Jump to content

Christian Schonberger

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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 cinematography, story and acting. I think it would have looked miles better if shot on Super 35mm (or even Super 16, as Wes Anderson proved with Moonrise Kindom, all Vision 3 200T, Super 16). BUT it might have been just the color grading and digital post. I usually still can spot very fast (often after just a few shots or less) if it's film or digital. I cannot overemphasize it enough: I'm not a film purist. My preference for film (there is a certain quality that still seems very hard to emulate, especially when a movie tries that), especially on an emotional level, is my own personal opinion and I fully respect others.
  3. 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) were completely unconvincing. Now these can be re-created by software extremely convincingly. So my conclusion is that any organic behavior of film which can't be recreated convincingly yet (if desired, that is) it will be just a matter of time. Well I still personally prefer the look and feel of film for certain moods and feels, but I don't believe in "magic". It's definitely just a matter of truly understanding how it works and it can be modeled (simulated) with software. Again: if desired. Thanks for your input, Christian
  4. 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
  5. 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 when the grading is heavy. Still, my bet would have been Fuji (I know there were different neg stocks, not only regarding speed (ASA/ISO), but to my eyes this almost screams Fuji, both in the daylight and in the night time footage. Any information about how this (great) look was achieved and which stock was used is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Christian
  6. Phil, My basic idea is that Super 16mm, even with modern Kodak Vision 3 neg stock, is not
  7. 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
  8. 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 film chamber and the pressure plate is part of the mag itself. I'm fine with both - I'm not a professional, so I take my time (and keep the gate clean hahaha) as long as the body/mag work perfectly. IMHO 16mm/S 16 needs really good glass, because you don't need to "bang up" an image that's too clean unless you want the Roger Deakins (deakinizer) effect. Happy holidays, Christian
  9. 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 celebrating)! Happy shooting (with a camera of course)! Christian
  10. 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 cropped off a little (will compose protected for it though), hence my estimated 30 simethingmillimeter as a standard. But one can see it as a cropped 50mm. No problem: got all that figured out. BUT that's all a pipe dream as for now. Just wanted to check. LOVE the good old Arriflex 35 IIC. Kubrick loved this machine (as you all know of course) The new restored versions (I suppose from the camera originals, so no dye transfer and/or optical anamorhic printing onto 4.perf 35mm) of The Leone "Dollar" trilogy and Once Upon A Time In The West look just outstanding. "Shame" (2001, Arricam Lite, Techniscope) also was filmed on 2-perf. Looks great! Have a great Holiday season and thank you! Christain Thanks again
  11. 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 for film stock and procesing is only slightly higher - I get about 22 minutes from a 1000ft load of readily available 35mm camera film stock. My only two concerns: I can't afford a modern camera which has a -perf option factory built-in (such as some Aaton models). So I was thinking of the expertly converted Arriflex 53 IIC, which was used very successfully as a Techniscope camera and is great (if not as great as modern cameras) for hand held. And I don't know if 2-perf scanning is easy to come by. Let alone the price for good glass. I have no idea which focal length is considered standard (when assuming that 50mm is the average standard for 35mm spherical and 25mm for 16mm. That would make it for Techiscope around 38mm I suppose (?). Any suggestions (including talking me out of the idea) highly appreciated. Please take into consideration that I am located in the EU (the good stuff is usually all in the US). Merry Christmas to all members of this great board. I have learned a LOT from the very helpful members. Here is a huge Thank You!!!! Christian
  12. David, Thanks a lot for your very comprehensive insight! Much appreciated. Christian
  13. Hello group! Just finished watching the great Wes Anderson film: "Moonrise Kingdom" (2012), which - according to IMDb - was all shot on Kodak Vision 3 200T Super 16mm (A-Minima and Aaton Xtera). It looks fantastic IMHO. I wonder how the night scenes were done. These look underexposed on purpose, which of course is the correct choice, but I can see no coarser grain anywhere. Was it perhaps exposed correctly and darkened in post (or pull processed)? The grain pattern is really nice and very even throughout the movie (it seems to have a few zoomed-in shots done in post, making it just a bit softer, but not grainier). Text and graphics (inserts) seem to be all shot or done (computer graphics) on digital, which I think is O.K. (better than with added fake film grain which doesn't quite match the real deal). Also: does anyone have the information if the V3 200T in daylight was used with an 85 type filter (or gel) or color corrected in post? Any information regarding avoiding excessive grain in the shadows with 16mm Vision 3 color film stock highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Christian
  14. Awesome! Congrats! How did you come across and get this treasure? IMHO this is still a fantastic film camera to this day. I hope it is in fine working condition and you can go out and shoot some great images (unless you prefer keeping it untouched). Anyway: congrats again!
×
×
  • Create New...