Jump to content

Christian Schonberger

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Christian Schonberger

  • Rank

  • Birthday 03/29/1961

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Sound Department
  • Location
    Lisbon
  • My Gear
    owned Beaulieu 6008S, own K-3 Super 16mm, fully converted.
  • Specialties
    Professional musician, composer, arranger, MIDI, sound engineer, original music for film and tv commercials. Interests: film making, Super 16mm.

Recent Profile Visitors

4091 profile views
  1. Hello, Christian here. Thinking about getting a Scoopic. So I would like to ask if you think it is possible to do an Ultra 16 conversion at home by yours truly having patience, reasonable skills and tools. Any kind of information highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  2. Well I own a K-3 which runs fine after the obligatory steps (gate polishing, loop formers removed, light leaks taped, etc.). When the spring runs out, the shutter stops at a random position on my K-3, but it takes just a small touch counterclockwise with the wind up blade (if that's the right word) and the shutter mechanism safely snaps into place. This also ensures that the pulldown claw is engaged and the film is held firmly in place. Hope this helps.
  3. Hmm, there are a lot of 1990s and 2000s movies shot and Kodak (source: IMDB - I might add that I provided a lot of information which was approved) and I am not sure that being cheaper has to do with it. Also: how does a particular print film stock affect the final result from a print neg on a contact printer? I think we need to know the entire process (printers and every film stock used at each step). Sorry if I sound nitpicking, but each step is important.
  4. Excellent point! I see a lot of emulation of the '60s and '70s look with its often muddy browns, some even on smaller film formats (35mm 2-perf Techniscope for "American Hustle" comes to mind) but somehow the '80s look (I am simplifying here obviously) seems to be hard to nail. "It Follows" tried that on digital and it was more the set design and subject matter that evoked the 1980s than he actual image. And of course it has to do with the genre "Hell Or High Water" (loved it!) is what you could call a neo-western. I was put off by its digital look constantly - despite otherwise great cinemato
  5. David, Thanks for the information. I am positive that some remaining (please keep in mind that I am not an expert) characteristics of film can be emulated to near perfection in the D.I. IF one wishes. I am talking about things like highlight roll off in certain situations (it obviously all becomes more evident on smaller film formats) or different grain patterns on different hues. It's just a matter of creating the correct algorithms. I remember a few years ago when digital simulations of tube distortion and speaker saturation (all very desirable effects in certain genres of music) we
  6. Mark and Philip: Thank you for the information! Well I was aware of the soft filters (stockings) and (at least with Vision 3) the 200T with an 85 filter is quite popular. I know that the Vision 2 looks somehow slightly colder than the later Vision 3. Pull processing would also be one of my guesses, but the article in American Cinematographer actually explains it in accurate detail. Anyway: love the look and feel of the movie. Very unique and perfect to create the intended mood an feel. Thanks again, Christian
  7. Hello Group, Just watched "Atonement" (2007) and it immediately looked like Fuji to me. It had those typical saturated and "airy" colors - as opposed to the more "earthy" colors usually found on (Eastman) Kodak stocks from EXR through Vision3. I know that's a broad generalization, but words can say only so much. IMDB states that it was shot on Kodak Vision 2, but somehow it doesn't look like it at all. Perhaps the digital color grading changed it dramatically without looking "tweaked". With recent digital color grading it is hard to tell anyway which film stock was used, especially whe
  8. Phil, My basic idea is that Super 16mm, even with modern Kodak Vision 3 neg stock, is not
  9. Robin, No need to apologize. I mean it. Got all the information I need from the thread. Thanks for that. Will look around for a really nice, reliable S 16 camera and good glass. Knowing how to work with it and digital post done just right will deliver all I'll ever need. Merry Christmas to all! Christian
  10. Robin, Thanks for the reply. No problem with the grain on S16. It's fine enough (obviously depending on stock) for my projects and I tend to be really careful to nail the exposure (including lower ASA/ISO ratings on color neg if needed). About threading: at the moment I am shooting with a humble S 16 modded K-3 (loop formers removed, quirks solved) and I have no problem with the really fiddly threading, including double checking and open running a few bursts, before closing and tape sealing, to make sure the loops are good, stay and all runs fine). Sure: with a coax mag it's different. No
  11. Tyler and Stuart: thanks a lot for your kind replies! Yup: after thinking it through: Super 16mm is the way to go - it is easier to get a good body and good glass - and modern scans of the camera original neg look really good. Yes: that was my idea: since I also crop the sides (on 2-perf 35mm that is), I guesstimated that a standard lens would be 30-something millimeters. of course I would go Super 35mm 3-perf in the blink of an eye. But that will be forever out of reach. Thanks again for sharing your thoughs and expertise! Merry Christmas (or whatever it is you are celebrati
  12. Samuel and Tyler, Thanks a lot for your fast replies. Don't have the $$$ right now, otherwise I'd buy that sweet Arrifex right now. That model even exceeds what I was hoping for. AWESOME! Gotta wait until I have enough money. Thanks for the info regarding the focal lengths. Since I am very likely not shooting in the "scope" format (1:2.35-ish), but rather (as I mentioned) in 1:1.85 or the slightly less wide 16:9, for various reasons - the crop factor comes in. I know it's all a matter of the way one looks at it. A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. On 2-perf 1:1.85 I just have the sides c
  13. Hello Group, A couple of times I heard that 35mm 2-perf is an excellent alternative to Super 16mm film. Lately I discovered some sources (facebook), where older, used film cameras are being sold in near perfect condition - for very accessible prices (no glass though). No worries: I won't buy anything without making 100% sure I know what I will get. I am obviously on a budget, but doing all the math: 35mm 2-perf (even with the sides cropped to 1.85:1 or 16:9) seems to be excellent value for money since the improvement regarding grain and resolution is clearly visible and the price
  14. David, Thanks a lot for your very comprehensive insight! Much appreciated. Christian
×
×
  • Create New...