Which 35mm camera?

[Uli Meyer]

I'm advocating for 35mm, it is the superior film format for my taste. Expensive, yes, that is a painful drawback. Nevertheless, I love it. You can operate a 235 on your own, no problem. I've stripped down my camera to the bare minimum, eliminating the video assist since you don't need it working on your own. I use a riser plate that allows you to mount 15mm rods and a Wooden camera follow focus and lightweight mattebox. The camera weighs 9 kilo with a loaded 400ft mag and a UP. This means that you don't need a massive tripod either. I'm using a Sachtler 1910 Cine 7+7. I build the camera before I go out and it fits easily into my camera bag.

It all depends on what you want to do with it.

 

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

Yes the 35mm may be too limiting because of the cost and logistics if doing narrative and trying to work the same way than higher budget productions do. Shooting dialogue on 35 is problematic as mentioned unless you have tons of budget to make it right. 

The reason I am able to shoot any 35mm on low budget is because I cherry pick the individual shots I want and can do on 35 and all the rest of the project is either 16mm or digital video or a combination of those with 16mm picked again only when needed and shooting the rest on cheaper format (video).

This way I am able to pick the stuff for 35 which is short mos takes with about 3:1 shooting ratio. I can often do several shots on 150ft Konvas roll. It is not as cool as shooting entire project on 35 but it is the only possibility to use any 35 at all on a low budget project if the whole project is not mos and has even a little bit of dialogue which needs long takes and lots of them.

Advantages:

- the cameras are smaller, lighter weight and relatively affordable 

- you are still much cooler than pure digital or 16mm guy

- you really need to think what individual scenes and shots actually need, making the movie much better

The 16mm is same stock than 35, the "film look" is still there. Only dept of field and grain difference and possibly different lenses. Most 16mm cameras were made for tv and documentary projects so they are compact, easy to use one man band and relatively lightweight. The camera is basically like a little heavier and clumsier eng shoulder camera from logistics point of view, you can fit it in a single porta brace if thinking it through.

Compare to Arricam which needs so many boxes that you struggle to haul it around and if fitting to a normal car you can barely get the driver there, no passengers. With 16mm you can fit small lights and grip too and an extra person

[Uli Meyer]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Compare to Arricam which needs so many boxes that you struggle to haul it around and if fitting to a normal car you can barely get the driver there, no passengers.

Again, it all depends on what you want to do. It is possible to strip down an Arricam LT to the bare minimum so you can operate it solo. I've been walking around London with my LT to shoot documentary footage on my own. I took it onto a bus inside my Hamax pushchair, ready built, including a high hat and fluid head.

Of course, if you want to shoot narrative, it becomes an entirely different ballgame. Professional shoots don't vary that much when it comes to formats. A Super 16 film shoot with a 416 or an SR3 is not much different compared to one with an Arricam.

Edited July 18, 2024 by Uli Meyer

[Moses Buckwalter]

3 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I'm advocating for 35mm, it is the superior film format for my taste. Expensive, yes, that is a painful drawback. Nevertheless, I love it. You can operate a 235 on your own, no problem. I've stripped down my camera to the bare minimum, eliminating the video assist since you don't need it working on your own. I use a riser plate that allows you to mount 15mm rods and a Wooden camera follow focus and lightweight mattebox. The camera weighs 9 kilo with a loaded 400ft mag and a UP. This means that you don't need a massive tripod either. I'm using a Sachtler 1910 Cine 7+7. I build the camera before I go out and it fits easily into my camera bag.

It all depends on what you want to do with it.

 

 

Hi Uli!

 

I love these shots. Curious as to what you’re doing for power. Does the 235 require 24v as well? 

[Uli Meyer]

4 minutes ago, Moses Buckwalter said:

Hi Uli!

 

I love these shots. Curious as to what you’re doing for power. Does the 235 require 24v as well? 

Yes, 24 Volt. I had the original batteries modernised by Hawk-Woods. You can see one mounted on the right side of the camera. I do switch off the camera during brakes which means one battery lasts a long time.

[Mark Dunn]

3 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I'm advocating for 35mm, it is the superior film format for my taste. Expensive, yes, that is a painful drawback. Nevertheless, I love it. You can operate a 235 on your own, no problem. I've stripped down my camera to the bare minimum, eliminating the video assist since you don't need it working on your own. I use a riser plate that allows you to mount 15mm rods and a Wooden camera follow focus and lightweight mattebox. The camera weighs 9 kilo with a loaded 400ft mag and a UP. This means that you don't need a massive tripod either. I'm using a Sachtler 1910 Cine 7+7. I build the camera before I go out and it fits easily into my camera bag.

It all depends on what you want to do with it.

 

 

Is anyone else shooting their home movies on 35mm? Don't think so. More power to you.

[Uli Meyer]

Just now, Mark Dunn said:

Is anyone else shooting their home movies on 35mm? Don't think so. More power to you.

Not limited to home movies. The OP mentioned documentary work. Next week I'll be filming urban foxes in London. 35mm is as viable as 16mm for that kind of work.

[Uli Meyer]

Here's a link to the shot that goes with the photo above 🙂

Very quick grade, needs a bit of gain maybe.

 

Edited July 18, 2024 by Uli Meyer

[Simon Wyss]

35 is very expensive, if you digitise-scan the original and never project film.

35 is quite economic, if you have prints made and let an audience pay to see them. That’s what cinema was from 1895 to 200?

Since you are feeling an urge to have a 35-mm. camera I’d suggest you look for a Bell & Howell Eyemo 71. With an Eyemo you have

• a rugged camera that doesn’t need electricity, it’s got a spring drive and can be hand-cranked;
• variable speed depending on the model (only two speeds with an early one):
• a professional lens mount that locates optics better than the PL mount (I can explain that);
• a claw that advances the film strictly in a straight line (nice on film), accepts negative and positive perforations;
• 160 degrees shutter opening;
• a bright and practical enough viewfinder with younger models (turret finder);
• a critical focuser with the younger spider turret models usable in conjunction with a so-called focusing alignment gauge for very accurate close-up and macro work;
• magazines and electric motors attachable with younger models.

Prices are from $500 up depending on what comes with them.

The most compact and lightweight mirror-shutter reflex finder cameras are ARRIFLEX and CINEFLEX. These let you make perfect pictures, too. There were spring motors for the CINEFLEX. Both ARRIFLEX and CINEFLEX afford a variant of the Eyemo lens mount, equally exact. Prices are between $1,500 and $3,000.

Edited July 18, 2024 by Simon Wyss

[Moses Buckwalter]

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Yes, 24 Volt. I had the original batteries modernised by Hawk-Woods. You can see one mounted on the right side of the camera. I do switch off the camera during brakes which means one battery lasts a long time.

Could you use a 14v V mount and boost it to 24? Do you know of anyone that’s done this?

[Jeff Bernstein]

3 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Next week I'll be filming urban foxes in London.

Bwee hee hee.

[Jon O'Brien]

13 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Not limited to home movies. The OP mentioned documentary work. Next week I'll be filming urban foxes in London. 35mm is as viable as 16mm for that kind of work.

That sounds really cool Uli. Best of luck with it. I'd love to get filming work like that, here in Australia. I'm totally surrounded by complete digital heads where I am. Film is a dinosaur that's dead to them. It's superceded and defunct. I think they need to look a bit closer at how good film really is 🙂

Edited July 19, 2024 by Jon O'Brien

[Aapo Lettinen]

9 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'd love to get filming work like that, here in Australia. I'm totally surrounded by complete digital heads where I am. Film is a dinosaur that's dead to them. It's superceded and defunct. I think they need to look a bit closer at how good film really is 🙂

I think film is best suited for filming anything human made and persons too. Stuff like buildings, cars, technology, faces, etc. benefit a lot from the "softer imaging approach", especially stuff which has tons of contrast and sharp edges which is just brutal to shoot on razor sharp digital.

The general concensus is that digital is much better for nature stuff unless it is some mood piece meant to feature humans enjoying nature being part of it. Or nature coming to the cities where the humans and their unnatural sharp edge architecture and other stuff is.

Pure nature movies and docs only featuring animals and landscapes are "a window to the world" where clear vision is required to capture the moments, if using film for that it would just disturb the viewer without offering any extra storytelling benefit. Additionally film does not have the required performance for this kind of stuff and would thus be very limiting. A hybrid production only shooting specific scenes or shots on large format film and the rest on digital would be possible but rarely anyone would do that because the logistics would be a nightmare and the benefits very slim compared to full digital production.

Ron Fricke type of stuff works extremely well on film because it is centered on human activity and has architecture and other stuff. If only featuring nature scenes withouth anything man made it would not work as intended

[Aapo Lettinen]

9 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'd love to get filming work like that, here in Australia. I'm totally surrounded by complete digital heads where I am. Film is a dinosaur that's dead to them. It's superceded and defunct. I think they need to look a bit closer at how good film really is 🙂

Just get a interesting looking 16mm or 35mm camera and take it with you on sets, capturing some stuff on the breaks during the day. You'll be guaranteed to get positive attention and people coming ask what stuff that is and how it works. I used to do this when doing data wrangling, there was tons of pastime when waiting for cards on set and it was much more interesting to shoot some 16mm than to eat the whole catering table when needing to wait for long 😄

when I lived in Helsinki some years ago I used to travel to work with the underground and keep a small Konvas in my backpack in case I would see some nice looking construction sites etc. from the window. Some pro sound designer came to chat with me after hearing how cool the camera sounded like and said it inspired him to start a new project 😄

 

Edited July 19, 2024 by Aapo Lettinen

[Tyler Purcell]

On 7/18/2024 at 1:55 AM, Uli Meyer said:

A Super 16 film shoot with a 416 or an SR3 is not much different compared to one with an Arricam.

On a shoot with crew? Absolutely, does not matter one bit. 

On 7/18/2024 at 6:40 AM, Moses Buckwalter said:

Could you use a 14v V mount and boost it to 24? Do you know of anyone that’s done this?

Can't do it without a lot of pain and suffering by the battery and regulator. 

On 7/18/2024 at 6:39 AM, Simon Wyss said:

Since you are feeling an urge to have a 35-mm. camera I’d suggest you look for a Bell & Howell Eyemo 71. With an Eyemo you have

I think the OP want's to actually shoot a movie, not experiment. Eyemo's are fine for experimenting, you can get some awesome stuff with them, but a 90 second load and wind up operation, without a reflex viewfinder or really any modern functionality, is kinda moot for 99% of the filmmakers out there. Kinda like suggesting a balsa wood RC plane with a camera to do drone-like shots. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

On 7/18/2024 at 4:40 PM, Moses Buckwalter said:

Could you use a 14v V mount and boost it to 24? Do you know of anyone that’s done this?

I have a tiny bit of experience of designing boost converters and lots more experience using some factory made stuff, mostly not for camera use but testing for various purposes.

You really don't want to use a boost converter to power something which needs precise voltage and reliable supply of high amperage if needed. There is just too many things which can go wrong with it and it is a nightmare to filter even if it can supply some kind of relatively stable 24v. The theory of boosting is easy but the practical solutions are absolute nightmare if wanting to power something precious to you and first of all not burn it or the converter or your house, the second trying to make some kind of usable output from it which even remotely resembles a real battery...

Boost converters are good for stuff like LEDs and such but using one with a expensive camera, not touching with a 30ft stick 😆  additionally using a real battery is just cheaper and more reliable overall.

One can use all the leftover 14v V-mount for Led lights if needing good use for them 🙂

[Jeff Bernstein]

On 7/18/2024 at 8:40 AM, Uli Meyer said:

 

[Samuel Berger]

On 7/16/2024 at 12:42 PM, Moses Buckwalter said:

For anyone who read through this, and offers some advice, thank you.

You might not like my advice because it's not on your list: Eclair CM3. They're cheap but great. I just missed out on one that Richard at Cinema Gear sold for $4000 including tripod!

Other than that, I agree with others that 16mm is the way to go. I don't think movie theatres even have 35mm projectors any more. 

[Moses Buckwalter]

1 hour ago, Samuel Berger said:

You might not like my advice because it's not on your list: Eclair CM3. They're cheap but great. I just missed out on one that Richard at Cinema Gear sold for $4000 including tripod!

Other than that, I agree with others that 16mm is the way to go. I don't think movie theatres even have 35mm projectors any more. 

Ended up getting a great deal on a 535B and some magazines. Loving it so far!

[Giray Izcan]

Nice camera. The only problem will be getting film for that beast..