Christian Schonberger

Awesome! That's of course the Kodak Vision 2 500T. Yep: you need some really fast and great lenses for that. Love the colors, on par with the Fuji Eterna 500T! 7 years cold stored: should be no problem. Got thee 100ft spools of Vision 500T (date unknown, probably early 2000s, probably lost about a stop, won't have it pushed though: too grainy) in my freezer (got it for free from short ends - perfect for test footage: one needs to practice when shooting on film). Not shooting any concert footage with my humble modded (already took it apart and did some refining - will go even further by modifying the gate)S 16 K3 (not to mention the lenses I have which you can't just use wide open, image will become too soft, but I'll see what that stock still is capable of. But I digress. Anyway: thanks for sharing: this looks awesome! Great work! [Edit]: love the music production. Killer sound! Which camera and lens(es) did you use? Christian

Well I wasn't talking about film vs. digital. That debate is long over. Of course digital, still in its infancy compared to film, is getting better and better technically. I just happen to love the look of film for a lot of applications/projects. It draws me in and adds a lot to the emotion. In some cases I even prefer (Super)16mm to (Super)35mm. Just my own opinion. Film is a tool and IMHO it should still be a choice. That's all I'm saying. Last but not least: R&D for film has come to a screeching halt about a decade ago. In the 1950s 50ASA was considered "fast" - and it went on to 2000 ISO/ASA (500 pushed two stops). Cheers, Christian

Just watched some of this footage on YouTube (as far as I know only a standard definition DVD is available, hence the slightly soft appearance and no visible grain on YT). Looks a lot like the good old Fuji Etena 8673 500T to my eyes (what do you think?). Oustanding footage! Thanks for pointing this out. Christian

Thanks for the replies. Yup: already back in the day when the Arrfflex 16 ST and BL cameras still were used for news coverage (I did small jobs at the TV station, including being a runner from the film editing room to the live telecine) they shot at 25 fps for PAL STDV. So you got about 11 minutes out of a 400ft (120meters) mag. Too bad they used that muddy, grainy Kodak VNF reversal for that. Well it had to be sensitive, cheap, in-house 'processable' (if that is a word) and reversal, to be slapped together on a Steenbeck flatbed editor. Some YouTube comments like "I'm glad they got rid of film" refer to this poor quality film stock. Have a fan restoration project on BluRay (Genesis, London Rainbow 1973)- from a faded-to-red/magenta16mm print (!) Looks awesome. Color restoration/grading is ace. Sound was replaced from various sources (all stereo soundboards on cassette tape - at least way better than mono optical sound). And yep: that's what I would do (and thought correctly that it is done this way): make sure the cameras start at different times. Not sure about close ups (zoom-telephoto). I guess the camera operator only shoots when they are all set and in focus. On stage hand held is obviously a wide angle prime, 10mm-ish on 16mm (?). Will check on the concerts you mentioned above. Thanks for the replies, Christian

Hello group, Just a thought - very likely not feasible: Disclaimer: the following is my personal opinion only. Well I am a huge fan of good rock concert footage and since forever I feel true relief when I see that it was actually shot on film. I always disliked the old broadcast video for that particular purpose and I still dislike the modern digital video. There are a number of rock/pop concerts (and classical as well) shot on film back in the day. It must have cost a fortune and probably was hard work to change the magazines every 11 minutes (or so) for each camera - real fast. Needless to say: a lot of live footage was padded (no coverage) or incomplete. Yet even old transfers from 16mm to standard definition (say: early 1980s) look so much better than anything on video from the time (I count the 1990s as well). I fully understand that young folks are so used to digital that film would not even be considered. I know the trouble with the lighting as well when it's a closed venue or night time footage. Yet I always wondered: there are quite a few bands from way back in the day (getting fewer each year) that still perform and release DVDs/BluRays that very obviously were very expensive to make - not to mention the entire live recording being processed and mixed in a high end studio after the fact. So I was just wondering how anyone would solve the logistics to shoot a concert on film and how much it would cost (just as a thought). The lighting very likely has to be adjusted (as seen on some rare 35mm concert footage, which looks awesome). The solution to cut down on film cost is obviously going Super 16mm (which neatly solves the problem of dust, fluff or hair trapped in the film gate to a large extend) or 35mm 2 perf. Film stock obviously would have to be the Kodak V 3 500T, pushed one or two stops - fast cinema lenses are obviously a must have. To achieve as much coverage as possible I think a four camera setup (including one hand held on stage), plus a fifth camera for padding (obviously audience reaction and the likes) sounds reasonable. Shooting ratio then would be a little over 4:1 when carefully planned. I'm not sure why this hasn't been done by any band, who can afford five trucks worth of equipment. Yes: a two hour concert would need a lot of pre loaded mags - all with matching film stock - and obviously matching cameras and lenses. Any idea why this never had been made in the past two or three decades (as I know of) besides from no one thinking about it and no film crew being truly prepared for that very reason (lack of demand)? I am talking about legendary bands (or reunion concerts for that matter) with huge budgets, that recorded on video what they (and many others, including myself) think of as treasures to be preserved for the ages. Just take into consideration how much money has been spent on stage design, lighting, and sound + custom music instruments. Why hasn't ever any film director approached a band with the idea to shoot on film in the past decades? Perhaps some did - unsuccessfully? I surely haven't seen any new film footage of concerts for a very long time. Now we have tons of great live performances on video (which IMHO looks bad up until the early 2000s - and even that is only technically great, IMHO, not aesthetically). I own quite a few concert DVDs and I always think: how much more awesome this would look on film, since I own also BluRays with film footage (16mm and 35mm) from the 1970s and '80s. Needless to say that IMHO it looks awesome. I just can't get over the video look. As for recent "footage", no matter how crisp and detailed: it always looks like an afterthought - like a TV broadcast. Not trying to beat a dead horse here, nor resurrect anyting. Just wondering... Again: this is just my personal opinion - and I fully respect others. Thanks for reading. Any additional thoughts about budget and logistics appreciated (just a thought experiment). Thanks in advance, Cheers, Christian

David: Thanks. The Éclair NPR makes a lot of sense for a documentary back in the 1970s. The camera model doesn't appear in the IMDb technical specifiations section. I already provided this kind of information to IMDb for older, lesser know films, backed up by the director's DVD comment track and photos of the camera operator on set - it had been accepted. A lot to be done for older movies (espeially considering how much detail is provided for films made in the last 20 years or so). Dom: Thank you for the information. Will definitely look into this zoom lens. Christian

Thanks a lot! Yes, that is definitely the camera. I had never seen a Mitchell type external mag in this position. I was also wondering about the stick operated zoom lens (Zenit Meteor Krasnogorsk style, which of course it couldn't have been). Very likely not an Angenieux, but I didn't want to get too much into detail. Just didn't know about that particular camera. I reckoned that it was an actually fully functional 16mm film camera (not just a prop), since Coppola also made a documentary in parallel on 16mm cameras (source: my own old eyes and IMDb), so these cameras were on location. Thanks so much for the fast response. Much appreciated! Christian

Hello group, Well I was always wondering what camera model the filming crew, with Coppola himself as the director, was using in 'Apocalypse Now'. Looks a lot like a 16mm film camera with electric motor and pilot tone cable going to the tape recorder, 16mm film - judging by the width of the (400ft?) external mag and of course this was the format used by TV news crews at the time. Doesn't look like an Arriflex or an Éclair. Mitchell perhaps? Screengrabs are from a YouTube film analysis video, so I guess it's O.K. to post it here. I have chosen the two frames where the camera model can be seen most clearly. Never seen this model before. Any reply highly apprecdiated - simply out of curiosity. Thanks in advance, Christian

O.K. here is a photo of how I did it. Below are the two parts (silver colored pin and spring loaded mechanism to release the aperture/iris mechanism when pushed-in) that I simply removed. Note on right side: I put the two screws back in to minimize numer of unnecessary holes in the lens. It works 100%. Hope this helps. Lets' see how the Zenitar performs. Best, Christian

Hi again, Just tried to push in the pin and put it slightly to the side: didn't work. I tried to push it in gently to get it back out again: bang: it fell inside the lens. Fortunately I got some nice watchmaker tools and I removed the three screws. I got it: the pin activates a spring loaded side lever (thin black steel) that acts on an inside pin (spring loaded itself, and that spring got loose, but I managed to put it back in place with watchmaker tweezers). The iris/aperture works perfectly on its own. So I removed the pin/lever mechanism on the plastic part that holds the inside filters, placed back the two screws (to minimize any open holes - and assembled everything back again: voilá: works perfectly! Not for the faint of heart, but a K-3 owner needs to be at least some sort of fine mechanic. Anyone who can afford a skilled camera technician wouldn't buy a K-3 in the first place :-)

Hmm, that sounds great - will try that. The 16mm Zenitar is an excellent wide® angle lens allowing to go closer to the subject and do some nice, smooth hand held very few barrel distortion. I would have bought the Peleng 8mm but the barrel distortion is just too much. It is O.K. (I think) for static shots and slow tracking along the optical axis. Things look weird and u-cinematic (for my taste) when doing pans, tilts and steacam style hand held, orbiting the subject. The Zenitar is a very good compromise. Thanks again!

Thanks. Yep. I have some thick styrene sheet (which I even can stack for added strength) used for miniature and architecture models. Guess I'll cut out a big enough form that fits and distributes the forces, so I can use gaffer tape. I don't want to use any super glue or anything that damages the lens itself. Yes: a steel disc sounds good, but as you said: it would affect the height of the rear screw-on filter, which needs to be screwed down all the way. There must always be one in place, even the clear glass one. Thanks for the reply.

Hello all, Just received my Zenitar 16mm lens for my K-3. Not a huge wide angle, but exactly what I was looking for. Good enough for smaller spaces and run and gun. Much less barrel distortion than what I had expected. There is a spring loaded metal pin which must be pushed-in so the aperture/iris will work. Mounted on the K-3 it remains protruding and the aperture does not work. I am thinking about taping it over, using a small plastic sheet part that doesn't interfere with the rotating mirror. I am afraid that the gaffer tape will come off inside the camera though - causing irreparable damage. Any suggestions how to keep the pin pushed in securely will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Christian

Found this on Vimeo. Seems like Pro8mm are collaborating with "Retro 8", a Japanese company. This Super 8mm footage looks great: Guess we won't be seeing this film stock in 16mm anytime soon though :-( Cheers, Christian

David, Thanks for the tips! Fuji Provia 100F? So is Fuji back in business or did another manufacturer acquire the emulsion formula? That sounds awesome! Even more so because the Provia can be processed with the widely available E-6 (same as the Ekatchrome 100D and the Wittner Chrome 200D, the latter surprisingly yielding good (though still far from great) results when slightly overexposed, at least in situations with no harsh highlights). I'll definitely will check on the Provia (hopefully soon to come in 16mm). I truly like the Kodak Vision 3 neg stocks, but a top quality alternative with that unique reversal look would be a most welcome addition. Wittner Chrome 200D 16mm overexposure test (Canon Scoopic) by Kevin from Gauge Film, UK: Thanks again, Cheers, Christian

Here is an excellent offer on Ebay. I already bought 16mm film stock from this seller. Highly recommended: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kodak-Ektachrome-100D-7285-Reversal-16mm-film-400ft-Single-Perf-freezer-stored-/231975960253?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276

Well I really would love to help. I am fortunate enough to still have another reel of E 100D reserved for me (I can't afford it right now, but my supplier is a cool guy). I know it's very expensive and very sought after. Seen a 400ft reel for over USD 800 on Ebay ('buy it now' option only). 100ft reels, if you find them at all, go for way over USD 200! Crazy! I love that film stock myself. I will ask my supplier (ebay seller and a fellow 16mm user) if he has access to some more affordable E 100D. He loves cross processing and more experiments with expired film stock for himself. Can't promise anything though. I wish I could be of more help. The Kodachrome footage I posted was shot by Dennis Toeppen, the YouTube encyclopedia of 16mm film stocks :-D The blue/cyan bias in the shadows seem to be part of the Kodachrome look. I'm sure there are experts on these boards who know it much better than I do. Anyway: I fully agree: Kodachrome was a dream! My all time favorite film stock for (bright) daylight - by far! Not just "romantic, nostalgic" - it was killer! Repeating myself (might be the age LOL) I look at modern top notch documentary/travel footage (National Geographic style) on 4K digital. Very nice! I just imagine how much more breathtaking it would look if shot with, say an Arriflex 416 and made-for-35mm lenses ("Carol" style) - on Kodachrome and scanned at 4K RAW. The grain would be fine enough to look like a good 35mm print. Oh well.... Will keep you posted on the E 100D. No promises though.... Cheers, Christian

Dwaynes and Andec are excellent labs from what I saw on the YouTubes. Flashing film to control contrast: Wow, sounds like one really needs to know exactly how to do that. Yup: old expired film very often has fogging. The problem is that it is very likely uneven. Just got some 30 year old Orwo-Chrom UT15 reversal back from the lab (original chemicals). Lost a lot of sensitivity ( I already opened more than one stop and it still wasn't enough) and the hue is a bit uneven in places. Some serious "migration" also in places. It was very cheap anyway and more than good enough for tests. Kodachrome: I just love it. It has (had) that special magic to it - everything looks just beautiful and almost "3D". That slight blue or sometimes cyan-ish tint in the shadows is more than fine with me. Looks awesome and lasts very long. But I'm preaching to the choir :-D

Sorry, typing error, the Kodachrome 16mm footage was exposed and processed in 2010.

Hmmm, not sure about this. Check the following 16mm amateur footage by Gauge film, UK. They are known for top notch E-6 processing and faithful HD scans with the Muller HD: If anything, caucasian skin tones lean towards yellow (I asked them: it is E 100D). Flat non-log scan: Kodachrome: love it to death, but it isn't faithful at all (IMHO). Shadows turn blueish (Kodachrome LUTs even imitate exactly that). Still one of my all time favorites for that incredible, gorgeous (but not necessarily true to life) look. Check this (the later sunlight scenes), processed and scanned in 2001: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvMgGpcSNIo

So that means two stops, like 200 ASA/ISO becoming 50 ASA/ISO. So my light meter reading was correct? Thanks for the reply. Christian

Mark: thanks for the information. I will have the E 100D scanned and graded - so no prob. Love the lush greens, yellows and true shadows of the E 100D - but I have also seen some footage with nice saturated colors all over the spectrum (fantastic blues and reds) and very balanced - quite similar to the Vision 3 neg stocks. Yes: the E 100D was great. Heikki: Just shot some of the expired Eastman EXR 50D. Overexposed 1:1/3 stop and when in doubt I even opened a little. Might not have been enough. Sunlight is very intense where I live, so I was almost always between f-8 and f-11 (shutter speed at 24fps 1/60th -150 degree angle). Plenty of room to add three stops next time. Thanks for the tip. BTW: Guess I'll need to use my ND filter (came with the K-3) when shooting with the E 100D. Couldn't figure out the reduction though. It says: H-4x. I measured with the flat white lumidisc and it indicated exactly two stops of reduction at all times. Could this be correct (I measured for incidental light) ? Just by eyeballing it seems about right - but the human eye can be deceiving. Couldn't figure out what 4x means. Google doesn't come up with anything useful. Any tip very highly appreciated. Instruction booklet says nothing :-/ Cheers, Christian

John, Thanks for the reply and information. The "© 2001" very likely doesn't refer to the actual year of production. A slight (!) magenta bias should be O.K. since fresh E 100D seems to have a slight bias towards green-yellow. Seen everything from recent HD scans to video-taped from projection on YouTube and Vimeo: always the same slight green-yellow bias (it's very pleasant though). So that's almost exactly the complementary color. Nothing that couldn't be re-graded in post anyway as long as it isn't severe. O.K. Will expose it at the correct ASA/ISO rating then. I have no intention to blow my highlights :-) BTW: got (for free) a couple 100ft reels from a short end of 16mm Eastman EXR 50D neg. No exp. date. I'll use it for test footage only. My guesstimate is: mid 1990s at best (it's been around since 1989 so I read). Of course: no idea how it has been stored over the years. I take the risk and hit it with a healthy dose of added exposure. I'll go for + 1.1/3 stop (one click below 25 ASA/ISO on my light meter) to both compensate for sensitivity loss and a slight overexposure to minimize shadow grain. Both reels come from the exact same short end. Should be O.K. for test footage done in the bright summer sun (plenty of room for overexposure) - and I'll send one reel for processing and scanning before I expose the second one - damage control ;-) Thanks: will check the edge printing after processing. Some Eastman print stock only reads: "Eastman" in yellow-on-tranparent on the perf side edge BTW.... since the E. EXP 50D is camera stock it should be a little more comprehensive. Thanks again! Cheers, Christian

Hi all, Just a question: WeIl I still have three unopened 100ft rolls of 16mm Kodak Ektachrome 100D in my freezer. Love that film stock! Got it still at reasonable prices a few months back. One is © 2001 and two are © 2009. No exp. date. I'm planning on using one roll (the 2009 stock) for shooting our band during sound check on stage, run and gun style (outside, sunlight - very likely the weather will be clear skies). The film stock seems to have been stored properly. Still: my Q: should I compensate for film speed (sensitivity) loss? If it was neg, I'd simply rate the 2009 stock about 70-80ASA and the 2001 stock about 50 or even lower. Kind of afraid to blow my highlights, since it is reversal, but underexposed it would look very grainy (at the moment I only can afford a 2K scan with the Muller HD at Gauge Film, UK. They always do a really great job, maintaining the grain structure and look, but compensating in post for wrong exposure only goes so far). The footage will be Super 16mm and meant to be used for 1080p uploads (YouTube, Vimeo). Any tips highly appreciated! Thanks! Cheers, Christian

Mark, Just wondered: your picture shows (very likely yourself) with a sweet Srriflex 16 S/ST. Any chance you would like to share any of your 16mm footage? This question is also meant as a general one: I'd love to see some film footage from some of the forum members. I am fully aware that self promotion (including YouTube channels and Vimeo accounts) should not be posted here, so I refrain from doing that. I will upload my footage - with "commentary track" what I shot, how and why - and what I learned. A lot of great (as well as not quite so great) film footage on YT and Vimeo, but rarely with complete information. Any idea how anyone willing to share their film footage can do so and perhaps post a link here? Just want to do the right thing and respect people's privacy. Thanks and Cheers, Christian