Will Montgomery

I disagree, its not flawed at all. Honestly in the film and television industry experience, price, quality of the staff are the things that we look at when choosing a lab, its not like someone at the production looks at a chart or technical specs from the telecine! We look at the colorists at each lab and the work they have done before, when we find a colorist we like we stick with 'em. Its a big mistake to think that the choice of lab is or should be based more on technical / engineering aspects. Yes is part of the formula, but its the colorist that has a much greater impact on the look of the show.

That's why I added that a review should include opinions along with technical aspects. The only issues I had with Spectra were of a technical nature so I skewed my comments towards that. The color wasn't bad. I absolutely agree that the colorist is the most important part of the equation. A good colorist can pull out amazing work on crappy equipment but they are still limited by that equipment.

Send the same piece of well shot film with head shots and landscapes to all the labs for subjective opinions and include a few test patterns as well for quantitative comparison.

But with all the discussion about Spectra having a special "super gate" I just don't see some sort of incredible quality boost technically even though the color is fine.

For 16mm I have one person I use at a local telecine house and always get the results I'm looking for. Unfortunately they don't do Super 8.

It is really unfortunate that Kodak and Fuji continue to resist making their B&W T-grain films available with MP perfs.

Is it the sharpness and lack of grain that you're looking for? I might be wrong but maybe they're balancing a need for a "retro" look in B&W since much of that speed, sharpness and tight grain could be found with their Vision stocks with color removed.

Seems as though when actual B&W film is used it's for that slightly dirty look and those T-grain stocks might just be too clean.

I wonder how many commercially released films recently have been actually shot on B&W negative?

If you really wanted it, I bet Kodak would make you a run as long as you by 100,000 feet or so.

I am actually stupid enough to be cutting my own negative right now.

Stupid, no... brave, yes.

I'm sure you have access to some great editing equipment, that's a big plus. I've considered renting time (maybe for some beer or something) at my local lab to use their editing setup, but I know my lack of experience in actual film cutting would be a problem.

i've got a canon scoopic MS sound barney sitting around in my closet. it was made by CUP:

How effective is it? My MS is a squeeky little bastard.

So is the consensus that B&W stocks are still useful in a world were losing color in post is so easy? (rhetorical question perhaps)

I have to say that I really loved the look of "Good Night and Good Luck" even though it was V2 500T with color removed in post. It could however have benefited from more grain in my opinion but perhaps theatre goers aren't quite ready for that.

The opening of the last James Bond movie was shot on Double-X from what I understand; I was secretly smiling when I saw it in the theatre because I was hoping that's what it was.

Those emulsions are all old, we're talking late fifties technology here.

All the flaws that Kodak tried to fix over the years is what makes Double-X so great... it still retains that 50's look.

Watch out, just because you can get an adapter from M42 to Nikon doesn't mean the lens will work properly with the camera.

You need a fully manual aperture setting. On some Pentax Super Takumar M42 lenses there's a switch that will allow you to use the aperture ring in full manual mode. Not sure how the Nikon lenses will function that way. On the Zenitar 16mm f2.8 fisheye lens I had to push in the aperture pin and basically break it by forcing it to stay in to make it work.

There may also be back focus issues with an adapter, I'm not sure.

Keep an eye out for inexpensive M42 lenses. You'd be surprised how many and how reasonable they are.

I'd love to know your results as I have a Nikkor 17-35 2.8 that I'd love to try on my K3. I'm sure it would cover the S16 area no problem.

I must say that I also have a slight crush on Ektachrome 100D in 16mm. It almost looks like someone painted each frame rather than an accurate representation of reality. Of course this was more pronounced with Kodachrome.

Um... Tri-X?

Good point, I stand an idiot. Although it doesn't quite have the same ring as "triple-X".

I'd have to agree about Double-X (why no triple-X stock I wonder? :rolleyes: )

I just finished a shoot with 7231 Plus-X negative and was disappointed. Low contrast but also low grain. I'm sure Kodak spent many dollars researching how to minimize grain in their stocks, but this Plus-X negative didn't have the character I was used to from Double-X; Plus-X negative was almost too smooth for my tastes. I probably need to filter more for more contrast.

I've also found Fomapan to be a really interesting retro look although it's hard to find someone to process it properly these days.

I in no way want to discourage use of Spectra. As I said, they are great people and back their work. I just had a few problems. One that they fixed, one that I had FSFT fix. Their stocks are great and I'd bet their camera service is great too.

A URSA Diamond, however good the gate, is not going to give the same results as a Shadow if the other factors are equal in my opinion. The fact that they get as good results as they have for other users is a testiment to their colorists and skill. Not that money is always a good way to judge, but a $120,000 URSA Diamond (+super 8 gate cost) vs. a $400,000+ Shadow (+super 8 gate cost) might say something.

A Y-Front modification to a Diamond seems to make a major difference. I use another telecine house for 16mm that has a well maintained Y-Front and I've always mean amazed at the results. Those ad another 50% to the cost of a URSA Diamond.

So, I guess results can vary. And, prehaps our shooting skills, equipment and exposure come into play as well.

Generally, my shooting equally sucks across most of my work so at least I have a decent baseline for comparision. As far as between shooters, color is a personal preference of course. The only thing that wouldn't be subjective would be noise levels and something like an analog video color flare (which is something I experienced with Spectra).

The premise of the entire discussion is flawed in that almost no one can give a truely qualified, formally tested review of these telecine labs. All we can do is share experiences. Sending test patterns and color charts would be a good idea. Perhaps a Super 8 magazine will step up for the challenge and do a really scientific study along with several subject opinions.

I wouldn't overplay your hand, your description of Spectra is nonsensical.

Nonsensical? Perhaps I should provide more detail.

I've had great conversations with them, they really love what they do and it shows. However, I've had transfers come back with over saturated color ghosts that I've never seen from other houses. On another transfer where there were dust balls on their gate, they re-transfered it for free and it was fine, but I wonder how something like that got through in the first place.

I would certainly use them for their stocks over Pro8mm any day.

Not trying to overplay my hand, just sharing experiences as was asked. Take what you want from it. Every telecine house can have a bad day and good days. FSFT is the only one that I've seen have consistently good days after 4 or 5 transfers with them.

I maybe wrong, but I suspect that the "clean modern sheen" that you are looking for is what other people would call the "digital look", and would be fighting against in seeking the "film look".

 

There is a subtlety to film that I would never describe as "clean modern sheen". That's not to say that film needs to look grainy or lack resolution.

Perhaps he's thinking of some of the polished sharp images we see on TV dramas shot on 35mm. A show like LOST can look amazing and so clear & clean it looks like the most perfect video camera except not. Does that make sense? We know it's shot on film and that is really the beauty of it. But a 16mm production that isn't shot properly without good colorists could be seen as more "dated." Or if you're using reversals.

For some prosumer videographers the rougher the film look the better since they're coming from only video.

Best colorists for Super 8 I've ever worked with bar none are at Flying Spot Film Transfer in Seattle, WA.

I've used Pro8mm, Spectra, CinePost, CineLab, Debenham Media & Bonolabs for Super 8 also.

CinePost might be the best for the money... they are extremely reasonable and have good service.

You never know what you're going to get with Pro8mm. They must have an A & B team because I've had good transfers and really bad transfers from them. Now that they have a Millenium, I might try them again.

Spectra are the nicest guys around and try really hard but I'm not completely sold on their equipment.

Bonolabs... what can I say... have your crap together because the service there is not always the friendliest. Also, they give very neutral transfers and expect you to color correct.

Debenham Media; reasonable pricing decent quality.

I've sat through informal tests at several post houses displaying DigiBeta and DVCAM versions of the same recordings and I've found it VERY hard to tell the difference on anything other than the highest-end monitors.

Now if you do ANYTHING to the footage other than straight cuts, you will certainly start to see quality issues. Any color adjustments or compositing work suffers in DVCAM. Sometimes that has to do more with the editing software as well. For instance I get much better results in crossfades and compositing using DV footage with After Effects than anything in Final Cut.

The problem with much 16mm footage I see is often poor cinematography. This of course has little to do with tape format. Tim's footage is spot on because he took the time to light it properly and a little thing called FOCUS. Maybe because 16mm is a less expensive format and a great entry path to film for videographers, I just find these basic elements lacking in too many 16mm shoots.

It's probably different in LA where people are more educated about film in general.

Even if I' m deeply convinced that Krasnogorsk is not an appropiate camera for professional job, it was all I could afford from financially point of view for my project. For this reason, I have to be very suspicious and carefull in order to have a camera in very good working conditions.

The thing is that a K3 camera is the least expensive part of the process, your film, processing & transfer will undoubtably cost more than the camera itself. A little more investment on the hardware might payoff for you down the road if you continue to make films.

On the other hand, even if your camera has small issues, you can always get it serviced and put into perfect working order. Often these came from the factory messed up. Probably about $200 would take care of almost any issue with the camera.

Rolando,

Great application but I was wondering how do you keep the LA7200 straight when focusing without support bars? Or do you just manually straighten it out after focusing?

All the 500T I've seen is like watching a film through a snow storm of grain. That's a good choice for some projects and a terrible choice for others.

Very true. Although often it's because people use the 500T as a substitute for good lighting which will emphasize the grain even more. Just because it's a faster stock doesn't mean decent lighting isn't needed.

Work with the band and the venue to make sure the whole band is well lit (yes, even the bass player and drummer!) before the performance. Once you get a feel for how light sticks to film you'll start to see lighting in a whole new way. It may seem brighter than usual live, but it will probably look great on film.

As Douglas said, get to know the venue well before the actual performance and plan out your shoot well. Go see other bands there and bring your light meter. You'll look like a geek but it will help you figure out what stocks will work.

If you're doing this for the first time here are some low-budget pointers that might help:

1) Put a cheap video camera on a tri-pod in the back or duct tape it to the ceiling and film the stage throughout the performance. This can be your "key" and allow you to place your film clips properly and will get you some good crowd noise as well as a general performance audio "go-by" (not the performance track for actual use)

2) Make sure someone is doing a proper audio recording (hopefully multi-track) for later sync.

3) If you want the whole thing on film, shoot one roll on one song you don't need from behind the band looking out to the audience so you can't see and lips or strumming. Use parts of that as cut-aways when you're changing film in your camera.

everywhere I look I find people raving about how good reversal (Ektachrome 64T) looks.

Well, anyway I've just shot two test-films (Ektachrome and Vision2 200T) with my Beaulieu 6008.

They should probably arrive today from Germany, processed and all ready for scanning.

Then I'll make my own mind up about shooting with Vision2 or Ektachrome.

Once you explore reversals and negative films you'll find they really are different and each have their own strengths.

Reversals will give that real "home movie" look that most people coming from video really like because it's so different from a video camera.

Negative in Super 8 is still "home movieish" but has much more latitude or "forgiveness" for improper exposure. That's a big plus in Super 8 as the auto exposures tend to change rapidly and are rarely accurate. Also, a colorist has much more leeway in adjusting color with negative during telecine. If you're going a professional telecine route (Rank or Spirit, ect...), negative is a must (unless you really want the reversal look.)

When you start getting into 16mm, negative stocks can sometimes look almost too good and lose some of that homey feel. While reversals in 16mm (Ektachrome 100D) have an old Hollywood Star home movie look from the 50's.

3. Counting on your filmmaker experience, could you tell me please what kind of Kodak motion picture (Tungsten or Daily) is better working with Krasnogorsk system of lenses?

The standard Meteor lens (nor any other m42 lens) is no friendlier to daylight film stock than tungsten; it comes down to what works best for you & the shoot. The Kodak 50D stock is really great looking on a sunny day... 250D helps on overcast and/or strong shadows. 200T is another great stock outside with a filter. Try a few in the conditions you expect to find out what looks best to you, it should be clear after a test. Don't forget to try some Fuji stocks. Much different look but certainly worthy of consideration.

I thought with K3s you just bought another one when you ran out of film? :rolleyes:

If the spring actually broke, I would think it would have made a really loud snap and probably scared the crap out of you. Although I have heard of an issue of "overwinding" these cameras quite a bit.

If a few good smacks and pushing the trigger doesn't seem to do any thing you could send it over to Du-Al camera in NYC or Super16Inc. in upstate NY... they could tell you pretty quickly what the issue is for a minimal fee then you can decide if you want to fix it or just buy another one. Keep your lens and grip as spares and you'll have a nice set. At $150 it's pretty affordable to pick up another one. 2 rolls of film, processing & transfer will cost you about the same anyway.

Good luck with that. I'm sure the parts are sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere... have you tried calling Canon?

So you bought a Scoopic for $50? Hard to beat that... unless it has a big ole scratch on the lens. :blink:

Scoopic is a nice camera but they are sooooo loud. Can't realistically remove that sound using modern audio tools, I've tried. Just keep that in mind. A good Scoopic MS is worth the $600 or so they go for these days, maybe you should just pick up another one?

What type of camera / lens mount are you using?

I can repair your camera for $200.00 plus shipping back to US.

Good price. You should take Rolando up on that. Plus I think he just loves those cameras.

Another alternative is Bernie O'Doherty at Super16Inc.com. He cleaned up my Scoopic MS and did routine maintenance on it for somewhere around $275 I think...

Must have been fun to shoot.

It might have been nice to shoot later in the afternoon for some more interesting light, although I'm sure the trains dictated the time of shooting.

It's great that you were able to use film on this project, the tones work very well with the subject. Video of the train would have been too "modern."

I agree that U-Tube doesn't do 16mm justice... it doesn't do anything justice really. But at least it's inexpensive.

 

So the actual mount was converted or did you get one of the $9.95 screw in M42 to Nikon adapters? I was asking because I wondered if such an adapter would throw off the back focus at all...