Help: b&w 16mm questions

[B Lyndon]

Mmmmmm...

Does your K-3 take a synch motor? Is that why you wouldn't advise shooting a feature with it?

Are color stocks cheaper than b&w? Are they faster? For practicality and simplicity, would you all recommend b&w for a first attempt?

Do all film cameras need to have their focus set with by measuring the distances? That seems faitly clumsy and time-consuming. Can't you adjust focus "by eye" through the viewfinder?

Why are 16mm cameras with built-in meters so expensive and hard to find? They are almost a given for still photography, and they must be cheap, so why aren't they common?

When I have the footage telecined for editing, is it practical to have it telecined to DVD instead of tape (DV or video)? Is there a way for a DVD burner drive to read and copy the footage, or will it be blocked in some way? I figure if I have the option to preserve the footage on a higher-resolution medium, I should, right? Any thoughts on this?

Thanks

[GREATwarEAGLE]

I wouldn't advise you shooting a feature just yet with any 16mm camera. With so many fundamental questions, you don't quite sound ready. Unless you're gonna hire a pro camera crew, including experienced DP - which it doesn't sound like you are.

I recommend experimenting and learning film with a super 8 camera first.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Do all film cameras need to have their focus set with by measuring the distances? Can't you adjust focus "by eye" through the viewfinder? </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes you can focus by eye. This is how it's done with documentaries and some feature films. But to ensure precise focusing, measuring beforehand is necessary. This all depends on the complexity of your shots.

Usually because the camera operator has his hands full and cannot do it himself, dolly shots, etc, a focus puller is needed. And the focus puller cannot see through the lense, so after measuring beforehand, the measurements are marked so that the focus puller knows exactly where to adjust focus.
This is done most when using telephoto lenses during rack-focusing and when the camera moves during the shot, focusing from one subject to another.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> That seems faitly clumsy and time-consuming </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time consuming? Welcome to the world of filmmaking. And speaking of time-consuming, B Lyndon, there once was a filmmaker who held a reputation for being a methodical perfectionist, sometimes doing 100 takes just for one shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why are 16mm cameras with built-in meters so expensive and hard to find? They are almost a given for still photography, and they must be cheap, so why aren't they common? </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

You shouldn't rely on the camera's internal meter. To have to lug the camera around evertime you wanna take a light reading is ridiculous and - time-consuming. Buy a light meter.

Learn film with super 8 - it's the shallow end of the pool. And it's a big f*cking pool.

I don't really expect you to take this advice, but I'm giving it anyway. And I apologize for the sarcasm - I'm int hat kinda mood right now. Good luck whatever you do.
[img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img]

[eidde]

hello

I would seriously consider shooting a couple of rolls of super8 before your tackle 16mm. Even if its just to have handled a film camera.
s8 cameras are dirt cheap, s8 film is cheap to buy and develop.
16mm cameras are no over developed than video cameras, but you have to try and think mechanically when you use then, rather than electronically,
Different head space.

luck

[B Lyndon]

Thanks for the great feedback. I know that super8 is a good intermediate step, and I'm definately willing to consider it. There are many kinds of perfectionism; few of them do I actually aspire to.

This isn't so much complicated (I know enough about film but not enough about the cameras) as it is about memorizing new sets of rules. The rules are still simple: set focus, set aperture, and expose. I can do that much, and in that regard, super8 and 16mm aren't going to be that different. One is going to be more expensive if I fail. We can live with that. I know I'm asking too many questions to maintain any appearance of confidence, but I've always been cocky enough to try anyways. Failure is the best teacher.

I appreciate your concern and deeply appreciate your help.

I've shot still 35mm, and I've shot MiniDV. I just wondered how different 16mm was going to be. I understand the mechanics of light and focus, and was confused that 16mm machines seem so over-developed. I suspect that the moment I hold one I'll turn it over in my hands, read the knobs, and go, "Aha..." I'm not worried now, and if I am worried when I finally hold a 16mm camera, I'll take a long, hard look at super8.

I'm guessing that measured-focus is only for cameras that lack SLR? That figures. I'm a very patient person when it comes to the task of setting up a shot, but I hate math and measurement and that shows in my questions. Now that I know there is no way around it, I am satisfied to play by the rules. I'll make the best of it.

Oh, and I'm a big fan of Ilford's b&w stocks. I looked around and did find that ASA400 that you guys mentioned. Here's the link:

http://filmemporium.com/shopsite_sc/...ml/page24.html

Now that I know it exists, I'm going to try my damnedest to use it.

I think that I'm out of questions for the moment. Again, big thanks to all you nice chaps.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ May 22, 2003 12:23 AM: Message edited by: B Lyndon ]</font>

[B Lyndon]

While I haven't filmed even the shortest of shorts on 8mm, I have shot "a few rolls" before and the results were very much satisfactory. But I would never want to shoot a project on it, the resolution is too low. I don't want my films to look "small" format -- super8 is really only good enough for close-ups and medium shots. I'm a scenery kinda guy. Masters and landscapes. Big compositions. But I was counting on 16mm being a helluva lot more complicated than super8. It's not even worth telecining 8mm stuff. It looks like **** . But the mechanics are presumably the same; it's just that the machines got bigger.

Basically, I load the camera, point, adjust to whatever my light meter commands, and expose. The rest is lab work that I can pay to have done for me. Right? That's how Rodriguez did it: point-and-shoot. I wanted to go a few steps further. If you'd prefer, I'll just go spend a hundred bucks on books and learn from the "cold bodies" how it's done in a studio.

Thanks for your advice.

[vt220]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by B Lyndon:

I'm guessing that measured-focus is only for cameras that lack SLR?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

no, it's for a couple of different reasons. with 16mm cameras especially, it can be hard to really see focus, and if you'll trying to pull focus while the camera is running - forget it! if actors are moving during a shot you'll really need to have measured focus before hand.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Oh, and I'm a big fan of Ilford's b&w stocks. I looked around and did find that ASA400 that you guys mentioned.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

keep in mind that under tungsten lights this film needs to be rated at 200 instead of 400, so you really don't get that extra speed indoors.

that stock's also got a weird milky look that i'm not real fond of.

[B Lyndon]

Oh, forgot that 16mm viewfinders must be tiny little things. That is a problem. And I haven't used Ilford film over speed 320. Is it something particular about the 400? Or do you mean Ilford in general?