what arri to by?

[John Brawley]

John,

 

Your implication when you said the registration pin moved during exposure was that it's movement effected the steadiness of the image, and what I tried to explain to you in as much detail as one can with words instead of diagrams is that the bit of movement you are seeing in the registration pin at the end and beginning of it's travel has nothing to do with steadiness (on a properly serviced 16SR) because the movement is perpendicular to the film plane and film travel, and movement is after the meat of the registration pin is already holding the perf securely in place.

 

I think it does. You think it doesn't. End of story.

 

Now you can argue that you think having a spring loaded side rail is a better way to prevent weave than how the SR was designed to handle weave. The Arriflex 16S, 16S/B, 16M and 16BL all had a spring loaded lateral side rail and they all seemed to work fine. I am certainly no expert on the SR3 as I have not shot with one and have not been trained to service them. Why they went back to a spring loaded lateral rail is something you would have to ask ARRI.

 

I wasn't questioning the Arri S. Perhaps that's because they don't have the weave reputation. My understanding is that the rails were reintroduced to address a problem everyone seems to acknowledge. And it was only on the SR3 Advance...not the SR3.

 

 

Please point out where I said a registration pin is required for image steadiness. And please point out where I said an ARRI is more stable than an Aaton. I did not say that.

 

I think you did.....this from an earlier post, where you said....

 

While I'm a big fan of the Aaton LTR7 and LTR54, they are definitely not steadier than an Arriflex 16SR or 16SRII. Both the 16SR and the 16SRII are registration pin cameras, the Aaton LTR7 and LTR54 are not.

 

 

You say the Aaton's are not steadier than an SR1 or SR2. Then you say that the SR's have registrations pins while the Aaton's do not. What else would I conclude ?

 

 

But if you are going to be putting out incorrect and misleading information about ARRI cameras, something I service in my business, I am going to correct your misinformation.

 

 

 

Tim, as I said, this in internet based discussion forum. People never agree and who made you the fact police ? You've stated what your position is. Let the reader decide.

[giap vu]

Hi,

 

I sort of looked into the Aaton A-Minima, and am a bit impressed, but if I understood correctly, from what I've read, is it mostly a hand held type camera? Also the Arriflex 416 is beautiful but quite out of my ball park.

[John Brawley]

Hi,

 

I sort of looked into the Aaton A-Minima, and am a bit impressed, but if I understood correctly, from what I've read, is it mostly a hand held type camera? Also the Arriflex 416 is beautiful but quite out of my ball park.

 

 

 

Hi Giap.

 

The A-minima is a small camera. Of course it better suits handheld work, simply because it's lighter than an SR or LTR/XTR. I would say though that they way you hold this camera is quite different. It's weight is held upright by your hand. The mag sort of sticks into your shoulder, rather than rest there with the full weight like it does with full size cameras. I actually don't mind a full size camera for hand held because I find it better for endurance to be supporting most of the weight on my shoulder rather than holding it in my hand using my arms.

 

The a-minima is a little quirky to load and you will need to get plenty of practice before you'll become proficient and able to do it quickly. Lot's of people do have trouble with it's odd magazine design. It's a very very capable camera for the money. PL lens mount for starters, Timecode on film, built in intervalometer. With the accessory base you can go to 50 FPS. Pretty damn good. The other cool thing aside from it's steadiness, is that is has a secondary shutter for the viewfinder which means that you can take your eye away from the viewfinder while you are shooting. I wouldn't be game to try it in bright daylight, but I've done it and it works...! Rather weird feeling though to do it !

 

I was chatting with JPB a couple of years ago and he mentioned that an accidental discovery when designing the secondary shutter and gate itself is that he was able to greatly reduce the amount of stray light bouncing around the inside of the shutter mechanism. If you look at the front of an a-minima you'll see it's got a very uniform conical sort of design and there is no room at all ! He felt that the images were more contrasty essentially because there wasn't as much *fogging* from light reflecting off the interior surfaces of the camera (including the GG) between the mount and the film.

 

Anyways, it's a very modern camera for not a lot of cash when you look at what it does. The only reason I would hesitate on not using it on a larger prouduction is the non-orientable viewfinder, and it's somewhat average video split. There are no extension viewfinders either. Aside from that, the camera rocks.

 

jb

[Tim Carroll]

People never agree and who made you the fact police ? You've stated what your position is. Let the reader decide.

 

John,

 

The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying can be illustrated quite simply. Further up in this discussion you made the statement, "If you load some film into it (you were referring to the SR) and put the camera onto a lens collimator whilst looking at the film and inching the camera, it is clear that the film moves during exposure. I invite you to try it."

 

If what you said is true, the image on the film would be blurry on each frame. It would have nothing to do with registration or weave. Weave and registration issues have to do with the image being put onto the film in the exactly the same place, frame to frame, in relationship to the film edges and to the perf so that when the film is played back on a projector or a telecine, the image does not move or drift side to side (weave) or bounce up and down.

 

Couple this with your complete misunderstanding about the function of the film guide pins on the magazine, and it is clear that your knowledge of the workings of the Arriflex 16SR and 16SRII is anecdotal at best.

 

I firmly support everyone being entitled to their own opinion, but your misrepresentation of the function of a motion picture camera is not really a matter of opinion.

 

 

I hope some of this discussion has been helpful to Giap Vu, but at this point I need to step away from this thread. As I mentioned earlier, an argument about which camera is better, an Aaton or ARRI, is not something I have any desire to participate in.

 

Best,

-Tim

[Michael Lehnert]

Hi,

 

I sort of looked into the Aaton A-Minima, and am a bit impressed, but if I understood correctly, from what I've read, is it mostly a hand held type camera? Also the Arriflex 416 is beautiful but quite out of my ball park.

 

 

As John already stated: athough the Aaton A-Minima is typologically a hend-held camera and not a shoulder camera, the way you hold it is borrowing on the ergonomics of the "cat-on-shoulder" philosophy of JPB. That means that although you hold it in front of you (like a pre-16SR Arriflex such as the S or BL or a classic Bell & Howell), it does not feel like a brick to carry in front of you, weighting your arms down. It is much more light-weight and snuggles against your shoulder (unlike a pre-16SR Arriflex, or indeed a Beaulieu R16 or Bolex H-series), thus distributing the weight more evenly. There is a reason why newscasting cam-ops of the 1960s wore the 16S and 16BL in body harnesses, and why Eclair-cum-Aaton revolutionised independent filmmaking (operationally seen) with the shoulder camera design...

 

Work-ergonomically, the most thought-through 16mm cameras I think to be the Aaton-models (all three for 16mm and 35mm), then the Eclair ACL, the Bolex 16 Pro, the Eclair 16 NPR with the Aaton Alcan 54 motor and Angénieux viewfinder (cf. this thread here )

[Michael Lehnert]

An argument about which camera is better, an Aaton or ARRI, is not something I have any desire to participate in.

 

But you were very good at extensively doing exactly that here, Tim!

 

(*to be read as a light-hearted and not overly ironic remark, please. After all, we are kind human beings working towards artistic endeavours through technological understanding*)

[John Brawley]

[quote name='Tim Carroll' post='201218' date='Oct 31 2007, 11:44 PM']John,

The difference in what I am saying and what you are saying can be illustrated quite simply. Further up in this discussion you made the statement, "If you load some film into it [i](you were referring to the SR)[/i] and put the camera onto a lens collimator whilst looking at the film and inching the camera, it is clear that the film moves during exposure. I invite you to try it."

If what you said is true, the image on the film would be blurry on each frame.[/quote]

And it is....in a very small way. See Michael's post about the image registration specs. The SR comes last in that list.

[quote name='Tim Carroll' post='201218' date='Oct 31 2007, 11:44 PM']It would have nothing to do with registration or weave. Weave and registration issues have to do with the image being put onto the film in the exactly the same place, frame to frame, in relationship to the film edges and to the perf so that when the film is played back on a projector or a telecine, the image does not move or drift side to side (weave) or bounce up and down.[/quote]

I am in fact familiar with the difference between image registration and weave. My original general assertion was that the Aaton cameras were steadier and didn't suffer as badly from weave. I am not a technician. I can only relate my real world experience and my own understanding of the reasons behind why these issues exist. Let's say that I am totally wrong about the why. That doesn't change the accepted notion that SR's weave. Tim, you seem to be alone in your fanatical belief in SR's not weaving. Great for you. You brought up the issue of the registration pin and I went on to talk about why I thought it wasn't a great technological advancement. Which is separate to the weave issue. but perhaps under the general issue of image stability, as it relates to registration, weave and overall image stability.

jb

[Francis Kuhn]

Hi Giap.

 

The A-minima is a small camera. . .With the accessory base you can go to 50 FPS.

jb

 

Hello John,

 

Just a note: The A-Minima does not need the accessory base to run at 50 fps. The clip-on NiMH battery makes the higher frame rate possible (and you can also power the camera from an external battery through the accessory base to the higher speeds as well).

 

With the camera's standard internal batteries you are limited to 30 fps.

 

-Fran

[Michael Lehnert]

The A-minima is a small camera. Of course it better suits handheld work, simply because it's lighter than an SR or LTR/XTR. I would say though that they way you hold this camera is quite different. It's weight is held upright by your hand. The mag sort of sticks into your shoulder, rather than rest there with the full weight like it does with full size cameras. I actually don't mind a full size camera for hand held because I find it better for endurance to be supporting most of the weight on my shoulder rather than holding it in my hand using my arms.

 

As John already stated: athough the Aaton A-Minima is typologically a hend-held camera and not a shoulder camera, the way you hold it is borrowing on the ergonomics of the "cat-on-shoulder" philosophy of JPB. That means that although you hold it in front of you (like a pre-16SR Arriflex such as the S or BL or a classic Bell & Howell), it does not feel like a brick to carry in front of you, weighting your arms down. It is much more light-weight and snuggles against your shoulder (unlike a pre-16SR Arriflex, or indeed a Beaulieu R16 or Bolex H-series), thus distributing the weight more evenly. There is a reason why newscasting cam-ops of the 1960s wore the 16S and 16BL in body harnesses, and why Eclair-cum-Aaton revolutionised independent filmmaking (operationally seen) with the shoulder camera design...

 

Work-ergonomically, the most thought-through 16mm cameras I think to be the Aaton-models (all three for 16mm and 35mm), then the Eclair ACL, the Bolex 16 Pro, the Eclair 16 NPR with the Aaton Alcan 54 motor and Angénieux viewfinder (cf. this thread here )

 

Upon second reading, above texts might be confusing when you look solely at the media pack pictures or catalogue shots made by Aaton. On those, the Aaton A-Minima appears to be hold like an early 1990s handheld camcorder (the Panasonic NV-MS 95 springs to mind) - which is actually a good comparison, sizewise. Yet I felt estranged from cine-film while considered this concept when the Aaton A-Minina was introduced, despite that this camcorder style works well.

 

However, with an added signature walnut handgrip attached, the camera changes ergonomics again, and becomes "cat-on-shoulder"-ish, and thus ideal-to-operate, too: as John and myself elaborated above.

A photograph might say more than a 500 word essay, and hence find attached a picture of how the A-Minima is more likely and comfortably to be operated. Apologies for the quality of the obvious 135-film scan; the picture oozes a strange 1970s Agfachrome mood that I thought to be long lost. Also: never mind the hundreds of naked humans, either, as this shot is about a Spencer Tunick project.

 

Giap, I recommend reading through this thread about Eclair models compared to the Aaton series with side remarks about Arri as well, if you havn't already done so. My near-final post in that thread leads to some further cross-linked threads and further-down posts concerning Arri & Arriflex which might be helpful in your decisionmaking process to find your Municam of choice.

 

 

The a-minima is a little quirky to load and you will need to get plenty of practice before you'll become proficient and able to do it quickly. Lot's of people do have trouble with it's odd magazine design.

 

Really ;) ?

I mean, yeah, some people say so publicly, just as much as you have the odd-one-out saying that Kodak's Kodapak Coaxial Instamatic-Cartridge is doomed to jam and ill-register all the time, yet in a million other cases, it works perfect. I must say I get increasingly careful when confronted with operator-related critical statements. Remember this thread which fired the blame ball for an alledged freak failure into Aaton's company camp ? relating to the magazine loading of the A-Minima. There was nothing to back that up, but the topic title was precondemning before even the local CSI squad could've started collecting evidence. Oddly enough, just few days earlier, a thread about an A-Minima detail lauded much praise upon this camera.

And similarly strange, some camera deficiencies (as we discussed above) are widely acknowledged, but when they come up in public, get still heatedly disputed.

Hmm, strange discourses slumper amidst our community!

 

Anyway, as it stands now, and to end on a Russell Brand-ian note, the answer to "what Arri to buy?" seems to be "An Aaton A-Minima". There you go, Giap. Of great help we are to you... :P ^_^ ?!

 

 

P.S.: may I ask ? and truly respectful people should have asked you that way earlier, apologies for that ? on what notions your preference for a Super 16 arriflex camera are based in the first place?

Edited October 31, 2007 by Michael Lehnert

[John Brawley]

Also: never mind the hundreds of naked humans, either, as this shot is about a Spencer Tunick project.

 

What a coincidence ! I most likely have shot with that very camera ! I shot the film components of the documentary Naked World when Spencer Tunick came to Melbourne.....How very very bizarre. 4000 people turned out at 4 in the morning in the light rain to lie naked on a bridge. I got calls for weeks afterwards from people who knew me and had seen me there, but were...umm...too embarrassed to say hi....

 

The producers owned their own camera and it was in the early days of the camera and not many people had used it and were comfortable with it's a eccentricities....

 

JB (shot a lot of early tests with a-minima prototype number 3)

[Michael Lehnert]

What a coincidence !

 

:lol:

 

This has become a freakishly small planet, hasn't it?

Greenwich here in London wasn't that different (incl. light rain), lying around the Cutty Sark...

Well, happy Halloween to everyone, then!

 

:D

Edited October 31, 2007 by Michael Lehnert

[giap vu]

P.S.: may I ask ? and truly respectful people should have asked you that way earlier, apologies for that ? on what notions your preference for a Super 16 arriflex camera are based in the first place?

 

 

 

 

 

The first reason would probably have to be because my cinematography professor also has an arriflex, and I was thinking that if I had any technical, as well as aesthetic questions, it would be that much easier for him to help me. My second reason is that next to panavision, arri seems more prolific then the other name brands. So, I guess you can say i am pretty close to being your typical not so very well informed consumer.

[Michael Lehnert]

The first reason would probably have to be because my cinematography professor also has an arriflex, and I was thinking that if I had any technical, as well as aesthetic questions, it would be that much easier for him to help me.

 

Technically, having a direct contact is useful, however, should not be the reason to buy into . Would you buy an odd-one-out rotting 2nd hand car because your high-school friend could fix it in his dad's garage, or buy a better-condition one you can get serviced in every cities' pro garage?

DOn#t forget, your professor moves away from you when you proceed to the next seminar or year. The helpful people of ciny.com here, pretty much stay with you and a ready to help you out.

 

Aesthetically, this is about filmmaking, not primarily one camera design defining a film look ? not to an extend that your rationale would be worth following.

 

My second reason is that next to panavision, arri seems more prolific then the other name brands.

 

Actually, based on publicity and marketing and sales numbers and media exposure and product launches and industry power, Arri is much more prolific than Panavision, Aaton, Bolex and Moviecam (RIP) combined! But that doesn't mean they have great stuff to offer automatically. It just simplifies the ability of the company to be perceived like that, while actually on a cine-technical and cine-technological level, Arri (like most other "leading German companies", from my experience) offer products that are not as advanced as their reputation

 

So, I guess you can say i am pretty close to being your typical not so very well informed consumer.

 

Saying this in the most respectful and kindest way, Giap, but per definition, your above-outlined rationale would define you as a par-excellence "Arrimateur". (no insult intended; been there, done that were you are now)

[Francis Kuhn]

The first reason would probably have to be because my cinematography professor also has an arriflex, and I was thinking that if I had any technical, as well as aesthetic questions, it would be that much easier for him to help me. My second reason is that next to panavision, arri seems more prolific then the other name brands. So, I guess you can say i am pretty close to being your typical not so very well informed consumer.

 

 

Hello Giap,

 

You might try getting a copy of The 16mm Camera Book by Douglas Underdahl: http://www.amazon.com/16mm-Camera-Book-Dou...3287&sr=8-1

 

Great info on all the different manufacturers' cameras and lenses.

 

-Fran

[giap vu]

fran,

 

thanks for the suggestion. wll be my next purchase.

 

giap vu

[giap vu]

Technically, having a direct contact is useful, however, should not be the reason to buy into . Would you buy an odd-one-out rotting 2nd hand car because your high-school friend could fix it in his dad's garage, or buy a better-condition one you can get serviced in every cities' pro garage?

DOn#t forget, your professor moves away from you when you proceed to the next seminar or year. The helpful people of ciny.com here, pretty much stay with you and a ready to help you out.

 

Aesthetically, this is about filmmaking, not primarily one camera design defining a film look ? not to an extend that your rationale would be worth following.

 

 

 

Actually, based on publicity and marketing and sales numbers and media exposure and product launches and industry power, Arri is much more prolific than Panavision, Aaton, Bolex and Moviecam (RIP) combined! But that doesn't mean they have great stuff to offer automatically. It just simplifies the ability of the company to be perceived like that, while actually on a cine-technical and cine-technological level, Arri (like most other "leading German companies", from my experience) offer products that are not as advanced as their reputation

 

 

 

Saying this in the most respectful and kindest way, Giap, but per definition, your above-outlined rationale would define you as a par-excellence "Arrimateur". (no insult intended; been there, done that were you are now)

 

michael,

 

I think I get it now. I'll do more research before making a decision - although the small amount of investigation I've done so far makes me - weighing the opportunity costs - a bit intrigued by the aaton a-minima; based on cost, function, and future possibilities.

 

thanks!

 

Giap