Jump to content


Photo

Krasnogorsk-3 16mm


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Burak Oguz Saguner

Burak Oguz Saguner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne AUSTRALIA, Istanbul TURKEY

Posted 14 December 2006 - 11:21 AM

Hello everyone,

Again I will be asking for some advice.
I have been considering Krasnogorsk-3 16mm as an option. As it is affordable and has a good reputation.
I would like to here more aboutthe camera thou.
Please share some of your knowledge ans experience about Krasnogorsk-3 16mm...

the Thecnical spesifications:

Lens: Meteor 5-1 f1.9/17-69mm. Zoom range 17-69mm, 8-48 frames per second, apertures 1.9-22, minimum focusing distance 2 m (without close up lens), M42 universal thread mount, semiautomatic aperture setting, 77x0.75mm filter thread. Viewfinder has diopter correction (+5...-4).
The camera kit contains:
- pistol grip
- shoulder stock
- wrist strap
- zoom lever extension
- lens hood
- front cap
- rear cap
- cable release
- 4 film spools
- 2 eyepieces
- 4 filters
- 1 close-up lens
- shoulder strap
- original leather case
- original manual

English version of manual is included.

Do you think it is a good package to start with
  • 0

#2 Burak Oguz Saguner

Burak Oguz Saguner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne AUSTRALIA, Istanbul TURKEY

Posted 14 December 2006 - 11:43 AM

I also like to know what would you think when you compare

Krasnogorsk-3 16mm to Bolex H16 EBM...

What would be the advantages and this advantages
Thanks
  • 0

#3 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 12:50 PM

Hello everyone,

Again I will be asking for some advice.
I have been considering Krasnogorsk-3 16mm as an option. As it is affordable and has a good reputation.


If you get a K3, buy a Super 16mm K3. There are a few up on ebay from time to time. All footage from S16 Kras's I've seen is actually steadier than from the Regular 16 models.

When the gate is opened up to the Super 16mm aperture, the film pressure plate exters more pressure on the supporting edges of film when it passes the gate.

I don't know the exact vectors and dynamics of the movement. I venture to guess a mechanical engineer could theorize a bit better.

But, for the most part Super 16mm K3's run steadier. You can also find some very good M42 prime lenses for it rather cheaply.

The included zoom works well to and is very underrated.

F.R.
  • 0

#4 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 01:05 PM

I also like to know what would you think when you compare

Krasnogorsk-3 16mm to Bolex H16 EBM...

What would be the advantages and this advantages
Thanks


The Bolex will cost at least two-three times as much. It is electronic and if it breaks it will be costly to fix. The K3 will run forever.

The Bolex will take 400 foot magazines which is nice. But it still has that silly prism reflex viewing system.

A K3 has a real mirror shuter. Much better viewfinder.

What is the application you plan on using it for?

F.R.
  • 0

#5 Will Montgomery

Will Montgomery
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2030 posts
  • Producer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 14 December 2006 - 01:20 PM

I have a Super 16 K3 and I've been impressed with the footage.

Negatives:

Your hand will get very tired winding it
Each wind is pretty short, like 25 seconds
Loading the film is a bitch and takes practice, you have to learn the sound of your camera to make sure its running correctly
The meteor lens that comes with it doesn't fully cover the Super 16 frame when its at its widest
You never know if you'll get a bad one or not, poor quality control

Pluses:

They are CHEAP
They are simple cameras, so pretty simple to work on
The M42 lens mount makes plenty of 35mm still camera lenses available (the Pentax Super Takumar prime lenses are particularly good)
The stock lens can be good if you get lucky and get a good one
Picture quality is surprisingly good and steady for a $175 camera
Did I say how cheap they are?
  • 0

#6 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 01:26 PM

I also like to know what would you think when you compare

Krasnogorsk-3 16mm to Bolex H16 EBM...

What would be the advantages and this advantages
Thanks


If your hell bent on a Bolex. I'd suggest a REX5 over a EBM because of the issues the EBM can develop with its electronics.
http://cgi.ebay.com/...em=320059669152

You can't do much better than that! Looks like someone snaged ti with a decent Buy it Now price.

But again, you could get a Super 16 K3 for even less.
http://cgi.ebay.com/...em=180054174330
and
http://cgi.ebay.com/...em=320061728754

But if you want to shoot a lot of film and stop buying a bunch of different cameras trying to work your way up, here is what you need to do.
http://cgi.ebay.com/...em=110066070309

The buy it now is VERY reasonable!

But as good as your K100 you spoke about getting all the above cameras will blow it away in every aspect.

F.R.
  • 0

#7 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 14 December 2006 - 02:58 PM

If you get a K3, buy a Super 16mm K3. There are a few up on ebay from time to time. All footage from S16 Kras's I've seen is actually steadier than from the Regular 16 models.

When the gate is opened up to the Super 16mm aperture, the film pressure plate exters more pressure on the supporting edges of film when it passes the gate.


I think, the idea , what K-3 modified on Super 16 have better steady from original K3 a dubious.
And the opened film gate up to Super 16 or original Normal 16 can have different influence on steady of camera a dubious too.
The two versions of cameras have equal transport mechanism.
From other side, if you check of profile of original film gate of K-3 camera you can have a some
doubt about idea of increase of size of film gate, because, you can receive planer machine for film.

Any case, the peoples to sell a modified K-3 and other peoples have high opinion about this.
I not test of K-3 Super 16 and can tell my theoretical opinion only.

I think, the more high stability of Super 16 from original K-3 depend from a service of transport mechanism of camera only.

Edited by Olex Kalynychenko, 14 December 2006 - 02:59 PM.

  • 0

#8 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 03:14 PM

I think, the idea , what K-3 modified on Super 16 have better steady from original K3 a dubious.
And the opened film gate up to Super 16 or original Normal 16 can have different influence on steady of camera a dubious too.
The two versions of cameras have equal transport mechanism.
From other side, if you check of profile of original film gate of K-3 camera you can have a some
doubt about idea of increase of size of film gate, because, you can receive planer machine for film.

Any case, the peoples to sell a modified K-3 and other peoples have high opinion about this.
I not test of K-3 Super 16 and can tell my theoretical opinion only.

I think, the more high stability of Super 16 from original K-3 depend from a service of transport mechanism of camera only.


Olex,

The mechanical dynamics change when the gate is wider. A second year engineering student taking a dynamics class can attest to this.

Even though the pulldown movement stays the same. The dynamics of the affected movement change.

There's probably too many vectors of force to come up with a simple evaluation.

An example of this could be the spring guide on the K100.

The lateral force it provides pushes it onto the pull down claw better than a Bolex guide which has it's spring guide on the opposing side of the movement.

Film is flexible. All things being equal you will have a steadier image with a spring guide on the same side of the pulldown claw.

This is a bit of an enigma with the K3 as it has no sping guide.

Yet, widening the gate to Super 16, does cause a noticably steadier image over the stock K3.

Maybe an engineering student could do a thesis project on the stability of film under different gate conditions.

F.R.
  • 0

#9 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 14 December 2006 - 03:16 PM

I have a Super 16 K3 and I've been impressed with the footage.

Negatives:

Your hand will get very tired winding it
Each wind is pretty short, like 25 seconds
Loading the film is a bitch and takes practice, you have to learn the sound of your camera to make sure its running correctly
The meteor lens that comes with it doesn't fully cover the Super 16 frame when its at its widest
You never know if you'll get a bad one or not, poor quality control

Pluses:

They are CHEAP
They are simple cameras, so pretty simple to work on
The M42 lens mount makes plenty of 35mm still camera lenses available (the Pentax Super Takumar prime lenses are particularly good)
The stock lens can be good if you get lucky and get a good one
Picture quality is surprisingly good and steady for a $175 camera
Did I say how cheap they are?


If you not wish have a tired hands, you need camera with electrical motor.
But, only you take camera with electrical motor, you think about 400 ft film rolls and 400 ft film magazines.

Meteor zoom lens designed for Normal 16 film gate and i doubt, what modified K-3 have over-centered lens mount. That's why, you lost part of image from not over-centered lens mount and from Normal 16 zoom lens.

Yes, This is cheap camera and very good choose for beginner and for peculiar shooting.
But, after you shoot of first footages and calculate of total price of film, film processing and telecine service, you will think to take cine camera with more high technical characteristics.
Because, the price of camera and costs of film production incommensurable.

That's why, if you will think about cheap professional cine camera ( real professional cine camera) with electrical motor and 400 ft film magazine, i recommend to draw attention to Kinor-16 SX-2M.
A few days ago, was available for sell a special edition of modified Kinor-16 SX-2M camera Super 16 ( real re-centered lens mount), re-centered ground glass, Arri PL lens mount and multi speed crystal sync motor.
  • 0

#10 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 14 December 2006 - 04:14 PM

quote name='Film Runner' date='Dec 14 2006, 12:14 PM' post='142613']
Olex,

The mechanical dynamics change when the gate is wider. A second year engineering student taking a dynamics class can attest to this.

F.R.
[/quote]
The idea about a second year engineering student very interesting, but, I think, If the student to check a special theoretical books about create of transport mechanism of cine cameras, They
can see, what the cine cameras can have a few type of transport mechanism with different style of fixing film before a film exposing .
And They can see a many very interesting information about calculation of a mechanical formulas of this mechanisms.

The one cameras have " gap style ", other cameras have principle of fixing of film by pressure plate.
K-3 have pressure plate style of film channel.

That's why, if the pressure plate will have more high clamping, the film will have kmore hard fixing at time of exposing.

That's why, if the pressure plate will have more high clamp, the film will have more high fixing at time of exposing. But, you can receive scratches on film.
The effort of clamping plate can be increase very easy. But, this is not very good idea.

If you read of old topics, you can see my letters with diagrams and theoretical basics of influence of parts of K-3 mechanism on volume of steady.
Not need forget about gaps on points of connection of parts of transport pin of first level of transport mechanism and influence of this gaps on real volume of steady of camera transport mechanism.

Not need forget about interdependence of film deflection on film gate and a change a point of stoping a film on transport mechanisms without registration pin.

You wish say, what, to moving off a one slide rails will diminish a tractive resistance of film and this can
increase steady of film on pressure plate style of film channel ?
Very interesting idea.
I will be glas to see a diagram of vectors of force of K-3 transport mechanism, especially, a with vectors of
second-order and more high, and dynamic analysis.

quote name='Film Runner' date='Dec 14 2006, 12:14 PM' post='142613']
An example of this could be the spring guide on the K100.

The lateral force it provides pushes it onto the pull down claw better than a Bolex guide which has it's spring guide on the opposing side of the movement.

Film is flexible. All things being equal you will have a steadier image with a spring guide on the same side of the pulldown claw.

This is a bit of an enigma with the K3 as it has no sping guide.

Yet, widening the gate to Super 16, does cause a noticably steadier image over the stock K3.

Maybe an engineering student could do a thesis project on the stability of film under different gate conditions.

F.R.
[/quote]

What is K100 ?

I hope, you know, K-3 have no a pressure plate from side of film and have no correction of position of film from side.
I think, If the width of film gate increase and left side of film will rest on left side of film gate, you can receive a fixed side clamping of film, but, the left side of film will bend inside a film gate and you lost sharpness on left side of film. And i not told about scratches from left side of film.

I wish underline again, the a increase a steadiness of images can do to service of transport mechanism and
increase a efforts of spring of pressure plate of film channel, not Super 16 modification.
Anyu case, any person can have personal opinion.

If the engineering students can create a thesis project on the stability of film, we will be have new cine cameras by every month, and we will have a thousands companies, who can compare with Arri or other.
But, this is from side of dreams only.
  • 0

#11 Burak Oguz Saguner

Burak Oguz Saguner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne AUSTRALIA, Istanbul TURKEY

Posted 14 December 2006 - 05:00 PM

The Bolex will cost at least two-three times as much. It is electronic and if it breaks it will be costly to fix. The K3 will run forever.

The Bolex will take 400 foot magazines which is nice. But it still has that silly prism reflex viewing system.

A K3 has a real mirror shuter. Much better viewfinder.

What is the application you plan on using it for?

F.R.



Hi F.R

I am planing to use it for doco, music videos and couple film projects if posibble.
I heard bolex had a crystal-sync motor. I dont know how can i record sound with K-3 considering also it is very loud...
  • 0

#12 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 07:31 PM

Hi F.R

I am planing to use it for doco, music videos and couple film projects if posibble.
I heard bolex had a crystal-sync motor. I dont know how can i record sound with K-3 considering also it is very loud...


They make a crystal motor for the K3. Bolex cameras are loud too.

Either way you are going to have to muffle either camera.

One word. CP16.

F.R.
  • 0

#13 Film Runner

Film Runner
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2006 - 07:41 PM

If the engineering students can create a thesis project on the stability of film, we will be have new cine cameras by every month, and we will have a thousands companies, who can compare with Arri or other.
But, this is from side of dreams only.


Maybe so... LOL!

The K100 is a Kodak 16mm camera. It has two spring guides that push the film against the pulldown claw. The spring guides are on the same side as the pull down claw. I think a K100 is as steady as any Bolex. Very close to a pin registered Arri S or Arri M.

I swear something strange is going on in the film gate of K3 cameras modified to Super 16mm. They run steadier for some reason. It's a puzzling enigma.

I'd love to have some dynamic analysis to reference but I don't. Maybe we could find a bright engineering student and force/bribe him to do his/her thesis on film stability.

F.R.
Seen the 777 load test yet? Check it out!

  • 0

#14 Joe Lotuaco

Joe Lotuaco
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Grip

Posted 14 December 2006 - 07:53 PM

I own a K-3 and I have used Bolex Rex 5's at school. This past month I have used both side by side on several student projects, so I can give my personal experiences with both...

The K-3:
I love it. I purchased mine from another member on the forums here and I had it overhauled by Du-All Camera here in NYC. I've already put close to 1500' of film through it and the vast majority of it came out extraordinarily well. In the middle of a shoot, the camera did die on me and was later discovered to be due to a broken take-up sprocket. Du-All covered the repair of the sprocket under their warranty from the overhaul and now the camera runs super smooth. I just got back 500' of footage I shot after the repairs were done and registration and everything was perfect. Except now I think my pressure plate is scratching my film. Anyway, part of the overhaul by Du-All involved removing the loop formers making the camera fully manual loading, meaning I have to form the loops myself and thread the film through manually. I much prefer this method, it's very simple to load and gives me peace of mind that a loop former might not move away from the loops far enough when I close the lid and cause a loop to be lost creating a jam. A classmate of mine also bought a K-3, but the one he got had several bigger problems, something with the pull down claw was causing the film to go out of synch with the drive sprocket and the camera would constantly lose the loops, etc. I have noticed that the spring motors in the K3s tend to be more tempermental when you wind it. If you wind it all the way till the crank stops turning, it can cause the motor to jam up. Also, I recently shot outside this past weekend in 20 degree weather and it seems that after the camera is outside for a half our or so, the motor slows down to the point where it jams. I'm pretty sure this is because the viscosity of the grease increases and just gums up the sprockets and stuff inside. Once the camera warms up, it's fine again. I also love how the K3 feels when operating on a dolly or handheld, it just feels like a real camera in your hands and with the stock zoom lens feels more balanced.

The Bolex:
Very nice cameras. I like them, but personally I prefer my K3. Loading them is very simple and since the loop forming mechanisms are all metal, they autoload very quickly and easily. However, I have experienced issues with this. Sometimes the film gets pulled through by the drive sprockets, but doesn't get engaged on the pull down claw, so it can seem (to the novice at least) that the film is going through fine, but it's not getting stopped intermitently in front of the gate to get a steady exposure, so all you get back is 100ft of streaked film. It's a more complicated design inside than the K3 so I guess it's just more more to cause a problem, but that's just my paranoia. I don't particularly like the shutter mechanism of the bolex's as it was mentioned it has some prism reflex system, and I'm told you have to compensate for 1/3 of a stop because of the light lost to the viewfinder. The K3 doesn't really have this issue, but it's not that big of an issue anyway. Also, I have read that depending on when the Bolex was made you have to compensate your light readings and rate the film differently (ie. rating 100ASA film as 125ASA to compensate for shutter design changes). I'm sure it's not that big of a deal, but it just seems like it's one more complication involved with the bolex. I do like the motors better on the Bolex than the K3. The Bolex's I've used can go as high as 64fps where as the K3 only does 48fps. Also, they seem to take a beating better. Even with the school's cameras changing hands (inexperienced hands mind you) so often during a semester, the motors wind and run solidly each time. The hand crank is also a hundred times easier on your hands to crank a bolex. It can also be very confusing when trying to pick the right one as there seem to be so many different models and design changes over the years. With the k3 you only have to worry about M42 mount or bayonet mount.

As far as synch sound goes, I don't think either camera will be good for it unless your shooting outdoors and your subject is a good distance away from the camera and you have them mic'd. Both sound like sewing machines, but the Bolex is quieter if only by a little bit. I haven't heard either of these cameras with a crystal synch motor, so I don't know if it makes a big difference in how loud the cameras run. The most famous example of the K3 on this forum was done by a member who shot a music video that looked amazing on a pretty standard K3. So music videos at least are possible with a K3. If you run a search you'll be able to find a link to the video. But in the end, if you get creative, you can make either of them work and it's also a matter of how much you are willing to spend.
  • 0

#15 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 14 December 2006 - 08:03 PM

Yet, widening the gate to Super 16, does cause a noticably steadier image over the stock K3.

I might wonder if you can just use a simpler variable. The average K-3 has been knocking all over the former soviet area, and may have been sitting in who knows where for the alst few years. ANyone who has gone to the trouble to modify a unit to Super 16 has at least cleaned and re-lubricated it,probaly removed the controverial self loader parts, and set the film tension... (posible modifiying it to make up for the chnaged drag.

If you had a competent tech do the same to a regular K-3 you would probaly also have "better" pictures.
  • 0

#16 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 December 2006 - 08:12 PM

Most of what I will say about the K3 has already been said.

M42 lens mount which will which will give you access to a huge range of inexpensive 35mm still lenses (some of which are of very fine quality such as Pentax Takumar and Zeiss) but you will be mainly limited to 'standard' and 'telephoto' angles of view. Mount a 200mm or longer focal length and you will have super telephoto magnification. On the other hand, your wide angle options will be extremely limited - not much available here except for an 8mm Peleng.

Although I have the regular 16 version, it produces very steady footage.

However, saying that, quality control at the factory is apparently not the greatest so you could end up with a K3 that gives you rock steady footage or a K3 that will cause your film to jump around, be jammed and scratched. According to one source, the later K3s with the model name written in English are supposedly the better ones.

Judging from peoples varied opinions about the stock lens, the same quality control issues seem to affect the Meteor lens as well. There have been some people who have complained about the quality of this lens and other people who praise it. Mine gives reasonably sharp and crisp images but nothing outstanding. In short, I think it's a good lens but not a fantastic lens.

The K3 is a very loud camera!

The winding handle has a lot of resistance and will quickly become tiresome to wind.

The K3 has a considerably better viewfinder than that of a typical Bolex H16. I can't recall comparing finder brightness from memory but I do find that a K3 viewfinder is easier to focus than that of a Bolex...perhaps the K3 uses better ground glass.

Mirror shutter which will allow 100% of the light to go to the film and to the viewfinder alternatively. This would be particularly handy if you were filming in low light conditions. However, the mirror shutter is of a bit of a disadvantage when doing time lapse. A number of people have commented that light leakage can occur with a K3 if the interval time between frames is longer than several seconds. So the lens will need to be covered momentarily if long interval times are used. A Bolex would be a better camera for time lapse. You may even encounter a problem that i am experiencing - in that the single frame feature on my K3 will not work at all.

Maximum film capacity is 100 feet so you are limited to 2 and a half minutes of filming.

Loading film can be very easy or very hard, depending on the day it seems. The auto loading feature on my K3 works exceptionally well sometimes on a good day - like for example the very first time I used it - perfect. The last time however, it took me at least about 10 minutes to load a film.

Price - it is cheap! I paid au$400 for my K3 from a private seller in Australia after I saw it at a camera market. However, Ive seen them cheaper on ebay.

Overall, a Bolex is a more versatile camera than a K3 in terms of features. And a Bolex accepts more accessories.
  • 0

#17 Clive Tobin

Clive Tobin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 402 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Spokane Valley, WA, USA

Posted 14 December 2006 - 09:44 PM

They make a crystal motor for the K3. Bolex cameras are loud too....


We don't have a crystal motor any more for the K-3. We formerly made the TXM-7/K, TXM-D, TXM-20 and TXM-20K. A couple of dealers may possibly have some left, such as Kiev USA. Unfortunately the K-3 will not take a motor unless it is heavily modified. So although our motors were mostly about $495 and reasonably priced I thought, the usual $450 installation cost made it feel too pricey overall for a $200 camera.

We still have a limited quantity of crystal motors for the Bolex. The TXM-20Ba and TXM-20Be are $495 and are for newer cameras with the 1:1 shaft. The TXM-26B is $595 and is primarily for the older cameras without the 1:1 shaft and just the original 8:1 shaft. There are only half a dozen or so of each left.

Bolex themselves never made a crystal motor per se. The $800 ESM Electronically Stabilized Motor for the Rex-4, Rex-5, M-5 etc. is not crystal. To make it crystal you need to add their $900 crystal accessory or else our TXM-24 $270 unit. The TXM-24 will also control the Bolex cameras with the built-in electric motor, such as the EBM and EL. If you want one act now as there are just a couple of them left.
  • 0

#18 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 15 December 2006 - 04:45 AM

Hi F.R

I am planing to use it for doco, music videos and couple film projects if posibble.
I heard bolex had a crystal-sync motor. I dont know how can i record sound with K-3 considering also it is very loud...



If you planning to use it for documentary shooting, music video, you need 16 mm cine camera with crystal sync electrical motor with low noise and 400 ft film magazines.
All this requests not support a K-3
I hope, you not planning to use a K-3 for shooting of feature film ?
K-3 with crystal sync motor. Clive Tobin make a few special crystal synch motor for K-3 camera many years ago and all peoples discuss this events up to today.
If you tie a propeller to meat grinder, what you think, the table will fly ?
K-3 very good design , but, on original version. This is sring motor, 100 ft rolls.
The original camera notneed any battery, have minimum weight and size.
Only you connect electrical motor, you will think about 400 ft magazines and you lost best side of K3 desigh -
size, weight and self-contained unit.


I recommend Kinor-16 SX-2M.
16 mm ( Super 16) professional camera with electrical motor ( can be modify on crystal sync ), high precision transport mechanism with registration pin, 100 ft, 400 ft film magazines, prime lenses from 6 mm up to 300 mm,
zoom lenses 7.5-75mm, 10-100mm, 12-120 mm.
  • 0

#19 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:23 AM

I own a K-3 and I have used Bolex Rex 5's at school. This past month I have used both side by side on several student projects, so I can give my personal experiences with both...

The K-3:
I love it. I purchased mine from another member on the forums here and I had it overhauled by Du-All Camera here in NYC. I've already put close to 1500' of film through it and the vast majority of it came out extraordinarily well. In the middle of a shoot, the camera did die on me and was later discovered to be due to a broken take-up sprocket. Du-All covered the repair of the sprocket under their warranty from the overhaul and now the camera runs super smooth. I just got back 500' of footage I shot after the repairs were done and registration and everything was perfect. Except now I think my pressure plate is scratching my film. Anyway, part of the overhaul by Du-All involved removing the loop formers making the camera fully manual loading, meaning I have to form the loops myself and thread the film through manually. I much prefer this method, it's very simple to load and gives me peace of mind that a loop former might not move away from the loops far enough when I close the lid and cause a loop to be lost creating a jam. A classmate of mine also bought a K-3, but the one he got had several bigger problems, something with the pull down claw was causing the film to go out of synch with the drive sprocket and the camera would constantly lose the loops, etc. I have noticed that the spring motors in the K3s tend to be more tempermental when you wind it. If you wind it all the way till the crank stops turning, it can cause the motor to jam up. .


A few my technical comments.
I service, repair , modify of K-3 camera long time and be delighted with design of camera.
I think, we can compare 16 mmcine camera Kranosgorsk-3 with famous Russian tank T-34 of World War II.
This is complex of simple design, and unpretentiousness.
At time of former USSR , The children's hobby groups a film making to used a K-3 cameras.

About base cogs wheel and condition of cogs.
If you check of film transport mechanism, you can see four rollers around of cog's wheel.
This is rollers have turning for move of cogs of cog's wheel.

About base cogs wheel and condition of cogs.
If you check of film transport mechanism, you can see four rollers around of cog's wheel.
This is rollers have gnowing-through for move of cogs of cog's wheel.
But, the position of cog's wheel adjust by washers on base axis.
The pollers set on base plate of mechanism.
And if the position of cog's wheel adust not correct, the cog's can catch on rollers and destroy of cogs.
That's why, need check, what the cogs of cog's wheel pass by film rollers.

About pressure plate.
Yes, the surface of pressure plate can a scratching of film, you need re-polishing of surface of pressure plate.
But, the scratch can be from too big loops of film too.
If you check, the big size of upper loop can touch a film with body of camera.
That's why, not need load film with big loops.
The previous versions of Kransoghrosk camera ( K-1, k2 ) had no parts of auto loading of film and this cameras work fine.
That's why, i recommend take away a plastic leading of film and use manual mode of film loading.
I use similar modified camera many years and had not to feel uncomfortable with manual procedure of film loading.

About spring motor.
The spring motor have inertia governor speed control and the volume of speed depend from effort of spring.
The mechanism have reducing reducer, but, the effort of spring have influence on a speed.
That's why, i recommend re-loading spring after every shoot and take spring with maximum effort.
A some cine cameras have special module of stopping of spring motor and not give discharge spring too much.
This is cameras have not long time of work of spring motor, but, have more high stability of speed.
  • 0

#20 Joe Gioielli

Joe Gioielli
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 December 2006 - 05:52 PM

All things in life come down to budget. If you must have synch sound for your projects, the k3 is not the way to go. Either rent something better or consider video. DV is great for low-budget doco work that require large amounts of filming. Image quality suffers but 2 buck an hours for tape is cheap. Just something for you to consider.

As for the K3, I have one and love it. I really don't believe in spending a lot of cash on any kind of mods for it. It is an over grown home movie camera and there is nothing wrong with that. You can do a lot with it. But I just don't see the point in investing capital into a camera that is limited to 100 ft spools. It's a 200 camera. Enjoy it for what it is.

Joe
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Opal

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

CineLab

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Willys Widgets