Karel Bata Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Karl mentioned in another post here "thinner film base to allow for longer running time" and it made me wonder what else there might be... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 I always thought that Panavision should build a camera with the door on the other side of the camera. You wouldn't have to move the eyepiece to reload, you wouldn't have the operator in your ear, and you could focus with your right hand. As an operator, you could grab the focus and you could see all the action with your left eye if you chose to look. But you couldn't communicate that well when you needed to with the ac. The matte box would have to open the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted April 27, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2009 Swappable Digi/Film backs for ALL Cameras. Smaller, Lighter, Quieter Cameras (235 size, but silent) Perhaps a dual eye-piece for AC to look through for focus? Maybe? Built in range-finder with display in the bottom of the eye-piece for run and gun shooting for operator to pull focus off of the lens from (if needed) That's really all I can think of off of the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted April 27, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2009 http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...59&hl=AONDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted April 27, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2009 Switch selectable 2, 3, or 4 perf operation with easy, no tool required, gate changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Swappable Digi/Film backs for ALL Cameras. Karel said *improvements*; this is a step backwards :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Schumacher Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Switch selectable 2, 3, or 4 perf operation with easy, no tool required, gate changes. You get adjustable shutters, so why not adjustable gates. I mean, we are dreaming here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 You get adjustable shutters, so why not adjustable gates. I mean, we are dreaming here... Yeah sorry, I do not see it happening. The Panavision Hylan system was a big jump, and we just heard something about it n here now 3 years after it came out. No one wants to do anything at all in-camera anymore, so why add improvements that people aren't going to want? Yeah, I think some sort of estar-base compatible film camera would be great. Estar stock is so much better than tri-acetate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Cameras should only weigh 1 ton instead of 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 27, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2009 You're always going to run into the problem that a 1000' load of 35mm stock has "x" size and weight. Yes, you could go to Estar base for negative stock, but then you risk breaking cameras because the film will never snap in the gate, plus neg cutters would have to deal with ultrasonic welds or whatever holds two pieces of Estar film together (less of an issue now that everything is being finished with a D.I.) So figuring that odds are high that camera negative film will not be switched to Estar base, you've got the mag size & weight to deal with. When you eliminate that, 35mm cameras like the Millenium-X are quite small actually. At that point, the lens is practically taking up as much size & weight as the camera body, if not more when you're talking about zooms. So these days, what you have are small 35mm bodies with big lenses at one end and big magazines at the other end (and big bright viewfinders on the side). So I don't see much further reduction of size & weight possible, not when you have to use 1000' loads, big modern lenses, and people want as big and bright a viewfinder image as possible. Not to mention all the electronics on the other side for video taps, etc. When you eliminate those, most modern 35mm cameras are just a tiny box with a movement inside. Truth is that even if we could make that box even tinier, once you put back all the support stuff around it, plus all the gack that AC's like to use (Cinetape, onboard monitors, etc.) you'd never notice that the body got smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Affordability. 35mm movie cameras are SO expensive new. How about something like that Ikonoskop 16, it probably wouldn't work out costing much more. And 100% viewfinder coverage should always be essential. What you see in the viewfinder should be what you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 For film cameras I would like to see an enhanced viewfinder that wasn't so dark and didn't have flicker. I would rather operate from a monitor anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 For film cameras I would like to see an enhanced viewfinder that wasn't so dark and didn't have flicker. I would rather operate from a monitor anyway. Isn't that already an option? Just steal one from a Steadicam setup. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Also, why does it have to be 3/1000" Estar base? Why can't they make a base plastic that behaves like triacetate that is thinner? Also, since the weight of the emulsion material itself is probably trivial compared to the weight of the 3/1000" (76.2nm / .0762mm) base, I'd assume that it wouldn't cut weight in half, but pretty close, like a 40-45% weight reduction. And, right, with DI finishes becoming ubiquitous, splicing is no longer a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted April 27, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) More coaxial instant-loading mags, XTR Prod balance and size/weight. Oh, yeah - thanks, Aaton. Now if it were 4-perf, around 20dB at 24fps, and went up to 75fps-150fps range, that'd be close to perfect. *Oh yeah, and an HD video tap. Edited April 27, 2009 by Satsuki Murashige Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Isn't that already an option? Just steal one from a Steadicam setup. . . Steadicam might have something new but last time I saw one it was an eerie green. I'm talking about something in the viewfinder like a hi res bright flickerless color video. But then there would be not need to have an eyepiece I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 *Oh yeah, and an HD video tap. Wouldn't that be nice? I was thinking about this, and, perhaps this isn't possible, but what about some sort of special non-anti-halo film extra sensitive sensor combination that allows you to see exactly what the emulsion sees, rather than the opposite of what it sees. Or, a beamsplitter that only eats up a half a stop or so that is exactly sync-ed up with the shutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hunter Hampton Posted April 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2009 I like the silent 235 idea. A digital magazine option would be great too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel Bata Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Oh yeah, and an HD video tap. Could be a prob with clients thinking that's exactly what it will look like. I remember the first time we used a flicker-free color tap and during playback someone said "Are those yesterday's rushes?" So bring back the phillips B+W tube cameras I say. Always dark, slightly skewiff, and never in focus. The DoP was god then. Seriously though, the technology is there for an optional viewfinder overlay (like an HUD) that would process what's coming from the video tap and display information, like focus and exposure. Like switchable zebras. Infra-red focus that could be aimed with a joystick via the video tap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted April 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2009 *Oh yeah, and an HD video tap. I think Arri have just announced a HD split at NAB... I'd like a spirit level (plane style) in the viewfinder as an option. And some optional overlays for camera status DSLR style.... And a viewfinder I can take my eye away from while it's rolling.... jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I'd like a spirit level (plane style) in the viewfinder as an option. And some optional overlays for camera status DSLR style.... And a viewfinder I can take my eye away from while it's rolling.... jb Along Sat's hd tap, these are also good ideas.....specially spirit level in VF. David - When you shoot in the UK try not to use the word GACK as a description for what the AC's hold.... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 And a viewfinder I can take my eye away from while it's rolling.... Don't they already have this (at least on one camera, forget the model)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 A modular system like the RED would be good for 35mm (and much cooler B) ). If you couldn't afford a certain part buy a cheaper one, and upgrade when you can, it would be great if it went together like Lego so that you could replace or upgrade the camera with having to book an appointment with a highly expensive servicer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 28, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2009 Most modern 35mm cameras are already fairly modular -- the movement, gate, loop area with the lens mount is one box, the magazine is another, the eyepiece comes off and on (with some cameras like the Millenium), the video assist is a box, etc. Hard to break it up into much smaller components than that -- plus one factor that a film camera has to deal with is NOISE so some areas have to be self-contained in order to be sound-proofed. Look I don't think the modern 35mm camera like the Arricam, Arri 235, or Millenium has much room for improvement except around the margins -- I think most of us would rather the darn things were cheaper more than anything else. The only missing features are probably an HD color video tap (which ARRI was showing off at NAB) and the ability to run at higher frame rates than 50/60 fps without switching to a high-speed body like a 435. My biggest request for years was sort of in the other direction -- an 8-perf VistaVision version of these cameras. But I don't see that happening now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 My biggest request for years was sort of in the other direction -- an 8-perf VistaVision version of these cameras. But I don't see that happening now. Not that they are silent, but don't they already have incredibly tiny VV size cameras (no I'm not talking about modified SLRs either.) I remember seeing a particularly tiny VV camera, taht was I think pistol-gripable with a 400-foot mag Probably sounds like a blender when you turn it on though. Then again, what would you be shooting in 8-perf. that's non MOS anyway? 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