Matthew B Clark

Very low budget. Around $1,500-2,000 somehow has to get me up and running for at least basic tests.

I know it looks funny reading about a "Konvas" being "a plunge" to take haha! But in all seriousness, it's serious to me. My decision to attempt 35mm work that is. Not something I want to screw up. Or be ignorant to the pitfalls of.

Howdy. I'm seriously considering taking the plunge on a Konvas. Long story short, I am really attracted to the idea of growing into the Konvas (and the 35mm format), but I have some concerns about parts, motor especially. Being that I'm coming from a hand-cranked K3 as my only camera - besides my super 8 camera - I'm a little worried I'm getting all the right pieces lined up, or knowing what to check for. I'm hovering around all these eBay listings...but I'm seeing a lot of camera bodies, some with lenses, but I am pretty mystified by the "battery" and "accesory" situation. I'm pretty mystified about what constitutes a full Konvas package basically. Since I'm really looking hard at this I figured I'd ask the pros... As always, thanks.

But see...when I did that....I had to still make the choice to "like it". And to "use it". So I don't see a problem with trying to incorporate the accident effectively. PS, wow, I just now viewed this Cramps video that was attached to it on Youtube...check out 2:50!!!! I didn't even see this until now haha! What he says is actually right on the money too! HAPPY ACCIDENT?!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ6ZwO9A_PE

Thanks! And hey, I'm never going to be offended by being included in a sentence with Lydia Lunch or Sonic Youth. I love what those folks stand for. I think content-wise...in terms of set pieces and "approach" to story-telling, and general ramshackle production you've nailed it there. The immediacy isn't an accident though, it's a definite choice. Since the contrived stories of typical videos would totally betray the immediacy that this kind of music generates. So I couldn't choose to make anything that looked too staged or too polished anyway. That said, I didn't think going to super 8 or VHS would be a good choice, because I still wanted it to have some indication of clarity and decisiveness. So as for the visual aesthetic, yeah the choice to do 500T, 16mm with graffiti'd set pieces etc. does definitely come from that. My main inspiration was the set pieces from Derek Jarman's JUBILEE and this CRAMPS video for "Garbage Man". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiVzLdhz20Y As far as the whole modern HD look goes...I honestly just generally have never found myself attracted to anything that had that kind of "antiseptic" look. I have a pretty long background in painting and printmaking, and also graphic design, so I've always been around similar sets of pros and cons....choosing between archaic and modern media to convey images and meaning when I get ideas. To me, it really just often feels right, or better personally anyway, to have a workflow where I'm choosing the lesser of two evils and accepting the organic and "mistake-prone" media, which I can manipulate creatively...rather than try to approach everything as if I am perfect and assume total perfection and try to perfectly record it. That doesn't really happen anyway, so why not work within a medium that allows for the accidents to be more or less "happy" accidents? That's my own view on film vs. HD. That VNF look for instance...it's not like I did anything masterful to get that. I just under-exposed it and pushed the hell out of the processing and it made a peculiar fuzzy halo of color that blended this super 8 reversal-like glow out onto the definition of a 16mm stock with a very fine (though perceivable) grain.

I think I'm more embarrassed by the spelling of Raphael! That's the true crime here.

By the way, I'd really like to edit my typos and accidental expletive from that last post, but it appears I may be under moderation for my sample "shots" line?

Thank you, Matthew. To your point, and exactly correct on the other extreme (underexposure), the first frame of these sample shits (guy on couch looking down like a Rafael angel or something) is actually '03 (50D)! I made the huge blunder of sticking one load of 50D in with all of the 500T we used, and didn't give it a second thought when I glanced at "the box full of "50........". Needless to say I was kicking myself after I sot it an re-boxed it, did all the shots again and apologized profusely to everyone. BUT....there lies the rub....I knew I had caught some good shots on there, which I felt most comfortable with anyway. So I asked a few labs about push processing 50D, which I had metered at 400! Anyway, I resolved to try pushing it 2 stops, and it did what you see there in the image; crushed blacks, and a nice glowing highlight range that blends with the mid tones. I was really amazed by this, and especially after most labs recommended me not even bothering with the experiment. Screw that, it's worth a try. And I learned something! Anyway, moral of the story...these Kodak stocks are incredibly flexible. You can really get arty on these I think, because they just have a wider threshold to "get arty with" actually.

Gregg, Chris Marker is incredible, but most folks here are not addressing ideological modes of transgressive cinema when they start threads. That's not a knock on this place, it's just a context. They are usually addressing issues of their craft from a primarily "technical" standpoint. Applying that tecnical finding to some vision or another (not necessarily even their own vision often times mind you) as a secondary item. So there is a "working professional-to-working professional" sort of a precedent that comes implicit in every discussion here. It's not that your thinking is "flawed" or "wrong" to bring up these things, but you're choosing to discuss art in a science class for the most part. This is not some totalitarian statement though, and I know there is a blend of both, but as evidenced by the above bout mentioned, you can clearly see that for many it comes down to "doing the job and getting bread on the table" as a major, major, major concern. Me? This thread? I use a K-3 16mm camera and find it excellent. The lens is very nice, covers most situations you'll need to shoot in, you can change lenses with lots of easily obtained M42 mount lenses, and if it's mechanically sound and in good condition it will be a great 16mm camera for you. For context around my "opinion"...I am a beginning filmmaker, and I have little experience, however, I did lots of scouring for information and decided on the K3 after settling on the concept that "the image" was my concern for what little money I had, and so I was willing to accept the shortcomings of limited 100' spools, hand-winding it "being an annoyance" and the inability to record audio (it's loud) as ultimately superfluous. I feel like if you want a good, stable 16mm camera that will produce nice images and allow some room for creativity (perhaps even "limit you" into creativity too), then go K3. I have never shot anything else though, so take my opinion with ten grains of salt or whatever they say these days...

Thank you, Rudy. Hopefully I'll have an edit together by this weekend and post it here. I'm doing a trial-by-fire here. My first real "go" in cinematography, editing and grading (which I'll leave pretty naked in order to not overly process the film).

Thank you Perry. That's a big help. I just found a Moviescop for around $170 with rewinds mounted. Can you tell me if the Moviescop runs the film with a motor of any kind? Or is this totally manual / cranked operation stuff? Part of me wants to attempt eyeballing it the first time (without a viewer at all - I know, it sounds insane), because I am doing overdubs afterward. Again, playing with things I can and can't do....seeing what works. Pushing it I guess into bad territory on purpose...

Thanks very much for the response and input. I'm sorry about the "negative" misnomer; that was my attempt to simplify the description of the work-flow. Of course yes, I know reversal is a positive image though. I'm very sure I want to give this a whirl though, directly with the camera film (by the way, what would you call that in this case?!) I would like to see what I can do manually before jumping into all digital. I'd like to make sure I'm learning from my mistakes. This will help me become more conscious of exactly what I'm "avoiding" when working this way if I get a bunch of experience with handling film from all these types of angles....plus, part of me is kind of masochistic in the sense that I enjoy fighting difficult tasks. I like the idea of a viewer. Any more brands to check out? and what are the specific pieces involved? I can make a checklist that way. It needs to be cheap. Hence the bad Kodak splicer in use....

Here are some stills from the un-graded / non-edited project. Thanks for all your advice and help with this everyone.

Hi all, I'm about to shoot a short film on 16mm reversal (so that I can look at it directly for editing). The idea is to cut the original negative using a cheap tape splicer (really cheap - the Kodak basic tape splicer for 8/16). I'd be running it through a 16mm projector to see what I'm doing after each cut (taking reels off to make each splice again). When finished I'd have the whole "finished" film scanned. My worry is about how much damage will occur to the neg. I'm also wondering if this is the most efficient way to do this. Or if you can suggest other ways to cut down scanning costs while working directly with negative (maybe in a less "damaging" way). I'm very curious about how much damage will actually occur from running the negative through a 16mm projector x-amount of times in order to obtain the edit. Any advice on this workflow would be greatly appreciated.

That's what I was referring to. Sorry, I meant that. The bulk rolls. I wanted to get a lot of it and spool it down myself to save budget. I guess they are trimming that option off the radar screen...

Same here. I accidentally shot a 50D load (I thought it was 500T) metered at 400!!!! Indoors. With a 300 watt key light. Well, I loved the takes enough to defy conventional wisdom and went ahead and pushed the processing 2 stops. What I found blew my mind. Not only did it come out, but it came out beautifully, and retained the best color information while ADDING some aesthetic ( minimal/nice looking) grain to an otherwise grainless stock. I'd recommend this workflow to anyone who wants to crush blacks in camera. The rest looks really nice.

It appears Wittner is sold out of this stock . Does anyone know anywhere that sells it in bulk now??? Don't want to buy dozens of 100' spools from anyone if I can buy bulk and spool down. Also...Estar base going to mess up a K3? I'm not sure I understand why it's so dangerous using Estar base stocks. Pressure on pull-down?

Ok, so...we're shooting this Sunday. Any advice on the above-mentioned shot would be really cool of you (at large)... camera - K3 16MM film stock bought since last post - 3 rolls of 500T drugs - none lights - above ambition - waning...

Hey there! So, the shoot went very well (I think - hey, we'll see what the film stock thinks now) and I get the 2K scans back this week. I've re-written a new intro to the video though, and added in a couple of shots I knew I could do without the rest of the folks around. So here's the NEW rub... I need some advice on setting up one particular shot if you can. Here's the notes from my script: HANNAH - Frontal-facing silhouette carrying a skull, which has a lit candle on top. BLACK ROOM. Only light should be a rim light behind HANNAH so that her outline is lit only with graphical slits of RED LIGHT rimming her body shape from behind. The candle atop the skull is the only other light, but should NOT reveal the SKULL yet. Must be BLACK inside her body shape, with a little floating yellow flame near her heart. The emphasis is on the movement of slowly passing smoke in the room as it plumes upward, through the red slits of light and back into the black surroundings as it passes. THE ACTION - A SLOW MOTION SHOT...her silhouette steps forward slowly. Smoke moves slowly through the red lines. Suddenly the SKULL APPEARS as the black silhouette steps into a GREEN and BLUE gel'd light (one on each side of the skull focused super tightly)….VERY tight….spotted on the SKULL WITH CANDLE. So basicaly, it's a SUPER GRAPHICAL black n white....almost woodcut type of an image. A black figure. Rimmed. And with little floating flame on her heart. Suddenly the skull is revealed dramatically. Ultimately, I need to find the right environment, FILM STOCK, and lights to do this. I am guessing I need to get a BLACKED OUT room somehow. Start there. And then I have the following to play with: 2 X 800W Red Head 1 X 300 W FRESNEL 1 X 1,000 W FRESNEL 1 X 300 W CHINA BALL I'm guessing I'd need some VNSP PARS to do this right, but I don't have access and I shoot Monday (model is available then)!!!!! I'm wondering what kinds of tricks I can play if I shoot on SLOW stock, and creatively metering it somehow...so it's ultimately like fooling the stock into NOT catching details, which would be purposely underexposed for a very graphic look. I just want to see detail in the smoke, and in the hard lights where things are purposely hit. Flags? Homemade snoots? Not sure I want a fire hazard though....

Thanks Mark. Whew....shooting this tomorrow. I'll be sure to post it up here in this thread when complete. One quick last question...about the meter (Sekonic 398) - It only has a 400 and an 800 setting, with two dots between them (un-numbered). Does the next dot up from 400 equate to 500? Or is this a rough estimation kind of a thing? Also, if I wanted to go 1/3 a stop up, is that just "400"? This will really help me to make sure I'm dialing the right number for what I want to expose. Thanks again! Really excited for tomorrow and Sunday but gonna be looooong days!

That's exactly the sort of lighting I'm looking for! Except my set pieces will be brighter and more wild in terms of colors, so where you do see stuff, it is intended to be very vibrant. Just got off the phone with ye olde scanner...it looks like we're going ProRes 4444. It's really funny..about the noise floor issue...I always watch the show MONK....and I know they shot the whole series on 16mm, but I notice the grain a LOT on some episodes, whereas others look like solid, grainless colors. It's really something I'll have to feel out, because yeah, it's a completely different effect. PS, our sets are so small, that we are limiting motion and lighting yeah, like this clip, to alleviate any crazy headaches about picking up some unintended "border" of something or another....

Also...I love the happy accidents. They make the world..."not digital". It's pretty much the soul of the issue of film (in my opinion).

Adrian, you are the Explainer in Chief. That's a great dose of clear working knowledge of how to handle the stock. Oh, yes, it's 7219 (Vision 3 500T). I'll probably set up lights to have a bright overall coverage in order to be safe, but with specifically hot areas for contrast, as you suggested. To keep ratios high. I'll definitely play with exposures to see what can happen. So, generally...over-exposure reduces grain? I'm torn between just metering at 320 to build myself in a two stop over-exposure reading every time, or as you said, the cine mode. 14 STOPS of lattitude??? That is massive. I am used to thinking in the mindset of tri-x and other reversal films. Wow. So when you say "pull" digitally, you are referring to taking the DI or scan and applying correction to it in editing? Lowering down highlights etc? Sorry for this ridiculous question, but I'm really into making this come out right. Also...I'm looking at a Spirit 2K data scan....I guess DPX files....and also having them make me a ProRes for DI. Then I guess I'd send the DPX files to a "real editor"....that sound about right?

Adrian, that is (no BS) probably the most straight-forward and genuinely helpful explanation of practically figuring exposure and contrast ratios and metering I've ever read, so thanks a TON first off for that. A lot of that I had read up on (in way more convoluted ways) and tried by trial and error, but this totally nails it into my head the right way. How's the lattitude on 500T though? Pretty decent? I'm trying to judge which direction to push my low-key lighting set-ups....to meter for the highlights, or the shadows. I hear negative should be pushed 1/3 stop, maybe even a full stop. But I'm usually a "dead-on" kind of guy in my thinking with that stuff...and I'd rather control it by lighting ratios....accepting blacks where they fall etc. The camera tip is key. Thanks for that. K3 has a weird shutter speed of 1/60th at 24fps. So I can't use normal "cine scale" on my meter...I just use the 1/60th mark.

Can anyone help me understand what TOO much light is for 500T? I wanted to see what my Sekonic 398 analog meter would say if I notched it to 1/3 past 400 ISO (that meter only has 400 and 800 separated by two dots for I guess third stops?). Anyway, I held the meter (set to one dot above 400) under a normal living room lamp containing a basic 3-way 150 watt bulb....the meter showed exposure to be set at F4. I'm pretty amazed at that. Is this stock going to look good if I use limited light, and incidentals? I bought all this 500T, but I have the following to use on this music video, some of which I really WANT to use in order to help shape the lighting design: 800 Watt Red Head 300 Watt Fresnel 1,000 Watt Fresnel 250 Watt 30" China Ball I'm spending all this time scripting it out, calling people to b in it, following up, making shot lists, organizing the stock, the props, all the stuff to happen correctly, and the last thing I want to do is fudge my lighting so badly that it won't come out right. The band I'm working with is flying themselves in this weekend. I am building sets all the way through until Saturday. But I'm really worried about the actual lighting -> film stock. It's being shot on 16mm (K3) using Vision 3 500T, 100' spools. Sets are two different rooms in an apartment decorated to look like a psychologists office and a "post-apocalyptic shelter". There will be a lot of like...ambient, candle light stuff....chiaroscuro in places. And also some you know...."psychologists office" lighting. Will this stock handle my lights and/or the latitude configurations I'm going to be throwing at it? Does it blow out if too bright? I really want to shape my light and then add ND filters to bring it down to open stops again....where applicable. Any advice before Saturday on how to approach this...my first real video shoot....would be appreciated. Thanks.