Which 35mm camera?

[Moses Buckwalter]

Background

 

Hello all! I am a young film maker seeking some advice. I’ve been shooting still photo film for around 4 years now, and have been shooting Super8 for about 3. I have a Nikon R10 Super and have loved using it. My background has been primarily in photo, but in the past 6 months, I’ve really stepped into video and have learned quite a bit, but there is loads more for me to learn, I’m sure of that. My cousin and I have written and shot, 75% of a short (sub 5 minute) film on Super8, but some issues with the main character have delayed that. That said, we are in pre-pre-production of a much larger project, that we will hopefully be able to get made 🙂

 

I would like to shoot it on film both for my love of film, the process and the authenticity, and for the subject of the film, which is going to be more raw and gritty. The main character was farmed out as a teenager during the Great Depression. 

 

That being said, Super8 is the largest format I’ve shot, and I haven’t worked on anything this large ever. 

 

The Arriflex 16SR2 caught my eye about a year ago, and I’ve been infatuated with it ever since. More recently, however, I’ve been looking into 35mm cameras, and would like to consider one for this project. I’ve done a lot of different research on these, but a lot of the posts are old, and things have changed. No longer are these cameras going for “next to nothing” and neither are the rental houses renting them for nothing. While I might rent something like an Arricam LT for something one off (the LT is most certainly not in the budget), I can’t justify spending $1000’s renting, when for a bit more I can own something that I can use on a multitude of future projects. That said, I want to hear from you guys, DP’s and AC’s who have worked extensively with these cameras, and hear your thoughts on them. 

 

I’ve laid out below my thought process on narrowing down cameras, as well as some requirements. 

 

Due to wanting to have something I can use versatilely in the future, but also very much on this project, I need something with sync sound. I will be doing interviews for a portion of the film, and also want to be able to capture dialogue in scenes, etc.

 

As for lenses, I may rent something, but I will likely have access to, or purchase some DZOFilm Vespids and maybe a Pictor zoom. I’ve rented them in the past, and while I’m sure, compared to higher end lenses they don’t compare, I was happy with the results.

 

 

Camera Options 

 

Things to consider:

Ease of loading, viewfinder, video tap, weight, sync sound

 

Requirements: 

PL mount, Super16 or Super35

 

I’d be lying if I said price wasn’t my biggest constraint. I am 20 and married and work a full time job. I get that this is ambitious for such constraints, but this is a project I’m passionate about, will help me grow in my work, and is a subject thats close to me. I plan on trying to do some sort of fundraising for it, but that being said, again, this is pre-pre-pre(?)-production. 

 

While I realize that 35mm is an exponential increase in film stock, I’m leaning more towards that as opposed to locking into 16mm for the same upfront cost for the body.

 

Due to price constraints, but also just my style, most shots will be handheld, with some tripod shots. I may see about getting something like an EasyRig if the weight is too much. 

 

 

16mm - all sync sound

 

Arriflex 16SR2 - 

Best price point, PL and Super16 depending on package, third party video taps 

 

Arriflex 16SR3 - 

Interchangeable Super16 and 16mm, PL, third party video tap

 

Arriflex 416 - 

Best ergonomics, stupid expensive, simple loading, built in SDI out.

 

 

 

35mm

 

Arri 35 BL-4 or 4s

~35 lbs without film, very heavy, sync sound

 

Arriflex 235

MOS, half the weight of the 435, Built in SDI out

 

Arriflex 435

MOS, ~15 lbs, Built in SDI out

 

Arriflex 535 A or B

Sync Sound, A is quite heavy, B is about ~25 lbs over ~35.

 

Arricam LT

Sync sound, very light, most modern, very expensive.

 

 

Questions!

 

Video taps??? While I am going to be the only camera operator and probably the one pulling focus, doing everything etc, I would like the option to have a decent video tap for future projects, but also so my cousin (co-director/co-writer/something like that) can see what’s being recorded, as well as options for positioning the camera places where it would quite uncomfortable to get my eye to the eyepiece. For someone that has used these cameras, I’m sure the video taps are somewhat unique for all of them, but is there anything to note about certain ones? Ideally HD video. 

 

Other than weight, what are my differences between the 235 and the 435? 

 

Other than weight, what are my differences between a 535B and Arricam LT

 

Is sync sound really an issue with the 235 and 435? If I’m booming all my audio will that still mater. - A quick search says yes.

 

 

Conclusion

 

So I’m basically down to 235 (90% of my work is going to be handheld, and I don’t mind a heavier rig, but if I can help it, I will) unless the 435 offers me greater features *that* I will use, if I could somehow get away with MOS or sub 16mm for the sync sound portions… which while I like the idea of both of these cameras, they probably just don’t make sense without Sync sound. 

 

… so the 535B. Or Super16. 

 

 

 

I’ve found a 535B for cheaper than a 16SR3 and on par with the 16SR2, which is why I’m leaning there, but it is around 10lbs heavier and the 16SR2 was my “first love” to say, although maybe I should hold that title till I’ve actually shot on one. 

 

And yes, I’m sure I will get recommended to go and rent one of these for a weekend before buying… I will (probably). I’m just trying to narrow down 10 options down to two, before I go spend excessive money on renting.

 

For anyone who read through this, and offers some advice, thank you. Just typing all of this out has helped myself narrow these down to the 535B or one of the 16SR’s, but I still want to hear the thoughts of people who have actually used them, and make sure I’m not missing something. I’m very passionate about film, and not that many people around me are able to discuss it with me, let alone motion picture film cameras. So thanks, rant over 🙂 

 

 

 - Moses

[Aapo Lettinen]

Bl cameras are much lighter than 35lbs. One could only get to that kind of weights if using large zoom lens and lots of support and stuff with it. 

One can easily lift the BL body with mag with one or two fingers. With prime and lightweight accessories one would probably be somewhere a bit over 25lbs I think. For example the original Red One with basic accessories is heavier than the BL for the Red having more metal in the construction. And the Alexa Classic kitted up is super heavy compared to the BL. The 535 is more heavy than the BL as well and much larger sized.

So I think you will be fine with the BL if you can secure good maintenance for it with spare parts available as needed. 

[Xander Kasongo]

8 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Bl cameras are much lighter than 35lbs. One could only get to that kind of weights if using large zoom lens and lots of support and stuff with it. 

One can easily lift the BL body with mag with one or two fingers. With prime and lightweight accessories one would probably be somewhere a bit over 25lbs I think. For example the original Red One with basic accessories is heavier than the BL for the Red having more metal in the construction. And the Alexa Classic kitted up is super heavy compared to the BL. The 535 is more heavy than the BL as well and much larger sized.

So I think you will be fine with the BL if you can secure good maintenance for it with spare parts available as needed. 

I don't know. I'd have to slightly disagree with you on the weight of the BLs - I wouldn't say much lighter. It's 25lbs with the body and mag (empty). There is one sitting on my desk (BL2 image attached) and I can't lift it with one or two fingers. With lenses and kit we clocked in at 34lbs+.

[Moses Buckwalter]

40 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Bl cameras are much lighter than 35lbs. One could only get to that kind of weights if using large zoom lens and lots of support and stuff with it. 

One can easily lift the BL body with mag with one or two fingers. With prime and lightweight accessories one would probably be somewhere a bit over 25lbs I think. For example the original Red One with basic accessories is heavier than the BL for the Red having more metal in the construction. And the Alexa Classic kitted up is super heavy compared to the BL. The 535 is more heavy than the BL as well and much larger sized.

So I think you will be fine with the BL if you can secure good maintenance for it with spare parts available as needed. 

All weights are pulled from here… I was a little on the heavy side, the table shows the BL4 coming in at 30.9 with the 4s at 31.9. Compared to a 535B at 26 lbs.

Edit: I forgot to add the link 

Edited July 16 by Moses Buckwalter
forgot to add link

[Aapo Lettinen]

9 minutes ago, Xander Kasongo said:

I don't know. I'd have to slightly disagree with you on the weight of the BLs - I wouldn't say much lighter. It's 25lbs with the body and mag (empty). There is one sitting on my desk (BL2 image attached) and I can't lift it with one or two fingers. With lenses and kit we clocked in at 34lbs+.

I tested the BL2 which had Evolution update and P+S Technik viewfinder, maybe there is weight difference compared to the original version but I don't believe it would be that large difference. I tested the Red One at the same time and specifically remember how lightweight the BL was compared to the RED which only had the top and bottom rods, battery, hdd etc. basic accessories and no lens. And yes I could easily lift the BL with two fingers without lens and even one finger would had been possible though quite uncomfortable.

the original BL has lots of fiberglass parts which make it lighter weight than one would assume. but of course it still weights a lot compared to modern digital cameras. and the Evolution updated version might be a bit lighter weight, I don't know it it is the case but the viewfinder and camera door etc. are different and motor control differences etc. though I think the motor is probably the original still

[Xander Kasongo]

1 hour ago, Moses Buckwalter said:

Background

 

Hello all! I am a young film maker seeking some advice. I’ve been shooting still photo film for around 4 years now, and have been shooting Super8 for about 3. I have a Nikon R10 Super and have loved using it. My background has been primarily in photo, but in the past 6 months, I’ve really stepped into video and have learned quite a bit, but there is loads more for me to learn, I’m sure of that. My cousin and I have written and shot, 75% of a short (sub 5 minute) film on Super8, but some issues with the main character have delayed that. That said, we are in pre-pre-production of a much larger project, that we will hopefully be able to get made 🙂

 

I would like to shoot it on film both for my love of film, the process and the authenticity, and for the subject of the film, which is going to be more raw and gritty. The main character was farmed out as a teenager during the Great Depression. 

 

That being said, Super8 is the largest format I’ve shot, and I haven’t worked on anything this large ever. 

 

The Arriflex 16SR2 caught my eye about a year ago, and I’ve been infatuated with it ever since. More recently, however, I’ve been looking into 35mm cameras, and would like to consider one for this project. I’ve done a lot of different research on these, but a lot of the posts are old, and things have changed. No longer are these cameras going for “next to nothing” and neither are the rental houses renting them for nothing. While I might rent something like an Arricam LT for something one off (the LT is most certainly not in the budget), I can’t justify spending $1000’s renting, when for a bit more I can own something that I can use on a multitude of future projects. That said, I want to hear from you guys, DP’s and AC’s who have worked extensively with these cameras, and hear your thoughts on them. 

 

I’ve laid out below my thought process on narrowing down cameras, as well as some requirements. 

 

Due to wanting to have something I can use versatilely in the future, but also very much on this project, I need something with sync sound. I will be doing interviews for a portion of the film, and also want to be able to capture dialogue in scenes, etc.

 

As for lenses, I may rent something, but I will likely have access to, or purchase some DZOFilm Vespids and maybe a Pictor zoom. I’ve rented them in the past, and while I’m sure, compared to higher end lenses they don’t compare, I was happy with the results.

 

 

Camera Options 

 

Things to consider:

Ease of loading, viewfinder, video tap, weight, sync sound

 

Requirements: 

PL mount, Super16 or Super35

 

I’d be lying if I said price wasn’t my biggest constraint. I am 20 and married and work a full time job. I get that this is ambitious for such constraints, but this is a project I’m passionate about, will help me grow in my work, and is a subject thats close to me. I plan on trying to do some sort of fundraising for it, but that being said, again, this is pre-pre-pre(?)-production. 

 

While I realize that 35mm is an exponential increase in film stock, I’m leaning more towards that as opposed to locking into 16mm for the same upfront cost for the body.

 

Due to price constraints, but also just my style, most shots will be handheld, with some tripod shots. I may see about getting something like an EasyRig if the weight is too much. 

 

 

16mm - all sync sound

 

Arriflex 16SR2 - 

Best price point, PL and Super16 depending on package, third party video taps 

 

Arriflex 16SR3 - 

Interchangeable Super16 and 16mm, PL, third party video tap

 

Arriflex 416 - 

Best ergonomics, stupid expensive, simple loading, built in SDI out.

 

 

 

35mm

 

Arri 35 BL-4 or 4s

~35 lbs without film, very heavy, sync sound

 

Arriflex 235

MOS, half the weight of the 435, Built in SDI out

 

Arriflex 435

MOS, ~15 lbs, Built in SDI out

 

Arriflex 535 A or B

Sync Sound, A is quite heavy, B is about ~25 lbs over ~35.

 

Arricam LT

Sync sound, very light, most modern, very expensive.

 

 

Questions!

 

Video taps??? While I am going to be the only camera operator and probably the one pulling focus, doing everything etc, I would like the option to have a decent video tap for future projects, but also so my cousin (co-director/co-writer/something like that) can see what’s being recorded, as well as options for positioning the camera places where it would quite uncomfortable to get my eye to the eyepiece. For someone that has used these cameras, I’m sure the video taps are somewhat unique for all of them, but is there anything to note about certain ones? Ideally HD video. 

 

Other than weight, what are my differences between the 235 and the 435? 

 

Other than weight, what are my differences between a 535B and Arricam LT

 

Is sync sound really an issue with the 235 and 435? If I’m booming all my audio will that still mater. - A quick search says yes.

 

 

Conclusion

 

So I’m basically down to 235 (90% of my work is going to be handheld, and I don’t mind a heavier rig, but if I can help it, I will) unless the 435 offers me greater features *that* I will use, if I could somehow get away with MOS or sub 16mm for the sync sound portions… which while I like the idea of both of these cameras, they probably just don’t make sense without Sync sound. 

 

… so the 535B. Or Super16. 

 

 

 

I’ve found a 535B for cheaper than a 16SR3 and on par with the 16SR2, which is why I’m leaning there, but it is around 10lbs heavier and the 16SR2 was my “first love” to say, although maybe I should hold that title till I’ve actually shot on one. 

 

And yes, I’m sure I will get recommended to go and rent one of these for a weekend before buying… I will (probably). I’m just trying to narrow down 10 options down to two, before I go spend excessive money on renting.

 

For anyone who read through this, and offers some advice, thank you. Just typing all of this out has helped myself narrow these down to the 535B or one of the 16SR’s, but I still want to hear the thoughts of people who have actually used them, and make sure I’m not missing something. I’m very passionate about film, and not that many people around me are able to discuss it with me, let alone motion picture film cameras. So thanks, rant over 🙂 

 

 

 - Moses

I would also consider Moviecam Compact, it would be a bit cheaper than an LT and offers the sync sound you're looking for, plus the mounts and some (like ours) fit the 535B Video Tap.

HD Video Tap:
Getting and HD video from that era is, unfortunately expensive. The SR line is good but they tend to be more expensive if they have a PL mount.

MOS/Sync Sound:
Regarding MOS if you're booming a take - yes you're going to need a blimp or barney. These MOS are SO loud, think construction across a quiet parking lot. There is no way to do any usable dialog, at least that I have found anyways.

If you're buying I would say a 535B might be the better investment. But on the other hand outside of Panavision the BLs we the workhorses of the 1980s so getting the parts or having someone to services them offers a bit more options (that was our reasoning anyways and so far it worked out that way). I know someone that shot a feature with a 2C and blimped or ADR for dialogue.

I think one of the more modern options might be Aaton 35iii (at about $10K) see:

:
https://visualproducts.com/product/aaton-35-iii-camera-package/https://visualproducts.com/product/aaton-35-iii-camera-package/

[Xander Kasongo]

2 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

I tested the BL2 which had Evolution update and P+S Technik viewfinder, maybe there is weight difference compared to the original version but I don't believe it would be that large difference. I tested the Red One at the same time and specifically remember how lightweight the BL was compared to the RED which only had the top and bottom rods, battery, hdd etc. basic accessories and no lens. And yes I could easily lift the BL with two fingers without lens and even one finger would had been possible though quite uncomfortable.

the original BL has lots of fiberglass parts which make it lighter weight than one would assume. but of course it still weights a lot compared to modern digital cameras. and the Evolution updated version might be a bit lighter weight, I don't know it it is the case but the viewfinder and camera door etc. are different and motor control differences etc. though I think the motor is probably the original still

Interesting, I've never had the privilege of working with the evolution (I can only dream). I also haven't worked with the RED so I can't comment on the comparison of these. But BL1, 2, and 4 I have and it's got its heft. This one however we were trying to rid to a drone but no dice.

[Aapo Lettinen]

because these are old cameras I would first concentrate on how much there is spare parts available and how difficult it is to get it serviced, if the electronics are trustworthy etc.

So a simpler camera with good availability of spare parts would be better suited than something which tends to have electrical issues at the current age and a bit rarer camera with not that much parts available. So I think something like Kinor35 or Moviecam is not a good choice because of these reasons, much more electrical issues and more difficult to repair than BL.

The 535 was supposed to be a more integrated version of the BL with lots of stuff added to the body, thus it is quite large and awkward-ish though on tripod use should be perfectly fine. The Arricams are more modular which adds complexity and they are of course much more expensive but one can save some weight if choosing the mag+body+accessories combination right. And assuming one would not need to get it serviced ever... likely one would cry when seeing the bill 😄

[Aapo Lettinen]

2 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

So a simpler camera with good availability of spare parts would be better suited than something which tends to have electrical issues at the current age and a bit rarer camera with not that much parts available. So I think something like Kinor35 or Moviecam is not a good choice because of these reasons, much more electrical issues and more difficult to repair than BL

I would also stay away from Aaton35 if it is not cheap. if that thing breaks there is probably nothing one can do about it, no spare parts and complex electronics. Very cool camera design but a risky choice by my opinion. Additionally it is a bit loud compared to the options. Moviecam would be better than the Aaton but as said the Moviecams, as I have noticed from others, seem to have all kinds of small electrical issues now when the cameras are old. Electronics tend to fail first on cameras so something which has ass little electrical parts as possible is often expected to be more reliable than super complex system with tons of circuit boards and failing connectors

[Aapo Lettinen]

So personally I think it is a choice between Arri SR2, Arri 35 BL , Arri 535B and Moviecam Compact if wanting to purchase a camera. Save at least half of the purchase price worth of money for parts and repairs in case the camera shows issues later on. A spare body is probably not needed because if shooting unpaid/low paid short films you can probably continue later/reshoot if the camera fails you mid project. I charging premium for your camera kit then a spare would be expected.

If renting one would probably just go with the Arricam line or 416 and expect it to be in top notch shape with no worries of reliability

[Heikki Repo]

Hi Moses,

You mention that you haven't shot with larger film formats than super-8 thus far - what is your experience thus far with larger and heavier digital cameras? Are you planning to shoot your films with a very bare bones team or do you envision having larger team to support you?

I'm asking you this because while I haven't shot 35mm film, I have moderate experience with Super16 and shooting closer to solo, only very rarely with a first camera assistant (however, I have always loaded my camera myself). My camera is Eclair ACL, which is lighter than Arriflex SR series cameras.

Now then: even though it's 16mm film and the camera is light, with everything loaded on it (rods, matte box, modern prime lenses, 400ft film mag...) it weighs closer to 10 kg and it does start to feel heavy after a while. The tripod and fluid head I have are actually made for 35mm film cameras (150mm), I use them as they are reliable and sturdy. However, moving them around without a team - haha, it isn't fast or comfortable!

When you move on to 35mm, the gear is going to be even heavier and the need for a team considerably higher. Even if you have a great team lighting your scenes you'll most likely still need a good focus puller since the frame size is so much bigger and the dof shallower.

Now, I'm not saying not to do it - but having myself every now and then been tempted by 35mm film, these are the realities I was reminded of by other, much more experienced cinematographers and I'm thankful of that.

So that's why I myself am staying in the S16 ecosystem with my Eclair ACL :)

[Moses Buckwalter]

2 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

So personally I think it is a choice between Arri SR2, Arri 35 BL , Arri 535B and Moviecam Compact if wanting to purchase a camera. Save at least half of the purchase price worth of money for parts and repairs in case the camera shows issues later on. A spare body is probably not needed because if shooting unpaid/low paid short films you can probably continue later/reshoot if the camera fails you mid project. I charging premium for your camera kit then a spare would be expected.

If renting one would probably just go with the Arricam line or 416 and expect it to be in top notch shape with no worries of reliability

Ya, I would like to stick with Arri. Part of that is purely in the name, but the other part is the fact that they are the most common, so not even just replacement parts, but just general knowledge. I have not worked extensively on cameras, but I do have a background in electronics and smartphone and computer repair, and am fairly confident taking anything apart. I know the precision of these cameras is on a different level, but not too much to scare away my purchase. Again, I really like the SR2, and don’t need the features of the 3 like higher speeds, but for the same price, I can get a 535B and really like that too. If only it was lighter.

[Aapo Lettinen]

2 minutes ago, Moses Buckwalter said:

Ya, I would like to stick with Arri. Part of that is purely in the name, but the other part is the fact that they are the most common, so not even just replacement parts, but just general knowledge. I have not worked extensively on cameras, but I do have a background in electronics and smartphone and computer repair, and am fairly confident taking anything apart. I know the precision of these cameras is on a different level, but not too much to scare away my purchase. Again, I really like the SR2, and don’t need the features of the 3 like higher speeds, but for the same price, I can get a 535B and really like that too. If only it was lighter.

16mm is cheaper to shoot on, about half the price per minute compared to 35mm. One cannot expect getting a sync sound 2-perf 35mm camera with any kind of money nowadays so probably you would stick with 4perf or in the very best case 3-perf if you happen to find a 535 which happens to have 3perf movement and the seller does not ask a fortune for it 🙂

Personally I have chosen to shoot sync sound on 16mm and MOS stuff on 35.  I think that is pretty much the best of both worlds and helps you save money on where the savings are highest (sync sound with lots of takes like 8 or 10 shot on cheaper per minute medium but the MOS stuff with one or two or three takes can be shot on 35 to get moody extra shots to heighten the mood of the movie). 

If wanting to try this approach you could test MOS stuff with camera like Arri2c or Konvas and use SR or Eclair (ACL, NPR) for sync sound stuff?

[Moses Buckwalter]

13 minutes ago, Heikki Repo said:

Hi Moses,

You mention that you haven't shot with larger film formats than super-8 thus far - what is your experience thus far with larger and heavier digital cameras? Are you planning to shoot your films with a very bare bones team or do you envision having larger team to support you?

I'm asking you this because while I haven't shot 35mm film, I have moderate experience with Super16 and shooting closer to solo, only very rarely with a first camera assistant (however, I have always loaded my camera myself). My camera is Eclair ACL, which is lighter than Arriflex SR series cameras.

Now then: even though it's 16mm film and the camera is light, with everything loaded on it (rods, matte box, modern prime lenses, 400ft film mag...) it weighs closer to 10 kg and it does start to feel heavy after a while. The tripod and fluid head I have are actually made for 35mm film cameras (150mm), I use them as they are reliable and sturdy. However, moving them around without a team - haha, it isn't fast or comfortable!

When you move on to 35mm, the gear is going to be even heavier and the need for a team considerably higher. Even if you have a great team lighting your scenes you'll most likely still need a good focus puller since the frame size is so much bigger and the dof shallower.

Now, I'm not saying not to do it - but having myself every now and then been tempted by 35mm film, these are the realities I was reminded of by other, much more experienced cinematographers and I'm thankful of that.

So that's why I myself am staying in the S16 ecosystem with my Eclair ACL :)

That's a good point. My current modest digital rig is a bit under 10 lbs right now. As of now, I foresee a bare bones team, but that could change in the future, but I can't count on that. There definitely are a lot of advantages to 16mm as a solo operator. 

[Moses Buckwalter]

9 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

16mm is cheaper to shoot on, about half the price per minute compared to 35mm. One cannot expect getting a sync sound 2-perf 35mm camera with any kind of money nowadays so probably you would stick with 4perf or in the very best case 3-perf if you happen to find a 535 which happens to have 3perf movement and the seller does not ask a fortune for it 🙂

Personally I have chosen to shoot sync sound on 16mm and MOS stuff on 35.  I think that is pretty much the best of both worlds and helps you save money on where the savings are highest (sync sound with lots of takes like 8 or 10 shot on cheaper per minute medium but the MOS stuff with one or two or three takes can be shot on 35 to get moody extra shots to heighten the mood of the movie). 

If wanting to try this approach you could test MOS stuff with camera like Arri2c or Konvas and use SR or Eclair (ACL, NPR) for sync sound stuff?

I think this might be the way to go.... even though I really like the idea of 35mm.... I'll have to think on it. 

I was already thinking this way, as the film is going to have a partial documentary style to it, as it will be based around real events, so my plan was to do the interviews in 16mm, or even digitally and then get them to repeat specific parts for 16mm. 

But then I'm buying two cameras... 🙃

[Aapo Lettinen]

15 minutes ago, Moses Buckwalter said:

I have not worked extensively on cameras, but I do have a background in electronics and smartphone and computer repair, and am fairly confident taking anything apart.

these are pretty complex devices and every model is made differently, additionally there is very little to no documentation available on the electronics and software so repairing them is pretty much shooting in the dark if it is not something very obvious like a blown capacitor or burnt transistor. Some designs (not all cameras but maybe at least half of them) additionally use custom made hybrid IC's with usually no documentation of what is inside and no way to know how it is supposed to function and even which pin does what.

So if failing capacitors, something burnt so that one can find it immediately: probably pretty straigthforward to repair.

other than that: often very difficult to impossible to figure out what is wrong with it. one would need tons of documentation which does not exist and at least is not available. even in best case one would maybe need custom make hybrid IC or PLD stuff. and no guarantee if it would still be possible to get it working.

In most cases, if the issue does not seem obvious, one just replaces the faulty board and hopes for the best. When the spare boards run out then one either stops using the camera or gets completely new crystal sync electronics made for it if having lots of budget and there is other users too who cold order at the same time to make that kind of project possible

[Robin Phillips]

I would just throw out there, 35mm is a lot more expensive to shoot than super 16. and a good, calibrated super 16 camera can work wonders if you just want to be shooting on film. on super 16 you're shooting only 400ft to get about 10 min runtime at around $220 per can. for 35 4 perf youre in the 750 range per can at 1000ft, so more costs for film, processing, and scan. 

right now the best deal for a 4 or 3 perf 35mm film camera will probably be the MELS sale 535Bs. I considered picking one up myself, but I dont enough climate controlled storage to add another camera. through the part sales site they are running separate from what broadcast solutions has, they do have the optical arm to attach a modern HD video tap for sale. But it should also be noted the cameras dont have the best reputation, seems mainly from weight and magazine issues. 

also FYI the 416's tap is not SDI, it is a BNC analogue out. you can get that tap converted to HD though via AZ Spectrum. Oli Millar also has a 416 replacement tap now I think that is budget friendly. best tap for it is the indie assist 416, but that tap is well over 10k USD alone.

[Robin Phillips]

19 minutes ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

16mm is cheaper to shoot on, about half the price per minute compared to 35mm. One cannot expect getting a sync sound 2-perf 35mm camera with any kind of money nowadays so probably you would stick with 4perf or in the very best case 3-perf if you happen to find a 535 which happens to have 3perf movement and the seller does not ask a fortune for it 🙂

I think broadcast solutions is still asking just 6k USD for those MELS 3 perf 535 cameras, includes 4 mags. MELS are also directly listing the 4 perf cameras for 3k, along with some separate 3 perf movement kits

[Moses Buckwalter]

2 minutes ago, Robin Phillips said:

right now the best deal for a 4 or 3 perf 35mm film camera will probably be the MELS sale 535Bs

Sorry, forgive my ignorance, but what is MELS?

[Heikki Repo]

9 minutes ago, Moses Buckwalter said:

I was already thinking this way, as the film is going to have a partial documentary style to it, as it will be based around real events, so my plan was to do the interviews in 16mm, or even digitally and then get them to repeat specific parts for 16mm. 

If partial documentary style is your plan, you might consider those 16mm Eclair cameras. They were used a lot by documentary film makers. As for what can be achieved with one in good condition, see these I have shot on my S16 ACL with Optar Illumina Primes (first one is 500T, second one 500T and 250D and in the end a bit BMPCC OG)

 

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

On 7/17/2024 at 4:49 AM, Xander Kasongo said:

... MOS/Sync Sound:
Regarding MOS if you're booming a take - yes you're going to need a blimp or barney. These MOS are SO loud, think construction across a quiet parking lot. There is no way to do any usable dialog, at least that I have found anyways.

If you're buying I would say a 535B might be the better investment. But on the other hand outside of Panavision the BLs we the workhorses of the 1980s so getting the parts or having someone to services them offers a bit more options (that was our reasoning anyways and so far it worked out that way). I know someone that shot a feature with a 2C and blimped or ADR for dialogue ...

Yes, loud like a coffee grinder. I watched 'The French Connection II' last night and I think quite a bit of it was shot on a 2C. For those who don't know, this is an MOS camera.

In a couple of exterior scenes with dialogue in the movie you can very clearly hear the camera. I actually liked hearing it myself in FCII, as I smiled to myself straight away, realising these at least were 2C scenes.

I wonder with modern lavalier mics hidden from view if you could get away with an MOS camera for some outdoor scenes with lots of ambient noise, especially with a sligthly telephoto lens keeping the camera away from the actors. This is something I plan to try soon with a 2C.

Edited July 17 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

By the way, for those interested, this film has a wonderful look in my opinion. Oh how I wish we could go to the movies and see new feature films shot in this way ... on film, the traditional way. It often has a very earthy and impromptu style of cinematography. It's not an amazing film in terms of plot etc, in my opinion, but I like the look of it very much.

Edited July 17 by Jon O'Brien

[Aapo Lettinen]

39 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Yes, loud like a coffee grinder. I watched 'The French Connection II' last night and I think quite a bit of it was shot on a 2C. For those who don't know, this is an MOS camera.

In a couple of exterior scenes with dialogue in the movie you can very clearly hear the camera. I actually liked hearing it myself in FCII, as I smiled to myself straight away, realising these at least were 2C scenes.

I wonder with modern lavalier mics hidden from view if you could get away with an MOS camera for some outdoor scenes with lots of ambient noise, especially with a sligthly telephoto lens keeping the camera away from the actors. This is something I plan to try soon with a 2C.

Outdoors you could maybe manage with unblimped MOS camera if you are very far away with telephoto lens (like 15 or 20m or more, depends on the background noises like traffic etc) and the camera is only "medium noisy", not a Cameflex type of super noisy beast 😄

the Konvas sounds more like a industrial sewing machine, not coffee grinder 😄 if that helps with the microphones 😄 it is still loud but the noise is less flipeti flop grrrr and more like WHIRRRRRRRRRR  so might fall easier into the background noise in some environments 😄

[Tyler Purcell]

Ok so umm, few things. 

1) No motion picture film cameras came with SDI taps stock. Arri made a small number (I was told 10) HD taps for Arricam's. So any camera you'd be buying would need to have aftermarket tap system and really, very few of them are any good. This is because you're still using a ground glass, which means you really aren't able to pull focus off it. The Arri HD taps, had ground glass elimination software, which was MUCH better, but again there were 10 made, good luck getting one. Most of the later 35mm and 16mm cameras, have integrated taps, making the adaption much more tricky and costly. Even the best of the best true 24fps flicker free taps, which will run you $3 - $12k, are really no match for a low-end digital cinema camera. They are still a joke. 

 

2) 35mm isn't just "more expensive", it's 3.2x more money per finished minute in 4 perf and 2.8 times more money per finished minute in 3 perf. Let me do some BASIC math for you. 

We have a pretty good deal on raw stock, processing, prep/cleaning AND 4k scan at our place. It's $1.14/foot. So a 400ft roll of 16mm which is the standard for the format, is $440 per 11 minutes. 

Now, let's say you've got a short film. Let's say it's 10 pages and your shooting ratio is 5:1 to keep it super light. If you discount waste of slates and such, you're looking at 10min per roll x 5 (5:1 ratio x roll length) = 50 minutes which = 5 rolls of film. 

So 10 minute film @ 5:1 ratio = $2200 in just film expense. Now imagine doing a longer project or a feature. 

With 4 perf 35mm, a 1000ft roll is around the same length as a 400ft 16mm roll. So right away, stock is $941 + $250 + $350 = $1541 + tax. 

So now your 10 minute film @ 5:1 ratio is $7700 in just film expense. Now imagine doing a feature! 

Those are today's prices too, Kodak will continue to raise prices every year until they go out of business. They haven't a clue what their market is and how fragile it is. Consumers like me and you, are not their business. 

 

3) A good 35mm camera with a 1000ft magazine, weighs between 50 - 60lb (depending on rigging). It requires 24v power and LOTS of amperage. So you aren't just buying a V lock battery and throwing it on the back and being cool. Na, you've got a battery block tethered to you at all times. Plus, who is buying a tripod that can hold 60lb? That alone will cost more than the camera. Who wants to do hand held intimate scenes with a big bulky camera. OK so you buy a small camera; Aaton 35III or maybe a 235, ok now you have less than 5 minutes per load in 4 perf. Ok umm, what are you going to shoot with less than 5 minutes? By the time you slate and your actors settle, it's more like 4 minutes. Now you want to do another take? Swap loads. Now you've got 100ft of waste per take. Even in 3 perf which is closer to 6 minutes per 400ft, you're still wasting a lot of film. Most takes will be longer than HALF your roll, so you can't do 2 takes on each roll. You will wind up wasting 1000s of feet of film and constantly reloading. It's such a bitch and pain in the ass. You're having to pause the entire crew as you unload the camera, clean the gate, put the new roll back on and then get everyone to quiet down, re-slate and off ya go. The cadence of the production is broken, which is why real movies always shoot on 1000ft loads with bulky cameras, which is hard to do on a budget. I tried, I sold all of my big cameras. 

 

4) 16mm is cheaper for dozens of reasons, not just stock. Lenses are cheaper. You can use low end digital camera support systems. It's way easier to get a quiet sync sound camera, which can also over crank (run at high speed) to boot. 11 minute loads allow you to do multiple takes on each load. Nearly all good quite 16mm cameras have quick change magazines, so you can swap loads in a second, with virtually no down time. HD taps for most modern 16mm cameras are not horribly expensive. Battery power is integrated on nearly everything that's modern. 16mm looks like film and 35mm can be so clean, it's nearly impossible to tell the difference if you use a "film look" on digital, so your brownie points for shooting film, kinda go out the window. 16mm takes up less space, so you aren't storing tens of thousands of feet for a simple short film. Due to the field of view and using wider lenses, you don't have depth of field issues, making it much easier to focus 16mm when wide open. This helps a lot when doing darker scenes when you're running wide open. Those are just a few off the top of my head. 

 

In the end, unless you're getting scans for free and shooting low-cost on long ends with a friends borrowed 35mm camera, the benefits of 35mm seem counterintuitive. Having done it, in today's world, I simply don't believe it's worthwhile. The final product is aesthetically pleasing, but the experience is horrible from a financial AND production aspect. Millimeter perfect focus, heavy cameras, budgetary compromises with shooting ratio, extra crew to manhandle the cameras around, perfect management of film down to the foot, it's all a huge compromise when you're working light and low budget. If you came to me with a 1.5 million dollar budget and said you could spend 100k on film, I'd still suggest 16mm with a MUCH higher shooting ratio of 20:1. More film going through the camera = a production that looks MUCH more professional. A mistake, I absolutely regret in 4 short narrative films I shot on 35mm and the long-form documentary I started on 35, but will finish primarily on 16mm. 

So what camera? There are 2; SR3 and XTR Prod. That's it. Can't afford one of them, you need to re-think what you're doing with film because the cost of stock, will destroy your budgets anyway. Might as well have THE RIGHT KIT so you're at least marketable and valuable. Ain't gonna happen with a 35mm camera or any of the other 16mm cameras discussed above. You can't afford an Xtera, 416 or Penelope, so we'll just forget those even exist. 
 

 

Edited July 18 by Tyler Purcell

[Brian Drysdale]

With AI you can do a lot to reduce background noise, but you should test before making a final decision.

Shooting 35mm was always expensive, unless you've got a good budget, the shooting ratio can become an issue on certain types of productions.

As mentioned, the Arri BL4 isn't that light. I would be careful about shooting without a camera assistant on 35mm, the cameras were designed to be operated with one. 35mm has been used for newsreels, but they tended to work on a tripod or they were shooting mostly MOS exteriors handheld e.g. combat. 

As Tyler mentioned, the logistics become an issue, you need a larger vehicle for a start. What is one case on 16mm becomes several on 35mm.