skating by on cheap MB / FF / tripod and will be serving a lot of beer on set (for good reason again).

Thinking about getting a simple Cavision bellows 4X4 with two filter slots. It's only $300 and seems like it cuts the mustard and takes filters and flags. One thing...am I going to have issues with S16 vignetting using that matte box on S16? Bear in mind one of my main lenses will be the Peleng 8mm. That sucker sees a lot. But maybe not that much. And also....how "crucial" are flags for this? If I just massage the Cavision box on its own into place, can I cut out the majority of light in most situations, or are flags "critical" many times (basically stated, would you regret not purchasing flags with it yourself)? I'm excited to move into these square filters too...because right now I'm screwing on circular filters and it gets really annoying and always leaves me with a shaky and nervous disposition from trying not to ding any glass when it pops off. FF probably will be the $500 Tilta. It has two hard stops and a big wheel to write on...sounds silly, but the price is right and the functions appear to be "well-reviewed" by ye olde committe of online reveiwers. For the price I think it's worth a gamble if it nets a solid FF. I feel bad saying this, or admitting this, but I was really tempted by the entire Tilta DSLR kit....that's not what makes me feel guilty admitting though! What makes me feel guilty is that I totally shy'd away from it because it looks like a villain from a Marvel movie when it's all set up. That's just not my thing. As much as I hate to admit it, I want my set-up to inspire the aesthetic I'm ultimately after too. And in all honesty, maybe I'm a little shallow, but I'm sort of equating this to say....whether or not you like Suzuki bikes or a nice classic Triumph. So keeps your specs...the Cavision and a simple white wheel that feels tight and clean works on my heart as well as my camera.

Gregg and Michael, thank you both very much. Especially Gregg for the detail of your suggestions. At this point I'm very leary of what I see on eBay or B&H for instance, because I am essentially seeing all this stuff geared toward DSLR shooters. And I have no idea if this stuff (rods, baseplates, FF, matte box) are all fairly interchangeable, or if they are designed very "proprietarily" let's say....meant in other words for use with a special system. Right now I am just mounting my K3 on a very basic tripod, the base of which is just a total consumer "stick it on" flat base. Very simple but decent for basic shooting. My issue now is, I want to acquire a solid base-plate, with rails, and at least a FF all together...so that my camera stays much more steady and focus becomes more fluid. The issue is, I see all this stuff for sale...some of it total junk....and most of it is always shown with Blackmagic cameras or DSLRs or just really, very very "digital age" stuff I don't care at all about. And this throws me my biggest question...what will "hold" the weight and size of say, a Bolex, a K3, an Arri. I guess I do not mind springing for the set-up if it's going to connect me to a tripod correctly - base-plate, rods, FF. It's just scary seeing all these small cameras on this stuff for sale. Makes me feel like it's all going to not fit or break when I place a K3 on it.

I'm about to have the S16 mod done to my Krasnogorsk-3 16mm camera. When it gets back I'm looking to add a follow focus and matte box. I feel like these are essentials, especially the ability focus pull. It would just be so much easier to have someone else pulling focus, so I don't have to keep the camera locked in place (or stress myself out thinking about absolutely nailing 3 things at once for entire days of shooting). Please school me on "no frills", simple but rugged follow focus AND matte box options that would work on a K3. I will also need rails. My budget is...well....I have a K3. That's our indication of ballpark.

Nevermind! I found where it goes. I just drove home on my lunch break to get out my camera and see where the cable release plugs into the front (so THAT's why there's a little hole in the trigger!)

Great! I have a Pentax SMC 50mm 1.4, so maybe the 24 would be in order instead of the 20mm Flektogon. Can you school me on cable release breifly? I was always wondering about that! I have the little cable the K3 comes with, that plugs into the back of the camera. But it seems like it's only meant for shooting single-frame (regardless of the speed setting on the camera, it just pushes one frame). I'm glad to hear there is some way to do this, because I've been driving myself nuts about that! My hands always keeping steady around the trigger.

Thanks for that, Will. And Rudy. I'll try Duall. The whole thing is...I'm thinking K3 bodies are so cheap, why not get one overhauled and then "have S16" capability. As for the centering of the lens....good thing I just picked up some M42 primes! Will the Peleng 8mm work on that S16 frame too? I have that, a 50/1.4 Takumar, and 135/3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar and the 8mm Peleng. If I can use the stock zoom lens down to 22, I have no problem just foregoing the range of 9-21mm. Speaking of primes though....for this S16 body....does anybody like the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 20mm? Maybe I could just snag that M42 lens and have an S16 set meant for use with a decent set of primes...8mm, 20mm, 50mm, 135mm

Hi Rudy. I understand what you're saying. I have a tendency to jump into things, and yes, maybe I should shoot a few tests and crop the scans. But, I also know I would like to eventually at least modify one K3 (they are really nice cheap cameras, so it's kind of like..."why not"?) to see what it can do. I doubt I'll see a major difference, but sometimes when all the stars in the constellation of choice are aligned (lens choice, lighting, film stock, and yes, guage) you might be able to eek out some very special nuances from the s16 frame. I prefer the 1.66:1 aspect ration a lot of times too. The FUNNY thing is...a lot of my favorite films ever are shot in 1.33:1! It actually is a really curious thing sometimes that some of the most stunning visually involved films I've seen are in 1.33:1! Valerie & Her Week of Wonders...Hausu...just to name two directly of the top of my head. So yeah its not "necessary" to even crop it. I think people do that today too often as a knee-jerk reaction, thinking they "have to" do it for various reasons. In my case, the reason I'd want S16 is purely for image resolution. I am extremely curious about the area "between 16 and 35". I almost hate "too clean" images. Don't mean to sound rude, but I love the definitive nature of "film being present" in my favorite images. Not "overbearing", but "present". It's a play-thing. An accomplice. Hey Rudy, as for lighting (and thanks for the kudos!), I basically bought myself a bunch of Arri knock-offs and cheapo red-heads, and I got these really great Storaro gels. I think he did a bunch of Argento's work...so "Storaro" goes a long way with me even if he just signed his name on it for all I care....I'll try em! Thank you Mr. Storaro. But anyway, I used a redhead with a green gel to make a nice wide overhead "broad" fill of color...then I added a lower-placed 300w fresnel (with a gold gel) to sort of act as a hot, close "key-meets-rim" light. It's bright enough to be the key but the angles I chose let it act like a rim a lot of the time. anywho....wait til the edit is done before you say it's any good! It should be released to the public soon...this month. It's going up as an online premiere somewhere for their album so it'll be posted here when done! In short, I totally embrace 16. Regular 16. But I just like...you know..."exploring". And I get the sense you do too!

Thanks Heikki! My only issue is yes, the reliability of that seller. I'd love to send mine (or a spare body) in to a reliable shop whose work is more of a "known quantity", you know what I mean? I read some pretty awful things about people filing down their gates themselves, causing all sorts of problems.

Sorry, not "lens" brightening. Wow. I meant the ground glass....the laserbrighten process.

That's an excellent guide. Thanks Will!

I'm looking to juice the most image out of my 16mm. I tried Bernie O'Dougherty but he told me he stopped doing the S16 mod to the K3 (too bad, because I wanted to get the full crazy overhaul and lens brightening done - would have been a nice one-stop). Where would you recommend going to get the K3 gate widened? I've been playing with the idea of buying a K3 body and filing the gate myself, but I'm not going to trust myself to be better than the experts out there. I just know there are fine little details in the measurements and polishing of the gate that I do not want to mess up.

The interesting thing to me is, why do people have the desire to even go to such lengths to make digital look like film? When "digital" has also got the opportunity to go in other directions that film can't exactly replicate. Knowing these is the key to your choice of medium I suppose. So why can't folks just embrace that they are different? Ask yourself seriously, is printmaking the same as drawing? Lithography was developed as a way to "replicate drawings", but is realtively easy to discern, having deeper blacks and a certain texture from the stone they are drawn on. From a distance, hanging on a wall over a mantle, they both look like drawings. After a short while, people started to become known though solely as "printmakers". Today college courses are taught on printmaking and drawing as separate fields of course. Many people can still do both....since they are based on the same ideas and skillsets (film and digital sub-analogy, anyone?) but they do so separatey! They embrace the different parameters and "arts" of each, and people have obviously learned to encourage their different aesthetics. Producing beautiful work in both. I just personally do not reach for an apple and a complex arrangement of orange flavorings when I feel like tasting an orange.

Why would you grade the digital file to look like a flat film scan though? You still have to get that flat scan to appear like a finished film, so you'll have to grade it again. I don't know how much latitude that digital file gives you to do that with over and over and over again. I think a lot of people truly just miss the point of a lot of this "film vs. digital" dialogue. What I mean by that is that although yes, both scanned film images and native digital formats can be used to begin the grading process as digital files, scans - or native files - of the exact same resolution etc. as a DI, and so they DO have an inherent shared starting point in terms of resolution to grade from between the two, well...the point is that the process of shooting on the film media itself, in camera, provides certain nuances that are totally particular to that media, and actually capture light VERY, very differently. You are never going to replicate the chance organic randomness of true film capture because of the actual way that it operates on a microscopic level to capture actual light. This is a microscopic but essentially mechanical process analogous to magnetic tape. It is not a "conceptual" process of mathematical algorithms that lock light into pixels. Whatever people are doing today to "make digital look like film" is not actually doing anything of the sort. But they are making something new, that is simulacra, derivative of film, but not film, using film as its inspiration or departure point. It is not film though, because it's not film (duh). You can develop the most advanced xerox machine in the world and stick a lens onto it and tell its microchips to apply whatever photoshop filter bed-sheets "over the top" to warm it up that you want to, but it's something new, and not going to behave truly like film, or look like true film. The best you can hope for is to "trick people into feeling like it's film because it reminds them of film" in my opinion. There might be a few processes or artists out there that can make anyone feel that. But they aren't "making film". They are making digital!

Un couple d'artistes - a good way to spend 13 minutes on a Saturday morning with a cup o joe!

Dan, you have something to add! But yeah we may have to re-route this into the 16mm or "K3" thread haha! Rudy, Camera Buff looks great...I haven't seen that. I assume you're linking that to Arrebato in comparison right? Oh...that film Un couple d'artistes short is great! It is a really good litmus test for people like us too....how to make a decent short film "in this vein". It reminds me a lot of the old Roger Corman film "A Bucket of Blood". Bucket of Blood is black n white but it has the same central idea. It's really weird seeing Dick Miller working that early, and in lead roles! I always remember him from my childhood as a janitor in Chopping Mall and the like. Always there...and GREAT, but yeah, in the background of some B movie roll. Girl Slaves of Morgana La Fey is TOTAL Rollin style, yes. It has that same sauntering spirit. Love that movie! As for La Marge, yeah the soundtrack has some Pink Floyd on it and a lot of 70's British rock which lends a bizarre feel to it because it takes place in Paris brothels and is spoken in French, so there is this uncanny charm to having familiar music like that permeate it. I'll PM you later about where to get a copy. Also, Kamikazee '89! That is definitely the most wacked out neon noir idea ever. Still haven't seen that but am totally gonna watch that. Fassbinder was unbelievable. I just picked up a copy of Lili Marleen and am stoked to get that down my cerebellum. I have not seen My Friend Ivan Lapshin, but that preview looks incredible. Thank you for showing me that! Did you say that was filmed on a Konvas?

Hey Rudy, this what you have under "Rape of the Vampire"? This is definitely Requiem....

I don't want to tell you if you enjoy not knowing!

Rudy! Hey, the east coast is a lot closer than you think! Maybe over time if we get to know each other a little better we could work on something! I don't see that as impossible at all! Rape of the Vampire is Rollin's very first feature from 1968 (it's in black n white and is REALLY hodge podge like an old serial or a Georges Franju film but it RULES!!!) but I think what you have is Requiem For A Vampire (you described those girls dressed in clown make-up engaged in a police chase who hide in the castle with the vampire). That films rules too. Iron Rose I loooooove though, yeah! It's just the most "distant from horror" and really allows Rollin's visual poetics to absolutely flourish in one, hugely extended allegory (the lovers in the graveyard). Beautiful beautiful beautiful. A lot of technical people will probably hate him! But he is a total unsung poet. Yeah, we are definitely on the same wavelength. It is very nice of you to provide such detailed information on your experience, which yeah, pretty much exactly replicates my concurrent situation! It's really funny that we both sort of gravitated to the same gear in the same succession and have the same sort of cinematic influences! I'm going to try to dig into those Konvas resources you mentioned. That's really cool of you to provide, so thanks for that. I figured for now a 35mm might be a long term project (like yours is too though I suppose since you're doing mods and repairs now and still shooting the K3). I just picked up yeah, a couple key M42 primes. A 135mm and 50mm. Plus the stock 17-69 zoom, which yeah, is REALLY good so far...and yeah I have been shooting it with that and the Peleng 8mm, so now I have 3 primes and a zoom. I do need to snag a lazer sharp 20mm and then I think I'll test this K3 to see how much detail I can pack onto 16mm for sure. The 50mm 1.4 (SMC Takumar) just came today and I popped it on immediately to test it out and yeah, it is sharp and really seems to have smooooooth focusing compared to that zoom. All in all, I am saving for a Konvas package though, so I'll keep my eyes peeled based on your recommendations, pitfalls to avoid etc, and espeically yeah those mod resources! Thanks for that man. As for the films.... Yes, I love Fulci and Argento! Both actually started me along this weird winding road, and I know they led me down that dark path to even deeper caves full of these hidden lustrous black opals like Rollin and Borowczyk. It's funny you mentioned La Marge! I just watched that the other night. It's a really well done film! Silvia Kristel and Joe Dalessandro star in it. It's really got an emotional ending too. A very good pay off. I've not seen that much by him actually, but he is really someone I admire from what I have seen. He's a pure and original personality and it really shows his fingerprint on his work. Dr. Jeckyll and His Women is probably the dumbest title but don't be swayed by that or you'll miss what may be his best film! It culminates so SOOOO beautifully in the last scene, and some of the performances are just ridiculous. Udo Kier is in it and so is Marina Pierro (Marina Pierro was also in Rollin's LIVING DEAD GIRL - ever seen that? It's the lest Rollin-ish with poetics taking a backseat to gore, but the story and some of the scenes are TOP tier Rollin). Arrebato - I got a nefarious underworld DVD copy from "my dealer". It's pretty good quality though. There is a German label who did killer 2XDVD complete with a documentary of Zulueta making Arrebato. That supposedly has English subs, so it's definitely on my list. Right now I'm actually working on bringing a print of it over from Spain to show here in the fall in a series. Anywho, YEAH DUDE. Keep doing what you're doing and watching what you're watching!

Hey Gregg, that's the Color Of Pomegranates. By Sergei Parajanov.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Mild interjection please. Why are we suddenly talking about electrocution, grounding, and "halo's" of electricity? Is there something I'm missing about the archaic idea of taking two wheels and spinning them?

No problem. I hope any info I've given helps! Definitely try a test cartridge of 200T on manual. I think you'll be happy with the results (as long as you have fresh batteries in your camera for the light meter). I'd do two things with a test cartridge: First take a few different meterings through the lens like I said up there, just scoping around the room, or outdoors, wherever....to get an idea of your range of f-stops that are covered in a random roundabout turn of the camera. Just to see how it works and to feel it out and get it sort of "on your mind" what's going on. After that, pick a static shot. Meter it to know what it is supposed to be at. But then DON'T just shoot that f stop. Do a bracket test on it. Meaning (stop me if this bores you because I don't know "what you know"), you basically shoot the same scene at the "correct" f stop, then change the lens to be closed down one stop lower....then two stops lower.....one higher than normal.....then plus two etc. (but do it in this order -2, -1, 0, +1, +2) so when you get the film back you can see the effects of over and under exposing, and it will then show you really clearly not only what it does to the look of that film, but how much you can trust "your camera's light meter" to get that look. ONE THING though....just write down on pieces of paper, or paper plates or whatever scraps you have laying around when you do it....a series of numbers: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 all on their own paper and include it into the scene (like tape it to a back wall or whatever basically) so that you will later on know what stop "did that" to the film you're actually viewing. Bracket tests are awesome to help you to just sort of start melting into your camera...where you two get to know each other. Because they're quirky, mechanical, and frankly "well-loved" machines, and so you have to do these things to learn their quirks (and also film's quirks). Keep in mind I am speaking from a pragmatic view, assuming we don't have pro techs servicing our little Nizo's! But that's what makes it fun. But just for general use photography, yeah, you can just meter every shot really. Negative stocks today allow for a TON of headroom in the highlights, so you can lean more toward the open side. That way you'll pull up information out of any deep shadows, but probably not necessarily be blowing out the stock either. It depends how deep you want to go into this, but there are far better threads and info out there on detailed metering, the zone system, and just how meters should be dealt with than I can offer here. But anyway, another benefit of you shooting a little more open than the meter says is that you'll reduce grain this way because you pull the image up out of the noise floor basically. If you want grain, do the opposite, and close the lens down a little more. But this is again all stuff that the bracket test above will show you. So pick a cool still life, or a person sitting on a neat couch or something, and tape those papers behind them and twiddle some lenses!!!