Jump to content


Photo

tempted by 35mm


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Giorgio Taricco

Giorgio Taricco
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Other
  • Toino Italy

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:44 AM

HI all,
my first post here.
I'm living in Italy, I'm a pianist and I love photo and cinematography.
I have a project for a short film with Kodak 7222 or Orwo UN 54 negative in my near future.
I'm looking for a Arriflex 16BL or another 16mm camera as stupidily I have sold a near mint Beaulieu R16 el. some time ago...
I have a couple of question about my project:
I'm intrigued by 35mm film shooting and the Konvas camera is very interesting for me, cheap and good quality.
Only, I don't know how much would be difficoult to find 35mm B&W (5222) short or long ends here in Europe, any help about that?
Also, I'm a Large format shooter and I have a good experience in developing B&W films but if 16mm would not be a problem with a Lomo tank what about the 35mm in 400 ft reels?
How can I develop these in my darkroom?
There is a Pro tank or similar for such a long film?
Last question is where I can find the Konvas 35m camera full manual in English.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Giorgio
  • 0

#2 Marc Roessler

Marc Roessler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 February 2012 - 08:11 AM

Hey Giorgio,

welcome to the board!

I'd suggest to give the negative to a professional lab (rather than home processing) for three reasons:

- you will end up with quite some scratches and dirt on the negative; even if you handle it ultra carefully: as long as you don't have an absolutely clean (no dust!) room to hang the film to dry you will have dirt embedding itself into the still soft emulsion, impossible to remove later on. This is not sooo bad with reversal film, but very bad with negative (because any speck of dust will show as white!)

- the lomo spiral tank (the one I know of...) only holds 50 feet of 35mm film (or 100 feet of 16mm, split in two). This is about 15 meters of 35mm film, lasting for about 30 seconds at 24 fps. This means that the chance that your cut is in the middle of an important scene is quite high.

- home processing is not THAT much cheaper and having the film processed, especially when you consider the fact that you'll be spending quite some time buying the chemicals, doing the threading and processing of the film, cleanup and then disposing the chemistry.

Other than that, shooting BW on 35mm or even 16mm looks great! Definately a cool idea.
Just a pity 7231/5231 Plus-X isn't around any more, it was such a great stock.

Greetings,
Marc
  • 0

#3 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:09 AM

35mm is a sirens song that must be avoided at all cost (for the low-no budget filmmakers). You will wake up in a hotel room next to a dead hooker- that's how dangerous it is.
  • 0

#4 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:55 PM

35mm is a sirens song that must be avoided at all cost (for the low-no budget filmmakers). You will wake up in a hotel room next to a dead hooker- that's how dangerous it is.

Well put.

I agree it can be dangerous, but I'm finding 35mm to be cheaper than ever to shoot. Short ends and recans are plentiful and sometimes cheaper than 16mm on a per minute basis, only processing is a little more than 16mm...transfer costs the same.

People are dumping their crazy expensive 35mm cameras even though they still produce amazing images. Show me an 6k (8k?) digital camera with 12+ stops of range for less than $3000. A crystal Arri 2c I recently picked up is all these things.

However to be honest it is a labor of love and money.
  • 0

#5 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:54 PM

^^ what will said.
When i'm working, generally the costs between 35mm and 16mm is about the same (less for 35mm if you do 2 perf on occasion) and not that big of a bump from the higher end HD/DCinema material.
  • 0

#6 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:56 AM

As for the Konvas, terrific little camera for what you're doing. It is about the most robust general purpose 35mm motion picture camera ever made. It was made to take a lot of punishment and keep on shooting. The turret KSR-1 are the least expensive with many having a set of OCT-18 lenses that come with the camera. They'll have to be serviced of course but that's with any used camera you buy. The older ones run 6 volt wild rheostat motors. The earlier ones also had a hand crank, an animation crank and IF you can find one (I was super fortunate to have found one), a spring motor. I also was able to find a set of 2 piece anamorphic lenses (they also have single piece anamorphic lenses as well as anamorphic zooms although they are a little pricey now) and an original matte box along with some 400 ft mags. The later ones the 1M uses either a 14 volt stabilized motor or crystal sync motor. I found some 16mm special effects stuff that fit and worked on the smaller lens bodies including an Old Delft anamorphic front adapter, a Davis and Sandford 3V tri-vision Pepper's ghost effect lens mounted box and a Besbee Effectograph used for various hard mattes and transitions. The cool thing anout these OLD school effects is they are simple, cost effective and idiot proof. I have also found the 4 x 4 Cokin resin still camera filters work great with these cameras, come in B&W filters and cost next to nothing. One not though, at least here in the states, color film costs less and is cheaper to have processed that black and white film so unless there is some artistic reason to shoot B&W, you may want to rethink that decision. ALSO, should you choose to go the 16mm B&W route so you can self process the negative, the Russians made 2 excellent inexpensive 16mm cameras, the Krasnogorsk 3 :

http://www.ebay.com/...=item4162afc6fb

and the Kinor 16 :

http://www.ebay.com/...=item20bfff4458

and of course there are the bell and Howell 240 which is a parallax view camera but can be had for less that a hundred bucks and the standard Bolex which can go for $200. B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly, 22 February 2012 - 12:57 AM.

  • 0

#7 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:35 AM

Here ya go. This one is similar to mine:

http://www.ebay.com/...=item519a595e8c
  • 0

#8 Richard Tuohy

Richard Tuohy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Daylesford, Australia

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:01 AM

Hi Giorgio,
you can certainly process 35mm film yourself in a large size lomo. however the largest lomo (which is hard to find I can tell you) is 100'. There is no lomo or lomo like way of developing a full 400' lenght. You could, however, invent your own way of processing 400'!
Get a konvas, by all means. I love mine. then just shoot 100' lengths. It isn't so hard.
cheers,
richard

HI all,
my first post here.
I'm living in Italy, I'm a pianist and I love photo and cinematography.
I have a project for a short film with Kodak 7222 or Orwo UN 54 negative in my near future.
I'm looking for a Arriflex 16BL or another 16mm camera as stupidily I have sold a near mint Beaulieu R16 el. some time ago...
I have a couple of question about my project:
I'm intrigued by 35mm film shooting and the Konvas camera is very interesting for me, cheap and good quality.
Only, I don't know how much would be difficoult to find 35mm B&W (5222) short or long ends here in Europe, any help about that?
Also, I'm a Large format shooter and I have a good experience in developing B&W films but if 16mm would not be a problem with a Lomo tank what about the 35mm in 400 ft reels?
How can I develop these in my darkroom?
There is a Pro tank or similar for such a long film?
Last question is where I can find the Konvas 35m camera full manual in English.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Giorgio


  • 0

#9 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:03 AM

Here ya go. This one is similar to mine:

http://www.ebay.com/...=item519a595e8c

and here's an original mattebox

http://www.ebay.com/...=item4160536ac2

The bubble shaped protrusion he mentioned is one of the very early models like this one:

http://www.ebay.com/...=item25582a423b

and Here is an animation single frame crank for the one I posted earlier:

http://www.ebay.com/...=item255fb88b2e

and a couple of hand cranks (although the one I posed earlier has one in the package):

http://www.ebay.com/...=item255fb88b3d

http://www.ebay.com/...=item27c34bbf48
  • 0

#10 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:22 PM

Whoa, whoa...whoa. 35mm is almost as cheap as 16mm? First off.. for a 90 min 35mm film that's 8,100 feet x 4:1 ratio is 32,400 x .10 stock + .10 devolped = $6,480 (not including transfer, s/h, taxes, etc..). 16mm is HALF that amount (if not more).
And those .10 cents quotes above are like "best deal" scenarios ie. you live in a city where there's a short ends, lab and no sales tax and your g/f taxis you about for free.
  • 0

#11 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:29 PM

@ Chris.
Yes, for 4 Perf.
3 Perf would be 6000 (6075) FT for 90 min
2 Perf would be 4000; about the same price as S16mm, which is a lot harder to get as ends/recans.
  • 0

#12 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:16 PM

Oh no..Adrian is dragging out the "2-perf"- take cover! I feel that's not even a valid option as most 35mm cameras can't shoot it and even if they could it's like two S-16 frames next to each other- kinda pointless.
Here's a thread link below on Konvas 2-perf conversion ie. it's very expensive.

http://www.cinematog...showtopic=23041

Marc is wants to shoot on 35mm but he's a poor filmmaker and can't afford it (that's why he started this thread- he can't afford it--he's in love with a cheap Konvas camera fantasy). He has no business shooting it and if he tries he will be overwelmed and fail. He's trying to be a big fish and you all are encouraging him - tsk, tsk

Your all trying to help the McDonald's employee to buy a Ferrari ("Sure, get a high interest loan!.."You can live in it so you don't have to pay rent on a apartment"..etc..)

I'm not a Christian and I hate quoting scripture, but even GOD says don't do it, Marc. Are you still "tempted"..

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
(Matthew 6:13)

Edited by Christopher Sheneman, 22 February 2012 - 05:17 PM.

  • 0

#13 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:35 PM

2 Perf would be 4000; about the same price as S16mm, which is a lot harder to get as ends/recans.


I've been getting super cheap S16mm from a board member (between .045 and .08 per foot). That's about $45-80 for a 1,000 ft.
  • 0

#14 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:36 PM

I would certainly not call 2-perf impossible (though honestly buying a camera is probably a bad idea) just pointing out that there are other, far cheaper options, and comparisons between S16mm and 4 Perf. If anything, 3-perf would be closer to S16mm anyway, and have a 33% savings on stock/processing to boot over 4-perf.
Also, I can't speak for other places than here and now, but when I'm looking @ budgets with productions, on film, normally the price between S16mm and 3-perf even come out roughly the same, mostly because it is easier to find 35mm ends/recans than S16mm.

Also 2 S16mm frames next to each other is far from pointless, it's a lot more real-estate than a 16mm frame, and if one was to go for a 2.40:1 a really economical way of doing that, minus the issues which can arise from hairs in the gate ect. Also, as it greatly increases the run-time on mags for 35mm cameras, it can be very beneficial when you want to get as much time on a load of film as possible, or when you really want to mitigate weight (on the 2M a 150' mag 2-perf would be damned nice to have for run and gun situations, but I digress).

I am not trying to sell someone on 35mm, but I also don't think it's appropriate to mis-represent 35mm as being incredibly expensive, or that much more expensive than S16mm and discourage someone from trying it out for themselves. In the end Giorgio will have to look at the economics and aesthetics of their film and make the call as to what they want to go with. All I can do is give my own experiences with S16mm and 35mm in terms of which ones are, for one reason or another, easier to afford.
  • 1

#15 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:38 PM

Also; wanna share your hook up for cheap S16mm; I got a fridge with some spare room ;)
  • 0

#16 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 06:34 PM

I also don't think it's appropriate to mis-represent 35mm as being incredibly expensive, or that much more expensive than S16mm and discourage someone from trying it out for themselves. In the end Giorgio will have to look at the economics and aesthetics of their film and make the call as to what they want to go with. All I can do is give my own experiences with S16mm and 35mm in terms of which ones are, for one reason or another, easier to afford.


They only way 35mm would go come close to S16mm would be if the OP bought 35mm clear leader and drew on it and transfered it.

BOO-YA, Adrian!

ps. please email me with a price list for that S16 you have in the fridge.
  • 0

#17 Bruce Taylor

Bruce Taylor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 482 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:47 PM

They only way 35mm would go come close to S16mm would be if the OP bought 35mm clear leader and drew on it and transfered it.


Is anyone here doing the math? If you shoot cans of 35mm that you buy from Kodak, 35mm is more expensive than 16mm. For sure.

However... if you're willing to shoot short ends and/or recans, everything changes. If you make a few phone calls you can find perfectly good 35mm stock (Kodak or Fuji) for .08 to .15/ft. Processing is .08- .10 ft. (Deluxe). Unless you can find a super deal on short ends/recans for 16mm, 35mm will actually be cheaper. Transfer is the same, 16 or 35. This is in LA. UPS will ship anywhere, so that shouldn't be an issue.

If you're shooting a short, 4, 3 or 2 perf 35mm usually doesn't matter that much in terms of film cost if you're using short ends/recans. If you're shooting a feature, then 2 perf can provide substantial savings if you have access to a 2 perf camera (like the Kinors I rent, or make a deal with Panavision). A 2 perf conversion is going to cost 6 grand or so, one might as well stick with 4 perf if you're buying the camera to make your movie.
  • 0

#18 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 22 February 2012 - 08:16 PM

OK, let's just say for a moment that shooting 35mm is cheaper (which it isn't), there isn't a supply of inexpensive 2-perf sound-sync cameras for rent so you'll be using wild cameras (if you can get one for cheap some how), which will require extensive post-production sound costs (say bye-bye to any intial savings).
  • 0

#19 Will Montgomery

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

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:05 AM

I picked up 8000 feet of Fuji 64D 35mm for $300.

Tested just fine. I know this isn't an everyday occurrence, but in my case, 35mm is cheaper to shoot even at 4 perf. I have the lab wind down 400' rolls to 100' loads for the Eyemo. That should last me a couple of years. Although my processing here in Dallas is $.18 foot.

I shoot with an Arri 2C (love it!) and an Eyemo. Should be able to find an Eyemo for $350 or so.

If you want to get your feet wet with 35mm and have fun, try an Eyemo. Shoot 1 minute at a time.






  • 0

#20 Christopher Sheneman

Christopher Sheneman
  • Guests

Posted 23 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

So..that 8,000 x .18 per foot x 4:1 ratio is $5760 + .0625 sales tax = GRAND TOTAL JUST FOR PROCESSING = $6,120 which is cheaper than miniDV too..and Hi-8 as well. Very very cheap.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Technodolly

Opal

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Technodolly

Opal

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Visual Products