zrszach Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 I just wanted to get the pros and cons of the aaton 35III and any tips anyone would have. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted August 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 16, 2004 Good little camera, only shot with it once. Very small and nimble, but the mag can be a bit awkward to load until you get a hang of it. The good thing is that when you've finally gotten a hang of it, they're instant change and are very quick to swap. When I become a millionaire, that's the camera I'd like to own - it's so versatile: small, light, nimble, silent and has a good, bright viewfiner. It fits every occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanStewart Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 If you'll go 3-perf and want to run it out of London, I'll chip in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Nathan Milford Posted August 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 16, 2004 The mags are ok once you get used to them. The absolutely worst part is when you mis-load or mismount the magazine and inch it it makes this horrible, loud, attention drawing sound. The mags are diriven by magnets (ala the XTR) and if they don't set right WHRRRIRIRIIRIRIRIRIRRRRRRRR!!!!@#$(* When I was first learning to load the 35-III mags here at Able I made that noise and everyone popped thier head in... "35-III mags eh?" I cant imagine how excruciating that noise must be to a young loader on the shoot. S/He's mounting the mags as the entier crew waits. The tension mounts as the actors get antsy and want to make calls on thier cell phones... the AD's are just telling them it'll only be a moment more.... then WHIIIRirrrRRRRR... *cringes* Like fingers on a chalkboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted August 16, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted August 16, 2004 If you'll go 3-perf and want to run it out of London, I'll chip in! Nah, Dan. I'm a cinemascope man, 3-perf is for TV- movies :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Hamrick Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 The mags are diriven by magnets (ala the XTR) and if they don't set right WHRRRIRIRIIRIRIRIRIRRRRRRRR!!!!@#$(* Interesting way to write that SFX,I saw a National Geographic Explorer behind the scenes doc about the folks that shoot that show.They were showing one of the cinematographers working with gorillas with a 35 III.Bet he had a veteran loader on that shoot. I too would love to have that camera as I shoot quite a bit ENG style,or at least that's what I've become acustomed to over the last 20 years.Many cinematographers don't like that camera because of that fact.To my knowledge it's the only 35mm cine camera that's built like that,am I correct in that asumption? Marty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xuefei24p Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 I've been loading since I was 13, but that mag kicked my ass a few times before I got the hand of it. Other than that, great camera. I've used it twice, and certainly wouldn't mind having one again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanStewart Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 @ Adam Hey man, DI is the wave of the future! But for scope - you get the lenses and we're on... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Pros are that it's small and has a low profile. Cons are, well....those are for the ACs. (Actually I think the viewfinder a bit dark) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrszach Posted August 18, 2004 Author Share Posted August 18, 2004 Thanks! I was just trying to decide if I should try one out. maybe a comparable arri would be best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob van Gelder Posted August 19, 2004 Share Posted August 19, 2004 There is no comparible Arri at this moment, the 235 is in development but not a sound/blimped camera and basically for 200Ft mags. The Moviecam SL is comparible and probably also a bit more reliable, but certainly not smaller and lighter. Rob van Gelder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted September 21, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 21, 2004 Do you fellows consider the aaton 35 as a silent camera ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 I'd call the Aaton 35-3 a silent camera for all but the absolute quietest environments. For exterior work it's easily quiet enough. For an intimate bedroom scene the putter is probably too loud. Last year Aaton introduced an upgrade version of the camera's 3-perf version. Instead of an adapted 4-perf movement, this was redesigned from the ground up for efficiency and quiet operation. I'd use this camera for any shooting. The Moviecam SL is supposed to be a "silent" lightweight camera, but unless it is perfectly tuned I usually find it is much noiser than the Aaton 35-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted September 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2004 Just shot with it this weekend in 3-perf and it was dead silent. Lovely cameras. Just the simplest things: when you pop the mag on, it connects with the mag and tells the display how much film you've got in. On Arris you have to reset the counter and the mag doesn't "know" how much is in it electronically. The menus are also much more user friendly than Arris, with a simple knob to toggle thru the crystal speeds. The only complaint I have is that the mags don't lock on perfectly unless you apply some force. They jumped out and disconnected on quite many occasions when I hadn't popped them on with enough force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted September 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2004 Just the simplest things: when you pop the mag on, it connects with the mag and tells the display how much film you've got in. On Arris you have to reset the counter and the mag doesn't "know" Same as the aaton 16 and super 16 XTR The only complaint I have is that the mags don't lock on perfectly unless you apply some force.They jumped out and disconnected on quite many occasions when I hadn't popped them on with enough force. Well, that's a problem ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cris Moris Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Hello, Since we are on the topic of Mags: Is the Arri 535 mag coaxial? In fact which cameras have coaxial mags? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Panczenko Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Hey, The 535 is indeed coaxial. Others, both 16mm and 35mm, include the Arri SR series, the Aaton LTR, the Aaton XTR, the Arri 35mm BL series, and thats all I can think of right now. I'm sure somebody else will fill in the blanks if I missed any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted September 22, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 22, 2004 Eclair coutant and ACL are also coax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob van Gelder Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 But you can get in-line magazines too for the 535: Steadicam magazines. similar to the 435 mags, different throat of course. Rob van Gelder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Im not sure if this is a problem or not, And Since I know very little about 35mm, this may just be a stupid thing to post: In Miramax's film "Stolen Summer". The whole film seemed to be "Grainy". Im not sure if this was the camera, or the film used? Seeing as they shot the film with an Aaton 3.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Laurent Andrieux Posted September 26, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 26, 2004 The camera can never make a film look grainy. Not even can lenses by the way, though an underexposed film will look grainy when time printed (and an lens that is not well tested can underexpose). I haven't seen this film, but the grainy look can come either from the stock, the way it was used (under exposition, very low contrast lighting on middle tons) or the print itself even though the original negative wasn't grainy at all. The fact of blowing up 16 or super 16 (and even more super 8) or imaging from DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO will give a grainy look. Even digi beta or HD, can give a grainy look very easily if not well transfered or not well exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted September 27, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 27, 2004 Im not sure if this is a problem or not, And Since I know very little about 35mm, this may just be a stupid thing to post: In Miramax's film "Stolen Summer". The whole film seemed to be "Grainy". Im not sure if this was the camera, or the film used? Seeing as they shot the film with an Aaton 3.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Graininess is affected by several factors: 1. Format size - smaller formats require more magnification, and therefore grains are larger on the screen 2. Film speed (EI) - faster films have larger grains 3. Underexposure - underexposure puts more information on the faster (grainer) components of the emulsion, and the prints/transfers will have less density in the shadow areas, making grain more visible. Fortunately, great strides in emulsion technology have significantly improved the image structure (grain and sharpness) of modern film, such as the Kodak VISION2 Color Negative Films. Here is a discussion with Kodak film designer David Long: http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...s/v2/long.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Just to clarify, "Stolen Summer" was mostly shot on Panavision cameras. For handheld work the Aaton was used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 Just to clarify, "Stolen Summer" was mostly shot on Panavision cameras. For handheld work the Aaton was used. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? My bad. I only seen Aaton 35's in the Project greenlight DVD's. I did'nt think Camera's had the ability make it grainy, But Im not very good @ Cinematography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted September 28, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 28, 2004 Hi, Watch the "Making Of" documentaries on the Lost In Translation DVD, particularly the subway scenes where they're shooting handheld. Phil 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