James Steven Beverly Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Then I guess the way to go with ultra low-budget is academy standard 35mm and a workprint on a flatbed editor. With Super 16 you don't have the image quality and animorphic and super 35 cost too much in rental fees and processing and techniscope has the problem of lower image quality combined with some some processing problems and a lack of availible cameras and lenses and in essence must be telecined. Even going with telecine for editing academy 35 adds extra expense over a workprint, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted April 24, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 24, 2006 Then I guess the way to go with ultra low-budget is academy standard 35mm and a workprint on a flatbed editor. With Super 16 you don't have the image quality and animorphic and super 35 cost too much in rental fees and processing and techniscope has the problem of lower image quality combined with some some processing problems and a lack of availible cameras and lenses and in essence must be telecined. Even going with telecine for editing academy 35 adds extra expense over a workprint, correct? With modern stocks and intermediate technologies, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in quality between 2-perf and super 35 in the 2.35/1 aspect ratio. Both are easy to distinguish from super 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 24, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 24, 2006 Well, if the goal is a 35mm sound print, generally the simplest thing to do is shoot on 35mm in a projection format (standard 1.85 or anamorphic). Â However it's all a question of how low of a shooting ratio you can live with, because quickly at some point, it's cheaper to shoot Super-16 and do an optical printer blow-up to 35mm (that costs around $30,000 for a feature, but considering that 35mm stock is about 4X the costs of Super-16, it's easy to spend more than the blow-up costs shooting 35mm.) Â In terms of the costs of renting anamorphic lenses, that just depends on the deals you can get. "George Washington" afterall was shot in 35mm anamorphic. Â In terms of the costs of workprinting vs. telecine for dailies, again, it depends on how cheap of a deal you can get on telecine. Now that you no longer have to edit on an expensive AVID, I suspect you aren't really going to save money by dealing with editing workprint. It's complicated, and requires that your sound is transferred to 35mm mag, that you have some sort of inking machine to stamp numbers on your synced rolls so that once you start cutting, you can still sync up the separated trims of sound and picture, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Here's the USPatent for Techniscope:  http://patimg1.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=033960...View+first+page  While first used by Technicolor Rome in 1960, Technicolor didn't start pushing it outside of Italy until 1963.  Kodak replaced 5250 with a finer grained stock, 5251.  The same year also saw the use of 70mm prints from 35mm anamorphic originals.  Coincidence.  ---LV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 (edited) Well, if the goal is a 35mm sound print, generally the simplest thing to do is shoot on 35mm in a projection format (standard 1.85 or anamorphic). Â However it's all a question of how low of a shooting ratio you can live with, because quickly at some point, it's cheaper to shoot Super-16 and do an optical printer blow-up to 35mm (that costs around $30,000 for a feature, but considering that 35mm stock is about 4X the costs of Super-16, it's easy to spend more than the blow-up costs shooting 35mm.) Â In terms of the costs of renting anamorphic lenses, that just depends on the deals you can get. "George Washington" afterall was shot in 35mm anamorphic. Â In terms of the costs of workprinting vs. telecine for dailies, again, it depends on how cheap of a deal you can get on telecine. Now that you no longer have to edit on an expensive AVID, I suspect you aren't really going to save money by dealing with editing workprint. It's complicated, and requires that your sound is transferred to 35mm mag, that you have some sort of inking machine to stamp numbers on your synced rolls so that once you start cutting, you can still sync up the separated trims of sound and picture, etc. Â There's a lot to consider here. I own the flatbeds but don't have some of the support equipment and of course no expirence using this equipment although I have edited tons of video in fact I'm working on a no-budget feature right now and just finished up the rough cut. I own a 35mm camera and see film go incredably cheap on Ebay all the time but then your not choosing the stock, you getting what's availible and who know if it's any good or if you can find enough of the same stock to shoot something. Short ends are another alternitive, but that still isn't cheap. Techniscope sounds terrific at first because a roll of stock goes further but then you gotta find a camera. Like I said, Lot's of things to consider. I really apreciate the input though David. Edited April 25, 2006 by Capt.Video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted April 27, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2006 Hey gents, Â I hope 2-perf is viable since Bruce McNaughton is making up a 2-perf movement for my Fries 35R3 as we speak. I have to have it since film and lab are more costly than all other parts of my budget put together. I love the idea of 225 ft rolls lasting almost five minutes in the camera as well (short ends seem less than useful when you have to change them every one or two takes). Bob at Fries is making a see-through plate for my 2-perf BNC so I can make the transfers to DI. DI seems the best way to resolve so many of the technology limitations of 2-perf. Â I recently rented a DVD of THX-1138. It looked damn good. So does Leone's stuff. I think 2-perf is on the positive edge of what format holds up to cinematic quality while keeping costs down. If you go to IMDB and search under "Techniscope" you'll see a lot of listings of horror movies and the like. It was a prolific format for really crummy productions. All in all, it appears to be a far better format than it gets credit for. I think it is a great way to keep film alive in the face of DV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Arpin Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Just found out that the STRAW DOGS remake is being shot 2 perf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted October 3, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 3, 2009 Just found out that the STRAW DOGS remake is being shot 2 perf. Â Hey Larry, Â I've never seen a thread this old brought back from the dead. 2-perf is still holding on and growing slowly. I'm a 2-perfer. But mostly in name only these days. Â Please, post in more. We're glad to have you along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim O'Connor Posted October 6, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 6, 2009 Hey Larry, I've never seen a thread this old brought back from the dead. 2-perf is still holding on and growing slowly. I'm a 2-perfer. But mostly in name only these days.  Please, post in more. We're glad to have you along.  Yeah, I'm glad that you did too. I missed this the first time around and there is some great information in here.  James, what do you use for editing currently? I'm never going back to a flatbed. I'd rather make window dubs for a 3/4" cuts only system. With the right set up, I'm sure that you could make exactly the EDL in Final Cut Pro that you would need to cut the negative and make prints.  I own a Steenbeck flatbed and it is really cool. I love the design and the engineering and the nostalgia of it but I am not eager to edit on it for any long period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 A Steenbeck is really only for viewing or looking at a sequence- you can't sync up on one, for a start. You do your fine editing on a pic-sync. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim O'Connor Posted October 6, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 6, 2009 A Steenbeck is really only for viewing or looking at a sequence- you can't sync up on one, for a start. You do your fine editing on a pic-sync. Â Â I haven't heard that term around here. The Steenbecks that I have used are flatbeds on which picture and sound can be synced and locked. I edited my first 16mm film cutting the workprint on an eight plate, two screen Steenbeck flatbed. Â Is that what a pic-sync means or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Of course you can sync up on a Steenbeck !!!! a pic sync is just a hand operated thing which you can sync up with !! but if you have a Steenbeck thats the way to go !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 When you see a Leon film shot in Techniscope ,you have to take into account that the Technicolor prints were made dye transfer !! not just Eastman Colour standard prints !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted October 6, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 6, 2009 Of course you can sync up on a Steenbeck !!!! Â Sure, in fact they were primarily an assistant's workstation. KEM was the other make, and instead of trim bins, you had KEM rolls to go through. Most editors preferred the Moviola and trim bins because you could find stuff quicker. Then Ediflex and Montage came along, and all that went away. The only person I've heard of who really liked the flatbeds was Leni Reifenstahl. KEM rolls take up a lot less space than trim bins and boxes, so there is an advantage when you have huge amounts of material to handle. Â Â Â Â Â -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 A BBC co-production with is it KBH Boston ? title Emma , has just been shown here , last weekend it was shot 2 perf on Fuji . Looked beautiful , of course it didnt go through a chemical print process . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alexander Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Anyone here know what camera and lenses were used on ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST? There are some interesting crane shots as well as push (zooms?) to extreme closeups. Â This movie would seem to be one of the high technical water marks for a Techniscope ( as opposed to underfunded horror films), so it would be of interest to know what was used and how it was used and lighted for. Â Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I would have thought a Arri 2c , Prime Cookes , Zooms , Angenieux 10-1 !! that was about the choice then !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alexander Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I would have thought a Arri 2c , Prime Cookes , Zooms , Angenieux 10-1 !! that was about the choice then !! Â Â Maybe Super Baltars? Supposedly there are books on the film out there, but I'm not sure if they would include the gear used. Maybe a production still or three are in the books. Anyone know. Â Anyone considering Techniscope should check out the DVD release and the closeups in the pivotal duel near the end, and later on Bronson, ( the lighting on Claudia Cardinale's closeups are soft). With modern stocks one would hope to do even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 No dont think it would have been those lenses !! wouldnt have been able to use them with Arri 2c . And please remember it was a Technicolor Dye Transfer Print , which just was the best !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Sekulovich Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Hi, Â John's right. Arri 2C, Angenieux 25-250mm T3.9 zoom. As for primes I'm thinking more like Angenieux, Cooke, or Kinoptik. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the zoom for the entire movie. Â And of course shot on glorious 5254. 5251 was discontinued in 1968. Â Regards, Milo Sekulovich Cinematogapher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alexander Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Wow, there have been more than a few books:  Once upon a Time in Italy: The Westerns of Serge Leone by Christopher Frayling  http://www.amazon.com/Once-Upon-Time-Italy...d_bxgy_b_text_b  See also:  Sergio Leone: Something to do With Death by Christopher Frayling  Once Upon a Time in the Italian West: The Filmgoers Guide to Spaghetti Westerns by Howard Hughes  The Art of Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West: A Critical Appreciation by John Falwell   Maybe one or some of these have production stills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alexander Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 If the optics were that prehistoric then they just nailed some of the pulls on those shots. Â Point acknowledged on dye transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alexander Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 There are some production stills on ebay under Sergio Leone that show Once upon a time including up to three Arric 2C's and a mix of Ang zooms, and primes. There is also a still with the director and the inimitable Claudia Cardinale at a table. He has a directors finder around his neck, but I couldn't make the lens in his hand. Looks like a Canon 25-120 or maybe a Cooke. The cranes on set look like early Intermeccanica's. Â Revisit the movie and check out the tracking shots. Pretty impressive moves. The ancient equipment was not an impediment to telling the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted October 13, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 13, 2009 So I'm looking at this still on eBay and I'm looking at the motor sticking out the back side of the Arriflex 35IIC and at first I was confused, then I realized, "Oh, it has an Italian Base." Then I had one of those "Dooohhhh!!!!" moments when I realized "That's where the Italian base came from." Â Would have loved to see the other side of the camera to see if it had the Italian Door as well. Â Â Best, -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted October 13, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted October 13, 2009 I didn't know it was done on Arris. I had just assumed it was done on Mitchells. That's interesting. I don't recall any image instability in the entire movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now