Not sure how much of that footage (10-ish feet feels like) will be salvageable, but it wasn’t anything super important, just some stuff I was shooting to finish the roll.

Does anyone know what might’ve caused the camera to suddenly stop taking up film after shooting most of the roll? And how do I prevent this from happening again? The last thing I want is to get this camera again and shoot something like E100 and have it do this halfway through the roll…

I’m happy to answer questions that might help someone figure out what happened.

im looking for assistance / advice on where to get a replacement “eyepiece mounting flange” for the Eclair Cameflex camera - at least I believe this is what I’m looking for? The camera fell about a foot soft furnishing onto carpet and the viewfinder bracket - which I believe is made of thin metal alloy - cracked off. 

below  is a photo of the part - I’m based in UK so looking either to get service (it’s a clean break and we have the pieces - or even better a spare part). 
 

I’m really upset and ashamed that this happened on my watch.  

Thanks so much for your help and advice at this time. 
Luke

My name is Daniel, I’m 21 years old and I’m from Germany.

Some time ago I inherited an Arriflex 16BL with an Angénieux 12–120mm lens. I have already shot one 400ft roll with it, and it was honestly a lot of fun. I really enjoyed the whole process of shooting on film and using such a classic camera. I should mention that I only do this as a hobby and not professionally.

However, I am not completely satisfied with the image quality of the lens, and I am planning to get a Zeiss 10–100mm lens in the future. But that is a different topic.

For quite som time, I have been dreaming of owning a 35mm Arriflex, and I would realy like to get one. Unfortunately, I still don’t know much about the different models, especially because I mainly want to use it for hobby purposes. Ideally, I would like something a little more compact and lighter than the Arriflex 16BL.

During my research, I came across several models:

• Arriflex 35 II
• Arriflex 35 II A
• Arriflex 35 II C
• Arriflex 35 III

Or would you recommend something completely different?

What would you recommend for a beginner with moderate expectations, who mainly wants to own and use a 35mm Arriflex for the enjoyment and nostalgia of shooting with a classic film camera?

I have also been looking at a few lenses. What are your opinions on these?

• Cooke Speed Panchro Series III 25mm f/2
• Angénieux Type LA2 35–140mm f/3.5
• Zeiss 85mm f/2

I also inherited three rolls of Kodak Vision3 500T, and I am planning to use them with the camera.

I would really appreciate any advice, recommendations, or personal experiences you can share.

Thank you very much!

Best regards

Daniel

The Cooke 25-250mm MKII T3.9 or.....

The Angenieux 25-250 T3.7 HP

I've been looking into film camera movement design lately, and am trying to learn specifically about how different manufacturers approached oscillating bearings. To understand what I mean, take a look at this animation of Geoff Williamson's VistaVision movement.

As you can see, the upper two bearings, blue and white, are attached to the round cams. They complete full rotations.

In contrast, the lower two bearings, gray and orange, are attached to the claw arm. They never complete a full rotation, and instead oscillate.

I have heard that ball bearings are a poor choice for oscillating applications, since the balls will irregularly rub against their races and potentially introduce instability or false brinelling, but some mechanical engineers have said they work fine despite this.

I believe the old Mitchell cameras used metal bushings with metal pins, but whether it was steel-on-steel or bronze, I have not been able to find out. Presumably, these bushings required frequent lubrication.

One advantage of more modern camera movements, such as an Arri or Aaton is the lack of necessity to constantly oil the movement.

But from looking at pictures of Arricam movements being assembled, it seems like they may in fact use ball bearings for the oscillating element after all! That being said, I have not been able to find a higher resolution than this, and have never serviced an Arricam. I am hoping someone with experience can enlighten me. Do Arricams use a ball bearing here?

In the Aaton movement, which appears to be permanently greased, there is some form of bushing system, but I am not able to find any more information about what these bushings are made of. These bushings are also vertically constrained by a thrust washer and an e-clip, but I am extremely curious to find out whether they are preloaded (and if so how much) or allowed to float freely.

I realize these are extremely niche and technical questions, but hopefully someone here with servicing experience can help like @Dom Jaeger, @Simon Wyss, @Steve Switaj, @Tyler Purcell

does anyone know whats going on? is this a weird rumor thats starting to spread, or is kodak actually eliminating the remjet layer? 

I cannot for the life of me find that post again. Does anyone remember it and can link me to it please?

Thanks,

Apologies if this has been asked previously.

I am set to shoot a folk horror short film in a few months. We're on 35mm 2-perf, and I'm keen to explore some different looks that can be attained with the medium.

Pushing during development is often suggested as a means of brining out grain and increasing contrast, but I'm hesitant to do this in the traditional fashion, as pushing by a stop does not actually double the ASA - the film is still being deprived of light, even though subsequent compensation during development might make the negative appear thicker.

Instead, I'm considering shooting at box speed, pushing by a stop and then scanning down a stop to negate the push. In theory this will give the "pushed " look, while still providing the film with the light it actually needs.

I am lucky enough to be able to shoot a test roll before filming commences, but I am curious to hear the opinions of more experienced DP's before trying this.

Is this for real? Apart from the lightburns on either side, the picture seems largely unaffected.

This is my first time posting here, I have never done anything with motion picture stuff before but I’m excited to start!

I’m in a very fortunate position of being able to borrow a 35mm eyemo camera from a friend on occasion, and I am planning on using it to shoot some footage at some point this spring/summer.

My question is, can you load this camera successfully in the dark? I know loading it isn’t particularly difficult by design, but it is also meant to be done with the lights on, so I imagine that loading in the dark might be challenging. I am most concerned with forming the loops.

The reason I ask is that daylight spools are nearly impossible to find, and are often prohibitively expensive when they do appear. But, the standard 1” OD core that 31m rolls of film cone on should still be compatible with the drive mechanism. Can you simply put a bulk roll of film in the camera and load it in the dark?

In my case, I am fortunate enough to have 2 daylight spools, but the film I am planning to shoot with (Astrum IR-200) has a tendency to light pipe like crazy so I would rather load it in the dark regardless. I can also get the 1” cores 3D printed, meanwhile the spool is not really feasible for printing.

Thanks in advance for any help.

From what I understand, one of the three films was an orthochromatic for capturing the blue information that also had a red backing to pass on the red info to another panchromatic strip. 

So not only was it loading three 1000' footers but they absolutely needed to have a super organized system both  before and after to keep track of everything.

Seems like a nightmare if anything got out of order or got mislabelled (which is still true for modern film too.)

Does anyone know how they stayed on top of it all? 

VistaVision - Wikipedia

Film was run horizontally instead of vertically through the camera for a bigger image area

Photo: Camera Revolution

I have heard some chatter on this forum about shooting 35mm stills film as cine film and I have some further questions about it. From my understanding DP Raoul Coutard used stills stock to shoot Breathless on an Eclair Cameflex. I'm aware that stills uses KS perf film while cine film uses B&H. I get the impression that consensus is an Eclair Cameflex or Arriflex 35 should be able to handle stills film.

My question is, is this a viable longterm shooting setup? Is there a chance that shooting stills film in a movement meant for cine film will wear down any components if you do it long term? And lastly, will a lab even develop and scan a roll of KS perf film?

Thanks,

Neal

We think the camera is Arri 35 IIC. It's been modified from it's original mount to something larger than a PL. 

We believe the camera and lens were used by the local Planetarium for producing content for there dome projection system. 

If we can identify the mount we would want to convert it to a Canon RF. 

Thank you advance for any guidance.

I'm currently working on a film restoration project for a French film archive. We have the Super Technirama negatives to a french film made in Brazil in the 1960s, that we're considering to blow up to a 70mm release print.

To be precise, the film was shot on 8-perf/35mm horizontal VistaVision style with a 1.5x anamorphic squeeze. This was intended to be blown up to 5-perf/70mm release prints.

This is the film: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353979/

We're not sure if the producer ever managed to make any 70mm release prints. We know that the film was shown originally in Brazil but that may be 35mm prints, we don't have any surviving copies of that. He had originally intended to release it on 70mm in France but he ran out of finances before he could. He had managed to get a visa d'exploitation in France though.

I had approahced FotoKem in Los Angeles and they said they do not have the possibility to do a un-squeeze on the 8/35mm negative to print to a 5/65mm inter-negative. They've suggested a 4K digital interneg to 70mm filmout but I really don't see a point in that.

Anybody here knows any labs and/or technicians, restoration experts who could do this? Basically we need to do a 1.5x un-squeeze from a 8/35mm to a 5/65mm.

I feel like this is a longshot, as the archive will probably eventually just go with a 4K restoration DCP but if I can find a way to achieve a 70mm filmout and a price quote to present our financers, this could happen.

Also, can anyone confirm if this is the first French film shot for an intended 70mm release?

Jacques Tati's Playtime (1967) is the only french 70mm film I know and this film predates it by a good three years.

Thanks in advance for responses!

GV

tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/q962tco

original url:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/FOROX-CORPORATION-MODEL-SDD-CAMERA-SYSTEM/350964642723?rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D19839%26meid%3D4158858519234142668%26pid%3D100005%26prg%3D8934%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D5%26sd%3D331093386533%26

Cheers!

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share a small case study from a recent shoot and ask for your thoughts.

Recently I shot a music video on 35mm 200T negative. The stock was fresh, coming from a reliable source, and everything else in the workflow was pretty standard. However, I encountered a situation that I hadn’t seen before and I’m curious if anyone with more experience has run into something similar.

In one particular scene I suspect that the lamp used by the gaffer might have had almost no blue channel in its spectrum. In both the telecine and later the 4K scan, the scenes lit with that specific lamp turned extremely red — much more than what we saw on set. In reality the light looked like a warm, slightly yellow-orange tone, something similar to warm streetlight. But in the scan it looked almost as if the entire image had been shot through a strong red filter.

We managed to correct it fairly quickly in color grading, so technically it wasn’t a disaster. But because the red channel was so dominant, once we started pulling it down we ended up getting magenta creeping into the shadows, which was difficult to fully avoid. Thankfully it was 35mm, so the image held up relatively well.

For context:

• I exposed the 200T without any filters, even in daylight (which I often prefer).

• Everything else in the shoot looked exactly as intended.

• The issue appeared only in the scene lit with that particular lamp.

My suspicion is that it might have been a low-quality fixture with a very poor spectral distribution, possibly cutting most of the blue wavelengths, which created a strong red peak on the negative.

What’s interesting is that I’ve shot on the exact same 35mm 200T stock with another gaffer and different lighting gear, and I never experienced anything like this — everything scanned completely normally.

So I’m curious:

• Have any of you experienced something similar on tungsten-balanced film stocks?

• Could a fixture with a very uneven spectrum or missing blue channel cause this kind of extreme red shift on negative?

• Are there particular types of lights or LEDs to avoid when shooting tungsten film?

For reference, the film was processed normally (standard process) with no push or pull.

Would love to hear your thoughts or experiences. Thanks!

I recently purchased an Arricam ST and was wondering if anyone knew where I could purchase these cheese plates that replace the two removable side panels?

OR where I could have something like this custom made?

Thanks in advance.

Best

Terry

One can easily find stepper motors with 4096-position encoders capable of repeatable movement at extreme accuracy, used for micron-level precision in CNC micromachining. The cost of such motors has now dropped to only a few hundred dollars on the small scale.

This makes me wonder if it is not better, if designing a new film camera, to use a direct-drive high-precision stepper motor to advance the film 24 times per second. This could reduce the mechanical complexity and make one camera capable of shooting 2, 3, 4 perf by simply adjusting a dial.

My one concern is the noise, and whether stepper motors like this could be made quiet enough for sync-sound usage.

Does anyone here have the schematics of a Debrie Parvo L 35mm camera? I have two manuals (a short one and a longer one) but would be interested in finding a more detailed one.

Thank you very much!