Getting the KRASNOGORSK K-3 Crisp

S

SE7

Well-known member
Hey guys,

I'm sure all of you K-3 fans have seen this video:

http://www.kitashton.com/video.htm

And if you haven't, go do it RIGHT NOW!

But what makes this K-3 footage so amazingly crisp? (I'm talking about as far as the camera side.. not lighting, which look awesome by the way)

Was it the film stock?

What made this footage so flippin CRISP and SHARP and VIVID?

Hehe... Anyone have an idea? Because I'm really interested in buying a K-3 and want to have some excellent use of it.

OHHHH.... Has any K-3 owners had a problem with the hand-cranked motor only lasting for 25 seconds??!! At first that seems short, but I guess when you realize the length of a normal shot, it's fine.

Thanks,

Colin Worley
 
Not sure what you mean by crisp. It looks like any other 16mm film shot with a decent lens and decent lighting.

Now if you are comparing it to video shot with a DVX, well certainly it is more "crisp" than that, it's film. Most of the film camera lenses that we can buy today for $300 to $500 cost more when they were new than the whole DVX-100b camera cost new today. So naturally they were of higher optical quality.

-Tim
 
The spring only lasts 25 seconds. That's not a problem, it's the way it was designed. A full load of film only lasts for about 2:30 as well.

As far as that particular video being so crisp, it's nothing we haven't seen from a standard-def DVX even; look for Bob Gundu's videos and you'll see comparable performance. The reason that looks so sharp is because it's been downrezzed so small. When you downrez an image so small, it becomes crisper and cleaner. Don't expect it to look that sharp when shown on a large-screen HDTV or blown up in a theater.
 
Yeah, I get your guy's points...

But I do have to say that the quality to price ratio is awesome... you can pick up a used K-3 dirt cheap, and yet it produces relatively stunning results..

Of course you have to take into consideration film stock costs, processing, telecine, etc.

But if you want to make a SHORT film with a LOW budget (rather than a 2 or 3 grand Panny) I think this would do just fine.

Again, I think a lot comes down to the actual way you use the equipment.

It's not the camera, it's the operator.

Cheers,

Colin
 
Hey Timmyjoe, you said it looks like all the other 16mm footage... do you have any more K-3 footage?

If so, could I please have a link?

Thanks alot,
Colin
 
Not a big fan of the K3. I have lots of footage shot with an Arriflex 16S if you would like to see that. You can visit the web page listed here:

http://www.arri16s.com/FilmClips1.htm

ClipOld.jpg


-Tim
 
The camera is cheap indeed, but the stock can get pretty pricey. The nice thing about the DVX is that, while it is more expensive to start with, you actually only have to pay for tape stock for your future projects that ends up to be a laughable price compared to fresh 16mm stock + processing + telecine. Plus the brain-crushing wait time.

This is coming from a guy who received a K-3 in the mail this morning, bought some 50D stock from Kodak, and is praying that the local labs can do a free 'camera test' telecine.

As to your shots Timmy, I checked out all the clips, and I can't say I was overly impressed with all that pricey glass. It looked fairly... video-like, I would almost say. Can't quite point my finger at it yet, but it definitely didn't convince me to grab a 16S. I liked the wide-angle lense shots the most, especially the outdoors handheld. Could be the lack of shallow depth of field (high T-stop?) which is what people normally associate with the 'film look'.

Can't say I'm in love with Ashton's video either. It looks like they tried really hard to make film look even more film-like. They ruined a good meal with too much spice. Looking at the production stills, I think they would be far better off keeping the look neutral and smooth like in the stills as opposed to green and contrasty. Green is generally not a very pleasant look anyway, unless you're shooting a matrix fanfilm of course.
 
Last edited:
Dmitry Kichenko said:
As to your shots Timmy, I checked out all the clips, and I can't say I was overly impressed with all that pricey glass.
Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I certainly wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. Just to note, the present day price range of all the lenses I used in the clips range from $150 to $500, so I wouldn't call them "pricey class".

And just so you are clear, a greater depth of field is associated with a "video look" where as a shallow depth of field is associated with a "film look".

Have a good one,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I certainly wouldn't try to convince you otherwise.
-Tim
Click to expand...

I'm not saying your shots were bad, don't get me wrong. I suppose they, hmm, didn't know me off my feet? :) You can safely say the same about mine when I upload some. Which stock did you use by the way? And how did you transfer it?

As to the depth of field, it's the lack of shallow depth of field that I called a video look.

About the 16S - how loud is it really? People say there is no way you can record location sound, but of course where there is a "don't" there is always a "f--k you, I'm gonna do it anyway" :D.
 
I say if your tight on a budget, go with the hv20 and a brevis35 adapter. That footage is stunning.
 
Dood, this is the film board. It may be too pricey to shoot film on a tight budget, but I have to try it. It's like participating in a threesome - you just have to do it before you die.
 
Dmitry Kichenko said:
Which stock did you use by the way?
Click to expand...

If you looked at the clips, the stock used for each shot is listed right below the Quicktime Player.

Dmitry Kichenko said:
And how did you transfer it?
Click to expand...

Footage was all transferred at Downstream here in Portland Oregon. There is a link to their web site on the Home Page of www.Arri16S.com

Dmitry Kichenko said:
As to the depth of field, it's the lack of shallow depth of field that I called a video look.
Click to expand...

ClipOld.jpg


She and the bicycle seat post, which are in the same plane, are sharp, and the tools on the wall behind her are very soft, not sure how you consider that a "lack of shallow depth of field".

Dmitry Kichenko said:
About the 16S - how loud is it really? People say there is no way you can record location sound, but of course where there is a "don't" there is always a "f--k you, I'm gonna do it anyway" :D.
Click to expand...

The Arriflex 16S is an MOS camera, but if you visit the web site I have one How To article on quieting the camera down for use shooting sync sound with a Barney and noise reduction software, and another article on the way.

-Tim
 
Got my K-3... This has to be the manliest camera out there. It's built like a tank, it weighs as much as one, and everything can be accessed and fixed quite easily in a logical manner. And I bet when it stops working, it plays the USSR anthem . And you can convert it into a machine gun with a flip of a switch somewhere inside.

Having lived most of my life there, I can tell you that this Russian bride is not only functional and usable, - it's surprisingly well designed. Just in case, I'm still waiting for the spring to pop out and cut my throat any minute now.

Loading it is so much fun. It's like a sport. I'm getting better with every load.

THIS is how it's done. Loading up a camera should be a challenge, it should give you a dose of adrenaline. MEN, nevermind the autoload cameras, those are for pussies. THIS is the camera to get.
 
Last edited:
Im just a little confused....Does the camera in this shot

acel1.jpg


...and the one in this shot

aout1.jpg


Look different to you? I mean, that interior stuff looks so much better than the exterior...Is it all shot on the K-3?
 
Dmitry Kichenko said:
As to your shots Timmy, I checked out all the clips, and I can't say I was overly impressed with all that pricey glass. It looked fairly... video-like, I would almost say. Can't quite point my finger at it yet, but it definitely didn't convince me to grab a 16S. I liked the wide-angle lense shots the most, especially the outdoors handheld. Could be the lack of shallow depth of field (high T-stop?) which is what people normally associate with the 'film look'.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with you. With the motorcycle pics it is hard to tell I think. But with the bicycle clips, there's latitude there that would laugh in the face of my XL2 if shot it in the same conditions under the same lighting. I don't see anything "video-like" about the bicycle clips.
 
There's another thread by the guy who actually "souped-up" this muscle camera... He's like an ebay junkie and he turned that K-3 into a camera worth k's more. He put that matte box on there and put a video tap into the crappy K-3 viewfinder.. and mounted an LCD on the top of the K-3... I mean it doesn't take a lot of brains to do it... just initiative and it turned out great. Do more with less. Adapt and overcome. I've seen crappier picture from Eclairs and Ikonoskops... I was impressed anyways...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top