Jump to content

Christian Schonberger

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    193

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Christian Schonberger

  1. Christian Schonberger
    No problem with halation around strong highlights. Freya, may I ask which one is (was) your favorit B&W stock? I dismissed Tri-X. There is a threshold. Anything lighter and it looks sharp and great, anything darker and you get golfball sized grain with an unpleasant pattern. IMHO not acceptable. Did test footage - that stock it out of the question. That leaves the Orwo UN 54 which I find too soft and grainy (as stated before). Here is the only example online (regular 16mm) at 1440p I could find. Really like it a lot (except for the vertical jitter, but I don't have problems with that): Christian
  2. Christian Schonberger
    Mark, Makes all sense. The neg will be scanned anyway, so no problems. BTW: seen some Double-X on YouTube and checked for any kind of halation or other undesired reflections. Looks completely clean.
  3. Christian Schonberger
    Freja: yes, the remjet (Vision 1 500T) became sticky (re-canned and probably bad storage at one stage), so it only can be removed by fiddly hand processing. Not the lab's fault. Their brushes work perfectly with fresh film stock. Still have a 100ft roll of Fuji Super F 160D. I know it's even worse (very sticky at any rate) with this stock. Will get it hand processed - the guy can get it off with hand processing (large custom tank). It's all (kinda) test footage anyway. If it turns out good, I'll use it in a project where it fits, if not, at least I gained practice. Mark: Thanks for the information. For some reason I prefer the look of B&W neg over reversal. Seems like the image "comes together" much better. Obviously this would be a non-issue on larger film formats, but I think the Double-X looks great in 16mm /S 16. Also considered using color neg and simply desaturate in post - as done with "The Artist" (2011) - because they found Double-X a bit too grainy even on 35mm (so I read) for the big screen and full HD. Call me a purist ( :-) ) - but I really prefer the look of genuine classic B&W film stock for B&W cinematography. The Double-X is just a little on the grainy side, but it's tack sharp and I love the grain structure, texture and general contrast. Evokes the 1940s and 1950s in a way. A friend of mine is a fantastic color grader and he has some killer grain management softare plugins. If used very sparingly, you lose (virtually) no detail and don't get that waxy look. I'll try that if I find it a hint too grainy. Would love to have a 100 ASA/ISO version of the Double-X neg which can be perfectly mixed in one film project. Seen some Plus-X reversal processed as a neg on YouTube: very nice but it looks a little too soft for my taste (might be the transfer). A little Like Orwo UN 54 neg: (way too much grain and softness for a 100 ASA/ISO stock IMHO). All Plus-X stock is long expired anyway.... (sigh). Thanks for your most valuable information! Christian
  4. Christian Schonberger
    Freya, Don't want to name the lab as not to cause any harm to anyone's reputation. Suffice it was a top notch full, scale lab in Berlin, Germany - their results are usually the finest you'd expect. Christian
  5. Christian Schonberger
    Freya, Thanks for your reply! Well of course I wasn't referring to copyright, just mentioned it as a reference regarding what is written on the label. I thought the same: very likely Kodak simply kept the label artwork and just changed it in 2009 (as I mentioned, the exact same seems to happen with 16mm Ektachrome 100D: there's either 2002 or 2009 - so 2002 might even mean it's made as late as 2008 (?). The film stock was at least during a very long time freezer stored, very likely all the time. I usually get expired film stock from fellow 16mm film users, who know how to store film stock correctly (fortunately). It's also a factory sealed 100ft spool, which is much less of a gamble than re-canned stock from short ends. Anyway: Decided not to compensate the exposure and rate the 7222 film stock as is (240 daylight, 200 tungsten). One last Q: am I right that the Double-X has no remjet backing? Had a bad experience with expired Vision (1) 500T that was re-canned. Had it machine processed and the image turned out ace, but a lot of remjet remained, turning the footage unusable. Another roll of the same 500T was hand processed and turned out great, there's just a slight color shift/flicker and a few white chemical marks in places since hand processing ECN-2 (larger than 8mm film) even by skilled experts is very hard to do evenly with a 100% consistent image. Remjet is no problem with hand processing, since the person who processes film stock for me knows how to remove it during processing perfectly - no rotating brushes set at a certain fixed pressure without checking if the remjet actually was removed correctly. Thanks again, Christian
  6. Christian Schonberger
    Hello group, Just got a 100ft roll of 16mm 1R Eastman 7222 Double-X neg stock. The label states "© 2002". Also bought supposedly fresh Double-X stock very recently and the label says "© 2009". Q 1: anyone know what's the deal with the dates (same with Ektachrome 100D BTW)? Q 2: should I compensate for sensitivity loss with the 2002 Double-X stock? I know that overexposing Double-X is bad - not like current Kodak color neg at all. Love the classic look of Double-X with its typical 'vintage' grain pattern ranging from shadows all the way up to highlights. Any reply/tips very highly appreciated. Christian
  7. Christian Schonberger
    Hi there, Well I own the Zenitar 16mm. I love it. It works especially great with the Super 16mm format and the barrel distortion is not distracting IMHO, but reminds of the cinematic barrel distortion of anamorphic lenses which can be seen in many a great and well known movie. The image is pin sharp and focus is only critical at short distances (depending on aperture of course). Highly recommended since you can get it brand new very inexpensively (just needs the silver metal pin to be removed or permanently held in place inside to work with the K-3. Here is some Krasnogorsk-3 footage with the Zenitar (expired Eastman EXR 50D, re-graded by Rudolf Griva) - the light leaks were from the footage counter, which have been sealed after taking this test footage: The 1mm extra (16mm instead of 17mm) make a difference and you have a pin sharp prime lens. I highly recommend the Zenitar 16. Hope this helps, Christian
  8. Christian Schonberger
    Nicholas, Thanks, yes these are the 1940s buildings in Lisbon. Lots of location scouting until I found these - and of course avoiding any modern items. A lot of awesome Art Deco buildings were torn down years ago and replaced by the usual modern architecture. My K-3 is O.K. but obviously far from a great camera. No film camera rental here in Portugal. Looks like no one even knows what film is anymore here. A decent Super 16mm Bolex plus glass costs a fortune, even the wind up models with small, dim viewfinder and no external mag. Already checked: with some luck I can get for the exact same amount a fully serviced Super 16mm converted Éclair ACL1.5 including good glass (for example), but I'll always have to order from another country (no way of checking hands on). Ebay these days looks like a film camera junk yard (some signs of wear, seems to run fine, sold as is (usually four figures or more) = no!). Thanks for your input, Christian
  9. Christian Schonberger
    Nicholas, Looking great! Thanks for sharing. Here are my Tri-X test shots of 1940-ish buildings (Lisbon, Portugal). Need to re-polish and re-lube the K-3 (fabricated in 1986, bought in mint condition). Lens is Zenitar 16mm fisheye - all hand held (no tripod allowed in public city spaces unless you are a pro with a written permit). The deep emulsion scratch never occured on any other stock. Guess the thinner reversal buries itself deep into the gate extension which has no support rail (I don't want to mess with the gate, making things eventually worse). The camera has heavy vertical jitter at 48fps and considerable jitter at 32 fps. Almost rock stable at 24 fps. Super 16mmm gate, re-centered lens (scanned with a re-aligned regular 16mm 2K Muller, so a little image is missing right hand side), cropped to 16:9: (doesn't look better on Vimeo since I can't use the pro res version, which I used here). Same footage de-jittered (needed some more zoom and cropping obviously):
  10. Christian Schonberger
    Satsuki, Thanks. It is obvious that I don't attempt a faithful recreation, complete with, say, a 35mm Mitchell and vintage, uncoated prime lenses. I did test shots with Tri-X and it's incredible (if you choose the right objects) what even this high contrast reversal black and white emulsion does in the Super 16mm format with at least a good 2K scan to make anything look as if it was filmed 60+ years ago. Lighting is key to any good looking movie (digital or film). It can range from "light everywhere" (The Maltese Falcon was still far away from what we perceive as the classic noir lighting, except perhaps for the clever use of shadows depicting letters and the obligatory Venetian blinds) to harsh simple lighting with hard shadows and high contrast - or anything in between with complex and careful lighting, mixing key, fill, back, rim light, pockets, bouncing and kicker lights with various degrees of diffusion. With a no budget and some good knowledge, this can be at least emulated with cheap working lights, bouncing surfaces and white bed sheets (making sure they don't burst into flames). Black and white eliminates the concern with matching color temperatures (except for the sensibility drop towards red). I guess I'll be fine with the Double-X. Thanks and cheers, Christian
  11. Christian Schonberger
    Simon, No worries. I have my stuff together, not a single shred of confusion ;-) Well I presume that people here know what I am talking about when I say "feel". I didn't say exact replica. Of course I carefully consider lighting, sets and props. Super 16mm looks fine these days and a scanned camera original can somewhat resemble a 35mm print. To me that is. I deliberately chose a wider than academy aspect ratio to "translate" the image to a more modern eye. Please do not get me wrong, but I really presume that people know what I am talking about. If you go just into semantics without context, "Old Hollywood" can very well also mean "pre-1970". P.S. "The Artist" was mainly shot on desaturated Kodak Vision 3 color neg stock. Need to work with what you have access to. It doesn't necessarily mean there is any confusion. :-) Cheers, Christian
  12. Christian Schonberger
    Dirk, Thanks: what I thought. Seen the same amount of grain in highlights as in shadows on the Double-X. Guess I'll ditch the Orwo for now. I'm on a tight budget and camera tests are expensive and slow. I just have a humble modded K-3. It seems to love all Kodak color neg stocks from EXR (obviously expired) through V3. The usually thinner reversal stocks seem to work not quite as well, burying themselves deeper into the gate extension, causing focus issues and sometimes even scratches. Vertical jitter is near negligible at 24 fps (not to be taken as highly accurate here, I know). Thanks again, Christian
  13. Christian Schonberger
    Hello group, After dismissing the Tri-X (it's just my personal taste, not to be taken as any reference), I decided to go for the Eastman Double-X for my upcoming short film in Super 16mm. I intend to recreate a 1940s-50s "old Hollywood" feel and I don't mind some grain, especially when the structure is even and pleasant (Tri-X seems to have a threshold somewhere around dark-middle gray where it suddenly becomes very grainy in a distracting way, especially on surfaces with little to no texture - it also has a rather narrow latitude, being reversal). Since the Double-X (250/200 ASA/ISO) neg is rather fast I was wondering how the Orwo UN54 neg (around 100ASA/ISO) intercuts with the Double-X. I heard that the amount of grain is about the same. What about the look and resolutiuon power? All I look for is a matching stock where I don't have to stop down that much during daylight shoots. What I have seen so far on YouTube and Vimeo is all at lower resolutions. The Orwo (both as neg and reversal) always seems to look a little soft, but this can be due to older or inferior transfers/scans. The Double-X (seen a 1440p version with the grain largely intact) looks very pleasing to my eyes and more than sharp enough. I am aware that these are old emulsions with a vintage look - that's the idea! Any input regarding intercutting the two stocks (cost is the same for me) after scanning (so a little tweaking for a better match is possible but I'd like to avoid that) - highly appreciated. EDIT: BTW: does slightly overexposing help reduce grain (both on Double-X and Orwo UN54)? It does work with the Tri-X, but it just lowers (slightly improves) the threshold of coarse grain (as soon as you have dark-middle gray, you'll get that grain crawl again) and I'l blow my highlights - I did test shots for that. Christian
  14. Christian Schonberger
    Tyler, Thanks a lot for the detailed reply and information. Where I am located (EU) I can't get good deals on film stock. It's gererally more expensive here. I fully agree: as much as I like that retro and nostalgic feel of good reversal stock (such as the Kodak Ektachromme 100D), I prefer negative because it has much more depth to it and draws you into the picture - just enough in 16mm. Bought the Tri-X a while back because I could have it hand processed (with ace results!) at about half the price, but it will be split and re-spliced around the 50ft mark because of the tank size. Let's see how my Tri-X B-roll footage turned out (had it machine processed by a top notch lab with no splice). I have a feeling that I will switch to Double-X negative, which is cheaper anyway. The Orwo is 100 ISO at daylight and I might need it (it seems to mix well with Double-X since it is also a negative stock that can also be processed as reversal but I won't need that) for daylight shots. About scanning: Since it's a short film project I am planning on using the inexpensive but great 2K scan for a first final edit. I will keep the film footage cool, dry and sealed and have 4K overscans made for a frame-by-frame re-edit when I have the $$$, including a fast computer, software and data storage. This way I also can apply noise reduction, grading, image stabilization and accurate framing. But I'll save that for later to get a true high quality version. Well I am fully with you here: I like depth and clarity in the film image. 16mm provides just enough grit and softness to make it look "finished" (for lack of a better word, but that's what I see in well shot film: it looks polished, silky, classy, finished and with just the right amount of distance to the viewer to never have that last hint of "TV" look). There's a fine line between that nice organic grain pattern, providing the right feel and patina - and "too much, too coarse", the latter drawing way too much attention to itself in Super 16mm. Thanks again, Christian
  15. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks for the information. Christian
  16. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks for the tip. Well I won't need the N 74. I'm more than fine with 200 and 100 ISO B&W stocks. Let's see how the Tri-X 7266 reversal turned out. Had to zap the film at 48 fps through the gate for some shots because 200 was too fast and my humble Zenitar 16mm lens doesn't have an ND filter. If I had the $$$ for stock, processing etc. I'd very likely get a nice classic 35mm camera such as the Arriflex 35 IIC (4-perf - ouch!).... thanks for the reply. Christian
  17. Christian Schonberger
    Kenny, Thanks for posting. Looking great! The Orwo (400 neg) isn't available here in Europe as far as I know. The expired Double-X looks great also. Here comes the obligatory question: is it Super 16mm or cropped regular 16mm? Anyway: love the look of both film stocks - excellent grain management, adds a lot of character. Nice creative focus work! Thanks for sharing! Christian
  18. Christian Schonberger
    Hello Group, Planning on a short film in Super 16mm B&W. Did some first B-Roll shots as a test with Kodak Tri-X 7226 reversal, waiting for the scan to return. I happened to have two 100ft rolls (one still in the freezer). The idea is to evoke a 1940s-50s period feel. Not sure about excessive film grain in S 16mm though. I have seen a lot of recent footage (excellent digital scans) of Tri-X reversal, Double-X neg, Orwo UN 54 and FomaPan R 100. The latter seems to suffer from unpleasant round white spots (like air or gas bubbles during processing) frequently. Other than that I really can't tell the difference, since it heavily depends on grain management during scanning and grading. The Tri-X reversal is actually the most expensive, but I have seen Double-X and even Orwo UN 54 with about the same amount of grain - all looking very good. Sharpness seems great on all film stocks. Seen Vision 3 de-saturated. Doesn't work for me: it's somehow too milky and the gray values seem off. IMHO a Black&White film should be shot (if possible) on genuine B&W stock. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I am asking because if the Tri-X reversal turns out too grainy in the scan (will have it scanned with a 2K Muller scanner, it's used by the most inexpensive lab I can find where I am located (EU) and the results are always great) - I might switch to Double-X neg and if it works, mixed with the Orwo (when I don't need 200/160 ISO/ASA). I am not after the "near grainless" 35mm look from the late 1940s and '50s. A little grain is just fine as long as there are no digital artifacts (I have seen Tri-X reversal scans in 16mm/S 16mm ranging from "unusable, gritty and very grainy" to excellent with fine detail in the highlights (one wouldn't expect with reversal). I guess some labs apply sharpening with the wrong settings that brings out the grain (especially in darker areas) way too much. Any input and tips very much appreciated, Cheers, Christian
  19. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks for all the very useful information. Yes: the audio change in pitch is much less distracting (if noticeable at all to viewers) than those nasty "dissolving double frames", old school NTSC 3:2 pull down and repeated frames. I love seeing film being shown each frame in full and for the exact same duration (like old school film projection). No jerky motion. This is the max priority, not the exact frame rate itself by a rather narrow margin (as long as the audio remains 100% in sync). I will choose what ever is the most affordable, produce the audio in perfect sync and take it from there. Thanks a lot again - this was very helpful. Christian
  20. Christian Schonberger
    Hello group, Working on a short film, shot on Super 16mm. Well I just have a humble converted K-3, so the frame rate is not exactly 'accurate'. Sound will all be added in post. But I wonder why all labs here in Europe have a default film scanning frame rate of 25 fps and in the US it is 24 fps. Especially since all cameras I know of meant for screening (as opposed to European TV) always have a frame rate of 24fps, including the old Super 8mm sound cameras. I know that 25fps comes from the old PAL television standard (50 fields per second, 25 frames - all movies shot at 24 fps ran slightly faster to be in sync with the TV standard). I would like to choose a frame rate which is the most compatible with HD 1080p. No planning on getting my humble movie projected theatrically, but I would like to have it as compatible as possible with existing (and if possible future) standards. Also: if I work at 25fps and it will be played back at 24fps or vice-versa (not sure about the digital tech details though), the sound will be altered. At the very least its speed and probably also the pitch, as was the case back in the analog days - which is bad especially for music. Any tune recorded at 24fps and played back at 25fps is almost a half step higher and the tempo is faster (I am a pro musician and I checked it many times). I would love to work at 24fps, simply because it's the cinema standard. My main concerns are compatibility and sound. The look of 24fps vs 25fps is virtually indistinguishable (IMHO) on modern screens and monitors. Any input, insight and tips highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Christian
  21. Christian Schonberger
    Yes. mine too. Pulldown claw always out in the exact same position. Only when the spring winds completely down is the position random. A short twist on the winder (or what's it called) counterclockwise: and all clicks into place again. Never lost a loop (five spools as of yet). There are a lot of reflecting "silver" materials inside the camera, but that is not the cause. If all fails, I'll make a cover of dense black cloth when the camera is not running. It takes time until light seeps through the closed shutter - which obviously is at a distance from the gate. The pressure plate seales that off. The light leaks occur at the back of the camera. A mystery.... see the exact same light leaks on almost all unedited K-3 footage uploaded (and worse!). BTW: this is my first footage with the Zenitar 16. All hand held. Need to get used to the barrel distortion. I only have the standard viewfinder. I almost have centering an image down. Leveling is harder with the curvature. It's all counter-intuitive eyeballing without a correct S 16 viewfinder. Having that replaced would cost me a fortune. I'll keep that money for a better camera - one day hopefully.... Thanks, Christian
  22. Christian Schonberger
    Tyler: Thanks for your reply. Already covered the holes from the removed loop formers with black gaffer tape, I seal the entire "door" all around and the lock. I also sealed the footage counter completely from the inside with black gaffer tape. The light leakage were much worse - the typical defined streaks on both edges - before that. There is a clear pattern: as I stated: around 26-30 frames after the flash frame (burned-in when I don't cover the lens immediately) and a few less before. That places them at the back of both spools - upper loop is a few sprockets smaller). It takes some time for the light leaks to appear. BTW: solved the base scratch (as described in my OP). Here is my latest K-3 test footage: Thanks again, Christian
  23. Christian Schonberger
    Hello group, Solving the (hopefully) last problems with my S 16 K-3. Looking good so far. No emulsion scratches (after a lot of very careful polishing the gate in the right areas - loop formers removed) and just found the cause for the occasional base/backing scratch (exactly where the regular 16mm frame would end opposite pulldown claw. It's caused by the plastic part that leads the film out of (top) and back into (bottom) the sprocket/roller assembly. The part has sharp edges/burrs on both sides: top and bottom side. Too difficult to remove the part, so I'll tape off the rollers and some light wet (always fine machine oil, not water) sanding with 1000 and 2000 grade should solve the base/backing scratches once and forever. Now those nasty orange-red light leaks (sprocket hole side). I see these - looking exactly the same - on a lot of K-3 footage on YouTube and Vimeo. I went through the footage frame by frame ( "," and "." keys on YouTube). These occur roughly along 3-4 frames (with some light spill) 26 to 30 frames before and less frames after a new shot (the white flash frame). Checked with scrap film: this locates the leakage exactly at the back side of the spools - and the emulsion is inside black "daylight" spools (???) Can't come from the footage counter: sealed it off with gaffer tape. It's clearly light that finds its way slowly to these areas when the camera is not running but exposed to bright light. If I don't expose the camera to a lot of light, or only have a short break, between shots: no light leaks there. The fact that the baffle plate is a silver-gray with a dot pattern (as opposed to matte black - the way it should be)) certainly doesn't help matters. Door and lock are always sealed tight with black camera tape. This seems to remain a mystery for many a K-3 user. Painting any parts inside matte black is out of the question (I think): it can chip and probably cause chemical reactions. Any ideas and tips highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Christian
  24. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks for the information. So you used great cinema prime lenses with T-stops. Yep, I reckoned it would be 20mm at the longest. 16mm is a nice medium-wide angle for 16mm film IMHO. The good old Arri 16S, definitely a wonderful and very reliable camera - the only issue I have is that (to my humble knowledge) it can't be converted to S 16. Ultra 16 is fine, but you are forced to use the full height of the frame as much as possible to get max resolution. Seen cropped regular 16mm with Fuji 500T neg - very nice but definitely too much grain "crawl". That's my only personal issue with regular 16mm and Ultra 16: very little headroom for cropping/re-framing in post with high speed stock. Super 16 at least gives you some space for that. Great glass definitely is the key for low light situatuions. Christian
  25. Christian Schonberger
    P.S. it's mentioned on Vimeo: Arri 416. Now that's a serious film camera! That optical sound track at the start is a great idea - a very refreshing change from the usual film header, light leaks, scratches and sprocket holes (not to belittle that, but I think it's overused). Lenses? Looks like primes (main camera 20mm-ish?) Christian
×
×
  • Create New...