Wilfried E. Keil

Mark, you are definetely right: a lens cannot damage the film! I made myself not clear enough. I meant that if you have a filter or anamorphot or something else before a lens you can see from scratches on the filter, anamorphot, etc. disturbance on the film. But this is not here the case. I took a second look on the footage. And also you, Marc, used the anamorhot with a digital camera. But we can see in the footage different things: A lot of fuzz in the gate and also some which is wandering through the image. But that is only a cleaning problem. And the main problem are the scratches on the top and the bottom. And they are not changing. At the footage I can see the use of different focal lengths. So it has only to do something with the camera or later with the material. If you have scratches they are normally continous through the whole image. So it could be only to do something with the film transport. And we have also to be aware that black and white film stock has no remject layer. So we also can get scratches from the other side. I am at the moment not at the place, where my K3 is, so I cannot take a look, what it maybe could be. But try the text Mark suggested and see what happens. Maybe than everything is clear, but maybe not.

To the stable image of the 35II-series: I mean not the first one of the series, the Arriflex 35II, which was introduced in 1946 and which was the following model of the Arriflex 35. I mean the later models, 35IIA, B and C. The Arriflex 35IIA was introduced in 1953. The difference to a B (introduced 1960) is not very much: better viewfinder, changeable, ground glass and a better gate. The IIC, which was introduced in 1964 has a few new modifications like a turnable viewfinder and other things. So you cannot see on a photo if it is a 35IIA or B, but if it is a C. (We cannot be sure what Ken Loach used in the nice picture someone posted before. We cannot see the parts we Need to identify if it is a C. It also could be a A or B, but not a 35II.) Yes, for single frame works the 35IIA, B or C is better than a 35III or a 435. The steadiness is more stable than newer cameras. Also the old 16mm cameras have very often a more stable picture. That is a reason why some are prefer an Arriflex SR II instead ot an SR III. In the former time the mechanical works were much better! Simpley they had enough time to make a good quality.

Thanks James for the correction. You are absolutely right "Enter the Dragon" was not shot in Techniscope 2 perf. I was wrong for this film. It was shot on an Arri 35 II C. At the end of the article you linked, you can see in the first photo that it is an Arriflex 35 II C. It has a moveable viewfinder. And Panavision normally modified them for their lenses. Also in the first picture one can see an anamorphotic lens. And on the fourth picture you can see it Maybe you are right that all Shaw Bros production were shot 4 perf anamorphotic, but not all martial arts films in Hongkong. In Hongkong they still hat in the mid eighties a laboratory, which could make optical 4 prtf anamorphotic prints from 2perf. They used it for martial arts films. In Europe in this time it was only possible in Rome. All others gave it up in this time to make optical print from 2 perf.

One thing is to clean the gate, but the other thing is that the vertical scratches are always the same. And they are mainly on the bottom and some of the top of the frame. If it were the loop formers the scratches would be more continuesly on the film. But I had never problems with a K3 and scratches with a loop former. And I used three different ones. Clean everything very carefully, also the lens and the anamorphot and try it again and use also a completely different lens for some shots. Maybe it is a problem with the lens or anamorphot. Or maybe also there is a problem with the telecine? It depends where you have done the telecine. It is a bit strange. With my footage I never had such a problem and I have used a lot of cameras from Super 8 to Super 35mm. By the way, I like the footage! What a anamporhot you use? One for shooting or one, which is normally used for projection? I am interested in it. And maybe also this could be a reason for this scratches.

The Arriflex 35II-Series was very often used as a main camera in the 60ies and 70ies in Europe. One can read very often that it is a 35C, but it was also very often a 35IIB. Also because the 35IIB is existing very often in a Techniscope version (2perf). You can see it on the fixed viewfinder. For example "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" from Sergio Leone was shot with an 35IIB, but also George Lucas used it at his first films as a main camera like "THX 1138" and "American Graffiti". But also nearly every Asian film in the 70ies and 80ies, who was shoot with Techniscope was shot with and 35II. For example "Enter the Dragon". You can be sure every Spaghetti-Western and Italian Horrorfilm, which was shot with Techniscope from the 60ies to the 70ies was shot with an 35IIB or C like the films of Lucio Fulci. But also explotation directors like Jesus Franco used a 35IIA, B or C as a main camera. The Arriflex 35 II-Series has no registion pin, but it is one of the camera with the most stable Image. That is why it is still used as a second unit camera for action scenes or time lapes. For this I use still my own 35IIA. It is more stable than every new camera from Arri. I have to correct Dom Jeager in one point. For "Das Boot" they used not a Arriflex 35IIC. Jost Vacano tested it for some works in the submarine and he thought there is the need for some modification. So he invented together with Arri the 35IIIC, which is very rare. If you find one, who sell it, buy it or let me know who is selling it.

Wittner Cinetec in Germany has still some wittner chrome 200 double 8 color reversal stock in a length of 7,5m. http://www.wittnercinetec.com/epages/WittnerCinetec-Super8-16mm-Film.sf/en_GB/?ViewObjectPath=%2FShops%2FWittnerCinetec-Super8-16mm-Film%2FProducts%2F5101 But it is the last he manutactured, because the stock is finished. They also have a machine for perforation.

Just read the new comments: all of the three models have the same noise level... ...if they are well maintaind... ...so that is not the question... In your case the question is money...

You wrote it is a also a money question, so it is a very easy decision: Aation XTR! I own a Arriflex SR 3 Advanced (Gecko) and I would not say it is heavy and I would not say it is not great for handheld. It is a question of accessories and usage! A Arriflex 416 is not so heavy and it is more comfortable then a SR 3, but if you do not need the special features, then it does not worth it`s price! And if you are not familiar with any of this cameras, then you should not prefer any of them because of usage. So the Aaton XTR is not so heavy then the others and it is easier for handheld. I remember a nice picture of the older Aaton models with the inventor Jean-Pierre Beauviala with a cat on his shoulder and he said he wanted to invent a camera like a cat on a shoulder and he was successful with it!!! So maybe download a manuel of all three and compare it yourself... ...but I would recommand you to contact Tyler and I am sure you will get a free short introduction for the camera! And maybe he has some short ends or recans for a non commercial student project as a bragain!

Thank you, Davis Mullen for you correction. I did not know this two formats. So I learn more... ...now I was more interested and looked up in my "old" book about some some formats. I did not found the two you mentioned. Maybe because it is a book from Germany and the system was never used in Europe. There are so many formats and aspect ratios, especially also in the old 3D filming, which you cannot find in any publication and also not in the web. But I found another format with the aspect ratio 2:1. It is Colorama. It was shoot in 2perf and the print was with skip-frame and without an Anamorphot. Unfortunatley I did not found more about this format. Maybe, you David, know more about it...

In the German Democratic Republic they built the TK 35 as an "portable" projector, which was very often used for mobile cinemas in Germany also after 1990. You can get them with many accessories or without... ...but maybe it is too large and heavy for you... ...so maybe that one you post in the link is better for you...

A new scope? It is older then netflix!!! It is invented by DP Vittorio Storaro (Apocalypse Now and many others) in 1998. It was first used for the photography of the movie "Tango" by Carlos Saura. It is called Univisium. Storaro invented the aspect ratio 1:2.00 (18:9) as a compromise. For him it was clear that the TV aspect ratio 16:9 will have sucess and that in the future many will film digital or 65mm film stock. And the aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2,2. So he choosed as an average 1:2.00. Mostly he shot himself in Super 35mm in 3perf. Technovision and Clairmont modified some Arriflex 435 and 535 for Univisium. Also movies with a theatrical realease are shot in our days in this format like "Jurassic World". So it is not a netflix thing or idea, but they thought that the idea of Storaro was good and decided to use this compromise aspect ratio. Not a bad idea... ...but I prefer other aspect ratios... And what I really do not like is that Storaro also reframed his old work in this aspect ratio for new realeases. Why do not use the original aspect ratio? It is not only a decision of the cinematographer to choose a aspect ratio. And if it is choosen then also other departments are working for this aspect ratio! I do not like later reframing... ...but this is another discussion...

There are still some labs left, but do not trust the laboratory directory of the website of Kodak. For 16mm and 35mm prints: Germany: TF Cine Nova, Wiesbaden Andec Film, Berlin Belgium: DeJonghe Film Italy: Movie and Sound, Florence For 35mm prints: Italy: Augustus Color, Rom L`Immagine Ritrovata, Bologna UK: Cinelab, London I am sure there are some more. But these are the ones, where I know that they are saying, that they still offer this service.

To come back to the exposure: With the Bolex RX-5 you have at 24 fps 1/65 if you not correct the Reflex system and 1/80 with correction. So your exposure time is lower then with other cameras. You can also change the shutter as Gregg said, but be aware of the different motion blure. You close the shutter a 1/4 if you put it on 1/2 and you have a corrected (Reflex system) exposure time of 1/122 and with 1/2 if you put it on 1 an exposure time of 1/188. But then you have not so much motion blur. You can also use it as an effect to see some water bubbles (I am not sure if it is correct English, sorry). This could be very nice! I am sorry I am not familiar with north american weather at this time. But I would expect with the normal shutter and the correction if the reflex system you have not more then a f11. And the wratten #8 needs a correction of 2/3 stop. And then you have a ND 0.5 with nearly two stops. So it should be no problem to shoot in this time of the year. We are not in full sunlight summer! Yes if you want to have a deep focus then a f2,8 or 4 is good. But normally the best is at daylight a f5.6 and also with artifical light, but mostly you only have the change to have a f4 then. The deep of focus you normally should not controll with the aperture, but with the focal length, if you have the opportunity. If not, ok, then with the aperture. But a f2,8 have other problems in the exposure, so try to be at a range of f4to f11 (better f8). And the depth of focus you will see through the viewfinder. And do not be afraid of a bit overexposure. I know what others would say now. It is clear it is not a Kodak Vision, where two stops are not a problem, but 2/3 I would not worry. You can do more in a classical lab that many think today. (No I am feeling older then I am ;-) ) So do it! And do not think to much about this technical things! Do not forget your content, because of all the technical things! I am sure you will learn a lot while you are shooting and the next time you have some expericence and it will be much better. As a filmmaker you are permanently learning... Wish you all best!

I do not know how familiar you are with a Bolex RX-5. If you shoot with sound it is better to use the motor and a 400ft magazine with a barney, if you have it. Do not forget to compensate the exposure because of the RX-system with 2/3 stop. I would set the lightmeter at an other ASA rate, so you do not forget it. Do not forget the different shutters at different speeds. Some tables you find in some manuels are still compensate the 2/3 stop. So be careful. I would always use the Wratten #8 filter. Do not forget to compensate the exposure with 2/3 stop. And if there is the sun use the ND to get a lower stop. It is better to have more ND´s. Do would not use a aperture higher then 11. It is better to use one between 4 and 8. If you have no sun shade, take something with you can use it to make shadow for your lens, so that you get no lens flares and back light. I also would use a reflector or syrofoam for some close-ups. But try it to make it not to hard that the difference from the other shots are not too high. The other important things like exposure rate and the closing of the viewfinder still Samuel wrote. You can tape the slot if you want to be safe, but if the camera is a good one, you do not need to. But it is better to do it, if you do not test it without before. Have a nice shoot!

I own a Krasnogorsk K-3 and I get a new own many years ago, but I did not used it since more then ten years, because I use now "better" ones. But it is really a good camera to start with 16mm. I also used two other ones from friends. So I think I have a "bit" experience with Krasnogorsk K-3. Normally they are nearly unbreakable! So why do you want to have a service without testing it before? You have to ask yourself if a service worth the money of the camera? And if someone is familiar with a Krasnogorsk or if you have questions someone of this forum can help you. Maybe you need a bit Gate Lube, but the rest depends on the camera. They are sometimes tricky to handle. Some of them are not function very well at some speeds, mostly the seadiness of some highspeed rates are not so good. It depends. With my own one everything is perfect for such a camera. And with all the three I used I never had a problem with a light leak of the foot counter. I read that very often, but I never had a light leak, also with 500T stock. But I always taped the cover, but not the foot counter. One thing is very tricky: the spring mechanism. It could be that when you wind it up, that the shutter and the transport is asynchron. A very well known problem of this camera model. But it is easy to handle it. When you are finished with your wind up, you have to turn the button to left and right till it the shutter is in the right position. You can see this if you have put the optic away. But you also can hear it with some experience. By the way you can buy also some cheap M42 optics. And I would always use a changing bag or tent. And do not use the "film cutter" inside for cutting the beginning. This stupid things are also in other cameras like Bolex, but this is always a danger to have a little bit of material inside the camera, which could make scratches in the material. And as Samuel said: do not trust the internal light meter. If you want to buy one second hand, I would recommand a Sekonic L-398 A Studio Deluxe II or III. The model II you get sometimes very cheap second hand and you can adjust it. I also do not understand what you mean with loop. I hope you have a manuel. That it makes sometimes more easy. I also would not use the plastic spools you get with the camera, use metal ones. With the other things the colleagues near your place like Samuel can help you. I can only recommand companies in Germany and Europe. You have now a nice tool to start 16mm. I also used it in former days as a second unit camera or for stop motion. Try it and have fun! By the way, for fun I also use sometimes Super8 and I develope the stock my my own.

As Stuart said: you are right. Process it normal. You can also overexposed it one stop (but 2/3 would be enough), especially if the material will be scanned. I would also take a ND 0.3 and ND 0.6 with me to have more opportunities to choose a "good" aperture. If you are not totally sure with the exposure, it is better to overexpose a bit then underexpose. Maybe also some softedge filters could be useful, especially at landscapes.

I also want to thank for this short Bolex introduction. I learned some new things. I did not know so much about the older Bolex models. I only have some newer models: H-16 RX 4 SB, H-16 RX 5 SBM, H-16 RX 5 SBM Super 16 (unfortunately the viewfinder shows not exactly the same what is exposed) and a H-16 RX 4 EBM with an underwater housing. The c-mount is a very good thing, because there are so many optics you can use, also with some adapter. I know the problem of the 2R. Unfortunately you have to order 20 400ft rolls of Kodak Vision 3 500T 7219. But many persons need some 100ft in daylight spool for the old cameras (and also some 50ft for the old Kodak models; I have there also one). Ok, the 400ft rolls are also needed for some highspeed cameras like a Redlake, but you need it on a 400ft spool and you cannot get this anymore. I am searching for some empty spools or for a plug-in coil (Steckspule), but they are rare. Maybe they will make 2R 100ft daylight spools in the future again. They also started last year again with the 200ft roll for 35mm with Kodak Vision 3 500T 5219. If someone needs some 2R, maybe we can make a omnibus order at Kodak Europe. Making some Wind-Downs on 100ft daylight spools is not the problem. Thanks for the interesting link. I will read it.

I would like to bring back the option of a Bolex. The first 16H were produced in 1935. The first Bolex 16H RX were produced in 1956. So why not use a Bolex? Maybe the differences in the16H and the first 16H RX are not so much. But I am sure Simon Wyss could say more about possible differences, because he is very familiar with Bolex cameras.

That could be interesting for you: Breathless (A Boute de Souffle) FR 1960 Jean-Luc Godard, DP Raoul Coutard Because of the low light situation Coutard decided to use photo film material and no motion picture film stock. He used Ilford HPS 400 ASA photo material with a length and put it together to use in a 400ft magazine with a Cameflex. The cameflex allowed him to use material with other sprocket holes. And then in the night scences he pushed the film one stop. (The Ilford HPS 800 ASA was starting to porduced one year after shooting) If you look the film on a big screen you see a really gritty look in some scences. What a legendary cinematogapher!!!

Here my favorites (many of them were still mentioned): The cabinett of Dr. Caligari (Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari) DE 1919 Robert Wiene, DP Willy Hameister Nosferatu (Nosferatu – Eine Symphonie des Grauens) DE 1922 Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, DP Fritz A. Wagner The Last Laugh (Der letzte Mann) DE 1924 Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, DP Karl Freund, Robert Baberske Faust (Faust – Eine deutsche Volkssage) DE 1926 Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, DP Carl Hoffmann Metropolis DE 1927 Fritz Lang DP Karl Freund, Günther Rittau Man with a Movie Camera (Celovek S Kinoapparatom) SU 1929 Dsiga Vertov, DP Michail Kaufman M (M – Eine Stadt sucht einen Mörder) DE 1931 Fritz Lang, DP Fritz Arno Wagner La Grande Illusion FR 1937 Jean Renoir, DP Christian Matras, Claude Renoir Daybreak (Le jour se lève) FR 1939 Marcel Carné, DP Curt Courant The Maltese Falcon US 1941 John Huston, DP Arthur Edeson Citizen Kane US 1941 Orson Welles, DP Gregg Toland Beauty and the Beast (La Belle et la Bête) FR 1946 Jean Cocteau, DP Henri Alekan The Lady from Shanghai US 1947 Orson Welles DP, Charles Lawton Jr. Bicycle Thieves (Ladri di Biciclette) IT Vittorio De Sica, DP Carlo Montuori The Third Man GB 1950 Carol Reed, DP Robert Krasker Rashomon JP 1950 Akira Kurosawa, DP Kazuo Miyagawa Seven Samurai (Shichinin no Samurai) JP 1953 Akira Kurosawa, DP Asaichi Nakaie The Seventh Seal (Det Sjunde Inseglet) Schweden 1956 Ingmar Bergman, DP Gunnar Fischer Touch of Evil US 1958 Orson Welles, DP Russell Metty The Devil`s Commandment aka Lust of Vampire (I Vampiri) IT 1958 Riccardo Freda, Mario Bava, DP Mario Bava Breathless (A Boute de Souffle) FR 1960 Jean-Luc Godard, DP Raoul Coutard Black Sunday – Waking the Undead aka The Mask of Satan (La maschera del demonio) IT 1960 Mario Bava, DP Mario Bava La Notte IT/FR 1961 Michelangelo Antonioni, DP Gianni Di Venanzo The Hustler US 1961 Robert Rossen, DP Eugen Schüfftan Yojimbo JP 1961 Akira Kurosawa, DP Kazuo Miyakawa Winter Light (Nattvardsgästerna) SE 1961 Ingmar Bergman, DP Sven Nykvist The Trial (Le procès) FR/IT/DE 1962 Orson Welles, DP Edmond Richard The Silence (Tystnaden) SE 1963 Ingmar Bergman, DP Sven Nykvist Il Demonio, IT/FR 1963, Brunello Rondi, DP Carlo Bellero Persona SE 1966 Ingmar Bergman, DP Sven Nykvist Raging Bull US 1980 Martin Scorsese, DP Michael Chapman Down By Law US/DE 1986 Jim Jarmusch, DP Robby Müller Dead Man US/JP/DE 1995 Jim Jarmusch, DP Robby Müller La Haine FR 1995 Mathieu Kassovitz, DP Pierre Aïm Pi US 1998 Darren Aronofsky, DP Matthew Libatique Home From Home (Die andere Heimat – Chronik einer Sehnsucht) DE/FR 2013 Edgar Reitz, DP Gernot Roll

Pi was shot on Eastman Plus-X 7276, Tri-X 7278, if we can trust the data at imdb. But I also remember that Aronofsky told in an interview that he had shoot on both b/w reversel Kodak stocks. I will post my favourites later this day.

You can find the news from John on Kodaks facebook page and also on twitter from Cinelab London. So it is defintely Cinelab London and not the Kodak lab, former idailies, London. So that are really good news!!! It is a dream of me to shoot one day on 65mm! And this news is one step to turn this dream into reality!

For a running test with film material (without expose some material) you need also a second daylight spool. So the easiest way is to buy some really old and cheap 16mm 100ft daylight spool stock (spool plus stock) on ebay. Does not matter what stock, because you only make with it a running test and you learn to load material with it. Then you need a changing bag. There are also some cheap ones. They will fit. I would not load in semi light. Some others do that, but this can always be a bit risky. Learn it with the testing material, also in the bag. And then you need an exposure meter. And then you can film... It is very easy to handle this camera. I never had one in my hand, but it looks totally easy. It is a bit like a Krasnogorsk. Maybe you will find there a manual. If not, contact me. You also can pm me, then I give you my mailaddress and then you send me your pictures of the camera and also a good one of the lens (scales) and then I can write you a short manual in a file and maybe make a short drawing in the pictures, if you want. But this will take me maybe two or three weeks, because I am travelling at the moment.

Kenny recommand you a really good book. In this book you can find many things you cannot find in the manual. Especially if you are not familiar with shooting on film and how to use film cameras, it is really a good investment! If you buy the book second hand, then make sure if you will use the first or the second edition of the Arricam LT. If you will use a second edition camera, then buy the second edition of the book. In this edition also the new features are explained. For bridge plate compability and other things, also the Arri Website is useful. You can download there more than it looks at the first view. They also have some very useful diagrammes. At this link you find a pdf for Analog Support Accessories: https://www.arri.com/camera/pro_camera_accessories/products/support_systems/studio_support/bridge_plate_bp-8/?node_id=52fe843c3baf673c1003763b To power belts: I think it is a question of usage. If you plan to shoot many scences handheld, then I would use a power belt.

I also have a Krasnogorsk-3 and I do not think that it is the film material. But maybe there is more then one reason for the light leaks. One of them I think you found with the help of Tyler. I also had at the beginning some light leaks with my Krasnogorsk-3. I try to remember, because used the camera the last time about ten years ago (bought some Bolex afterwards). My camera was fine. I bought it brandnew. But the spring mechanism is a bit tricky. When you only wind it up, then it could be that the transport system and the mirror is asynrchonous and then you get also light leaks. I found out that you have to turn the spring arm a bit forward and back and then the mirror get in the right starting position. Then I did this every time and it worked perfect every time and a shoot many 100ft rolls with this camera. Maybe you can test this without film material. I am sorry I cannot explain it better, because I am at the moment not at the place, where my Krasnogorsk is stored. I also have seen material shooted with another Krasnogorsk-3 and there was also a problem with the picture at some speeds. They were flickering up and down. To your other problem: You can test every speed without film and you can hear if it is the right speed. Ok, only with some experience. Maybe you find a position with no mark and the camera is running, then you only have to correct the button. I think this should be easy to fix. Taping is very good, especially with a big black tape, but I also loaded my Krasnogorsk everytime in total darkness, because there are so many possibilites to get some light on the material, if you load it in semi darkness. Maybe try this, when you make your next test.