Christian Schonberger

Thanks Wiliam! Not pedantic at all! Even with great cameras like the Arriflex SR series one has to work with an inching knob to check if everything is perfectly aligned and running smoothly (to say nothing of the cumbersome loading of the mags. I'll do that with all the care in the world, with a smile on my face - just thinking about how the footage will look on glorious film! I'm a "no pain, no gain" and "no budget: work around it the best you can" - guy. Not that I am a masochist LOL, I just know that film takes a lot of care and skill. The magic will appear eventually ;-) Now: anyone who wants to get rid of an Aaton Minima, Arriflex SR3 or 416? Please throw it (carefully) my way ;-) ;-) ;-) Cheers, Christian

John, Ah: Ansel Adams (zone system - gray scale from black to brightest details - kind of like the analog forerunner of a histogram)? Love his work. Who doesn't? Well I'm afraid I won't have any digital equipment to assist me. I have to do it all old school (for the time being). Thanks for the information, Christian

Thanks Mark! I am afraid of the washers, the wind up wheel attached to the plate and the sprocket wheel which has two screws and needs to be perfectly aligned in height. Please tell me more about the process if it's not too much to ask (I only know the well known black and white tutorial on YouTube). My concern is: if the pull down claw isn't engaged, the loop formers, closing in again) can cause the film to "slip" at the film gate (I guess). Thanks a lot! Cheers, Christian

Hi group, Just did some more research on the K-3 (mine is still stuck at customs, should arrive next week...). I found out that one main problem with the K-3 is that the loop formers retract when the spring loaded plunger is pressed (to check if the film runs smoothly), but they will return into position (squeezing the film) when the plunger is released and only retract (=open) again when the door presses against the plunger. So the loops might be gone bad. I refrain from disassembling the camera (seen it on YouTube: no way I'll attempt that). I also refrain from simply hacking off the loop formers and plunger. I am toying with the idea to come up with a way to keep the plunger down once I know the film runs smoothly. This also prevents pressure on the door (which I will seal with camera tape anyway). Any ideas (other than using sticky duct tape each time) how to keep the plunger down with some DIY method - without causing any kind of damage or risk of metal parts (filing, sawing etc.) getting into the camera? It is out of the question getting a "pro" upgrade (removed loop formers and servicing, polishing of parts) since it would again involve customs, hassle, waiting time and more money than the camera itself is worth. While I'm at it: I never understood why blowing air into the camera or mag would be of any use. Wouldn't it be much better to use a soft paint brush and a small, battery powered vacuum cleaner to make sure the dust really gets out of the way (instead of inside the camera/mag mechanism)? Just asking :-) Any reply appreciated, Christian

Hope you don't mind me chiming in. Just a suggestion (I have no affiliation whatsoever!): Here is the contact of a true expert on Soviet/Russian film cameras, and does full servicing and conversions to an array of classic film cameras (he is also a forum member): I'm sure he knows his Kinor 35C: Olex Services: https://sites.google.com/site/olexserviceskonvas/

P.S. - just now did I see the reputation points (face palm!). I will make sure in the future to give positive reputation points to any post made with good intentions :-) Thanks again, Christian

Igor and John, Thanks a lot. My light meter came with very basic instructions (I knew everything already from YouTube videos) and only described the functions. My trouble with light metering goes way back to books about photography: none of these were truly professional. I knew that the camera thinks "in gray" and all that. I only found one half decent article in a magazine dedicated to amateur film making - it talked about coming from a dark room in to bright daylight: never close your aperture while filming (that looks horribly amateurish) - let the daylight be overexposed while moving the camera into it, then cut to a correctly exposed shot. The "trouble" I have is: if we meter all kinds of light sources and take the "average" - isn't that similar to "thinking everything should be gray"? I love the contemporary low key cinematic look of being slightly underexposed (or exposed for the actor's faces only) and probably very carefully placed, soft fill lights and back lights to provide enough interest to even allow for lack of shadow detail (which should be much less of a problem with modern negative film stock). I remember that many movies and tv shows everywhere until abut the mid 1970 had that "deer caught in the headlight" look (some cheap TV soap operas still have that look) where eveything is way overlit and flat. I understand:the technology (TV and many generations of film copies and prints) didnt allow for subtle lighting and many a movie ended up with a "dark gray soup" where shadow detail should have been. My main concern for now is filming outdoors during the "golden hour". It is still my favorite and very flattering, especially away from big cities - where no high buildings block out the light. There is it: I probably understand much more about lighting than abut how to get it to look right on film. No "bracketing" possible as many stills photographers do. I might also use my cheap digital stills camera and see what it has "to say" (matching the framing, ISO setting to the film stock and the shutter speed of course). The "just get out and shoot - get to know your film stock, lenses, camera and lighting situations" is a great idea, but hardly applicable when film stock is expensive and feedback takes a long time. I don't mind the hassle and cumbersome procedure - it's part of being a "no budget" film maker and when you get it "just right" with a great looking film stock - it's worth all the hassle in the world, besides providing a true sense of accomplishment. I know some talented professional film makers (mostly TV commercials and music videos), but to be honest (let me put it mildly): they are rather evasive and rather not talk about what they do and why - only talking about gear - if at all. I understand their protectiveness. Film schools highly benefit from it :-) If I had the time and $$$, I definitely would take cinematography (on film!) classes. I am not over my head here - I studied photography/cinematography for all my life the best I could. Most information, unfortunately, is just about the results and how it should look - not about how to get it on film (or video). It has dramatically improved since my young years, when information was very hard to come by. I think by sharing valuable information one contributes to raising the standards. I am most grateful for finding forum members willing to share their knowledge! I will return the favor (sharing my own experiences) as soon as I get the chance. Thanks again, highly appreciated! Christian

Hello group, Just got my Sekonic L 398 A. The classic external light meter. I am browsing the web for weeks on external light metering and all I see is people measuring the incidental light with the white dome, pointing at the camera (hmmm....). That's all fine but I couldn't find anything about different methods - for example: landscapes, complex lighting with fill lights/reflectors, back lights, sunsets, beach scenes during sun set with complex lighting (light bouncing off the rocks, people moving, sun just out of the frame, etc.). Way too much "information" about staged, posed or studio situations in stills photography (a lot of it seems dead wrong BTW!) and way too few about cinematography where things are moving and one needs to decide what is the most important area (or find a good average exposure - I know: on neg film blown highlights are not as bad as crushed shadows, reversal is unforgiving on both sides....). I won't use the camera's internal meter at all (which will be way off anyway). So how do I measure the incoming (reflected) light and use some common sense (such as making up a stop or two for the sun, snow, exterior light coming through windows, the usual drill...). Do I hold the light meter with the white disc (instead of the dome) in front of my lens - to emulate an internal meter? Do I screw on the grid which also comes with the light meter? Any input where to get reliable and comprehensive/complete information (I'll study and learn - and practice, but obviously not right away on expensive, rare film stock, waiting for it to return!) highly appreciated. Christian

Just checked it out. Seems there are only two choices for the K-3: The 8mm Belomo Peleng and the (probably inferior) 16mm Zenitar. I discovered some footage on YouTube and Vimeo with the K-3 and the 8mm Peleng. Looks great on 16mm! Just what I was looking for. Should be great on a sunny day with the f stop down f/16. At the moment this lens is not as cheap as stated in some older reviews (about the same price as the camera with zoom lens and all accessories - taking shipping and customs into account) so I'll wait until I'm 100% sure the camera works and runs well. And yep: I will make sure it comes with the M42 screw mount (not always the case!). Thanks again, Christian

Thanks, will check it out! Christian

Hi group, Did my research and I found out that it seems to be very hard to find a good wide angle lens for the K-3 (M 42 1 screw mount). Added obstacle: mine is Super 16mm (re-centered lens). I'd love to have a nice prime lens with a focal length of anything between (say) 8 to 16mm without fish eye distortion - and one that won't break the bank, so I can get some nice handheld shots without being too shaky, having focus issues (almost all uploaded K-3 footage has focus issues when the subject is close) and being too "removed" from the viewer. Any advice, tips where to look, highly appreciated. Christian

Doug and aapo. thanks for the information! C.

Thanks Mark. Yep, I remember panchromatic B/W film from the old days of photography (a few of my friends had their own labs at home) and the use of color filters to dramatically change the result. I prefer color film stock for motion pictures I am planning on. I do like fine grain B/W though - for example to make the (motion) film equivalent of fine art photography. Never found anything except test or unfinished footage though - and a Super 8mm film (shot on Canon double Super8 - surprisingly clean, sharp and steady) that won a Super 8mm short film contest way back in 1981, projected with a Bauer T 610. B/W also still pops up in music videos here and there. For some reason always in slow songs. Perhaps because it is more suitable to establish a certain mood (or period feel) and to focus on textures and lighting as opposed to fast moving subjects.... Cheers, Christian

Thanks for the information. That explains it. Christian

Hello group, Just one Q: why are there two different ASA values for black and white film stock (tungsten and daylight)? I understand that for color film stock since filters are used (either 80A or 85, both taking away light), but what about black and white? Is it the color temperature (say: 3200 vs. 5000-ish Kelvin) that directly affects the sensitivity/film speed? Any reply appreciated, Christian

Thanks a lot! I'm heading into the right direction :-) Cheers and Happy Easter! Christian

Thanks. That would be Kodak Tri X black and white reversal (can be processed with R-19, so that's covered). Already checked: Still expensive here in Europe (over 70 USD one spool plus shipping - much cheaper in the US, but I would have to pay customs and higher shipping charges). I thought about the Orwo UN 54 which is considerably more affordable (can get it processed as reversal = 125 ASA - and scanned at very reasonable prices, that's covered too). I can get fresh Orwo film stock from Andec, Germany, but they don't say if its 1R or 2R. Need to check on Monday. The only uploaded footage of exactly this film stock processed as reversal was double perf... (looks great BTW!). I would need 1R (Super 16mm). I might consider buying it for test footage even if it's double perf (2R). What image would be inside the right hand sprocket holes is guesswork..... Talk about being on a "no budget" :-/ :-) Thanks! Christian

Hello group, Just a quick(-ish) question: I am planning on doing some serious test footage with my humble S 16mm converted K-3 (still didn't arrive yet - almost!). Especially regarding camera reliability, accuracy of the view finder, focus and how much off the frame rate actually is (I'll simply film an accurate clock with a 'jumping' second hand and count the actual frames - just a few seconds should be fine). The only way is using reversal film stock, closely observed. Road block: the only easily available reversal film stock (which I can get developed at very reasonable prices) is the Wittner/Agfa 200D - which has an estar base. I'm a little reluctant regarding jamming and losing loops. It doesn't break and might ruin the camera (besides not telling me how acetate stock would behave - besides having a different drag which might affect the actual frame rate together with image stability and eventual sources of scratching/rubbing). I have some E 100D (E-6), but this is way too precious for camera tests (for me). Black and white acetate stock perhaps? Should be a lab process which is easily available. Home processing is still out of the question. Any input and experience shared highly appreciated! Cheers, Christian

Yep, the Krasnogorsk-3. It's meant to be my entry model. Let's see. Opinions are mixed and I know its limitations all too well. If excessive UV radiation alters the film's hue, it can be re-graded in post (I know, film is about getting it right in-camera). I will delve a little deeper into UV protection. Summers are hot where I live (Portugal, Atlantic coast) and UV radiation is strong here. Cheers, Christian

Ari and John: Thanks a lot for the information. Great! Well I can see a system here: The old DIN standard for film sensibility uses an increase by three whole numbers for each stop: 100 ASA = 21 DIN. 200 ASA = 24 DIN (one stop gained). Yep, the UV and IR issues. Will need to check with the film stocks I am planning to use (not that much choice anyway as we speak). Got 3x 100ft E 100D (E-6) in my fridge - waiting to be used for something more than just test footage... Quite the challenge nailing the exposure with reversal stocks (moving images!). Let's see how it turns out. Thanks a lot, Christian

Thanks Jay! Didn't know about the ND value numbers (.6 = 2 stop reduction). Will look into that. Two stop reduction would be just perfect. Thanks again, Cheers, Christian

Hi group members, Just a quick question: My K-3 is finally on its' way (after customs paperwork). It comes with all the usual filters. One is very important for me: the ND filter. Here in Portugal sunlight is very bright and intense. I couldn't find any information about how many stops I will 'lose' with the neutral density filter. Online translated K-3 instructions only mention the filter, but no value is provided. I thought about using the spot metering in my analog Sekonic, pointing it at a bright wall (or various objects for that matter) and compare the f-stop readings with and without the filter held over the meter. Does this method work? Any input highly appreciated, Christian

Glad to be of help. Anything you'd like to know: just holler! Synthesis definitely is my gig! :-) C. P.S. oops, error. Frequency modulation: the modulator acts on the x-axis of course (just like good old FM radio). The y-axis is loudness (=amplitude). No z-axis here.

Absolutely no beginner question. Of course there are computer generated, unique sounds that use no samples and don't imitate/emulate any physical instrument. Two methods come to mind: 1) physical modeling. This method needs a LOT of CPU power if used to emulate real instruments without samples, that's why the results are still unsatisfying, even though the concept are decades old. 2) graintable (granular) synthesis. Imagine it as a series of "frames", just like film. The waveform changes are visible in a 3D model. This method goes back to the late '70s/early '80s and was pioneered by the PPG keyboards. And of course the two traditional synthesis methods, which can be vastly expanded in a virtual instrument/synth: 1) subtractive synthesis: a basic single cycle waveform (such as triangle, square, pulse and sawtooth or any imaginable shape in the digital realm), rich in overtones is filtered and can be manipulated with other waveforms. 2) additive synthesis: either as sine waves being added (each with its own loudness contour - the underlying concept is the Fourier analysis of sound, just reverse-engineered = synthesized) or as FM (frequency modulation) synthesis - where one waveform (Modulator) modulates the frequency (z-axis) of another waveform (Carrier) or more. You might want to check out modern virtual synthesizers such as the Absynth which creates truly complex soundscapes in surround sound (if desired), not rooted in the "real world". Hope this helps, Christian

Agreed. There are some rather "stagey" movies which are very obviously adapted stage plays or done this way (ensemble cast in a confined space). Some of these actually work extremely well because the camera work is ace (and of course story, dialog and acting). I am a huge fan of the original "Twelve Angry Men" which is an adaptation of a live television play of course. I also like the original "Sleuth" a lot. Same goes for hitchcock's "Rope" which was intended to be "canned theater", but it works: the camera work and the look and feel of the film stock turn it into first rate cinema. About the film grain and overall image: back in the day the director and DoP had little control over how a movie was actually seen. Poor quality and /or worn faded (the horrible '70s Eastman print stock that loses the cyan layer in only a few years and looks red/magenta!) 35mm prints, pan and scan or cropped 16mm prints.... later VHS. None of this was truly intended. I tend to like a film when it is as close as possible to what the director and DoP actually intended: a fresh, clean release print in the intended format. There are horrible BluRay editions with tweaked colors and grain reduction to make them look more "modern". I'm happy to see efforts like the "de specialized" versions of the original Star Wars Trilogy, done in painstaking detail by skilled enthusiasts, using low fade 35mm prints as the color grading reference and even a 16mm Scope print as a reference for the subtitles as they were in the 1977 original. There is a fine line between what was actually intended and what the film makers simply had to cope with. Also: the grain structure is different on each release print, both in pattern and intensity. Another example (intended format, look and feel) is Hitchcock's "Psycho". He made it with a television crew in black and white to give it some sort of gritty B-movie look. Just check Bernard Herrmann's brilliant score. Just strings! No other instrument. Herrmann was a violinist, so he knew how to write for the string section - bringing out all the colors and expression! Genius! First time I watched Psycho (didn't air on tv for many years) was through Super 8mm digests - very grainy and each version (there was a 60 meter silent and a 120 meter sound version that I know of) had a different look. The grain was a little too intense (cheap Orwo film stock) but a nice 16mm print with the correct aspect ratio probably would have been the closest to what Hitchcock intended. I have seen the restored BluRay version. It looks fabulous, pin sharp, clean and it is more immersive than any version I have seen before - but I would love to see a nice 16mm print. I actually owned some 16mm prints, including "Gentleman's Agreement". This one looked fabulous on 16mm. Just enough clarity, yet that silky look without true deep blacks (not needed) and warm optical sound, even the noise floor was sweet because it's not an annoying hiss. Of course it was an excellent print (a former rental print, sold to collectors by established sellers - those still exist BTW) with some scratches and splices so it was affordable for me back in the day). Sure: for a large screen the resolution wouldn't have been sufficient. I have no idea how these prints (very likely at least two generations away from a 35mm release print) look to younger people. 16mm color prints are another story. Some look horrible (shadows are washed out by a haze and the color palette leans towards cyan and yellow - no rich greens and reds - and strange browns) - these were hastily made with at least one generation too many. But in general: I am not the "the sharper, cleaner and true to life, the better" guy. The look of a certain kind of film stock and format is very much part of a film for me. Not sure how it works today. Probably many a DoP shakes the head when seeing what the color grader did in digital post.... back in the day at least the film makers were aware of how their films would look like on final release prints on the various formats in use. About musical instruments: yep, they all are limited in one way or another, but that adds to the character. A high Eb (written F) on a Bb trumpet sounds very different from the same note played on a piccolo trumpet. It's the effort to play that note on the Bb trumpet that makes it sound so powerful in certain styles (jazz, funk, latin). Same with violins: a leap into a high note doesn't always sound best when the violinist nails it dead center. That slightly shaky pitch or portamento (slide-in) at the start of the note adds so much character when it's just the right amount. That's why I love many an orchestral score from the '30s and '40s. Not 100% perfect, but with tons of soul and passion. Just listening to the Warner Bros. orchestra (yep: the full orchestra!) playing incredibly difficult stuff for the 1940s "Looney Tunes" animated shorts: fantastic and rather thankless - because this material is actually much more difficult to compose and play than most dramatic scores from the same time. Check: "Long-Haired Hare". Now that's brilliant on all levels - IMHO doesn't get better than this, including the gorgeous Technicolor prints (here is the "showdown"): O.K. I'm writing another novel here :-) I just love to share my opinions (which are just that). Thanks for reading. Cheers, C.