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
    Thanks. This was just very cheap stock expired in 1988. I was glad I got an image out of it at all. it came in non (!) tape sealed metal cans. Who knows where and how it was stored during 30 years? Yep: Since these were buildings and a "rehearsed" shot - like I always do if I can, I "bracketed" the shot (second time with half a stop more open = better). This serves perfectly for focus purposes, image stability, aview finder chart and learning how the camera behaves and feels. It was a lot of fun and I enjoy the funky colors (lots of yellow, orange and blue) of this vintage film stock. It was well worth it. BTW: got the E 100D rolls still at very reasonable prices. Now they are so expensive it's a joke (about 270.00 USD on Ebay one single 100ft roll plus shipping, saw a 400ft roll for over 800 USD). After my E 100D, if all turns out well, I'll go color negative of course. Thanks, Christian
  2. Christian Schonberger
    Here is a couple of frames of the underexposed stuff (not the worst):
  3. Christian Schonberger
    Mark, Thanks. That's actually the part that turned out well exposed. I thought this would be overexposed (panned from a shadow area - I had chosen a compromise f-stop (f-4) between both areas. I have more frame scans which are clearly underexposed by about two stops or more. Actual footage on its way back, had it processed by a specialist for old Eastern European and Russian film stock - surprisingly inexpensive, great find). That was the first thing I thought: edge fogging (forgot to seal the light meter inside, which wasn't light tight), but while filming, my face almost completely covers it. Will inspect the entire footage if that fogging is completely regular or if it has any kind of pattern such as build-up between shots. Or during time lapse experiments (1 fps by hand) where I left the camera alone, view finder completely covered. Thanks again, Christian
  4. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks a lot for the reply! On the L-398-A I can remove the dome and replace it either with a "lumidisc" or a "lumigrid" (which works without the hi slide and reads at the H-point). Yes I will use color film. The sky is a very deep blue already where I live (Lisbon, Portugal), especially in early summer without any haze and dust. Recently shot on some long expired (January 1988 to be precise) Orwo Chrom UT15 (25 ASA, rated at 12 ASA) color reversal - just for testing, not knowing if it still yields any image at all - it did! The clear afternoon skies came out an incredible, gorgeous deep blue, but that's the Orwo and the processing. I might go easy on the exposure with the Ektachrome 100D (dated 2009) and just overexpose perhaps by a half stop to make up for loss of sensitivity. I don't want the white parts of the clouds to blow. The E100D generally (judging my the many uploads on YT and Vimeo) doesn't render very saturated blues. Its strength IMHO are warm tones and lush greens. Here are some lo res frame scans of the actual footage (Yep: Super 16mm using double perf - it's just test footage I got very inexpensively and it serves to know exactly where the extended gate goes in relation to the perfs. This shot is actually (or better: should have been) "overexposed" in relation to most shots which are still underexposed - panned from a shadow area into a bright sunlit area, all at f-4). Opening one stop wasn't enough for this old film stock, but I couldn't have known. I was around f-4 already in bright afternoon sunlight. Notice the yellow cast towards the right of the frame: the emulsion already had changed unevenly. Anyway: Now that's a blue sky :-) Will upload the two 100ft rolls onto TY and Vimeo ASAP. Thanks again for the very helpful reply! Best wishes, Christian
  5. Christian Schonberger
    Hello all, Planning on doing some time lapse of clouds in the sky, summer afternoon sun, deep blue sky, well formed clouds, moderate telephoto, on Super 16mm color reversal (E 100D, dated 2009) How to measure the light with my Sekonic L-398-A? Measuring incoming light or pointing at the sky to be exposed (white dome) usually leads to underexposure. This light meter lacks spot metering. Any advice or even "rule of thumb" highly appreciated. Cheers, Christian
  6. Christian Schonberger
    Hello all, Just sharing a few K-3 impressions and asking one question: Just came back from a session of extensive K-3 camera/lighting testing, including view finder/focus and light metering. It's a sunny day. Film and scratch tests on old, unused footage looks good: no scratches. Still need to run the footage a couple more times to make sure. Upper loop was one perf short but it ran just fine and smoothly (no "beating" sound) at 24 fps - yet: that doesn't show how footage will actually turn out. BTW: I found out that - if you don't let the motor wind down to a halt - the camera transport mechanism always stops at the exact same point: view finder all clear and the pulldown claw exactly in the same position and all out. So the film won't slip between shots and loops should stay the exact same (that was the case with my first test run which I performed both with the mag cover open and closed (depressing the spring loaded pin with the same force (it can easily be measured by the film counter (no film loaded) which is attached to the loop former mechanism. I also found out that with the spring all wound down and the view finder blocked: just turn the winding "crank" a bit counterclockwise: bang: all in place - view finder open and pulldown claw out and in same position. Q: does anyone know the exact value of the ND filter that comes with the K-3? It has written: H-4x, which is probably meant to be a reduction of four f stops. It has the Zenit symbol and also has written: 77x0,75 . The latter probably refers to the dimensions. I measured the inside diameter of the filter thread: 77mm. I ran all kinds of spot metering with my Sekonic L 398-A, using both the luma disc and luma grid, with and without the filter completely touching the disc. I ran this test in various situations and at various ISO settings. I always came to the conclusion that the ND filter reduces (about) 2 1/2 stops - which is fine for me. Lots of intense sunlight here in Portugal during the long summers, a full four stops is a quite a lot, but I'd be fine with that as well. Just need to know the exact value. Can anyone confirm my ND filter readings? Any reply highly appreciated. Cheers, Christian
  7. Christian Schonberger
    Doug, Yep, looks like standard to me too (that would be a 50mm lens on (Super) 35mm, I am not fluent regarding Panavision lenses as employed by Spielberg's DoP back in the day). The one shot with Roy Scheider looks like a modest wide angle to me (depth of field, soft key light seems to come from the upper left hand side, harder back light seems to be a light source emphasizing the daylight through the window - no shadows on the walls visible, and the actor's face looks like it's quite close to the camera - but I might be wrong (Panavision is still unfamiliar for me to "read"). Yep: the bokeh on non-anamorphic widescreen looks great: round (depending on lens and shape of aperture/iris of course) - as opposed to vertical oval shapes. I must point out: I might be mistaken in places. Still tons to learn after all these years (without a chance to practice). Doing something about that as we speak :-) Cheers, Christian
  8. Christian Schonberger
    Nicholas, Well I am German-born, living for over 30 years in Portugal (Lisbon). I go way back to the days of Super 8mm. I started back in 1975 at the age of 14. I owned first a funky, fun Agfa Movexoom and made it eventually to a nice Beaulieu 6008S. Then in 1981 video came along and I said: no way! Starting now on Super 16mm with a modest, already modified K-3. After being at customs for about a month now - and finally all the paperwork done, I should receive it in a matter of days now. I am a pro musician, so I won't have much disposable income in the near future, but I'll take it step by step. I shall say: I am not a film purist. I simply happen to love film. Everything about it. Pure magic - and with modern hi res scanning it is way easier to share your work with fellow enthusiasts. I totally agree: I will at least do my film titles also on film (to match the look and feel). As a musician and living in an incredibly beautiful city, I shall have no problem finding things and people to point a camera at. At heart (besides being passionate about music) I am your typical hands-on DoP. Fate would lead me to music, and I never regretted it. I have been studying film (all aspects of it) as an "armchair film maker" for all my life - since 16mm was way out of reach for a long time. Still learning and highly appreciating anyone's efforts and sharing of information - I will share my own experiences ASAP on YouTube and Vimeo. Will keep you guys posted. Sure: a nice tripod and very likely a DYI dolly and other gadgets will eventually follow. I am also a huge fan of great, smooth handheld camera work. I'll need a wide angle lens with deep depth-of-field for that (not a fan of jittery footage with focus issues). No problem with fish eye distortion. So the Peleng 8mm is high on my "must have" list. I already have some projects planned, but first it will be test footage. Anything too ambitious will surely end in disaster (or unintended humor). I try not to get into it over my head, but I am confident that I will come up with some nice footage soon. Thanks again to everyone for kindly sharing your footage, most valuable information, knowledge, tips and tricks. All the best, Christian
  9. Christian Schonberger
    P.S. Disclaimer: the opinions in the YouTube video I mentioned above do not necessarily represent my own. Christian
  10. Christian Schonberger
    Well I hope it is O.K. to post these screen grabs here. I think these are excellent examples of classic cinema how to compose a widescreen image (in all cases 1:2,35 - anamorphic) which could work perfectly for the U.P. 8mm. Just imagine a little adjusting to the even wider format. Sure: these are carefully staged with pristine composition and blocking, but it is an example how for example a short film could be storyboarded for U.P. 8mm. That's what I meant with "not for close ups" - there's always more space to be filled. Nothing better than images to explain things: I took the screen grabs from an excellent YouTube video:
  11. Christian Schonberger
    Doug, Well this is a private video. Even though I have an account on Vimeo, I don't have access to this particular upload. Would love to see it (if possible). Well I might have said it wrongly: I meant: in this ulta wide ratio you can't have a close up of a face - not even "Sergio Leone style" with just the eyes - because you will always have room on the side(s). I fully agree: the small area won't allow for sweeping landscape panoramas with many "tiny" people in it. What I had in mind was what I saw on the uploaded footage: medium wide shots where no detail gets too small. Looks just fine! That's what my comment about close ups was about: you will always have space to the sides. Even in dialog scenes with two people - leveling the faces. Take for example a flower: too much space on the sides, but if you find a field of flowers which is fairly level - that would make a great composition. Crashing ocean waves would be another perfect example. Keeping things level is quite the challenge when you have few headroom top and bottom. I studied the existing online footage of "The Hateful Eight" regarding framing, lighting and composition. Well that pin sharp format allows for room up and down, so you can place a group of people or just one person (close up or semi) in a room and have lots of small details surrounding them. UltraPan 8 2.8 probably will look quite sharp and low grain in Vision 3 50D BTW! We basically talk about the exact same thing. Best, Christian
  12. Christian Schonberger
    Nicholas, Great looking footage! Aren't the old double 8mm spools a bit short in running time? (about 2x 1:30 minutes? = 1 x 1:30 minutes in UltraPan8 3.1 - and that's just 16 fps)? Another thing: on Vimeo (I think it's one of your uploads, can't seem to find it though) I saw 1960s vintage footage (Portugal) where 16mm film was used just like the old 2 perf 35mm Techniscope: half frame height. I wonder how the camera owner managed the pull down claw to catch each spocket hole twice and perfectly registered (it is an over scan so you can see it's standard 16mm with only one sprocket hole level with the frame line = every other frame line in the half pull down wide format). UltraPan 8 2.8 is an excellent idea. Just: in my humble opinion 200 ISO (even the modern V. 3 stock) is already a bit too much on the grainy and soft side. Colors, lights, shadows and shapes are beautifully rendered - evenly throughout the entire frame width, but the surface textures are basically just grain. The ultra wide format is not for close ups :-) I admit I have to get used to it since my eyes - involuntarily - still break down the frame to two regular 8mm frames (with no wasted space down the center I should mention) which actually look exactly like regular 8mm. Please note: this is my humble opinion only. Aesthetically I like it a lot, not to mention my appreciation for film enthusiasts who really come up with ideas that work and actually prove it by using it: I truly admire that! I can come up with theories all day. They are of no use until they are put into practice. Thanks for sharing the information and footage! Best, Christian
  13. Christian Schonberger
    Yep. But even with the cartridge (which IMHO should be discarded with any future high end Super 8mm camera anyway - to keep Super8mm still kind of "easy to use" without fiddly camera or mag loading, a Fuji Single 8mm type cartridge should be very seriously considered IMHO) you can use the re-usable GK-pressure plate which should prevent this. Anyway: just kicking around an idea.
  14. Christian Schonberger
    Yep, I mentioned the key code numbers. They have to be considered in Ultra 16mm as well - so even if there is only a little more space available between sprocket holes, it might be a good idea since the key code numbers don't occupy the entire space between sprocket holes (depending on film stock of course). The idea is: even with Max8 there is still a very considerable amount of cropping top and bottom necessary to obtain 1:1,78 or wider - and on Super 8mm every and each fraction of a millimeter counts. No problem with scanning since the half frame offset can be easily obtained with continuously running scanners using laser to synchronize the sprocket holes with the frames being scanned and the scanner gate is usually ready for a wide over scan. The camera: since there are new Super8mm cameras being built from scratch as we speak - and Super8mm "out of the cartridge" being seriously considered - to make that final necessary leap to bring Super8mm to its fullest potential, that's where the vertical sprocket offset might be considered. Film projectors such as the rather simple Bauer T18 (which I owned during a while) were able to switch from regular 8mm to Super 8mm, including the pull down height, frame size and position and the half frame offset. So that had been done already 40 years ago. Christian
  15. Christian Schonberger
    Yes, I read about the UltraPan 8 idea. Found some other footage on Vimeo a while ago. That's great and basically the 16mm equivalent of the older Techniscope (standard 35mm 2 perf pulldown) and current Super 35mm 2 perf. Only the first link still works. Very nice footage. I'd probably crop the sides a little to get 1:2.35 "Cinemascope" aspect ratio, the recent 1:2 ("House Of Cards" TV show) or the American cinema widescreen 1:1.85 - especially since lens aberrations are a little too visible on both sides - unless larger diameter lenses can be used - and the ultra wide format only lends itself to certain types of images/stiles of compositions. And yes: I had the exact same in mind: image stability/registration needs to be of high precision. Anyway: always fantastic seeing people coming up with these ideas that actually work very well. If I only were a skilled film camera technician.... As far as I know Wittner and Andec (both in Germany) and B+H (US) supply Double 8mm and Double Super8mm footage - Fomapan R 100 ISO (both formats), Orwo 100 ISO (can be developed in D-19, Double 8mm only as far as I know, but I am pretty sure Wittner can cut it to double Super8mm upon request, they have precision machines with very tight tolerances) black and white and Wittnerchrome 200D E-6 color reversal (both formats) - the latter being a little too grainy for any format smaller than standard 16mm IMHO. Still a great and feasible idea - looks very good on the sadly discontinued E 100D E-6! Thanks for posting the link to the thread - very interesting and informative! Christian
  16. Christian Schonberger
    Hi group, Just came up with an idea - and I am sure I'm not the first one, because it's kind of obvious: Why not thinking about "Ultra 8mm"? All it needs is a sprocket hole offset so it coincides with the frame line. Since Max 8 (Super Duper 8) is a "camera only" format, there should be no reason not to include the Super 8mm equivalent of "Ultra 16mm": Simply (= when constructing a new camera) expand the film gate to the entire usable width of film with the option for a sprocket hole offset (shifting the pulldown claw mechanism vertically by half a frame)? Sure: the Super 8mm sprocket hole is quite "high" and sandwiching an image between these would leave quite some wasted space. There's also the issue with the film code printed between sprocket holes. But it might be a good idea for shooting something resembling anamorphic widescreen. Sure: cropping needs to be as tight as possible and the film gate needs to be very clean: no headroom. Has this option been considered already? I attached a crude line drawing I made over the the Wikipedia image, showing two adjacent frames of the "Ultra 8mm" image. Just thought I'd share this. Hope it's not redundant. Thoughts? Christian
  17. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks a lot for the reply. Yep, I knew about the f-stop formula and that it is literally using focal length and aperture (I just couldn't remember what is divided by what). Thanks also a lot for pointing out the article. Excellent images to see how the blur appears gradually when the depth of field is very narrow. I only know extremely narrow depth of field from 150 year old metal plate silver stills photography: the eyes are sharp and the eye lashes are already blurred ;-) Thanks again, Christian Christian
  18. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks for the information. I always wondered how the depth of field is actually behaving. It is very likely some sort of distorted bell curve with the focus rolling off on both sides (obviously steeper on the near side and shallower on the far side - and the curve widening as the focal point moves farther away). I'm sure there are graphics showing how different lenses behave at different apertures and with different focal points, just like frequency and directional response curves for microphones. Would love to take a look, just to get a basic idea. I'm sure this is very complex taking lens aberrations and lens blur behavior/distortion (the good old bokeh) into account - not to mention what is considered truly acceptable (here come-in sensor pixel resolution, noise and data compression artifacts - and film grain structure and light bouncing artifacts within the emulsion layers in color film). Cheers, Christian
  19. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks for the information, David. You are very likely referring to focal lengths applied to a 35mm (type) sensor with 50mm being the "mid point" standard. So 15-40 would be a wide angle zoom, then a mid range zoom (around 50mm) and the brighter 45-120mm would be a mid range (standard) to moderate telephoto zoom, correct? Thanks again, Christian
  20. Christian Schonberger
    Mark and Brian, Thanks for the information! Christian
  21. Christian Schonberger
    Hi group, Well I was always wondering: Why don't lenses provide the F stop which exactly corresponds to the light actually hitting the film emulsion or sensor (not accounting for lens flare and other random factors, just the glass inside the lens)? So in reality: if I get an F stop value from, say, a light meter, I most likely will get it in T stop. Otherwise the "exposure triangle" would make no sense (to me that is). Looks like some lenses are reducing as much as one stop while others perhaps a third of a stop. There is some information for some lenses regarding the actual T-stop, but many don't come with that information - and even with that information: what to do? Now add certain filters and you're into some serious math.... The only thing that remains the same (F stop/T stop) is of course the depth-of-field/focus. Fully automatic digital cameras with 100% matching lenses (or built-in ones) most likely take all that into account (to varying degrees of success IMHO). But what about using different lenses with no electronics and a 100% manual exposure? With film, once it's in the camera (and you don't have a variable shutter angle) your only way(s) to control exposure is/are lighting, filters and F stop. Please let me know how you go about the F stop vs. T stop issue and avoid under exposure. As always: any reply highly appreciated. Christian
  22. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks again. Will try that when I have the chance. Christian
  23. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks a lot for your comprehensive reply! I do have a lot of experience with 35mm analog stills photography. I also shot one last roll of slide film (Kodak EliteChrome professional 100) back in 2007. It was very expensive since it had to be sent to a specialized lab which closed its doors since. Analog film is tough to get and expensive here in Western Europe. I have sold my trusty old Canons since they weren't that great to begin with (entry level with kit zoom lenses and an inexpensive Tamron telephoto-zoom 70-300). I go way back to the '70s though with the Zeiss Ikon from my dad (internal meter). I almost only shot available daylight outdoors and flash indoors. No studio lighting, but I experimented with mixed daylight through the window and artificial light or mixed with a flash on top (sometimes with a makeshift diffusor) - always looked great. Never fully manual BTW, just compensating when I felt it was right. I shot a lot of my miniature modeling work (which was a hobby of mine). I mostly shot on the consumer level Kodak Gold 100 neg. This O.K.-ish neg stock was rather forgiving. I never really was into stills photography - even though I studied it a lot, together with paintings from the old masters. I used it more to experiment with lenses, focus, composition and framing. I'm always thinking "motion picture film", which of course often has a very different framing (fixed aspect ratio/cropping, movement, dialog space, often knowing what is outside the frame etc.). I really like the art forms where time is involved (stage plays, films, animation and music). It's that unfolding, changing context and the rhythm which I love, either in classic structures ("three act" in film - or intro, verse, pre-chorus, chorus, bridge, chorus-repeated in pop music, or four movement structure in classical/symphonic music) or in more elaborate - or simpler - ways. Thanks again for sharing your insight, Christian
  24. Christian Schonberger
    Sure. It's just that shooting reversal is at the moment still an affordable option (processing/scanning/grading). I also happen to have some E 100-D (3x100ft) in the fridge. Love the look. For pure camera tests (view finder, focus, stability, vignetting, image area, light leaks, scratches, frame rate accuracy etc.) I will probably go with Tri-X. Again: I can get it developed/scanned and graded rater inexpensively in top notch quality. In the US there are far more options.... I'm located in the European Union. Vision 3 (which I plan on eventually using - it's awesome!) comes with deals of at least 4x100ft spools and the digital formats are limited to highly professional (and huge) image files which my current computer can't handle. I need to be prepared for that first. Cheers, Christian
  25. Christian Schonberger
    Thanks. Will do the best I can. I start with reversal stock so I can see the actual outcome. I'll ask for a balanced grading for the entire reel when getting it transferred. Then I will take it in baby steps. Of course I will eventually get my own image processing software. The idea is still: getting it as close to correct as possible in-camera. I (personally) kind of hate the idea that film is just the raw material to be fiddled and tweaked digitally. BUT I am well aware that modern "eyes" just as modern "ears" are all too used to perfectly graded (tweaked) images - including 'Lightroom CC' type masking, dodging and burning. Please just let me digress for a sec: I recently watched "Bridge Of Spies" on BluRay. The cinematographer was of course the fantastic Janusz Kaminski. This was shot on 35mm film - but I wasn't too fond of the color grading. It looks color-drained, tweaked, flat and leaning to he gray-blue-ish with a "digital look". Not "period feel" at all. Not sure what the intention was. I miss the days when film looked like film and people experimented (knowing what they were doing) with various film stocks and pushing/pulling or even cross-processing.... (just my personal opinion - who am I to comment on the work of such brilliant people! I am 100% serious).This all has very likely to do with the modern work flow of film making. No more film stock and labs to do all that great funky stuff! Imagine how it would have looked using something resembling 1950s-'60s East German or Russian film stock (ORWO!) with that typical "off" color palette.... Just sharing my humble thoughts. Here is a good example of that color palette: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FEBB9jnaUY Thanks again, Christian
×
×
  • Create New...