2 Perf

[Jarin Blaschke]

I'm shooting a piece that will probably end up originating on HD, but before everything becomes settled, I would like to make as good a case as I can for shooting film. As the piece will probably have a 2.4:1 AR and need a DI anyway (if it ever goes to film), 2-perf (Techniscope?) seems a very attractive option. Only: will any place on the East coast rent a 2 perf camera? Were these custom adjustments made to only a few cameras? Were sound cameras ever converted?

 

As we're renting and not buying, is this a format that can realistically be pursued, or are my film-efficient options really limited to 3-perf Super35 or Super16? Techniscope would just seem to strike the right balance as something even cheaper than the former but with better quality than the latter.

 

Thanks.

-Jarin

[DanStewart]

You may have difficulty getting 2perf scanned. In theory you could scan in 4 perf and split the frames somehow.

 

Note that 2 perf and super 3 perf are not equal in quality. A 2.4:1 extraction from the super frame uses the entire width and gives you a little vertical room to reframe, while 2 perf Techniscope does not use the soundtrack area and there is no spare room at all.

 

I feel 3 perf is the better option, despite the theoretically greater savings of

2perf.

 

East coast:

http://www.multivision235.com.au/

:)

[David Mullen ASC]

A Spirit can be set-up to scan 2-perf.

 

Movielab in Australia is the only company with a modern 2-perf camera, a converted Moviecam. They provided cameras for the indie film "Slaughter Rule" shot in Montana.

 

The 2.35 area on a 2-perf frame is slightly smaller than a 2.35 area on a 3-perf frame. Obviously 3-perf is a lot more common than 2-perf.

 

http://www.multivision235.com.au/moreinfo.html

[Jarin Blaschke]

Are there any older sound cameras in the States that might be converted to 2-perf, like a BL? If so, for rental, or just to buy?

[David Mullen ASC]

2-perf (Techniscope) died before the Arri-BL was released - what you find in 2-perf on the market are Arri-2C's, Mitchells, and Eclair CM3's (Cameflexes). Other than Movielab's conversion of some Moviecams (Compacts, I think), I don't know who is doing the work.

[DanStewart]

Movielab have Super Americas, 2c's and BL4's. There are some 2c's floating around europe from the old spaghetti western days.

[Mitch Gross]

You might be able to find a camera engineer to retrofit a camera for 2-perf, but it's going to be a major gut job. I'd recommend a Moviecam Super instead of an old 35BL based on the way the movement is integrated into the camera. It's likely easier to retrofit. But the work would likely cost as much as the camera body itself and once reworked for 2-perf there would be no going back for 3-perf or 4-perf. You'd have to have at least 10 features lined up for the format to make it make decent financial sense. If you have that kind of work lined up, why on God's Green Earth do you care about 2-perf? :D

 

What is it with everyone wanting to own equipment instead of rent? You end up buying ratty old gear that no one wants to rent from you and then you're stuck using outdated equipment yourself. The rental market is very competitive and it's just so much easier and cheaper just to let someone else float the burden of equipment ownership. Don't own gear unless you want to be in the business of owning gear.

[Brad Grimmett]

Don't own gear unless you want to be in the business of owning gear.

This coming from a guy who owns a bunch of gear! I know what you're trying to say though, Mitch. Of course, I own a bunch of gear too, so what the hell DO I know?

[Jarin Blaschke]

But Movielab is strictly in Australia, right? Am I right to figure the cost of shipping the camera to the states would negate any savings 2-perf would create over 3-perf? It's only a 7 day shoot.

[DanStewart]

Contact Kelvin Crumplin there, this is best done on specifics. You might be able to piggyback on a feature or something. But arrange post early, that's where any savings are most likely to dissapear.

[Mitch Gross]

Don't own gear unless you want to be in the business of owning gear.

This coming from a guy who owns a bunch of gear! I know what you're trying to say though, Mitch. Of course, I own a bunch of gear too, so what the hell DO I know?

Yes Brad, exactly. And you and I both know what it really means to own that gear, with the insurance and productions trying to get you and equipment for package prices and dealing with clients who want the latest/greatest and on and on.

[Brad Grimmett]

Don't own gear unless you want to be in the business of owning gear.

This coming from a guy who owns a bunch of gear! I know what you're trying to say though, Mitch. Of course, I own a bunch of gear too, so what the hell DO I know?

Yes Brad, exactly. And you and I both know what it really means to own that gear, with the insurance and productions trying to get you and equipment for package prices and dealing with clients who want the latest/greatest and on and on.

Yep. The assumption is that owning gear will help you get more work, but in reality you end up getting a lot of calls for you and the gear for the same or less than your rate before you owned gear. That's been happening to me a lot lately. They want everything for next to nothing, and they're happy to remind you that they know of some other person who'll do it for less. The problem is that those people do exist, and they really will work for less or nothing.

I recently did a job out in the desert, and I realized very quickly that all the sand blowing around and into my gear could cause some serious problems. But the biggest problem was that the rate was very low and if I did have a problem with the gear, the rate they were paying wouldn't cover any maintenace or repairs I might need. Since that job I've been much more wary of "helping someone out" than I used to be, because if I have a problem, how quick are they going to "help" me out? Not bloody likely I've found.

Owning gear is great in some ways, and a real pain in the butt in others. I think a lot of people that are looking at buying equipment tend to look at all the good things about it, but not many of the bad things about it. You have to look realistically at both the good and bad.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The problem is that those people do exist, and they really will work for less or nothing.

Yes, but then again most clients unless they're well experienced are always willing to be penny wise and dollar foolish. I'm frankly amazed how many 11th hour cheapo charlies they have out there who make commercials for under $500 on DV. These are wedding/barmitzvah videographers making a second dime, basically. The commercials suck of course, they don't even use lighting in many cases (or they use on camera light). But the clients like the fact that they get a package deal with ad space and that's that. You get what you pay for.

 

Same concerns a lot of film people, a cheap DP to them is a great way to save and shoot film at once. But when they get a guy who works super slow, or keeps saying "can't shoot that, can't shoot this - let's try it [the easier way so I can go home faster]", or simply has a high f-it factor (yeah, that's sort of locked down, that's sort of in focus), they learn the hard way. It's just as important to hire a good DP as it is to hire good talent.

 

Sadly I've learned that the video market has made some clients almost expect that a DP comes with his own equipment. Video in general has altered the economics of film production all around, and it's really a fight to do things the traditional way sometimes.

 

- G.

[Rob Belics]

it's really a fight to do things the traditional way sometimes.

And the right way.

[Mitch Gross]

There are very different strata in this industry. Some productions have moved towards cheaper costs in DV and other SD video formats. Others now insist on film or HD as a minimum requirement. There are areas in which a $3000 DV camcorder would be considered an appropriate camera for the job, and others where a $2000 day rental of high-end kit is the only way to go. I don't really see most knowledgeable producers confusing the two. For the unknowledgeable ones--those are the bullshit jobs I try to avoid. There are times I have no problem shooting DV and there are times when 35mm is what's required. I find very few occassions where this question is ever confused.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I can report that the Nortlight film scanner also handles 2-perf, if anyone

wants to go that route.

 

As for cameras, they're hard to come by. If you need to rent in europe

cheaply, my friend has converted a russian Kinor to shoot the format.

I did a pilot for BBC last year with the actor Brian Blessed (unfortunately,

BBC didn't go ahead with it), where all the "beauty" shots were shot on film,

including Brian's introduction to the series (if one could label him a beauty...)

in his minimal dressing room at the Palladium Theathre in London.

 

We lugged that camera in backpacks to the highest peaks in the Lake district

and and Snowdonia in Wales for some beautiful vistas. It worked flawlessly

(except for the batteries that were homemade, it does however accept standard

XLR4 power sources), but of course it has it's own lens mount. I think the russian

lenses are very good, but the whole package might scare

some techheads off because, well, it's russian...

 

Let me know if you need to contact him.

[Mitch Gross]

Interesting that it was a Kinor. The 35H model that looks like a Moviecam? I'd have thought that a Konvas like your old one would have been far easier to convert, but then it would still be a very loud camera. Did he convert it in a was that is reversible or is it stuff being a 2-perf camera. You know btw, that camera can be retrofitted with a PL mount at correct depth fairly easily.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Actually, it's the Konvases that are almost impossible to convert, due to their

one-slab-all-machined movement. The Kinor has a straighforward Mitchell

movement like the Panavision (but as you said, looks like a Moviecam), so

basically all one has to do is change the size of the wheel on the driving

shaft.

 

That reminds me, why not talk to Panavision LA?. I know for a fact that

they converted at least one camera for Cameron's Titanic so he didn't have to

surface to reload.. It's probably still around, opr at least the movement is.

All they have to do is pop it in.

 

You can see me and the 2-perf Kinor in action on a mountainside at this

link (I'm the unshaven fella in the blue jacket):

 

 

Kinor 2-perf

[Mitch Gross]

Interesting. Those cameras are actually affordable enough that one might consider it for retrofitting oneself. Hmmn. I assume there was a little bit more than switching a single wheel, but perhaps not too much. Change the gate and the viewfinder for one thing, plus probably adjust the mags as well (how much gearing is there in those mags?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Actually, the mags in the Kinors have an independent take-up electric motor

(just like the big 1000ft mag in 435 has) that drives the take-up spindle

with a rubber belt. So no adjustment is really needed in the mag, since

it will just slip a little bit more. You could probably solder in a small resistance

before the motor if you want it to run a bit slower to save the belt.

[Jarin Blaschke]

Just as an update - the piece is going HD. Looks like I have some homework to do...

[Colin Kelly]

A side note to this post. I am 1st ACing on a feature right now with a mitchell BNCR and an Arri 2b w/ blimp. Both are modified for 2-perf techniscope.

 

The director owns both cameras and is looking to rent them out to other productions after his production ends.

 

He's located in Burbank.

 

It has been an adventure so far - day 4 of 19

[John Pytlak RIP]

Jarin: Was Super-16 ever considered?

[Jarin Blaschke]

John:

 

Not really, given the slickness of the script. The script and visuals were really too cold and calculated for the organic, 16mm look. But just yesterday, the project got postponed indefinitely and the director is looking to do something simpler and shorter with her resources, so you know I'll be pushing for 35 once again!

[John Pytlak RIP]

Too bad. Keep Super-16 in the mix, especially of the likely market is video release or DVD. Some really nice work being done lately, and Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films have opened up many new possibilities for lower budget productions:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/16mm/pro...0.1.4.5.4&lc=en