your personal preferences...

[Filip Plesha]

I am just currious...

 

1. what are your favorite cameras (models) and lenses to work with?

 

2. do you prefer to work with all those digital gadgets and features on your cameras,or do you like shooting just with a "naked" mechanical camera like in old times (and by the way,does anyone at all shoot like that these days?)

 

3. do you own your own 35mm or 16mm camera, and do you ever shoot at home or in nature or street, or wherever, just for amateur-style recreation and fun with it?( i know film is expensive as hell) (and i know you can't own a panaflex)

 

4. by the way, has anyone here shot anything in 65mm?

[Rob Belics]

I'd like to ask what makes you decide Arri or Panavision or even MovieCam?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

1) Favorite camera: 16mm MOS - Bolex. 16mm sync - Arri SR. 35mm MOS - a tossup between the Arri IIc and the Konvas, the latter which I hope to explore more. 35mm sync - Mitchell BNCR, especially good for those shoot and run situations (just kidding - haven't done this category yet :))

 

2) I don't like things to be overly complicate because they can break down more easily that way. The less gadgets to worry about, the better for me - as a general rule.

 

3) Own MOS equipment, no sync gear. No, I don't fool around with it on a regular basis, because if I want to shoot something I just go out and do it. I stopped fiddling around the house with my film cameras a long time ago.

 

4) As Robert Fripp of King Crimson once quipped, "The short answer to that question is no. The long answer to that is noooooooo"

[David Mullen ASC]

Panavision has been so supportive to me, going out of their way to help me out on my low-budget features, that it's hard not to go there first -- especially when I am shooting in 35mm anamorphic.

 

I'm about to start shooting in Philadelphia and it was cheaper to go with Panavision for the camera and anamorphic lenses than rent an Arri package in NYC and subrent anamorphic lenses from another company.

 

Also, Panavision has so much gear that you have more options to choose from when selecting lenses.

 

I also like the 8-72mm Digital Primo zoom when shooting in HD.

 

This is not so much a quality issue -- you can create great images with a modern Arricam with modern Cooke or Zeiss lenses -- but a support issue, which company is going to back you up when you have problems, etc. Not that the other rental houses don't do that, but I like the people at Panavision.

[Mitch Gross]

I've always been an Arri guy over Panavision, but that's probably due to the fact that I'm in NYC not LA where Panavision is so huge and the support so good. It's not the same here. I actually really like the Moviecam cameras as I find the design very comfortable to use and I like to be able to put the mags on top so the camera isn't so long in tight spaces (always an issue and impossible to do with a 535). The 535 has an incredible viewing system but it's a heavy beast, bit of a brick really. Of course I drool over the ArriCams but I have yet to use one on a shoot.

 

I'm all about the bells & whistles being on the camera unless I'm going handheld. THere are uses for these things and if I can use it then I want it there. The best bit of common add-on technology in the last ten years is also one of the most rudimentary: the simple LCD on board monitor. So damn convenient.

 

Part of the reason I like PL mount cameras is the use of the Cooke S4 leses, which I simply love. They are my primary set in 35mm.

 

I own an Aaton Super-16 camera package and other than shooting test footage for new stocks, lab processing, filtration, etc., I generally don't roll film unless it's on someone else's dime. It's a very expensive hobby! But I do plan to use my test rolls of the new Kodak Vision2 stocks capturing my new baby girl. :D

 

Never shot 65, but was once on an F/X shoot where we did. Big Arri 765 camera. BIG.

[Jarin Blaschke]

In 16mm I love the SR above anything else, far and away. The Aaton has the impression of being sturdier (to me) but I had to assist with one once and it scared me away. I'll never be able to load that thing.

 

I've only been shooting 35 for about a year and a half now, so my preferences there are still being formed, with some leaning toward Panavision. As someone who hasn't assisted for some time (I was a really mediocre AC), it seems that a DPs preference for a camera lies mostly in the optics available for it and simply what the camera can do within its price range. Panavision does have a crazy array of optics. To me, a Panavision camera gives the impression of precision and reliability (atleast the Golds and Platinums - haven't touched the newer ones). It also seems to have a brighter, crisper viewing system, especially when shooting anamorphic. I looked at an Arri Anamorphic finder a few weeks ago - the image seemed so dark and small in comparison. I also love the use of a reliable, easy behind the lens filter arangement, a big plus when shooting outdoors as I tend to use a lot of ND. The lenses are huge, but keep a very long focal scale and are very robust. The camera might be slower to change setups with, however, as the threading is more involved and with some lens sets, each lens sometimes needs a new set of rods - the matte box just can't slide back as with an Arri. Really good ACs can minimize this.

 

For MOS, though, I can't see anything surpassing a 435. I would have actually gone to Panavision NY for this on a recent music video, but we needed a 3-perf version and the Arri swing-shift system is far superior to the Century one, having a sturdier set up with bigger knobs.

 

So for me, I thus far love a robust, simple Platinum with those great, snappy Primos for standard dramatic work and a 435 for all the fun stuff. I am more comfortable operating a simple, uncluttered camera, always ready to shoot, but the extras often benefit others more than myself, such as the director and the assistants and if they prefer a certain video tap or focus aid, it will only help me in the long run.

[Max Jacoby]

My favourite cameras are definitely the Arricams. Both ST and LT are great cameras, very modular, you can adapt mags, viewfinder systems, accessories... to fit both cameras. Most shoots I do carry both an ST and an LT, and that's a killer combinaiton, you are covered for every possible situation.

 

Another big plus is the Lens Data System (LDS) in these cameras, that gives you real time readouts of focus distance, depth of field and stop for LDS Lenses.

 

Also the people at Arri are so helpful, whether you do a big budget feaure or a short film, you get the same support. Their gear is in great condition, unlike Panavision's, which unfortunately here in Europe are not half as good as their American counterparts.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, it's not surprising that brand-new Arricams are in better condition than Panaflexes built over a period of twenty years, is it? Panavision has a LOT of gear, some of it quite old, some of it new.

[Max Jacoby]

Well, it's not surprising that brand-new Arricams are in better condition than Panaflexes built over a period of twenty years, is it?  Panavision has a LOT of gear, some of it quite old, some of it new.

Oh I am not talking about about Arricams or Milleniums here.

 

Especially Panavision's Arri equipment is in appaling shape. I just got off a shoot with a Moviecam Compact from Panavision UK and if I compare that to the 535B from Arri Munich I used on a short 2 months ago, there just isn't any contest.

 

The Moviecam broke down and we had to get a new body, the pentafinder they gave us was loose and the batteries were huge and heavy and didn't have a saftey catch to keep the cable in!

 

I am sure Panavision LA is great, but if you expect the same service over here in Europe, don't go to Panavision, go to Arri. Arri Munich is the best rental house I have ever worked with.

[Mitch Gross]

The Aaton has the impression of being sturdier (to me) but I had to assist with one once and it scared me away. I'll never be able to load that thing.

Most people find the Aaton mags vastly simpler and quicker to load than the Arri SR mags. I think I could train my dog to load one (hair in the gate!).

[Jarin Blaschke]

Well, that Aaton is a vague memory by now(three days, 6 years ago), but I think I recall that there were 3 parts to loading it: in the dark, in the light and then in the dark again. My memory could be wrong. With the SR, you're in the bag for 45-60 seconds. Maybe I love that camera because I have the most experience with it. I learned it in school after that abomination: the 16 BL.

[Mitch Gross]

For the Aaton mag you're in the dark just in the beginning and for even less time than on an SR mag. The SR pass-thru to requires engaging the film on a sprocket wheel and then clamping a tensioning arm (also the footage counter) onto the film. The Aaton mag pass-thru is a simple roller and the footage counter is engaged after the mag door is closed. Dealing with sprocket wheels and setting the loop is all done in daylight and there's no need to go back into the bag.

 

Back in the day I would always load both SR and Aaton mags "guerrilla style." That's taking a spent mag to the changing table, blowing out the empty feed side, stick the mag & fresh roll into the changing bag, load the fresh roll into the feed side, flip over the mag and stick the exposed film into the can the new stock just came out from, then open to the light would air out the take-up side and thread it up. I could "turnaround" a mag in about five minutes. Gotta love 16mm co-ax mags.

[Tenolian Bell]

I'll have to go with Aaton in 16. I can't believe anyone having trouble loading the mag's. In a pinch I taught a friend of mine how to load in 5 minutes, it's really so simple he was an expert by the end of the shoot.

 

Over all I find the Aaton a better built camera. The video assist, the 800 foot mag, the wooden right handle, the camera so classic.

 

Even though there are way more SR's out there to use, and I used SR's for years before I ever used an Aaton but after I did I never went back. It's like when I used PC's for years and when I finally used a Mac, I said oh man this is so much better.

[Dan Salzmann]

16mm MOS: I have a soft spot for Scoopic's. They are like giant super8's and the lens is tack sharp.

16mm sync: Arri SRII's and Eclair ACL2's (fitted with 200ft mags and Switars for car interiors)

35mm MOS: Arri III with Cinematography Electronics motor. This camera is a masterpiece of engineering and is a real tank.

35mm sync: Panavision XL or Arricam LT.

I tend to keep accessories to a minimum to make the camera lighter and my camera assistant as unencumbered as possible.

[Marty Hamrick]

1. what are your favorite cameras (models) and lenses to work with? >

16mm sync-Aaton XTR or even older LTR followed by the Arri SR and Eclair ACL or NPR.Haven't really decided which Eclair I like better.I haven't shot film in quite a while so this coming from memory.MOS-I like the Beaulieu R-16 or Bolex Rex.

 

2. do you prefer to work with all those digital gadgets and features on your cameras,or do you like shooting just with a "naked" mechanical camera like in old times (and by the way,does anyone at all shoot like that these days?)>

I like to keep it simple.If a digi gadget helps then I'll use it.Otherwise I prefer it "naked".I don't like the recent trend of burying the iris inside the camera as many cheaper video cameras are made.Irises belong on the lens barrell only imo.

 

3. do you own your own 35mm or 16mm camera, and do you ever shoot at home or in nature or street, or wherever, just for amateur-style recreation and fun with it?( i know film is expensive as hell) (and i know you can't own a panaflex)

>I used to own film gear but recently sold it all as it was just sitting around.I shoot about 95% video now,not by choice but it's just what the folks who pay my bills want.Majority of what I shoot is news/doc stuff so I think it's safe to say that the film days in that market are about all gone.I like to mess around with super 8,music videos and such,but at home lately I've gotten more intersted in shooting stills with a classic old Nikon F.

4. by the way, has anyone here shot anything in 65mm?>Nope,though I have worked with 65mm neg in a lab,nothing serious just prepped it for workprint and I've worked with it in the projection booth on a Century 35/70 machine.

Marty

[Filip Plesha]

What material was that? Who was using 65mm?

(i think you can count every separate case of the use of 65mm on fingers)

 

Was it imax or some other 65mm format?

[Marty Hamrick]

I don't remember the project exactly but it was a government job.I think the client was Martin Marietta,the job came through the lab back in 1978-79 and they just wanted us to prep it and ship it out to an optical house for a selective piece of of the frame to be optically reduced down to 16mm.They were a good client but they were notorious for jobs of multiple formats and very mixed and diverse originals.It could make for a challenge to say the least.

More than likely it was documentation film of a missile being launched or something else of a military nature.MM was doing alot of that at the time,much of their jobs required that the processing and timing techs had confidential and sometimes secret and top secret clearance to work on the jobs.

I remember we had one pedestal foot pedal operated splicer back in one of the printing rooms that did 16mm,35mm and 65/70mm that we used to splice head and tail leader on it.Sorry I don't have more details but that was a long time ago.

Marty

[Filip Plesha]

It's ok, it doesn't matter, i was just currious about who used 65mm. (i thought that it was perhaps a more recent work)

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak still sell lots of 65mm and 70mm films, mostly for IMAX productions and other "special venue" use. But several new 70mm prints in circulation (Patton, Hello Dolly) remind us how spectacular 65mm origination can look.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

The 435ES is my favorite. It's got the bullet proof construction of the III plus all the advancements in USEFUL electronics and viewfinder optics.

 

I'm a Panavision guy. Have been from the begining. It has little to do with their equipment, which is great, and more to do with the outstanding personal attention I receive from my reps. They treat the 'newest' DPs with the same respect and attention as the 'big' DPs. Their equipmet cosmetically isn't usually as good as that from other houses because it gets used so much, but I've never had a camera go down. They're really well made and many of my ACs like them because they also make their own accesories and brackets so everything fits. If they don't have what you need, they'll make it there. For some reason every Moviecam I've taken out of Clairmont has broken down within a few days. The 535A is a nice camera, a huge pig though.

 

I Europe I use Arri who is great. In just used a Arricam LT from them on a recent job and was very impressed with it. Loved the optics. (wish I could say the same for the Hawk anamorphics we tried)

 

I do have a soft spot for the first camera I ever rolled film through, an Eclair NPR which was used to film Jane Fonda in Vietnam.

 

My pride and joy is a Kodak Model A, a 1922 handcrank job which Kodak used to introduce the 16mm format. Mine is the 2nd oldest in known existence I've just learned.

[Filip Plesha]

I was really dissapointed to hear that IMAX plans on turning digital.

 

I mean,they were spectacular because of the qualitty, and now that qualitty will only live in a good name.

I have no idea how are they planing to keep the audience comming with some

poor digital projection. Digital projection is currently begining to match 35mm print qualitty. (2k projectors)

 

Perhaps they are planing to link four 2K projectors to form one image or something. But even then, that's only 4K resolution. Imax qualitty is way beyond that. Even 8k digital intermediates for Imax films are degrading the qualitty of IMAX images. (i'd say that 8k for imax is the same as 2k for 35mm)

 

Perhaps in 15 years there will be some 8K projectors or beyond that, but today there is nothing out there that can match the qulitty of IMAX.

[Max Jacoby]

I Europe I use Arri who is great. In just used a Arricam LT from them on a recent job and was very impressed with it. Loved the optics. (wish I could say the same for the Hawk anamorphics we tried)

Which Hawk lenses did you try and what didn't you like about them?

 

I am waiting for Arri Munich to get the Elites, I'd love to try those.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

We had lots of edge distortion where we shouldn't on the 40, 50, and even a little on the 60! A couple of the longer lengths were the older series and the rest were the new. And they're all BIG...like the Primo Anamorphics.

[Max Jacoby]

We had lots of edge distortion where we shouldn't on the 40, 50, and even a little on the 60! A couple of the longer lengths were the older series and the rest were the new. And they're all BIG...like the Primo Anamorphics.

I really don't care for the 40mm, way too much distortion. I think the 50mm is acceptable, also because the distortion doesn't look half as bad once you project the film as opposed to looking through the viewfinder. But my lens of choice is still the 75mm.

 

This is V-Series I am speaking of here, which are of course better than the earlier C-Series. Weight certainly is a problem, since a lightweight camera tends to be very frontheavy.

[Jarin Blaschke]

A short while ago I went to LA to shoot tests with anamorphics. Having been at Panavision the day before my visit to Clairmont, the hawks were nowhere near the size if the primos - well, the shorter and medium lengths anyway. The primo 50 is a beast. The Hawks felt like little superspeeds in comparison...