Jump to content

Will Montgomery

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Will Montgomery

  1. I'm waiting for my EBAY K3 to arrive ;)

    Good luck with that. Mine turned out fine, but I've heard its luck of the draw. Had it modfied to S-16 by Du-All in NYC and its great going to hi-def; but I have to save for a while to afford an hour of hd transfer.


    I've got several M42 lenses for it, the Peleng 8mm, Zenitar 16mm and a beautiful 28mm Pentax. All cover the S16 frame great. The stock zoom lens is really good too, but it doesn cover the S16 frame under 24mm or so.


    Start working out if you're doing a big shoot, I get indentations in my palm after winding that thing for 2 or 3 100ft reels.

  2. Not to steer the conversation off topic, but curious none the less...

    I see their 40T "Chrome" film is for the K14 process. Presuming this is cut down Kodachrome?

    Where would one get this processed when Kodak close their doors?

    Dwaynes in the US?

    Dwayne's will keep processing k14 for a while, there are still alot of Kodachrome Super 8 and 16mm left out there. They have contracts with so many major players (Walmart, Target and Kodak) that they'll have to continue for a while, even after Kodak stops in Switzerland. Plus all the 35mm slide film is processed k-14 and Dwaynes handles that too.


    Speaking about Kodachrome, I noticed the 35mm slide version comes in 200 speed and 64 speed. I'm sure speeds don't translate directly to movie film, but I would think there could be a faster Kodakchrome available to cut down... is that possible?


    Another interesting point on that 100D is how much an 80A brings down the ISO. From 100 to 25... seems like a big jump.

  3. What a great discussion this one topic has started! Talk about getting people fired up!


    I'd love to hear more about a Canon Scoopic modified for Ultra 16... Always thought that would be a Scoopic might be a nice camera for quick shots, more reliable than a K-3 probably and wouldn't kill my hand winding it constantly. Of course no one seems to be able to make a Super 16 mod to a Scoopic so this Ultra thing might give just a little more width for better HD transfers.

  4. It is possible that a Y-Front or Millennium Telecine can handle it. There are very few Y-Fronts around.


    This one is at Video Post & Transfer (VPT) in Dallas (http://www.videopost.com/). It does an amazing job, but of course their color correction system and colorist makes all the difference too.

  5. The colorist I work with in Dallas has no problem with Ultra-16. They can see the entire film and then zoom and crop according to what is needed. Super 16, Ultra-16, Super-Duper 16 & Crazy-Wacky 16 are all supported (ok, I made the last 2 up).


    She did say in general that Super 16 is slightly easier for her to work with but it really doesn't matter.


    Their machine is called a "Y-Front" which I believe is a modified Rank Cintel machine.

  6. It sounds like your projects will be shot on film but edited on a computer... probably after you've done a miniDV transfer.


    If you are not familiar with film, here are a few things to think about:


    1) There are inexpensive 16mm cameras available, the least expensive being "non-reflex" models meaning that you see through the actual lens but through a viewfinder lens. You focus be measuring or appoximating distance and setting the lens from that. These can produce great images but if you're used to miniDV, you may want to take a small step up to a "reflex" model so you can focus through the lens. Inexpensive "reflex" models include the Canon Scoopic & Krasnokorsk-3.


    2) Film is expensive... from $18 for 3.5 minutes of b&w (100ft.) to $38 for 3.5 minutes of Kodachrome color (100ft.). This means you need to plan your shots out much more because film is money. Those prices are for the film only, processing runs about $14-$20 per 100ft roll. Then of course, there's the transfer. There are plenty of Telecine options out there but a decent machine & colorist run about $150-$300 an hour (that's not running time, its machine time, each minute film takes 2 to 4 minutes to transfer probably). If you need HD, you can double that range. Say 3.5 minutes to SD miniDV will cost you about $60 or so from start to finish including everything.


    3) Just so #2 doesn't discourage you, film looks awesome... if you're used to miniDV footage, you're jaw will drop after you get back some well exposed modern negative film transfered to miniDV. It really does look great.


    4) Super 8 isn't really that much cheaper, the film cost can be almost half, but processing and a good transfer are not much less and the quality difference would probably be worth the film cost difference. Super 8 does have some ease of use advantages in loading.

  7. Would the film be likely to be X-Rayed. I hear that they do deep scans of the storage on airplanes these days so if something travels airmail then presumably it will get a big dose?

    Regular mail uses commercial flights to move packages, you will probably be ok with FedEx. Call FedEx and ask. Kodak marks boxes well and I haven't had a problem with FedEx yet.

  8. Video Post & Transfer in Dallas, TX can definitely do it. They've transfered 16mm shot at 16 fps to regular miniDV and corrected for the speed. They actually do it really well, they have something called "Metaspeed" that they developed that allows this. But David is right, any pro telecine place should be able to help you with that problem.




    I don't work for them, just use them on a regular basis with good results.


    p.s. That's for 16mm... for Super 8 (and 16mm) talk to the guys at www.fstp.com. They have great service too and don't mind talking to you.

  9. Bottom line: will the new film increase the overall volume of Super-8 film sold, and ultimately increase earnings of the product line? Being "good news" is not enough.

    How's the product line going now? Have the other Vision stocks in Super 8 sold well? We hear about Super 8's "rebirth" but are the sales numbers suporting that conclusion?


    I thought I read in Super 8 Today that Kodak is pretty happy with recent sales...


    And John, why aren't some of the Kodak Super 8 product people involved with these forums? You're a great rep for Kodak here, but it seems like having some give and take with Super 8 product people would be helpful for everyone... as long as we don't gang up too much! : )

  10. Like I said, I don't know what the budget numbers are working out to be in your case, but if you're really getting 16mm quality out of Super-8 for less money, it sounds good to me. If you're getting sub-16mm quality for the same price as 16mm, it seems pointless.

    Good point David. I continue to shoot both Super 8 and Super 16mm for personal projects, but because I'm spoiled and only do higher-end transfers, the only cost differences are in the price of stock for me. Processing 16mm negative is $14 for a 100' reel and Super 8 negative costs $13 for 50' (same running time of course.) And on many projects I shoot both and cut them together... the quality difference is pretty big. I can't stop looking at some of the Super 16 footage I've shot, and can't wait to see it in high def in a few years.


    I've also noticed, as far as the "film look" issue goes, the better the transfer the more "filmy" it can look; bad rank transfers can have hot spots that make it look more video like while a good colorist is capable of evening out the brighter areas.


    Of course, for a real dirty film look, have your Super 8 transfered by a "DVD Mill" and you can get dust, hot spots and all sorts of artifacts to give it the real home movie look. Of course they usually only handle reversal stock.


    One big price difference between Super 8 and 16mm is in Kodachrome. Paying $38 for 100' to be processed is painful, but I've tried it and it does give that "Hollywood Home Movie" look like what the stars used in the 50's.

  11. There's been some talk around this forum about "Good Night and Good Luck." being shot in Vision 500T stock and made B&W in post. Beautiful film... I'd suggest this to your producer and you can use that film as a proof about how well it can work.


    Even with 500T, you'll probably see less grain than with Double-X if both are lit well. But it will be a different "look;" try some tests and you'll know quickly what will work for the project.

  12. Did a search on the forum and found some interesting information, just a few things I'm still not clear on.


    Is this a true statement:


    The stock is processed the same way, but the telecine needs a special Kodak device that will allow you to "emulate" various stocks.


    If this is true, then who has these machines and will it cost more money because of that? I thought higher-end telecine houses were already pretty good at emulating stocks if they have a good exposure to work from.


    Everything I shoot is for telecine so it seems like this would be a good stock to try; but can it emulate more extreme stocks say like Kodachrome (25 or 40!) or a Tri-X or is it just there to emulate different Vision stocks? How about TECHNICOLOR! That would be fun.


    With Vision2 50D I found such a beautiful daylight stock I can't imagine trying to emulate that with a 500 or 320 rated stock...

  13. Is the grain there to act as a focus mechanism sort of thing?

    Actually, I'm not sure if that was the intention, but it will allow you to adjust the focus of the viewfinder... once that "grain" is sharp, then focus the lens.


    I recently had my K-3 modified to Super 16 and the tech worked the viewfinder mask to match the Super 16 field but that grain remained. Its only a problem in low light situations or in bright light when you have to use a low f-stop. You'll get used to it, and it won't show up on your film. Shoot some of the new Vision2 50D on a bright day and you'll be amazed.

  14. Fordelabs keep coming up for a reason... they're great. And they can handle any type of film you can imagine except K40 which of course is only done by Dwayne's photo in Kansas. Fordelabs has great people that actually seem to care about your film.


    I've had good results with Bonolabs and Pro8mm (yes, they process Kodak Vision2 stocks) as well.


    Make sure you send your film FedEx or some type of carrier that will pay attention do your DO NOT X-RAY markings on the package. This is really important, I learned the hardway on some Vision2 500T recently where the stock was x-rayed and a nice reocurring fog showed up.

  15. I have some really great shots on a Vision2 50D roll that I would love to grab stills from for large photo prints. I'd rather not cut up the film if possible, but I would think that to do a traditional enlargement I would have to cut out the frames I want enlarged.


    I'd like to do a photo blowup to 11x15; I know it would be VERY grainy, but that might just ad the right character to this particular shot.


    Should I try to do a high-res drum scan of the negative frame? I'd have to cut it up for that...


    Can traditional chemical color prints on paper be made from movie negatives? Or would it make more sense to get a really good high-res scan and do a Lambda print or Light-jet print from that?

  16. I forgot my color chart at work so I did not have one to shoot and these rolls are camera test so I can test the camera and the lenses I have.



    While a color chart might be useful, an 18% grey card is more useful for the telecine/colorist in film. They can use that to get a neutral starting place. I've seen them at big photography stores for like $5 or you can buy a nice fancy one with a plastic case from Kodak for like $40. Next time you order film from Kodak just ask them for a grey card too.


    Also for the K-3, grab a focus chart from work or make one up on your laser printer to test the lenses and camera. Sometimes K-3's have issues with the pressure plate moving and the shot going out of focus. In those cases the first frame or two of a scene might look sharp and then get blurry.

  17. Looking for all the links I can get to view the

    quality and feel that is produced by the K3

    before I buy one for my music video productions.

    Keep in mind that the quality of the footage you'll get out of it is more dependent on your lighting and photography skills than the camera itself... modern film stocks are pretty amazing and the K-3 can do a fine job if its in good shape.


    Then of course your transfer and colorists make a huge difference as well. In other words, you can get beautiful amazing images but there are so many variables you can't look at someone elses footage and assume you'll be able to achieve the same level.

  18. do the 16 cameras w/cranks come out looking DIFFERENT

    than the motorized camera?


    What are some cautions to know about this topic?

    Assuming you are taking about spring wound cameras and not the very old hand crank type (i.e. old silent movies from 1900-1920)...


    The film itself and the lenses have the most impact on the image as long as either type of camera is in good shape and well maintained.


    "Motorized" cameras are generally steadier in keeping the film moving at the desired frame rate. They also allow longer uninterupted shots. They are usually crystal sync which will allow you to sync the audio track later if needed.


    "Hand Crank" cameras can tire you out pretty quick, a K-3 only lasts like 30 seconds on one crank and if you go through a few rolls you'll have a nice indentation in your hand from the key. My Kodak K-100 Turret seems to last about twice that long on one crank and its easier to crank it too. But the upside is you don't worry about batteries and these cameras can go practically anywhere including the Arctic.

  19. The only slight problems I had was the film on the takeup reel was loose when I unloaded the camera and I lost about 10 ft of film. Is this common.

    Here's a quick tip: DON'T USE THE PLASTIC TAKE UP REELS that come with the camera. With age they tend to warp a little and don't take up the film properly. Use the empty metal reel from the film you just shot as your new take up reel and then do that with each new roll shot. Also, you can ask for your empty reels back after development if you want some extra. When you send film in for processing, you probably want them to prep it for telecine so they'll combine multiple rolls onto one big one. In that case they may not send back your empty metal reels unless you ask for them.


    Another Tip: Order 16mm film directly from Kodak, [1-800-621-FILM (3456)] try the Vision2 250D and the new Vision2 50D and shoot outside on a nice day... you'll be amazed at the quality... play around with slow-mo too. If you're used to working with video, real film slow motion is pretty cool - shoot at 48 FPS and film water moving or leaves falling or throwing a beach ball or something.

  20. In the USA, the Transportation Security Administration allows hand inspection of ALL motion picture films, regardless of speed, if you request it, provide a changing bag for hand inspection, and leave enough time for the inspector to check the film by hand.


    Thanks for the input John, you're presence on these boards is really invaluable to film makers here.


    It seems like even with a changing bag, its more likely that they would damage the film one way or another... unless I get lucky and have someone who is really well trained. Seems like I'd have better luck just FedExing directly to my lab from where ever I am rather than trying to carry it back on a plane.

  21. I recently shot this footage on my S-16 modified K-3. The text in the sign was completely in focus through the viewfinder when I began rolling. The first shot is from the first 3 frames which were in focus, then the 2nd still is about 6 frames later where it became out of focus and stayed that way through the rest of the scene. I will of course run a focus test on the camera, but I was interested in what might cause something like this...


    Could it be:


    1) The pressure plate not pressing the film properly? (I carefully check upon loading to see if its seated properly)


    2) Something in the S-16 conversion causing issues? The gate's too big or something?


    3) An issue with the transfer house? (this was done on what they call a "Y-Front" at Video Post & Transfer in Dallas, a very good telecine house in this market)


    Any ideas would be appreciated, and I will shoot a focus chart to double check with each lens I have.



  • Create New...