Jump to content

Christian Schonberger

Basic Member
  • Posts

    193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Christian Schonberger

  1. Yep, I know. Never intended to film dialog scenes with a K-3. I was just planning ahead. The K-3 will be my inexpensive entry into (Super)16mm. I need to get the hang of that format and the modern film turnaround (processing/scanning/grading). If the K-3 turns out to just chew my film stock or have major issues, it wouldn't hurt me that much. My next camera model depends on budget and what I can find for sale. All the good stuff these days seems to come from the US ( = + shipping, customs and taxes) and still: as soon as it gets somewhere near "good" it's very expensive and/or risky (seen recently a few times (well known and usually reliable web site): dead battery, no guarantee, sold as is - ooops, no thanks!). A friend/colleague of mine lives in L.A. since about 2001. Perhaps he can point out someone selling a nice film camera without me busting my bank account... Thanks a lot for the reply, Christian
  2. Thanks a lot for your replies! You just confirmed my doubts regarding 200ft mags (I only see 100ft or 400ft of film stock being offered and I wouldn't want to mess with 400 ft of film inside a dark bag: recipe for disaster!). Yep: if budget allows, I will look out for an already converted/serviced and tested camera to take a major step up from the K-3 which also already comes completely converted to S16 (hasn't arrived yet - fingers crossed). Will eventually try out your suggestions (tiny video cam for framing when you can't use the internal view finder). Shooting on film is already more than enough of a hassle (no need adding to that unnecessarily) - but I love it: everything about it. Thanks again! Christian
  3. That reminds me: I would love to come up with some kind of video assist (I know this is all very "makeshift" and "poor man's" stuff) with an LCD monitor attached. This of course needs a lot of experimenting and checking the viewfinder vs. actual footage to get a good idea of how I match the (cheap) video camera with the film camera in a given situation. An older, very small camcorder with an LCD screen - gaffer taped onto the camera - might be the right choice. This also would open up possibilities for smoother tracking shots with home made sliders and stabilizers. I'm glad people come up with inexpensive and/or DIY solutions (Usually for digital video with LCD screens). Sure: a wide angle lens would be a necessity to avoid shaky hand held footage. The problem is finding the right one for a Super 16mm camera without vignetting, unacceptable lens distortion/aberration or wrong collimation/calibration. Experimenting and re-adjusting regarding exact framing for different situations would require a lot of film stock and waiting for the film stock to return processed. Affordable reversal film without scanning (just taking notes and looking at the actual film frames with a magnifying glass, then re-shooting accordingly, would probably be the very best "slow lo tech" solution). Not trying to achieve ultra smooth, top professional "steady cam/dolly/crane/slider/ronin gimbal stabilizer" results (which of course are the gold standard, but I try to be realistic within my madness). That would require a very modern Super 16mm camera and all the extra gear. Just trying to do something about the lack of choices between jittery hand held and static tripod. Will do that one step at a time, including actually practicing good old hand held (focus!). No hurry. First: test footage with a plan. I might be on the wrong track (this surely has all been done before by many a talented film student and roadblocks with simple 16mm cameras should be well known by now). Thanks for reading - as usual: any feedback appreciated! Christian
  4. Well I'm fortunate enough knowing how to work with modern dedicated audio workstations (DAWs) (have one here at home where I did many a full soundtrack mix for video, assembling together stuff I recorded in dedicated studios (no cost, but that comes with unpredictable schedules and logistics) - at the moment stereo only, but that's fine: no need for 5.1 surround) which run a low res video file in sync, just good enough for the dubbing (back in the day the film loops were cheap black and white work prints: 35mm and 16mm, I remember). So even if I have a poor quality (needs to be audible though) dialog recording, I can have the actors re-create the dialog and match the wave forms by fine tweaking. There is dedicated software for that, called "Vocalign" (haven't tried it yet, but it's a standard). BUT the overdubbed sound already needs to be very close to lip sync, otherwise it will sound unnatural. A dead giveaway in many an older feature film is the mix of location dialog and re-dubbed dialog. It never matches up both regarding sound and lip sync (especially poor in my native Germany (at least until well into the 1980s) where people are/were used to dubbed films anyway). Nowadays one can emulate different types of microphones and ambience with sophisticated digital "modeling" very closely - but it's never really the same. I would always use the complete dialog of a given scene done in one session. Much more control. It's only the human factor which still needs to be addressed carefully: get the actors to recreate the same mood, mindset and performance. Not easy in a recording studio if they are inexperienced. Anyway: thanks for the information about the Beaulieu R16. For some reason this camera is rarely mentioned as an inexpensive old 16mm camera. The Bolex seems to get all the attention. Fully serviced and rebuilt as Super 16mm, with a bright view finder they go for nearly USD 2000 (probably more if these have a crystal sync motor and the outside mag (200 feet mag? - probably needs to be hand cut from 400 feet rolls - in the dark bag). For that kind of money I'd rather look for an Arriflex ST (?) - at least that's a whole new ball game (pin registration, truly intended for professional use) - I don't think these loud cameras are that expensive as we speak (?). Never saw any Arri S converted though. Still just considering the options. Mighty be a while until I have the $$$ anyway, and there is by far a much better selection available in the US. I have the feeling these old babies won't get any cheaper in the future. Less demand now and also: skilled craftsmen will become rare. A fully serviced, smoothly working vintage16mm camera is not a collector's item for rich people to put on display. It should be a reliable workhorse for people who really love that kind of gear and the results. Anyway: glad to see from time to time much younger folks (younger as myself, now well into my 50s) discovering these sweet machines. Seen a lot of savvy and talented very young guys with the new digital movie cameras (on YT and the likes). No true passion about those silent "boxes". Guess we all are looking for similar results. A casual young person probably would call us nuts for using that "obsolete" technology. I'd reply: "carol" won (deservedly) "best cinematography" (Arriflex 416!). Case closed. Thanks for reading. Just sharing my thoughts. Thanks a lot for sharing your experiences! This is pure gold! Still a lot to learn.... Christian
  5. Great! Thanks for the information. Yep: The Arriflex SR2 high speed is great (love the coax mags!). Congrats! Good Super SR2 16mm conversions out there! Seen some footage on YT: rock steady and pin sharp! Any good SR2 and the minimum necessary extra gear (at least two mags, lens....) I found online is still very expensive! Hope those backlit LCD diplays and electronics won't die (seems replacement is hard to find?). Would buy an Ultra 16mm Arri 16 BL in no time (flat broke right now....). Thanks, Christian
  6. Not sure, still in the planning stages. Sound gear is no problem, even lav, lapel mics. I'm a musician/sound engineer and I have access to all sorts of microphones and other stuff if necessary (colleagues can lend me gear - we are a bunch of broke guys here in Portugal - and help each other out). Yep: I would need the dialog sound recording of the exact film take. I want to keep gear as portable and hassle free as possible. I'll come up with something :-) Will keep you guys posted. May take a while though... Thanks, Christian
  7. That was the exact footage I was referring to in my O.P. Thanks for the information! BTW: looks like a late 1960s Arriflex 16BL on your avatar. Love that camera! Seen a lot of news gathering being filmed with it back in the day (around 1980). Did you convert it to Super 16 or Ultra 16? Thanks again! Christian
  8. Just sharing a few thoughts, Well I might, in the future, try to shoot some footage with dialog. I don't see myself owning a very silent running film camera ( = made for location sound recording) anytime soon. Did anyone try this: get a small video camera (can be low quality) with enough running time to place it near the film camera and record the "dry" rehearsal takes and even the filmed takes. The actors probably will be put off by the camera noise when the scenes are actually being filmed, but I think it is do-able: they will eventually get used to it. A lot of movies have a very high percentage of looped (ADR) dialog anyway. I just need to have a recording showing how the actor actually spoke/delivered, then it can be re-recorded in a studio and sync'd in the editing/post production process. I will make sure the actors will have the same tone and pitch of voice when talking to a studio microphone (they even have the reference audio). I worked as a musician-composer/sound designer for literally hundreds of tv commercials that included voice overs, dubbing of dialog - and character voices etc. and of course I watched a lot of professional dubbing being done for tv shows. So I know how it's done convincingly. I think it's a good idea to have a small video camera with sound for reference, even if it's a smart phone (as long as the recording time is long enough). It is basically a makeshift "video tap" (no need to exactly match framing, angle and lens/focus choice) you keep running (leaving it alone and care about your film camera and the subject) and rehearsing until you shoot your bursts of precious film. I see a lot of short films (very recent ones) and (almost) all are shot on video. I (and probably anyone with a keen eye) can tell after a split second. Some even crank color saturation and contrast so high, it's horrible. Probably younger folks trying to achieve a film look without knowing how film actually looks or is supposed to look - until they watch some real (good) film footage... Not looking down at these folks. I am not against digital video (it probably takes just a few more years until smaller, inexpensive digital video cameras can achieve a more cinematic and pleasing look, not there yet) and I understand that not everyone wants to use a loud "sewing machine" vintage film camera in certain locations. I will only use film (very likely only Super 16mm and perhaps Ultra 16mm) for any future project with a story to tell. For tons of reasons - but that's me. That's not the topic. So: anyone tried out that makeshift "video tap" for film projects? I'd love to hear opinions and experiences (or even people trying to talk me out of it). Any reply appreciated, Christian
  9. Thanks a lot for the information. That means basically: Ultra 16mm is usable on a certain kind of film stock only. So Kodak neg is already out.... Thanks a lot. I remember the running "Eastman" on the old infamous (faded to red/magenta, cyan is gone and yellow on its way out....) 16mm prints, same with Agfa and Fuji... hmmmmm. I consider the Wittner (Agfa) stock only for camera tests (framing, lens etc.) anyway (thin estar base, washed out look, but not that shabby - as far as I know.....). Thanks again, Christian
  10. Hi all, Just watched some Ultra 16mm test footage on Vimeo. From time to time I saw letters and numbers flickering/running on the left hand side, rendering the footage unusable. These are obviously brand markings (or how these are called?) between the sprocket holes on single perf 16mm film stock - I remember these from all kinds of Super 8 and 16mm material for projection (reversal and print) - where these don't make any difference. I am thinking about Ultra 16mm in the future because a lot of older 16mm cameras seem to be way easier to convert to Ultra 16mm than to Super 16mm (say: Canon Scoopic, perhaps Beaulieu R16....). Q: does anyone know if the currently available 16mm film stocks (say Kodak Vision 3, Wittner 200D and perhaps Fuji Eterna Vivid - haven't seen any of the latter available on 16mm yet, but it is listed by Fuji) include these markings and ruin Ultra 16mm footage? Which film stock is to avoid and which is recommendable for that format? Also: some Ultra 16mm footage seems to have issues with light leaks and scratches/marks caused by the gate or perhaps pin registration? Any tips regarding Ultra 16mm appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance, Christian
  11. Yep, I know. Thanks for the information anyway. :-) I got the "works best with acetate film" from a Wikipedia article (not always the most reliable source I should mention), since this camera has a unique design regarding the film path. I'd love to see some pictures. Will check ASAP. A film enthusiast on YouTube actually tried estar film with the A-Minima: Wittner-Chrome 200D. He made it work, no "focus pumping" and the likes. But I know it from Super8mm way back in the day: Estar/Mylar film will not break but run over the claws and mechanism, often ruining it (I imagine the more complex 35mm projector and camera mechanics/registration.... Glad you had two machines instead of a huge spool or platter system. I plan on using the Wittner (I know, it has a milky, washed out look to it) for a first camera test on my converted K-3 (which I bought as my first inexpensive entry into Super 16mm), since it is easy to get where I am located and processing/scanning/grading is very affordable (good old E6 reversal process). Will test the camera with old exposed, unprocessed acetate film first (and practice loading). So I will know the sound and feel. If I hear anything strange while filming with the Wittner estar stock, I'll immediately stop, get the film (the heck) out of the camera - and hope that it didn't ruin anything.... The deal with Kodak Vision 3 I can get from a supplier in the UK (complete turnaround all included - top notch quality) is way more expensive since I need to buy at least 4 x 100 ft reels (which is nothing for a film supplier, but a lot for a guy with very limited budget). I wish I had more choices regarding film stock and processing/scanning. I'm located in Europe - basically only Germany and the UK offer supplies and services here. I might look around a little further. Thanks for the reply and for reading my ramblings, I can talk (and listen to people talk about) FILM 24/7 :-) Best wishes, C.
  12. Thanks for the information. Need to take a closer look (internet search....) at the unique mechanism of the Aaton A-Minima. I've heard it works best with acetate based film (such as Kodak Vision 3).
  13. Well I know I am posting this reply very late :-) Anyway: since it's confusing (both where the emulsion is and how the film is wound - even harder to understand with double-perf 16mm or any 35mm and larger), I see it this way: In a 16mm camera (single-perf film) I see it in a reels-side-by-side-way (coaxial mags work the same way, but "folded") the film is loaded from the camera's left hand side, sprocket claw - as well as the sprocket holes - on the bottom. Look at the fresh film spool: the film comes out on the bottom end with the emulsion in. Then you load it through the gate so the emulsion faces the film gate and the lens (light hits the emulsion directly). Then it goes out to the take up reel where the film goes in on top and ends up "tail out" on top. In a typical vintage Super8, 16mm or 35mm (not all models in that format!!!) movie projector this is different. The emulsion is now out (as it was in the camera) in the "heads out" (or ready-to-project), but the film comes out from the top end (so the film "twist" is the opposite as it was in the camera). Projectors are typically operated on their right hand side (unlike the camera) and the sprocket claw is facing you. There are exceptions where the emulsion is "in" on a ready-to-project print, because these were certain types of contact prints (where both emulsions are facing each other directly during printing). It is much less crucial where the emulsion is in a projector. In a camera the emulsion (usually a beige/creme color) needs to be always facing the film gate because the backing (acetate or polyester) has a very dark protective coating to avoid light coming through - stripped off during processing. Nowadays with digital scanning, a lot of the confusion (especially with various stages of optical (= through lenses) and contact (= both emulsions sandwiched together) prints out of the workflow) is solved. Rule of thumb: in the camera the fresh "heads out" reel is on top or in front (coax mag: on the right hand side) and the film comes out with the emulsion in, so that after the top loop the (beige/creme colored) emulsion faces the film gate. Hope this explains it. One last word (for folks new to film): the word "print" is a take over from the old Technicolor three strip days where the colors literally were printed onto blank, transparent film. Nowadays a "print" refers to a "copy", and a "release print" is the final film ready for projection in movie theaters. Cheers, Christian
  14. P.S. I am not a snob (at all!) of course :-) I say "professional" as in: reliable, stable and sharp image - and able to shoot more than about 25 seconds at a time at 24 fps :-) Christian
  15. Carlos, I would not pay more than EUR 350 (about 380 USD) plus shipping. I have seen a lot of footage with bad loops (severe vertical streaks and instability), light leaks, typical scratches (very likely from the film guides that won't retract correctly because of dried up lubricant or dirt buildup) and a lot of footage has focus issues and/or vignetting. BUT the best K-3 footage I saw is as crisp and gorgeous.as 16mm/Super 16mm gets. Pure magic! I am reluctant to burning much more money for a 16mm camera that isn't truly professional. I am located in Europe (Portugal) and there are basically only two EU countries (I know of) where you can get film stock/processing/scanning and eventually camera servicing: the UK and my native Germany. But these pro cameras go all for well over 10.000 USD, even heavily used and you'll probably need additional gear and eventually servicing since there are a lot of electronic/digital components (which even might become irreplaceable one day). If I had the money, I'd probably go for a late '60s 16mm camera (for example Arriflex - I heard the model BL can't be converted though), top notch converted to Super 16 (we are all now so used to the wide 16:9 frame that the old 3:4 aspect ratio just doesn't look right any more (IMHO) - and cropping precious 16mm film frame space is truly a waste! These still are mostly mechanical - and electronics (including motors and batteries) can be replaced by modern 3rd party products (usually from the US). As soon as I see LCD displays on a camera from the early '90s or earlier, I am very reluctant. A lot of equipment from this time (I am a musician and a lot of that stuff - keyboards, hardware gear, etc. uses similar technology) is dead and virtually irreplaceable by now. [text edited by myself to fix grammar errors] Just sharing my thoughts, good luck bro! Cheers, Christian
  16. P.S. Just watched the Ebay photos of the K-3 again: yes: there is a re-centering ring (along with the standard ring) on the camera which clearly shifts the lens to the side where the gate has been widened - I hope this is precision work. Any reply, sharing of experience with this Super 16mm camera highly appriated. Thanks, Christian
  17. Hello all, Well I am new to this web site and I hope my post hasn't been addressed before (I searched the forum of course). I appreciate your patience reading my rather long post, also introducing myself - I apologize if I'm drifting off topic for a moment. :-) Well I am considering starting to pick up a film camera again. I was a Super 8mm user back in the day (1975 through 1981) and I never got the results I was looking for and I don't see that format ever yielding truly satisfying results (in my humble opinion and for what I have in mind, not to be disrespectful!), even with all recent efforts (Pro8mm, Logmar, Kodak's new planned camera line and film stock turnaround - for 2016....). I never bought a video camera/camcorder, because I just don't like the look at all, even the most skillfully graded footage I have seen (it's always glassy, harsh and "digital" looking). Just to fill you in: I worked small jobs at the Frankfurt tv station "HR" (1977 - 83), and got a lot of insight regarding the sweet old Arriflex 16mm cameras, film loading, servicing, editing on the Steenbecks, in-house processing and the old machines where the films were aired "live" as opposed to telecine transfer which was still in its infancy - those (then) professional 16mm cameras were still in heavy use for all kinds of television productions. I studied photography and cinematography at the University, but I knew it would lead me nowhere - so I dropped out. I went full time for music, a decision I never regretted - but true motion picture film (even with all its hassle) is still my passion. Recently I checked on Ebay: there are a handful of K-3 cameras for sale and most are converted to Super 16mm including re-centering the lens. Most are coming from the Ucraine and Bielarus. Prices are very affordable. I know that the first two numbers of the serial number represent the production year (please correct me if I'm wrong). One model is as recent as 1989 (last production run) - so I should be able to purchase later some nice, sharp prime lenses. Here are my questions: 1) Has anyone purchased an already modified Super 16mm K-3? Is the optical axis really 100% re-centered? Is the new, widened film gate safe regarding scratching the film? I don't see any shifting to the side on the photos regarding the lens adapter ring.... 2) is the view finder normally modified to match the new format? I wouldn't mind it not being wider, as long as the center is exactly natching film gate and optical axis - and as long as I know when unwanted vignetting occurs. I don't mind some guess work. I'm "old school" if it's necessary :-) 2) Would it be recommendable to remove the loop guides right away and hand-load, to eliminate the chance of scratches? 3) I don't have anyone who could service the camera nearby - so how reliable is it regarding motor speed, mechanics? I plan on mainly filming at 24 fps - perhaps some slow motion at the highest speed possible... 4) is it recommendable to purchase a battery adapter kit since the old, discontinued batteries are usually dead and new ones read to wrong read outs. I will eventually purchase a separate light meter, but the use is not always feasible since I plan on filming mostly spontaneously what I see (as opposed to an improvised studio set up) - some of it for use in music videos. No problem with filming wild (no crystal sync motor needed) as long as the actual film speed is close enough to 24 fps. I don't plan on purchasing a fully serviced K-3 from the US. I am located in Portugal and the costs would be too high for an entry-level camera (will check it out anyway). BUT I see a lot of K-3 footage, both 16mm and Super 16mm (YouTube and Vimeo) which clearly have focus issues. Some shots are razor sharp though (even when considering it's Super 16mm) so it must be a lens issue. I thought about a Super 16mm converted Bolex, but these are much more expensive and also seem to have issues. Do these wind up cameras handle the modern Kodak Vision 3 neg film stock well (jamming, lost loops, jitter, etc.). Any hints and tips highly appreciated. Thanks a lot for reading. Best wishes, Christian
×
×
  • Create New...