They are called "Vlad's Test Targets" just Google it.

I'll try to answer your question without writing an essay, but there are no short answers for this kind of stuff. Having a light meter that can measure one degree is actually very useful. It allows you to put extremely accurate exposures. If we take a landscape as an example, what you have to do is analyze the scene and imagine how you want the picture to look. Let's say you have a green valley with cows, a defined horizon, a mountain with some snow on the top, and the sky in the background with nice clouds on top. If you are facing the scene and the sun is behind you, the light would be flat, so you could use the incident meter (assuming that the light is similar) and you would have correct exposure. But if you want to use the spot meter, you could take a reading of something that looks middle gray to you (brightness not color). You could take a reading of the grass or a cow that is neither white nor black, or you could just take a reading of the mountain and you would get a picture that is going to have "proper" exposure. That would be like taking a picture using the auto mode of a camera or just doing what the internal meter tells you to do. There is nothing wrong with that if you are a beginner or if you just want to have fun and not complicate things, but if you want better results, you should analyze the scene and imagine how you want the image to look. Exposure allows you not only to get a specific look, but to get technically good results. For example, it's common to hear people say that they expose "for the shadows" when they shoot film because it's almost impossible to get detail once the film is exposed or because they want less grain. Some others say they want to protect the highlights when they shoot digital. That's because once you lose detail, you can't recover it, and blown-out highlights look ugly in digital images. In those cases, a reflected meter would allow you to base your exposure on a very specific area (shadows or highlights). You are not limited to available light. You can use a flash, a light or a reflector to manipulate the image. The meter is very useful when you need to know how much light you can add or remove. Back to the mountain... Time has elapsed, and now the sun is setting behind the mountain. There is much more contrast between the green grass (now darker) and the bright sky behind the mountain. Now you have to decide what you want to do. Let's say you want detail in those beautiful clouds and you want to silhouette the mountain. You take a reading of the clouds, and in my case I would compensate by 2 f-stops (based on the media and experience). That would allow me to have detail in the sunset and the clouds, but the mountain would be just a silhouette. Now let's say you want to have detail in the foreground. There is a lot of contrast in the scene. You may decide to expose "for the shadows" and get detail in the grass and the cows, but you would lose detail in the sky. You decide that you don't care about the sky because the house in the foreground is what is important. You find something that looks gray (tone, not color), meaning not as bright as white and not as dark as black. Take a reading with your reflected meter, and you have detail in the shadows, but you lost the sky... But the reflected meter is a great and precise measuring tool, remember? So you take a reading of the sky, see what's the difference in exposure, put a graded ND filter, in front of the lens and now you have detail in the entire picture. You didn't just use any filter; you used the one that you needed to have "proper" exposure in the sky based on the info that you got from the meter. Another solution could be to "average" the exposure. I see this as a mediocre solution, but that's what cameras do. That means you can take readings of the dark and bright areas, and you put your exposure in the middle. Now let's say that you have the same scene, but you are going to use a telephoto lens, and you want to make sure you have detail in the snow that is on the peak of the mountain. You take a reading with your reflected meter, open up the lens two stops (my preference), and when you zoom in on the picture, you can see the texture. Or you want to take a picture of a neon sign on top of a building surrounded by nothing but the dark night. If you use a camera to measure that scene, the darkness of the sky would fool the meter. Then the camera would say, "This is way too dark; I need a lot of light! Open up the iris, boost the ISO, or reduce the shutter speed! Do something" and the neon sign would be a mess with no detail at all. But you have your meter with a one-degree area, so you take a measurement of the tubes completely ignoring the sky, compensate by two stops, and get perfect exposure. You zoom in on the image, and you can see the filament inside the bulbs. I don't always look for middle gray. Some times I see something completely white or completely black in the scene. I take a measurement of the white object and open up 2 stops. If the object that I measured is black I compensate by 2 stops to make the image darker since reflected meters want to do everything middle gray. I know from experience that 2 stops give me a bright image with a lot of detail (if I measured something white). Some examples are snow, bright clouds with detail, rice, sand. If I take a piece of white paper as reference I compensate by 3 stops. That gives me a very bright piece of paper in the image. If I want to see something written on the paper I compensate only by 2 stops and I end up with a white piece of paper with detail. The opposite applies for black. You don't just point the meter towards the scene and get proper exposure. You have to decide what you want to do. Then you measure that area and take your decision based on how you want the image to look. Some times you don't have enough light, but you can see (using the meter) that your image is going to be underexposed by one or two stops and you say "I'm fine with that" I used the light meter on this video, and in some cases you can see the picture that I took. You can see how I apply some of the principles that I mentioned here and how the pictures look more interesting because I'm not just averaging the exposure. That's my opinion: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpDXdaKZfbagrtU&ab_channel=TheCinematographyLab I used to think cinematographers or professional photographers didn't want to share their knowledge, but now I see how difficult it is to explain these topics not only because they are complex, but also because decisions are our interpretation based on knowledge and experience. If you want to learn more, I recommend studying the zone system. Also read as many articles as you can about light meters and exposure. There is a young guy who has a great KZbin channel; his name is Robert Machado. I don't know anyone who understands and explains light meters better than him. Watch his videos (2), and my examples will make more sense.

@@TheCinematographyLab Wow, thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this in depth, and this is what I needed. I’ve struggled to grasp the zone system, but your explanation with examples now makes a lot of sense, and gives a good guideline to start, measuring for a middle tone, highlight, or shadow, depending on what’s most important, and then compensating accordingly on how it’s meant to be presented. Reading your explanation several times, the fundamental concept is sinking in. I’m getting underway shooting with a Bolex, and nailing the exposure is a really important priority on my journey. It’s a complex subject, as you said, and I’m really grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and time!

@billpeet1976 Good to hear the information was useful. I could talk about this for hours, but it's better if you read or learn from people who took the time to do a proper presentation of the info. The zone system is the key. At least you have some information that gives you a place to start. I remember when I was starting it was beyond frustrating. I used to think the meter didn't work or that it needed to be calibrated. I was telling myself stuff (a lot of people do these days) like "I don't need a light meter, we have monitors, histograms, and scopes." The reality is you can put all that information in your brain, then analyze and previsualize a scene just by taking a few readings, and you can tell other people, "The room in the back is going to be properly exposed, the frame of the door in the foreground is going to look dark, but there is going to be enough detail there. The window in the back is going to be bright, 3 stops over the key, but we are going to be able to see the city, and we can bring detail back in post if needed." You can also reverse the process to illuminate a scene: "I want an f4 in the room. The camera is going to be in the hallway, and I want the light 2 stops under so the foreground is darker, but we retain detail. I just took a reading of the window, and it is 4 stops over the key. Let's put a 0.6 ND gel on the glass so we only have a difference of two stops between the key (f4 in this example) and the highlights so we can see the city, or the mountains in the back," or you may say, "We have an ugly alley outside the window and we don't have resources; I'm going to blowout the exposure by 4 stops so we don't see anything through the window." Just some examples of how you can use a meter in a creative way. You can take decisions that change the look of an image from mediocre to interesting. It takes a lot of research and practice. The same principles apply to decent digital cameras, by the way. I use my handheld meter with my Nikon D850 all the time, and I get perfect results. Professional digital cameras are properly adjusted to the ISO standard. I mention that because it's easier and cheaper if you use a digital camera to practice. You can see the results right in the spot, change something, and see what happens. You can apply that info to your Bolex or any other digital or film camera. Also, you can use a digital camera to see how the image is going to look before you take the shot with the Bolex. It's a good idea if you don't feel confident about your exposure. Wasting film is not fun. Just remember that there is a beam splitter in the Bolex. You have to take that into consideration when you are figuring your numbers out.

Thank you!

I have never seen a K2 in person, but judging by the images I have seen online, they look basically like the K3. I have a video where I explain how to remove the loop formers of the K3. I explain how to properly open the camera (K3). There are also some older videos that explain the process. I think those instructions can help you to open the camera and put it back together. You will have to decide if you should send the camera to a technician or if you want to take the risk and probably fix it for free.

Haha, I didn't finish watching the video. Originally, it said in the video that releasing the shaft would allow you to draw

I guess you found the answer to your question. I think all the answers are in the video, watch carefully and you will find all the info there. If you still have questions let me know and I'll try to help.

Sounds like a fun project! It's a complicated topic, but sounds like you know what you are doing. Probably you already know this, but doing some research on "flange focal distance" is a good place to start. I'm not saying you don't know about it, it's just a recommendation. Cameras from that period were basic cameras, so it shouldn't be complicated getting an image on the film. Projecting an image is a good technique when you want to see how the lens performs or if you want to see if the witness marks of the lens are accurate. In your case, I would recommend the opposite. If you can see the gate of the camera, put a piece of translucent "magic" tape in the place where the film sits and see the image that forms there. Pointing the camera towards a window or a bright area would make it easier. You can cover your head with a blanket so you can see the image better. If you can get an image in focus there, that's what the camera is going to capture. If the lens is not adjusted to the flange focal distance of the camera, you can still get an image, and that image may be in focus. The problem is the witness marks of the lens are not going to be accurate, and you may not be able to focus at infinity. Adapting lenses to other cameras, especially simple cameras like the one you describe, is possible. People use old lenses on film and digital camera bodies every day. If you haven't taken FFD into consideration, try to apply that information to your project. It's easier when you know at what distance the lens is supposed to work. If you manage to place the lens at the distance it is supposed to be, then the witness marks are going to be accurate (assuming the lens is correct), and you are going to be able to focus at infinity. It is possible, especially if you are a machinist. You could use a Nikon adapter, for example, adjust the distance to a tight tolerance, and you could use any Nikon lens, or Canon or M42. I'm almost sure the camera you are referring to is not a reflex camera. In that case, it's even more important to have some focusing marks you can trust. If you want to give me more details about the camera and the lens, I can give you a better point of view.

@@TheCinematographyLab I took your advice. I used a piece of clear 16mm film in the gate and removed the pressure plate. This gave me a clear view. I think the results are promising! I uploaded the video to my second channel 20th Century Antiques. It is uploaded as a short.

@@RMphy89 The results are promising for sure. That's basically it. That's what lenses and cameras do. Depending on the focal length of the lens you may be able to focus it at infinity and leave it there, like a GoPro.

@@TheCinematographyLab Great to hear! I will post videos when I have my test footage developed. Hopefully by the end of the year.

That's awesome! The scoopics are built like tanks. I'm sure your footage is going to look great.

You are correct, my friend Carlos filmed using a C-16 and a Super 8 camera. The Scoopic is a great camera, especially for this kind of stuff. Thanks for watching!

That's a great idea!! Thanks for sharing your technique. I thought about setting the audio recorder somewhere and recording sound, but it was going to be impossible to find the matching video. Digital video helps to find the matching images. Simple yet effective idea. It would've been cool to have some clips with audio, even if they were short shots like the ones I filmed. Thanks!!

Thanks! The Scoopics in general are known because of their good quality lenses. I have seen some footage filmed with the original Scoopic gray, and it looks amazing. The lens of the Scoopic M is supposed to be even a little better. Unfortunately, I was not able to fully demonstrate that here, but looking at the images that are properly focused, I think the quality is great. They are sharp, and the lens has great control over lens flare. You can see how I pointed the camera towards the light several times, and that didn't wash the image out. The Scoopics were created as cameras for news or documentaries. They can be used to film whatever you want, but the ergonomics of the camera are "superior" in that regard. The K3 and the Bolex are not exactly comfortable when it comes to filming "gun and run" and the NPR is a great camera that can be used for documentary or fiction, but it's heavy. They all are good cameras, but for run-and-gun stuff, I would choose a Scoopic, an ACL, a CP-16R, or an NPR over other cameras any day. Basically, all the cameras are a box with a lens. If the lens and the film are good, you get good, sharp, and stable images in focus. After that, some cameras are more suited for a specific job than others; that's it. The film was processed and scanned by The Negative Space, yes. They did a great job as usual.

¡Muchas gracias! Han sido muchos años tratando de mantener la cámara fija, creo que eso ha ayudado. Saludos.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want to film normally at 18 or 24 fps for 3 seconds? Do you want to capture one image every 3 seconds? Or do you want to keep the shutter open for 3 seconds? I assume you mention 1/32 and 1/64 because when you fire the flash at that intensity, the flash recycles faster. I don't think a flash can be fired 18 or 24 times (fps) every second for 3 seconds, but that depends on the flash and the power source. Sounds like a good way to burn the bulb of the flash. If you want to capture one image every 3 seconds, I think that's doable. That gives the flash enough time to recycle and be ready. Again, it depends on the flash and the power source, but almost any flash can recycle in 3 seconds, especially at those intensities. The last option. I don't think that's what you are talking about; it would be to keep the shutter open for 3 seconds. That would require the use of a release cable or a remote, and it would only be possible with cameras that have a B (bulb) mode. In that case, the camera would capture ambient light for 3 seconds. At some point the flash would fire, freezing that exact moment in a certain area. That would render incredible results since you can play with ambient or available light and flash. In such a case, the flash could be used to illuminate only a certain area. It would be cool. I hope that helps.

@@TheCinematographyLab the first part. Using a flash at night would let me simulate faster shutter speeds with a camera that normally has a set 1/70, 1/50 or 1/30 depending on angle and frame rate. It’d be a neat way to film skate tricks hehe

@@TheCinematographyLab also one of my favorite night photography tricks is to get some medium speed film say 200 or 400, hold my flash in my hand charged, then open up bulb while my friend rides by and I snap flash. It gives a slight motion blur but leaves a solid image at the flash :3

@@fenixlolnope361 Got you! That would be cool and doable in my opinion. Most speed-lights and strobes fire at speeds around ±1/500th of a second. That would freeze the action giving you sharper, crispy images for sure. It would create an interesting shot since you would be capturing some ambient light too. Yeah, that trick that you describe is pretty much the same. I think you should give it a try. You could end up with super cool images.

@@TheCinematographyLab I just have to find a flash that has either a fast enough recharge speed to fire at 16/18fps or a flash with 1/32. I'm assuming there's double 8 cameras that can do this too, double 8 is more up my alley because B&W film is much cheaper since nobody has to make a cartridge. The best manual flash i have only has 1/16 which is still cutting it close :/

Good to hear you didn't have any trouble removing the loop formers! I just updated the link in the description. Here it is directly: www.ebay.com/itm/235362529840 Thanks for the heads-up.

@@TheCinematographyLab thank you! It works now and I just ordered one.

@@mattlperez Awesome! I'll put it in the mail for you today.

@@TheCinematographyLab thanks just received it, I appreciate the help

Gracias Wildo. De acuerdo contigo!

Thanks. I talked about the gears that have to coincide so they can work together. Many times, when you put the lid back, the gears are going to touch at a point where they cannot connect or interact. When I winded the camera, the motor and the gear attached to it rotated, and at some point (28:00), it fell in place and connected with the gear on the lid. One gear was on top of the other because they were not in the right place. When I put pressure on the lid and rotated the lever, they found a point where they connected, and the lid fell into place, hence the bumping sound.

@@TheCinematographyLab amazing, got it, thank you so much <3

It's called "Cinema Tools"

Glad to hear you liked the video! Hey, those are cool cameras. The Bolex P series are nice little cameras. I guess not a lot of people know about them because they can be found at good prices. Have fun shooting your tests.

Thanks Cecil!

Special and unique images in their own way, for sure. Thanks for watching, my friend!

Thank you! I did set the exposure manually, yes. Measuring flash is basically impossible, even for the most modern digital camera. The flash fires at the exact moment when the mirror moves up (photo), so still photo cameras don't have the ability to actually measure flash. They calculate exposure using distance and the brightness of the object, but they can't measure the actual flash. So, as you can imagine, a Super 8 camera cannot measure flash either. You need a light meter to calculate exposure. You could also use a digital camera, if can put the flash somewhere and don't touch it. In my experience, the indicators are accurate. I'm not good at math, so I can't explain why the iris doesn't close in fixed steps, as you mentioned. In some cases, the change in the aperture of the iris is negligible. It doesn't seem to change at all, but that is the way it is in all lenses. The indicators are correct in most cases. The iris is a mechanical device that opens and closes. If it works, it's going to be accurate in most cases. I like using thirds (1/3) of a stop when I do my work. That's how they teach in school too. Most digital cameras are marked in thirds of a stop, that's because a few years ago, the dynamic range of digital cameras was not as good as it is today. Also, some people like to use the.jpg format, which compresses the information even more. That was not necessary in the film world because the latitude, which is equivalent to the dynamic range of the film, captures a lot of information. Cameras from the 1980s and older ones have shutter speeds marked in full stops only. At some point, they added half stops to lenses, but a lot of lenses can be used with full stops only. In the 1990s, they added half stops to cameras and then thirds. I use thirds when I calculate my exposure for Super 8 and 16mm. That allows me to be more precise, but as you can imagine, it's not a big deal if you don't position the needle exactly at the third that you want. You can over or underexpose film by one stop, and it's not really a problem. It's not ideal. It's not a good idea if you are shooting Ektachrome. But film is very forgiven, especially if you give it more light than what the meter says. I used tape to cover the viewfinder because I wanted to be able to see once in awhile. Closing the mechanical switch or cover requires a certain pressure. That was going to introduce movement to the camera, something you want to avoid when you shoot time lapses. If you pay attention to the lens, you'll notice that I used some tape to "lock" the position of the lens. I locked the focus and the zoom rings to eliminate the risk of changing a setting accidentally. Super 8 cameras are not super precise. The garlic was in focus in the viewfinder, but it was blurry when I got the film scanned. You can shoot interesting stuff, but there are always going to be surprises. I think you should give your camera a try, learn, and have fun.

Thanks for asking. That project is pretty much dead. Getting a piece as large as that one machined is expensive, so aluminum is out of the equation. Industrial 3D printing technology has evolved tremendously in the last few years. We have experienced improvements in the quality and durability of the materials, as well as a drop in cost, which is great. Yet, considering the prices that most people expect to pay for a product like that one, it doesn't make sense financially. Volume is what drives production costs down, but we are talking about a niche, a very small market. A guy in Europe is selling a base for non-flat-bottom cameras made of aluminum. Judging by the pictures that I have seen, I find it bulky and seems to be heavy. I guess it gets the job done. I design my products using my experience as a camera operator, so balance, usability, and weight distribution are things that I take into consideration. It is not always possible with old cameras, though.

Thanks!

Thank you. I had the 3D printer working in the same room. I'll try to avoid that situation in the future.

No worries Dude ! your film and attention to detail is amazing - I have opened my 4008 battery case, used alot of isopropyl to dissolve the old glue.. They used hardcore stuff in 1969

They work fine and they are accurate. The ones that I have tried gave me measurements pretty close to what the dedicated meter gave me. The problem is you never really know what the meter is doing. How it is gathering light. They are good to a point. When you are ready to run the extra mile and get more precise and consistent measurements and results nothing replaces a good meter.

@@TheCinematographyLab i found one that has spot metering, so maybe it is more useful?

@@CousinHubertRetrogaming Both incident and reflected are useful and ideal in certain situations. In this video I mentioned that you can use accessories to convert the cheap Sekonic models and the Minolta onto reflected meters. I also mentioned you never know exactly what you area you are measuring. That's the problem I have noticed with apps. They meter reflected light and they tell you what 's the area they are supposedly measuring, but they are not super accurate in that sense. I mean they are apps, they are free in some cases. They work great for what they are. You cannot expect them to do the same as a meter that costs $800. They work fine, especially if you understand how light meters work and you use them properly. I used a light meter app on my old iPhone 6s to shoot a roll of film recently and I got decent results. I talk about that and other things on this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGPZoq2Dg8x5iZI

I didn't even know tumbling rocks was a thing, but the rocks look cool. Why do they need auto-mode? I have no idea.

If nobody opened the camera and lost the washers I would say you are good. I have seen cameras that have one and cameras that have two washers. The washers are there to adjust the distance. If no adjustment was needed, no washers were needed.

@@TheCinematographyLab good to know. I did then found not two but three loose washers so they may end up going there. Not sure if there is another section in the camera that they would go. Do you also, have any idea on how to clean the viewfinder? It may be the gate since i checked the lens and it appears clean but the viewfinder has hairs and other sort of particles. Thank you!

There you go! If they look like the ones in the video, they go there. There is no other part of the camera that needs a washer. The optical path of the K3 is, as in any other camera complex, it can be easily damaged or misaligned. There are several prisms in the front, plus the focusing screen, plus the diopter in the back. All those elements have to be precisely aligned. My recommendation is not to touch them. You could blow air using a manual blower (don't use compressed air or cans). I know it's annoying to see those particles, but I don't think it's worth it to try to clean it. Make sure the gate is clean before shooting, and your film will be good. Those particles that you see won't affect the image on the film at all.

Hello, an FD to M42 adapter is not possible without glass. The flange-to-focal distance of the FD mount is shorter than that of the M42 mount. That's why you won't find adapters for FD, EF, or Nikon lenses. If you find an adapter for any of those lenses, the adapter will have an optical element inside that messes with the nature of the lens, or the lens will behave as a macro lens. The port of the camera could be modified; some people have been putting EF mounts on the K3 for some time. FD? I doubt it. It has a shorter depth distance than EF.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thanks. If Fotodiox or K&F make one with the glass/dippter, ill get it, otherwise I'll find another wide for it and use FD where it can work

Great to hear that! More stuff like this coming soon not only with the K3, but with other cameras too. Thanks for watching.

That's correct. The Tobin motor for the K3 made by Tobin Systems, was a crystal syn motor for the K3. The installation had to be done by a technician. It involved removing some parts and drilling some holes. I recently saw a similar motor made by Aapo Letinen. Aapo has been making crystal sync motors for cameras for a few years, and he just made one for the K3. As you mentioned, the K3 has some really cool features, like a spinning mirror shutter and a reflex viewing system. That makes it a great camera for experimentation and educational purposes. At this point, I think it's easier just to buy an Eclair ACL or NPR than to heavily modify a K3. Those cameras are better in many ways.

Thank you! It was processed and scanned by The Negative Space, but it's not their fault that the film looks soft. I knew the camera had an issue, but I still used it. The camera is now being inspected by a technician. The K3 is a simple camera, but what matters most are the film and the lens. If the camera works correctly, the images should be good. I'll see how the images look once the camera comes back. Thanks for the comment.

​@@TheCinematographyLabohh nice! I used to have a k3 but it was plagued with back focus issues due to the weakened pressure gate springs, also the lack of a proper film registration made it not only jump side to side also back and forth, further messing with the flange distance causing inaccurate focus, but if you can get your hands on some 50D and a sharp lens at a high f stop you can get some incredible imagery out of 16mm! The 50D is so sharp and fine grained it feels like cheating haha

I agree, 50D has such a fine grain that, in some cases, it can look similar to 35. The K3 has a lot of issues. It's a wind up camera to begin with. Part of the idea here was to prove that you don't need an expensive camera to film something interesting. I don't know if I was able to prove the point, but I'll give it another try in the future. If I had a budget for a production, I would not even consider the K3, to be honest, but I think it's a good tool to practice and learn.

Thanks for watching my friend! I love sharing my ideas.

It can be done using available parts, but the design of the camera makes it uncomfortable and difficult to work with. First of all, when you put the camera on your shoulder, the viewfinder is too high for the eye. You can find a way to bring it down, but you still have to use both hands to keep the camera balanced. The camera was designed to be placed in front of the face, so when you put the weight on your shoulder, the camera tries to go to the other side. Also, how are you going to trigger the camera if you are using both hands to hold the camera using handlers? You can get a release cable and attach it to one of the handlers, but you still have to operate focus and zoom. Cameras that were designed to be carried on the shoulder were game changers for a lot of reasons. Bolex, K3s, Eyemos, and similar cameras are great for what they are. I know it's not what people like to hear, but it's an honest opinion.

Thanks Jim! You've been taking photographs for a long time! That's a lot of experience. You are correct. This method is intended to get the "best" results out of a device that has a fixed resolution and image quality. Once you "calibrate" it using this method things start flowing faster. At that point you can scan film normally. Thanks for watching and subscribing!

Haha, well, the cure is not prohibitively expensive, at least. I agree, I wish there were more options for 110 users, but that's a niche market inside a niche market. The good thing about the Minolta 16QT and other 16 cameras is that you can use readily available 16mm film. Developing is another story, easier for black and white, a bit more complicated for color.

Si, bonito el Ektachrome. Gracias por tus comentarios en el "en vivo", Seba. Por cierto, el material no fue estabilizado para nada por cierto. La camara esta buena en ese sentido; hay que revisarla aver porque quedaron muchas imagenes fuera de foco. La exposición quedo pasada porque olvidamos el medidor de luz y tuvimos que usar una app que al parecer no es tan precisa. Gracias por compartir tu conocimiento en temas de cine. Siempre es bueno escucharte hablar de esos temas y de tu filosofía de vida. Saludos. Rubén.

@@TheCinematographyLab El original proyectado debe verse genial. Qué afortunado en poseer una K3 que funciona tan bien y no tironea. Un placer la charla.

There are several motors for the camera. The majority of those motors work with 12V batteries, some motors need 24V, and other motors can work with 110V and even 220V, but they are not common (I have one). The camera requires 3Ah batteries to run at 24 fps. That is a big battery by today's standards. If you compare the NPR to modern cameras, it is a heavy and cumbersome camera. It can weigh up to 20 lbs., loaded with film. Back in the day, camera guys used to use battery belts. That was because, at the time, rechargeable batteries were inefficient. You can use a relatively small battery today, something like a small V-mount battery, to power it. As I said before, there are a lot of motors for the camera, and some motors make the camera more complicated to shoot hand-held. Something that you have to understand about the NPR is that it is a product of its time. This camera was a game changer back in the 1960s because it was so small and capable of synchronizing sound. If you are used to working with DSLRs, the NPR is going to be a massive camera. I think there are better cameras for documentary work, as usual, what you can get is budget-dependent. There is a documentary on Vimeo called "The Camera That Changed the World." It talks about the origins of the NPR and the Auricon. I'll make a video talking about the NPR some time, I hope.

@@TheCinematographyLab Thank so much for all this info!! Its a great help! I was thinking in getting a Registration pin camera ( to get an stable image) with the possibility of sync sound and conversion to super 16. So this Eclair NPR Seems like the most budget friendly / good camera to shot drama or docs that I can get. I know is big but, seems like a, affordable camera with stable image to shot big variety of projects. With those characteristic, do you know some other options? (For same price range) My other option is a camera that not many people know and I found in a shop, the Bolex 16 pro. I have no idea if it has registration pin but it looks confortable and capable to shot drama. Apparently didnt have commercial success at it time. Again thanks again for the info and I will check that video that you plan to make about the NPR

@@manuelgomez9730 No problem. The most obvious camera to replace the NPR is the Eclair ACL. It's a great camera, and not that heavy. If you don't to change the shutter angle the ACL can do pretty much the same as the NPR and it's stable. Is it in the same price range? No, it's going to be more expensive. I would not touch a Bolex pro with a 10 feet pole. I'm not saying the camera is bad, I have never seen one in person, but it's a rare camera. Are there parts for them? Are there technicians who can work on the camera? When a camera is common people are going to be willing to find ways to fix them or keep them working. When a camera is less common there is no reason to do that. I make accessories for cameras, I'm going to introduce one for the NPR soon, and I can tell you the market is not there even for more common cameras like the Bolex H16 or the NPR. That complicates things since making a part or accessory is expensive and the only way to lower the price is volume. That's what I don't see happening with the Bolex Pro. You can ask Du-All about the serviceability and parts availability of the Bolex Pro. Thay own at least two of those.

@@TheCinematographyLab thanks!! actually I think you are right. It can be actually a big problem the fact that, theres no too much parts of the Bolex 16 pro around. Even here in Europe, I ask and its super hard to find another similar camera or a technician who want to put their hands on it. So ill stay away from it. I got the offer of an Eclair ACL and I wanted to know if the registration is as good as the registration of the NPR. The ACL was made to ''replace'' the NPR I think, so, it should be as good as the NPR, in terms of registration.

Gracias!

Usa carretes de 50 metros. La marca mas comun y con mas variedad hoy en día es Kodak, pero quedan Fuji expirados y hay otras marcas como Fomapan y Orwo.

Thanks for all the tips and valuable information! You heard that right. I used water to stop the developer, and I used Kodak fixer that had been previously used with black and white film to fix. The fixer was a mistake; I mixed the chemicals up. I did some research, but I basically did what I do to process my black-and-white film. It's kind of surprising that I got images, and they didn't look terribly bad. I'll get a better kit, and I'll give it another try in the future. Thanks.