All Activity

Hi, The one listed would work but I'm also looking for a really early one, with a flat end. Similar to this: With the flat end Bakelite plug. If you don't have one of these then it's alright, the other model will work. I'm just happy you've got one. This is my motor: It should be a Model 1 Motor, as that's the camera I currently have. I'm in need of a vintage model cable that fits the age of the camera. I can try and get the dimensions of the prongs if you want and DM them to you?

I have a few of these can you post a pic of the Arri motor here so I can see if I have the right one for your camera?

Used Lomo 65mm Format Set of 11: 28, 30, 40, 40(3.5), 56, 75, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300mm + Zoom 45-200 For Sale Includes: Lomo 65mm Format 28mm/3.5 need re-polishing doublet inside the lens, 134mm front Lomo 65mm Format 30mm/3.5 clean glass, front 134mm, russian lens, but not Lomo. Lomo 65mm Format 40mm/3 clean glass 95mm front, round iris Lomo 65mm Format 40mm/3.5 clean glass. huge, needs support , front 134mm Lomo 65mm Format 56mm/3 clean glass. front 95mm, round iris Lomo 65mm Format 75mm/2.8 clean glass, front 110mm, round iris Lomo 65mm Format 100mm/2.8 litle cleaning marks on front, front 95mm, round iris Lomo 65mm Format 125mm/2.8 clean glass, 95mm front, round iris Lomo 65mm Format 150mm/2.8 clean glass, 95mm front, round iris Lomo 65mm Format 200mm/2.8 clean glass, 110mm front, round iris Lomo 65mm 300mm/3.5 clean glass,111mm front, round iris, PL mount (can convert to LPL) Zoom 45-200/3.5 clean glass, never used lens, 146mm front Price: MAKE AN OFFER https://fjsinternational.com/cameras/lomo-65mm-format-set-of-11-zoom/ Please check our website for our phone number and email address, call, text or email. FROM FJS INTERNATIONAL AVAILABLE FOR PICKUP IN ANY OF OUR OFFICES IN LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK, FLORIDA, LATIN AMERICA, EUROPE, HONG KONG

And now an Arri-B Angie 5.9 shows up on ebay too - they're everywhere all of a sudden! https://www.ebay.com/itm/236198604963 Duncan

We'll expect pictures here of the finished product! Duncan

The seller (he's not on the forum) now indicates that he would sell the lenses and camera separately if that suited someone. The zoom is a S16 zoom, and maybe it should go to a S16 camera. Also, the Zeiss 8mm lenses are expensive at the moment, so maybe splitting up is better strategy. Obviously the camera price will come down a good increment. I a day he may have a firm plan and a price.

The seller of the ACL II above (he's not on the forum) now indicates that he would sell the lenses and camera separately if that suited someone. The zoom is a S16 zoom, and maybe it should go to a S16 camera. Also, the Zeiss 8mm lenses are expensive at the moment, so maybe splitting up is better strategy. Obviously the camera price will come down a good increment. I a day he may have a firm plan and a price.

Starting to shoot tests and short film stuff with my Kinor and 4-speed crystal motor pretty soon. I will make a backet which allows installing a factory made off-the-shelf mini-Vlock battery plate like Smallrig or similar to the setup so that it is very compact and self-contained the great for run-and-gun type shooting. Notice how small the new motor is, this is about 4 times smaller than the original motor these cameras had! on the photos there is 100ft magazine and 12-120mm lens attached

photos of the Kinor16 with the new 4-speed motor for better size comparison. 100ft magazine and 12-120mm lens on the camera. I will design a bracket which allows installing a off-the-shelf Mini-Vlock plate like Smallrig or similar to the motor system, will need it for my own projects and will try to make it so that the bracket can be 3d printed if needed and not mandatory to be aluminium. When I'll have the mini-vlock system for power this setup will be great for run-and-gun type shooting.

Been looking into this vintage lens and want to acquire a copy at some point in the future, but theres a few things I can't find the answers on if somebody out there has any info. It seems they have a universal sub-mount so converting to PL is very possible, but does every copy of the lens have this universal sub mount or only some? I would hate to purchase one only to find out it can't easily be converted. Also, there's 2 versions of it? I mean 2 versions of the vintage one, not the vintage vs new option angeniuex offers. How do you tell which version is which, and is there any differences of significance? My main task will be getting a PL mount on it. Any info would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you for the reply, Duncan. Scheduled a trip up to them in person to get a custom mounting solution made. Very excited to see how it turns out, they are quite possibly the only option for something like this it would seem. Thanks again for the rec.

Used Ultra 16mm two set bundle; 9.5mm & 12mm For Sale Each lens can be purchased separately (US $8,000 FOB each) Price: US $16,000 FOB https://fjsinternational.com/cameras/ultra-16mm-two-set-bundle-9-5mm-12mm/ Please check our website for our phone number and email address, call, text or email. FROM FJS INTERNATIONAL AVAILABLE FOR PICKUP IN ANY OF OUR OFFICES IN LOS ANGELES, NEW YORK, FLORIDA, LATIN AMERICA, EUROPE, HONG KONG

This is the reason Kodak is removing remjet. The coating is not being removed properly in the lab and/or the scratch resistant coating on the film, isn't as friction free. Having dealt with this issue for 3 years personally, my experiences seem to mirror that of other filmmakers like yourself. It's very random, moves from stock to stock and is directly correlated to processing. It's most noticeable on narrow gauge formats because Kodak does not have any internal testing procedures for those formats, so they rely heavily on consumer feedback and sometimes it just takes them a while to catch things. Kodak is blaming the labs. The labs are blaming Kodak. The problem is extremely random and recently, I have seen new problems with the remjet stock like entire sealed rolls that are dirty from head to tails, when other rolls on the same scan reel are perfect. Kodak has been developing a remjet free stock (Portra 400 for motion picture) for a while now and the results have been so good, they feel strong enough to remove remjet films from their catalog eventually. Currently, Kodak is making ALL Vision 3 stocks without remjet, though in limited qualities for the public. We should see that change in the coming weeks/months when the ONLY new stocks are remjet free. This SHOULD solve the problem of the back coating AND dust issues I've been seeing, with an all new AHU anti static coating which should help prevent and protect the film. I was able to remove these lines using Phoenix restoration software. We do film restoration so I just used the tools we already had and it worked ok. For sure not all gone, but WAY better than it was coming off the scanner.

I am also willing to accept any of the crystal sync motors except the TXM-17 and the "custom motor" detailed in my WTB post: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/103302-want-to-buy-crystal-sync-motor-for-arriflex-16st/

If you are getting random, short vertical scratches all over the frame, it sounds like cinch marks. This happens when dusty film is tightened on a spool and the dust creates short marks. I can’t picture a scenario where random marks all over the frame are caused by an SR. Film cameras (especially Arris) are precise mechanical devices that repeat their movements, so scratches tend to follow patterns and stay in certain places. There are also very few areas in an SR where the image area touches anything.

It's not a matter of what I "feel" they want. Its what they have told us they want. An archive looking to make a digital preservation copy generally isn't interested in making up picture where it was missing. That's counter to the whole idea of preservation. Different clients have different goals though. Often it's just to improve it for projection, so we do a light dustbust and then manually touch up the really egregious defects. But many of them want pristine cleanups, which means a fair bit of manual work - typically about 2-3 weeks for a feature length film. But even at that, a line is typically drawn at recreating entire frames. In some cases we'll be asked to simply duplicate frames to fill a gap, so it's less distracting. for 3 frames this is pretty easy and depending on the amount of camera motion, sometimes it's not even noticeable. You're not making up new picture, but you're maintaining an image on screen without affecting the audio sync so it's less distracting than several frames of black. We don't generally de-grain/regrain either, for the same reasons. Most of our library and archive customers require two copies of the deliverables: One is the flat scan, ungraded and unrestored. The other is the final graded and restored version. That way they have a high res scan for future use if they need it, but they have a scan restored using today's tools, for presentation. And even if they don't ask for this, we make it a point to recommend that they should, again, just in case. That being said, we have had the occasional (rare) client who is working with archival footage in a new production, and they often have different goals. For those clients we have done stuff like degrain, aggressive dustbusting and smoothing, then regraining. Personally, I don't like the way this looks, but it's what works for their production. I'm sure they would be fine with something AI generated. But we don't do enough of that kind of work to justify paying for those features.

It's abrasion but whether it is happening in the mags, the gate, or at the lab is the question... If you have two mags and it's happening in both, then it could be at the gate or at the lab, if you send a test to two different labs and it only happens in one, then it's the lab. Possibly you could run some fresh film and look at it with a magnifier without sending it to the lab just to see if it is the camera. Never done that myself so I'm not sure it would be visible on the surface to the eye.

https://www.super8mag.de/shop/Single-8-Story-English-p766689911/

HI guys, I've been noticing I get white streaks on my film, it looks a little like rain as it seems to happen randomly across the frame and I'm trying to solve the issue. I thought it was an emulsion batch issue but I have had it on a variety of rolls at different points now making me assume it's a camera issue of some sort. I'm just trying to figure out what could be causing it. I have an Arri SR HS which was converted to super16 a long time ago, its a Super PL modification, however the magazines are still standard 16 and haven't been shaved off at the gates. Could this be caused by dirt? I'm trying to figure out where the issue may lie.

Thank you for the answer. Yes the window would serve as a key, the action takes place in front of the window. The scene happens during the day and now that you put the attention on the time of the day I believe it's better to change approach on this. I also feel that in the painting there is only 1 source which adds to it but here with the windows, with 1 or 2 practicals it might just look a cheap replica of it, or it might be too much time put into it for little result. At least I have the green walls! Thank you a lot for the answer and the photo. Josh

Hi Emil, I believe there is at least one 416 HS PAL (white road channel) version for sale at CVP. https://cvp.com/product/used-used-arri-arriflex-416-pack/used-arri-arriflex-416-pack-con1548 Not sure on the Ultra 16 lenses but there was someone in the UK who reached out to me about a set for sale not long ago on our rentals email address. I didn't get an indication of pricing nor do I personally know the seller so can't vouch for them. I you are reaching out to CVP about the 416 listed above, maybe mention you are also looking for a set of Ultra 16 lenses as CVP may have some leads.

Probably 40 years.

I think they've been around for a long time, for sure isn't a new company. Yea, they're 100% in business, I have clients who use them all the time for film scanning.

A climactic SCREEN KISS of the 1930s EXTREME RECTILINEAR Ninotchka: "You're very sure of yourself, aren't you?" EWS : "You are very, very sure of yourself, aren't you?"