Will Montgomery

Run the camera until all the film is through the mechanism. Then open it up and put the roll back in the box you got it from for processing. Yes you will lose a few feet at the end to light exposure... you can minimize it be using a changing bag or unloading it total darkness.

A Kodak K100 is really a fabulous camera; super steady, easy to load, runs for 45 seconds on a wind. Ergonomically, it leaves something to be desired in handheld work; that's a lot of weight to hold in front of you. But the same can be said for an Arri S.

True. Especially the 3 lens turret model. But it is built like a tank with very heavy metal.

As for Fomapan, remember it requires a special processing chemistry that is not compatible with everybody else's process. My local b&w lab refuses to touch it.

Oh yes. Some labs say they will try it but I've never had it come out right at 3 different labs. Not worth it in my opinion when Tri-X and Plus-X are great B&W reversals. Personally I like the look of Double-X negative as well.

Many young filmakers are excited by miniDV and the posibilities, they often have never even handled film. It's a good and bad thing, good that more young people are interested in the field and will bring new ideas, bad because it's so easy they never develop the skill set required for film and the beautiful art that can be made with it.

Kodak has a DVD comparing digiBeta, 16mm & 35mm. DigiBeta would of course be better than mini-DV but it can give you some ammunition for your argument. Even if the project is destined only for video, 16mm would look better.

Call their 800 number and ask the rep to send it to you... it's free. (they have several demo DVD's available).

1-800-621-FILM (3456)

Much of this depends on the tone of your film too. Fast moving documentaries can benefit from miniDV's ability to capture tons of footage and people are generally more receptive to the look for those types of projects.

Costs are hard to compare; yes video CAN be done cheaper, but video DONE RIGHT with proper lighting & sound can easily approach a 16mm production. Much depends on how rehearsed the cast is and how together the crew is.

It's always fun to get an older camera to work but I'd stick with a K100 from the 50's before getting into pre-wwII cameras.

The Peleng does distort but not a complete circular fish eye like it would be on a 35mm camera. Also, keep in mind that your K3 Super 16 conversion just widens the gate, it doesn't re-center the lens mount so you aren't actually using the center area any more, just expanding to one side so the distortions will be slightly more noticable on one side. It's a good lens for inside well lit tight spaces.

The Kiev 16mm is another good one that covers the Super 16 area and is slightly wider than the Meteor lens at it's widest.

All the Pentax Super Takumar lenses are good... 28mm is practical, so is 35mm... and more easily found.

I've got 4 rolls ready to go for a beach vacation next week.

I'll miss it for it's archivabillity & the unique look, but Ektachrome 100D is a great looking stock too. Enough of a "reversal" look to stand out from negative stock (and project it of course) but better shadow details than Kodachrome.

Doesn't look like the gate; it would probably be straight and longer if it was the gate. In fact I'm not sure what in the camera could cause scratches like that...

I would clean the film path well and try whatever stock you want to use one more time. Then try another recommended lab in Germany and check out the results. You need to see if its a consistant issue or a one-time thing. Often a lab might process one roll for free if you tell them its a camera test.

Every K3 is a little different, but certainly it can scratch your film. Is this a new camera for you? Is it the first test or have you had successful reels in the past?

Has it been coverted to Super 16? Sometimes the outeredge can be scratched in that case. Usually in these K3 "upgrades" that everyone does all the surfaces are smoothed so if this happens again you may consider having that done.

Loops being too big might scratch it but it would be more of a larger "scuff" than a thin scratch I would think.

Also different stocks may run through the camera a little differently... Reversals (especially Kodachrome) are much thicker and react differently. My K3 always gave mixed results with B&W Negative stocks for some reason.

Tim,

Your tests were great. Regular 16 can look great.

However, I'm interested in how practical / expensive is a conversion to Super 16 for an Arri S or S/B?

Thanks.

If you're asking the question you'll probably want to take David's approach. Please explore film, but don't expect to get professional results without much practice and experience.

I'd suggest finding a 16mm camera on eBay and going through the process of buying film, shooting, processing and transfering a few times to learn what's involved. It's expensive and time consuming but you can get beautiful results.

Cinelab is a sponsor of this site, their ad is on the right. They will do a fine job for you at a very reasonable price.

Since it is reversal film you could theoretically do it yourself, but you'd have to get all the equipment and its much easier and you'll get MUCH better results if Cinelab transfers it for you to miniDV. Contact them and ask for some pricing, you'll be happy with the results.

That's happened to me a few times, and my camera HAS been serviced.

While I'm sure a servicing can always help, I bet it's a simple problem of loading. Sometimes when the film is not seated properly, you'll get an entire roll looking like your 200T roll.

I'm assuming that the loop formers have been removed... if not you may want to consider that modification. Once you've manually made the loops on the top & bottom of the gate, I kind of wiggle the film back and forth a little until I'm sure the claw has caught the sprockets. When this happens you can't move the film anymore.

After a while you will hear the difference... it might sound "smoother" than the normal sewing machine sound.

If you think there could be a problem just open up the camera and wiggle the film around the gate. If it moves freely then you have to "re-seat" it. Yes, you will expose part of the film, so I recommend doing this in a changing bag or very dark room.

I know this isn't a real technical response, just a practical one from experience.

You can buy it from Dwayne's in Kansas and they are the only company in the world that can process it now (unless there's somewhere in Asia maybe?).

No Super 8 left there but they have 100' rolls of 16mm Kodachrome for $38 each I believe. I just bought 4. I shoot it every now and again of my kids for it's archival quality.

http://www.k-14movies.com/

Here's the thing... if you're asking the question then you'll probably be editing in DV format. To do anything else (like uncompressed) in Final Cut you'll need a system setup to handle it. If you are setup for DV then the easiest thing is to copy your digiBeta master to miniDV and bring it in through a miniDV camcorder. If you're not color correcting or doing any compositing you'll probably be fine.

The best way to handle it is to have a system setup for uncompressed editing which would involve a disk array and a fast computer. If you have this then you can go to a post house and have them bring in your digiBeta master to an uncompressed Quicktime codec; the Blackmagic one is popular, you'll just have to download it from the Blackmagic web site.

If you go the DV route, have the post house copy to miniDV WITH TIMECODE (so the miniDV tape matches your digiBeta's timecode) so if you later have a chance to have your video on MTV (or whoever actually plays videos now) you can spend some money and re-cut easily it from the digiBeta master in a suite setup to handle it.

I've done it in 16mm and Super 8. Here's my down & dirty unprofessional method:

I use a pocket digital camera to record in "movie" mode to record the audio during a take for reference. This gives me both audio and video. Then after telecine manually sync it back up in Final Cut Pro. Then have the dialog re-recorded. If you know your way around audio editing you can usually make it work, but its also up to the actors to do a good job. This works best on very short takes.

Also, you need to really listen the room and try to approach a similar sound in post by adding tiny (REALLY tiny) amounts of reverb or whatever is needed. Miking technique can also be a factor, close or farther away from the person.

Sometimes you can fudge it a little with a soundtrack underneath to make the new dialog recording less fake.

You can still get current Kodachrome 16mm from Dwayne's Photo in Kansas. You're only other choice in 16mm would be Ektachrome 100D.

As was stated before, the lighting will be a big issue, very even and lots of it.

http://www.k-14movies.com/

There are people other than Kodak staff who know what they are talking about and who DO frequently look at this list :rolleyes: .

They may look, but they don't post very often. How about a Fuji person as well?

Here's another option... probably out of your price range, but anamorphic lenses can get expensive...

2-Perf 35mm. These guys in Austrailia could probably rig you a cheap 35mm system for under $3500 in 2-perf.

http://www.multivision235.com.au/

Since you're in 2-perf (rather than standard 4-perf 35mm) your film, processing and transfer costs will be about the same as 16mm and you wind up with 2.35:1 without anamorphic lenses.

There are SO many variables here I don't know where to begin.

Are you looking for more of a 16:9 format for today's widescreen TV's? If that is important than go with a K3 and widen the gate to Super 16. That will cost you about $150 to have a tech do it. Don't bother with an anamorphic setup; it is really cumbersome and probably a waste of time.

Another way to go is the Scoopic and just frame for 16:9 by using the TV safe markings on the viewfinder. The Scoopic has a major advantage over the K3 in the easy load and especially the motor. Remember, on a K3 you can't take shots longer than 20 seconds at a time due to the windup.

I've used them. They basically do a one-light on those HD transfers and expect you to do the color correction which is easier since you get an uncompressed file. These are HUGE files so you need a maxed out machine if you expect to edit with them. I transcoded it down to DVCPRO HD to actually do the cutting.

If you really need the full 1920x1080 24P and aren't concerned about color they will be fine. I'd suggest having a company like Flying Spot Film Transfer in Seattle do it; even though their output is 1440x1080 from their Shadow, it will look 10x better due to their colorists. And the costs should be around the same, maybe a little more.

You would think that someone from Kodak (besides John) would actually check these boards out from time to time to give us some official answers.

Tungsten light and daylight are are different wavelengths so even black & white film reacts differently under different lighting even at the same meter reading. Obviously it doesn't effect color, but it effects contrast and exposure... that's why even black & white films have different exposures under daylight or tungsten light.

I'm sure someone can explain that better.

Just be specific with your instructions; like how you want the film preped and returned to you. I've had fine experiences with them. I've heard several people in Seattle say they preferred Forde Labs but now they are the same company.

The later Pan Cinor zooms (the black 17-85mm's) have a coincident rangefinder style focusing aid - zoom to the longest focal length and you'll see a ghosted second image. Bring them into register and you're in focus. Then zoom out and frame your shot as normal.

Ah, if I had only known. Those K-100's are great cameras though. Double the running time on one wind vs. my Russian K3, easy to load and very dependable. Might take it if I'm every headed to Alaska or Antarctica. Cool to see a picture of someone with a K-100 on Kodak's website still...

I love my K-100 but I can't get over the non-reflex focus thing. Always guessing distance is kind of a pain.

So I found a Som Berthiot Pan Cinor lens for it... only to find out that you can't actually focus with the reflex viewfinder; just frame.

From the manual: "Warning! The sharpness of the image seen in the viewfinder is not affected by variations in the Pan Cinor's focusing. Don not forget to bring the Pan Cinor into focus when the subject has been framed."

I was not happy after reading that. Good news is that if I actually focus it properly, it looks great. Bad news is it almost doubles the weight of the camera.