Jump to content

Should I buy a Arriflex 16SR I ?


Alan Hill

Recommended Posts

It makes little sense to you because you only see filmmaking as a way to make money. The other concern is personal taste. Creating something out of self-expression, not because you want to make money from it.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with artistic expression or personal taste. ZERO! I've worked with and know some of the greatest cinematic geniuses of our time and they don't own a lot of gear. So, are you not saying they aren't true artists because they didn't buy a camera. Or their art was a lesser art because production rented a camera to shoot a movie? That's utter nonsense. Let me tell you something, Keneu, if your movie doesn't make money, you don't usually get a shot to make another one. This industry is where art and commerce collided. All the artists in this business know the financial restraints. What a lot of people on this forum don't get is that even the most artistic of films had a script, a budget, a producer and a production manager watching the dollar. Some go over budget and some don't but they all either want their movie to get sold or to get noticed. If it gets noticed and you get hired to shoot a movie with a budget, you will be expected to perform your job on time and on budget, if you don't you're out of film making for the most part. But getting back to my point, buying gear does not make you an artist. Creating art, makes you an artist and you don't have to buy gear to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The other concern is personal taste.

 

Tom puts it less politely, but he's right. You can exercise your personal taste at least as well with a rented camera as you can with one you own. You can rent whatever is best for each shoot, rather than trying to make one size fit all.

 

The deciding factor should be how long and how often do you need a particular kind of camera. It's kinda like how you own the car that you drive every day, and you rent the U-Haul truck of the appropriate size when you move. If you're making a low budget feature that'll shoot for a couple months straight and then wrap, rent the cameras. If you're making some highly personal documentary that'll require you to shoot every Tuesday and Friday for a couple years, buy a camera. Between those extremes, figure out which way makes sense.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Tom puts it less politely, but he's right. You can exercise your personal taste at least as well with a rented camera as you can with one you own. You can rent whatever is best for each shoot, rather than trying to make one size fit all.

 

The deciding factor should be how long and how often do you need a particular kind of camera. It's kinda like how you own the car that you drive every day, and you rent the U-Haul truck of the appropriate size when you move. If you're making a low budget feature that'll shoot for a couple months straight and then wrap, rent the cameras. If you're making some highly personal documentary that'll require you to shoot every Tuesday and Friday for a couple years, buy a camera. Between those extremes, figure out which way makes sense.

-- J.S.

 

With the cost of 16/Super 16 gear being so low at this time, for folks who are shooting small-to-no budget projects, working around schedules of actors who are working day jobs, picking up shots when and how they can, owning some kind of reliable 16mm camera makes sense. Renting in a situation like this, when insurance is added in (something required by every rental house I've ever dealt with), is far costlier than owning, not to mention the time consumed by constantly running back and forth to a rental house to get the gear for each opportunity to shoot.

 

Best,

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom puts it less politely

-- J.S.

 

I thought I was being polite! :lol: I thought I was just getting straight to the point. I'd hate to see someone spend a down payment on a $50,000 house and spend it on something that won't hold its' value. Even the studios no longer have camera departments. They rent everything. I wonder how many people on here would spend $10,000 on a camera if they had money. It's easier to tell somebody else, "Yeah, buy it," when it isn't their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Original Post Deleted by Tim Carroll

 

Instead of adding to the rhetorical arguments one way or the other, I think we would all be better served if Alan shared with us what he is hoping to accomplish with the purchase of a camera. Depending on what that is, there are numerous options for him.

 

I get extremely tired of the back and forth arguments on these forums from fanboys of all ilk, be it film, digital, RED, etc. What may be the "right" choice for you and your needs/goals, doesn't make it the "right" choice for someone else. Once Alan describes what his goals for camera ownership are, then we can offer suggestions, and he can look at all the different options proffered and maybe he will be more confident that the decision he arrives at is the "right" decision for himself and his needs.

 

Best,

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so you're going to make me ask, what is your other concern?

 

His other concern is the sense of nostalgia that comes from using equipment from when he was a boy.

 

Frankly, Paul, you bleed this agenda in every post you make on here.

 

 

Hell, I wish I could travel back in time TEN years, where every movie was finished optically, and that is a fantasy too.

 

Even the recent past is gone; you can't get it back.

 

 

 

Now, at the same time, I feel bad, really I do, for the camera houses that are going to loose their shirts with all this planned-obsolescense digital $H!t that is permeating the market. I don't know if any of them are going to survive frankly. Maybe studios would be best going back to their own in-house departments.

 

 

Buying ALL NEW cameras every three years and they trying to depreciate them over that same period seems like an all-around bad business model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, at the same time, I feel bad, really I do, for the camera houses that are going to loose their shirts with all this planned-obsolescense digital $H!t that is permeating the market. I don't know if any of them are going to survive frankly. Maybe studios would be best going back to their own in-house departments.

 

Buying ALL NEW cameras every three years and they trying to depreciate them over that same period seems like an all-around bad business model.

 

Karl,

What would be the advantage of a studio buying their own gear? The current business model seems to be working fine. Since Panavision doesn't sell their equipment, their options are limited since most major motion pictures are shot on Panavision. Plus, a studio is now just a lot with production companies and sound stages. With the small number of studio films in production, the investment just wouldn't make sense. Not only is the investment humongous, you would have to maintain that equipment. This is why almost all productions rent and their are no more studio camera departments. Like it or not digital will only get better. It's here to stay.

 

As far as being a "fanboy," I love film. I prefer it. However, I don't make the decision on what gets shot on what. Just keep in mind that we and you are cameramen, not rental houses. I'm giving good advice. Take it or leave it. Most people don't think advice is worth much because everyone is always giving it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karl,

What would be the advantage of a studio buying their own gear? The current business model seems to be working fine. Since Panavision doesn't sell their equipment, their options are limited since most major motion pictures are shot on Panavision. Plus, a studio is now just a lot with production companies and sound stages. With the small number of studio films in production, the investment just wouldn't make sense. Not only is the investment humongous, you would have to maintain that equipment. This is why almost all productions rent and their are no more studio camera departments. Like it or not digital will only get better. It's here to stay.

 

As far as being a "fanboy," I love film. I prefer it. However, I don't make the decision on what gets shot on what. Just keep in mind that we and you are cameramen, not rental houses. I'm giving good advice. Take it or leave it. Most people don't think advice is worth much because everyone is always giving it away.

 

No, I am saying that studios will HAVE to re-establish their own camera departments, because digital cameras are almost putting some of the big rental houses out of business with their incredibly quick depreciation.

 

You may not agree with my assessment, but you have to agree that a 35mm Panavision had a hell of a lot more stable value compared to a Genesis, F900, or RED. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Just keep in mind that we and you are cameramen, . . .

 

Tom,

 

That's where we disagree. Yes, many of the folks here are cameramen/women, cinematographers, DP's. But not everyone. Alot of folks who consider themselves directors come to this site and this forum to ask questions about motion picture cameras (I'm including both film and digital), because this site has a wealth of good information that is difficult to find elsewhere. I know of camera repair techs, animators, directors, etc. who use this forum to find out information about cameras, lighting, lenses, etc.

 

We don't know where on that spectrum Alan is or where he hopes to go. If he is a director, just starting out, who is trying to shoot a small film with his buddy's, (ala Clerks, El Mariachi), I would give him different advice than I would give someone who is looking to invest in a camera package to rent to the industry. I see those as two very different needs which would require very different camera package decisions.

 

Without knowing what Alan plans to do, we're just spitting into the wind by saying this is the right choice or that is the right choice.

 

Different horses for different courses.

 

Best,

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has absolutely nothing to do with artistic expression or personal taste. ZERO! I've worked with and know some of the greatest cinematic geniuses of our time and they don't own a lot of gear. So, are you not saying they aren't true artists because they didn't buy a camera. Or their art was a lesser art because production rented a camera to shoot a movie? That's utter nonsense. Let me tell you something, Keneu, if your movie doesn't make money, you don't usually get a shot to make another one. This industry is where art and commerce collided. All the artists in this business know the financial restraints. What a lot of people on this forum don't get is that even the most artistic of films had a script, a budget, a producer and a production manager watching the dollar. Some go over budget and some don't but they all either want their movie to get sold or to get noticed. If it gets noticed and you get hired to shoot a movie with a budget, you will be expected to perform your job on time and on budget, if you don't you're out of film making for the most part. But getting back to my point, buying gear does not make you an artist. Creating art, makes you an artist and you don't have to buy gear to do that.

 

Tom, I responded to these two statements you made:

" I can't see buying a piece of equipment that won't work or make you money. It makes little sense to me."

 

"OK, so you're going to make me ask, what is your other concern?"

 

My response was:

"It makes little sense to you because you only see filmmaking as a way to make money. The other concern is personal taste. Creating something out of self-expression, not because you want to make money from it."

 

Tell me where in my statement do I say one must own a camera to be an artist? I did not say that. I didn't even imply that. And I am unsure as to how you, or anyone else, made that conclusion.

 

You brought up the issue of it not making sense to own something that wont make money. Im simply saying that making money is not the main reason why some people choose to own. But you made it clear that it is your number one priority. And that's perfectly fine.

 

My comment about self-expression was clearly a response to you asking what the other concern would be. And the other concern to making money is self-expression. Yes, it is a big plus when art makes money and the artist makes a profit which then enables him/her to create future projects. But this does not always happen. And there are many artists out there in all artforms who are well aware of this, but they continue to take chances and make projects that they know may not make a profit, or even break even. It is because they are motivated by something stronger than money. This is not a new concept.

 

I can't imagine what your thoughts are on people who commit much of their time and energy in volunteer work. They must be complete fools, right?

 

You know and work with people that you consider artist geniuses. Well I don't doubt that at all. And they don't own a lot of gear, you said. I believe that, too. But they do own gear, right? Not a lot. But some. Even if they own none, that's great. Perhaps they never had in interest in owning. Again, nothing wrong with that.

 

Well what are we talking about here. Were talking about someone young in their profession who wants to own what is probably the most popular 16mm camera ever made. It doesn't mean he's going to own it forever. It doesn't mean he's going to shoot every single project of his on this camera. But he has a strong interest in film, probably always has, and wants to finally own a 16mm camera. Jesus Christ, what a crime.

 

It is quite common for beginning filmmakers, especially those more interested in creating deeply personal work than making money, to want to own some gear because they want to become familiar with it, even when not shooting. They want to be able to pick it up and test it out at their own free will. Overtime they will most likely either sell it or keep it locked away and just rent equipment. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm willing to bet most if not all of your artist genius filmmaker associates had at one time or another owned gear that did not turn a profit. But it was a crucial step in their growth. This does not at all mean it is absolutely necessary for beginning filmmakers to own any gear. They do not need to.

 

But if they want to, because it is linked to their passion of filmmaking, because it satisfies something deeper than money, then they probably should go for it.

 

I own a ROYAL typewriter from the 1920's. It works just fine. I spent a little over $100 on it. It sits in my hallway. I'm not making a profit with it. But it's one of the coolest things I own and everytime I have people over they are fascinated by it. I let them type stuff with it and they love it. If I were to mention this on a screenwriting website with people who strictly use laptops and screenwriitng software, they would probably react the way you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic definition of a "professional" is someone who derives their income off of film.

 

I can honestly say that that applies to myself.

 

 

Ultimately, who is going to make an income for you if film isn't, your wife's income, your inheritance from your parents?

 

I'm not a greedy capitalist (despite the outfit), but the money's got to come from somewhere unless you are subsisting upon the charity of others; some people need it, for everyone else who relies upon it, it is shameful to take handouts.

 

If you want to struggle for your art, then shovel $h!t or work another job in the interim too.

 

 

The only thing a damned typewriter is good for these days is if you're making a living writing books/scripts, teleplays. Otherwise, the only advantage typewriters have going for them is typing addresses on letters and forms without mis-spacing or jamming them.

Edited by Karl Borowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I own a ROYAL typewriter from the 1920's. It works just fine. I spent a little over $100 on it. It sits in my hallway. I'm not making a profit with it. But it's one of the coolest things I own and everytime I have people over they are fascinated by it.

 

A $100 curio that sits in your hallway is a lot different than a $10,000 curio that sits in your hallway. Yes, the SR revolutionized 16mm but the SRI was quickly replaced by the SRII which was replaced by the SRIII. There are a lot of SR's available at a decent price available for sale or rent. My point was that you will get more use from a digital camera which I assume is new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, who is going to make an income for you if film isn't, your wife's income, your inheritance from your parents?

 

Oddly enough, Karl, this is how many DP's have survived through the years and are able to continue their craft and career. You need a strong support group to be a DP, especially if you are not an A-lister. Even some of them have it tough an also have side jobs that they aren't always vocal about. It's a tough business to make an honest living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
His other concern is the sense of nostalgia that comes from using equipment from when he was a boy.

 

Frankly, Paul, you bleed this agenda in every post you make on here.

 

 

Hell, I wish I could travel back in time TEN years, where every movie was finished optically, and that is a fantasy too.

 

Even the recent past is gone; you can't get it back.

 

You've painted me as a sentimental fool (which I am, sometimes). You've painted me as a delusional fanboy for Techniscope (which isn't totally off the mark). Though, saying that I include that in every post is not correct.

 

I chose this system based on maximizing the quality of output for multiple features at the minimum overall costs. A goal which I am getting closer to achieving. Alan will have to weigh-out decisions based upon his goals in like manner. I agree with Tim and other posters that have sought more information from Alan about his goals. That would help this thread coalesce into something more helpful for him. Currently, it is running as an open discussion of best approaches in general. All of the poster's perspectives are correct given that they are all presenting from their unique and strong perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A $100 curio that sits in your hallway is a lot different than a $10,000 curio that sits in your hallway. Yes, the SR revolutionized 16mm but the SRI was quickly replaced by the SRII which was replaced by the SRIII. There are a lot of SR's available at a decent price available for sale or rent. My point was that you will get more use from a digital camera which I assume is new.

 

Since you only responded to this minor section of my post, Im guessing you now see my point overall.

 

I just bought an ARRI SR2 off ebay in excellent condition, with 2 mags, batteries, charger, extension viewfinder, consumer electronics speed control, had it completely checked out by Bernie O'Doherty who also converted it to Ultra 16. ALL OF THIS cost me under $6k. For EVERYTHING.

 

I'm using my Zeiss 10-100mm lens that I also got off ebay from someone who does post on this forum for $250.

 

This is the positive side-effect of the HD craze - many people incorrectly think is film is dying and are dumping their gear on ebay at unbelievable prices.

 

Needless to say, I love this HD craze and hope it continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just bought an ARRI SR2 off ebay in excellent condition, with 2 mags, batteries, charger, extension viewfinder, consumer electronics speed control, had it completely checked out by Bernie O'Doherty who also converted it to Ultra 16. ALL OF THIS cost me under $6k. For EVERYTHING.

 

I wrote "consumer" electronics. What the hell was I thinking?

 

Cinematography Electronics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you only responded to this minor section of my post, Im guessing you now see my point overall.

 

I just bought an ARRI SR2 off ebay in excellent condition, with 2 mags, batteries, charger, extension viewfinder, consumer electronics speed control, had it completely checked out by Bernie O'Doherty who also converted it to Ultra 16. ALL OF THIS cost me under $6k. For EVERYTHING.

 

I'm using my Zeiss 10-100mm lens that I also got off ebay from someone who does post on this forum for $250.

 

This is the positive side-effect of the HD craze - many people incorrectly think is film is dying and are dumping their gear on ebay at unbelievable prices.

 

Needless to say, I love this HD craze and hope it continues.

 

When did you get it, how much have you shot and has it made you any money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the fascinating things about reading on this board is how loudly people will argue about the superiority of a specific camera system, and then at some point it will be revealed that they themselves own said system.

 

The guy that owns a red says it's better than film.

 

The guy that owns the 16mm camera says it's better than red.

 

The guy that owns the ex3 insists that it is, in fact, the best digital camera.

 

I wonder if they bought those cameras because they're the best, or if, having spent thousands of dollars, they feel the need to very loudly drown out any voices that may undercut their decision.

 

This could explain why, on reduser, every update leads to hundreds of responses of awe, people reassuring each other that their purchase was worth it.

 

And there's people, like me, who don't own cameras, and who will argue at length about how each job has different requirements, and how the ex3 might be best for a documentary, for example, the red for a tv show, and 16mm for a dramatic indie feature...

 

Meanwhile, Alan Hill asks a simple question:

 

Besides the sentimental/artistic reasons, does it make economical sense at this point in the game?

 

Simple answer: No, besides the sentimental/artistic reasons, owning a 16mm camera does not make economical sense at this point in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did you get it, how much have you shot and has it made you any money?

 

I bought it about 3 months ago. I jumped on a ridiculous ebay deal. Nobody else bid because I think they thought it was too good to be true for how cheap it was. I bought it knowing I wouldnt use it right away, but I couldnt let that deal slide. I then took my time patiently waiting for the right deals for a mattebox and follow focus. I then sent the camera out to Bernie O'doherty who serviced it.

 

I'm now waiting for my buddy Seth King from American Cinematographic Specialties to finish building my rod support system.

American Cinematographic Specialties

 

And I think I finally found a sort of do-it-yourself video assist.

 

Haven't shot anything yet. And I don't expect it to make me any money directly. It's not an investment for money, it's an investment in making my projects, my way.

 

I probably should also add, I don't ever expect to get rich or wealthy from filmmaking. I will forgo the big paycheck in exchange for complete creative control.

 

I do not come from a family with money. I am a blue collar boy originally from New Jersey who simply wants to make films - on film. I also own an ARRI S, have shot a few projects on it. Spent a lot of money on them and didn't earn a dime. didn't try to either. I will now be selling that camera very soon.

 

I don't expect my situation to be the norm.

 

And also, I never told Alan to go and buy the camera. I was also one of the people who asked him to provide more details on the ARRI SR he is considering buying. I did however provide reasons why one would want to shoot their films -on film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the fascinating things about reading on this board is how loudly people will argue about the superiority of a specific camera system, and then at some point it will be revealed that they themselves own said system.

 

The guy that owns a red says it's better than film.

 

The guy that owns the 16mm camera says it's better than red.

 

The guy that owns the ex3 insists that it is, in fact, the best digital camera.

 

I wonder if they bought those cameras because they're the best, or if, having spent thousands of dollars, they feel the need to very loudly drown out any voices that may undercut their decision.

 

I'm sure there are cases where that is true. Like anything in life, people spend so much time and energy on something and out of pride and ego refuse to ever admit they were wrong or made a mistake. This happens in many strongly-held beliefs, like religion.

 

However, consider Hunter Richards, who posts here. He once bought a RED, was very dissappointed. Then went and got an A-minima and realized he made the right choice for himself.

 

This could explain why, on reduser, every update leads to hundreds of responses of awe, people reassuring each other that their purchase was worth it.

 

And there's people, like me, who don't own cameras, and who will argue at length about how each job has different requirements, and how the ex3 might be best for a documentary, for example, the red for a tv show, and 16mm for a dramatic indie feature...

 

Meanwhile, Alan Hill asks a simple question:

 

 

 

Simple answer: No, besides the sentimental/artistic reasons, owning a 16mm camera does not make economical sense at this point in the game.

 

Well, like you said, 16mm may be a wise choice for a dramatic indie feature. Well I now own one and at the price I paid, If I wanted, I could shoot 2 features with it and probably make a good chunk a'change. Hell for what I paid, I could probably make some bread with just one feature.

 

And a little further down the road, that just might happen.

 

Would it be easy? Hell no. But would it disprove he idea that owning a 16mm camera doesn't make economical sense? Yes. It's not an automatic reality that owning a 16mm is bad economic choice. But like anything in filmmaking, will require hard work to get what you want out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...about that same notion of owner's pride. From this thread:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry309240

 

Hi Craig,

 

Not sure if I'd agree with Vico's post solution,but I certainly agree that Red has lot's of issues at 2k.It wouldn't be my first choice,and I own one.

Go with film,really nothing better.

 

Tom.

Edited by Keneu Luca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

It has absolutely nothing to do with artistic expression or personal taste. ZERO! I've worked with and know some of the greatest cinematic geniuses of our time and they don't own a lot of gear. So, are you not saying they aren't true artists because they didn't buy a camera. Or their art was a lesser art because production rented a camera to shoot a movie? That's utter nonsense. Let me tell you something, Keneu, if your movie doesn't make money, you don't usually get a shot to make another one. This industry is where art and commerce collided. All the artists in this business know the financial restraints. What a lot of people on this forum don't get is that even the most artistic of films had a script, a budget, a producer and a production manager watching the dollar. Some go over budget and some don't but they all either want their movie to get sold or to get noticed. If it gets noticed and you get hired to shoot a movie with a budget, you will be expected to perform your job on time and on budget, if you don't you're out of film making for the most part. But getting back to my point, buying gear does not make you an artist. Creating art, makes you an artist and you don't have to buy gear to do that.

But what about "Days of Heaven"? It has made 3 and a half million in revenues since 1978. The director, Malick, and cinematographer, Almendros, kept making movies...

Edited by Ronald Carrion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...