Jonathan Spear Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 (edited) Hey, Let's say Warner Brothers asks you to shoot a 15 minute short about street gangs on 35mm for theatrical distribution. Your setup is as follows: - An Arri 535 with all the fixin's (from matte-box to video tap) - Cooke S4 Primes - 7293 - HMI + Tungsten light kits - a skilled crew Across the street, another skilled production crew from Mirimax is getting ready to shoot a 35mm short on street gangs as well, and their shooting/lighting kits are IDENTICAL to yours, except for the camera body they will be using. A Konvas 2M +plus all the necessary accesories. Both cameras are obviously in excellent working condition. My question is will there be a significant difference in picture quality between the Konvas and the Arri, despite having identical lens/filter setups and lighting rigs? I'm sure both cameras have their bells and whistles and their shortcomings, but at the end of the day, with the same lenses, lighting, film and a highly skilled and artistic crew, is there really that big of a difference whan it comes to choosing the actual camera body? Thanks Edited January 9, 2005 by TSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett B Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 (edited) The short answer is no. The big difference you would probably see is in the lenses you use. That is going to affect clarity and often color. When using the Konvas 2M you loose features like time code, and you can not over crank as far. Also, you may not be able to mount the Konvas on a seadicam, I don't know if that is important for you or not. If you cant really afford to shoot with the 535 than don?t push it. Get some good lenses and you will be fine. Best of luck. Edited January 9, 2005 by Brett B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolfe Klement Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Image quality is a very big issue - but is not the only issue. S35 - 35 switch ease Frame rates Acessories - including steadicam, waterproofing, aerial mounts Technicians - 1st, 2nds and people who can fix them and use them Warranty - including turnaround time, spares Weight Camera Noise Rentability (return on investment) are some of then issues people | companies who buy cameras (or provide them for rent) will have to think about Thanks R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted January 9, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 9, 2005 Hey, Let's say Warner Brothers asks you to shoot a 15 minute short about street gangs on 35mm for theatrical distribution. Your setup is as follows: - An Arri 535 with all the fixin's (from matte-box to video tap) - Cooke S4 Primes - 7293 7293 won`t work with an Arri 535 as its 16mm! Stephen Williams DP www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 Awesome. Thanks for the info. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 "7293 won`t work with an Arri 535 as its 16mm!" Ah, ok. Thanks. (D'oh!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted January 10, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 10, 2005 OK, analogy time. You arrive in a brand new Porsche. They show up in a 1984 Yugo. If it doesn't break down first. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattuhry Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 This is just a silly post. The camera does not make the image, the film and the lens do. The camera just holds the film. Nicer camera = Nicer for you, better: finder/tap/quieter/more speed+shutter options, but not better images. Assuming this was academy 1.85 I'd take the 535 while on the dolly and the Konvas handheld. Make it an Arricam LT or 235 and I'd promise to keep the Konvas in it's case! Matt Uhry www.fuzby.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted January 11, 2005 Author Share Posted January 11, 2005 "This is just a silly post." Silly? Why you little..! (ok ok tim. i'll relax. B) ) no but seriously, that was the point of this post. to get an answer like this: "The camera does not make the image, the film and the lens do. The camera just holds the film. Nicer camera = Nicer for you, better: finder/tap/quieter/more speed+shutter options, but not better images." thanks! much appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 One thing that's important to add here is that the choice of camera equipment in particular is also done for "political" reasons, which sometimes superceed practicality. You may be able to get away using a Konvas or an Arri II for your particular situation, but having the latest and greatest camera LOOKS good for the client and also for the talent (if they have a big name). If you put a major actor in front of a weathered Konvas, which is an unfamiliar camera to most people, that might send the talent and/or their agent into a fit, i.e. "What are you guys, film students or something?" Nowadays, of course, with the digital video age coming in and box office numbers to prove that digital can profit with major talent in front of the camera, it's probably less of an issue. If big actors can stand in front of an XL-1, a windup Filmo with an old Wollensack lens is actually an improvement! - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Btw, just a silly thought - has anyone tried taping a "Panavision" label on a Konvas or something? Could be a way to get around the politics ;) I'm sure Panavision would hire a sniper to get you if they caught on though... - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted January 11, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 11, 2005 The camera does not make the image, the film and the lens do. The camera just holds the film. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The camera advances the film from frame to frame. A simple low precision camera like the Konvas won't give you the registration you'd get from the Arri. The camera is also supposed to hold the lens in the right place relative to the film. Getting that right is important. I have a Konvas -- actually, I loaned it to my gaffer years ago, and never got it back. It's crude and flimsy. If everything's adjusted right, it makes pictures as good as the Arri except for registration. The risk of getting out of whack is much greater, though. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattuhry Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Hi John, Not sure what abuses your Konvas has suffered! Just finished a music video shoot for "the Bravery" 2 Konvas's and a Pan-Arri 435. The film from all the cameras looked great. No way to distinguish between them in TK. (granted the subjects and style of filming was grungy) You can check it out here: www.fuzby.com/other.html I may be over stating my point here, but If people want to go out and shoot film they should grab whatever is available to them and go for it - and not hold out for the latest and greatest from Arri and Panavision. Far too much time gets spent discussing these tools in the hypothetical sense and not nearly enough time looking through the lens. I'm just trying to dispell the idea that you need these expensive tools to even begin. Porsche's are great and yes Yugo's sucked but it's really about the journey... Matt www.fuzby.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 The registration of the Konvas should be identical to that of an Arri II, they both have no registration pin. I am not an expert on Konvases and filmed with it only once. It was a camera I was pretty satisfied with. I've seen a lot of Russian movies that had Konvas footage in them and they looked absolutely fantastic. Never saw any serious gate weaving or instability that would indicate bad registration (including with doc footage). If someone gave me a carload of 35mm Double X negative with processing and a Konvas with three pieces of glass to shoot with, I'd put it to good use immediately. - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riku Naskali Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 (edited) This is what I love about film cameras, whereas with video cameras the price tag will always dictate your image quality. Edited January 13, 2005 by Riku Naskali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 (edited) I agree with Matt. Let me just add that I recently witnessed some dailies that were shot on a Konvas 2M (projected from a timed print, no post at all), and was blown away by the quality. The frame was rock steady, and the image was as good as anything I'd seen. And this was with Lomo prime lenses, not even Zeiss or Cooke. It seems to me that in many cases "pin registration" and "high speed" always appear together in the same sentence. This leads me to believe that the benefits of pin registration are really evident in high speed photography. I'm not entirely convinced that a pin registered camera is necessary when shooting 24 fps. Besides, a Konvas can be converted to pin registration and the motor modified to run high speed. And this can be done a much lower price point than a 435. Edited January 22, 2005 by Thomas Worth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted February 12, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted February 12, 2005 It seems to me that in many cases "pin registration" and "high speed" always appear together in the same sentence. This leads me to believe that the benefits of pin registration are really evident in high speed photography. .......................... And this can be done a much lower price point than a 435. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A 1930's GC mitchell gives you pin registration, high speed and much lower price than 435! Stephen Williams DoP Zurich www.stephenw.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Appelt Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 (edited) It makes little sense to compare a Konvas and an Arri535. These are different solutions for different problems. If you want to compare the Konvas to an ArriIIC, I would say there is no difference in registration, they both do a good job for cameras without register pins. They are small, noisy and perfect for handholding. For footage shot straight and printed, I doubt anyone could see the difference. However there is a big difference as soon as you start doing optical work or multiple exposures in-camera. You can be lucky with a non-pin camera, but don't bet on it. I like both old Arriflexes and the Konvas2M, if serviced well they will not let you down and give you great footage. But you have to know every screw and bolt because you cannot run home crying to your rental company in case something does not work properly. There are some drawbacks too: The Konvas has only 150/160 degree shutter opening which makes a difference with action that tends to strobe. You cannot just enlarge the opening because the simple movement is not fast enough to allow longer exposure time. That's the price to pay for a very steady image. Look through the viewfinder of an Arri535 and a Konvas 2M - the difference has to be paid for. You want a video assist and an optical viewfinder at the same time? Sorry, not available. I'm not putting down simple cameras - the original Volkswagen Beetle was a great car and had many advanced technical ideas in its time. But would you compare it to a Lexus, AudiA8 or 2004 Jaguar? A lot of engineering went into modern production cameras to get the maximum precision into a housing much smaller than a Mitchell BNC. They didn't do it to please some ad agency idiots - and precision engineering has its price. Recently I shot some inserts for nationwide TV commercials on a Konvas - no problem, the footage was clear, sharp and steady so they could put titles over it without any weave. But this was a shooting with no customers present. When they pay ?15.000 for digital work on a few seconds footage, they don't want to hear me saying "Hey, I can save ? 900 by not renting an Arri3 with a new Zeiss lens". Having new rental equipment around will make certain people feel safe. I agree that this is subjective and if there was a problem with my 1956 Arri or 1989 Konvas, there are three more bodies waiting as a replacement, but I don't think it is my duty to enlighten customers on film equipment. Edited February 12, 2005 by Christian Appelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Hamrick Posted February 14, 2005 Share Posted February 14, 2005 This is what I love about film cameras, whereas with video cameras the price tag will always dictate your image quality. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is all interesting to me as I'm looking at the possibility of shooting with one in the near future.The only experience I have with any Russian camera is with a 16mm K-3 and very limited.It's an MOS shoot so noise isn't an issue,but it's theatrical so registration is.I'm sure a registration test would be in order right away before I trusted it on a shoot.Anything glaring I need to look for right off the bat with these cameras? Marty 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