Jump to content

Questions about ARRI 2C 35mm camera


Max S. Moore

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

4k in movie theaters is normally either 3996 or 4096 pixels wide. the 3996 is normally used for 1.85 , 2.0 and 2.35 aspect ratios by letterboxing and the 4096 used for 2.40 ratio. If one's aspect ratio is different than the native dcp aspect ratio then it is common to letterbox it to keep it fully compatible with the dcp standards.  Like Tyler said the 3840 wide formats are not generally referred as "4K" but they are generally called "UltraHD" and only the 3996 and 4096 wide formats are normally called 4K.

But a "4K scan" can be much wider than 4096 depending on the scanner's maximum resolution depending on how the scanning is most practical to do. It can be for example something between 4100 and 4600 pixels wide with some overscan area included which needs to be cropped in post to get the final image. The exact final resolution depends on how much you crop it, one can either crop the native final resolution (4096 or 3996 wide) or crop the exact composition wanted according to the framing chart shot in camera and then up/downscale a little to get to the dcp standard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

one common misconception is that film would havea  "exact aspect ratio" mandated by the film format and that the ratio would be exactly the same independent of the camera and post pipeline used.

In almost all cases one does not want the camera's gate mask edges to show in the final image because of the uneven edges and rounded corners, so one would at least crop the gate edges out of the final image. Additionally the camera's gate mask aspect ratio never is absolutely exactly the absolute aspect ratio it is marked for and some further adjustment is needed in post. Then the viewfinder framelines are different from the gate mask and one needs to decide if one follows the framelines or gate mask when doing composition adjustments in post. The framelines are not possible to follow at one pixel accuracy either so some kind of guessing and adjustment is needed in post either way.

And one reason why one does not want to show the gate mask in the final movie is because the cuts would be then shown more clearly which disturbs the viewer. It is thus common to use a slightly larger mask in the camera gate than the final aspect ratio so that post cropping to the intended aspect ratio is easiest to do.

This leads to one practically ALWAYS cropping the final image in post when shooting on film (even if doing photochemical release). Leading to the "absolute aspect ratio" of the film format being a matter of taste and cropping habit instead of being something "absolute" like one would expect with digital formats.

4k digital formats are usually not final aspect ratio either (for example 1.89 movies are rarely done but that is one of the common ratios to shoot a movie in camera and then it is cropped in post to something between 1.85 and 2.40 for final delivery)

Edited by aapo lettinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 minute ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Keep in mind that a 4K DCP for a 1.85 movie is 3996 x 2160 — and since 2.40 on 2-perf doesn’t use Full Aperture width, some 4K scans might be less than 4096.

I've got Normal 16mm scans that are 4096x2988, Super 16 scans @ 4172x 2540. I think 2perf scans would be 4096 also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s a couple of examples showing 4K  2-Perf scans from my Arri 2C techniscope. I was beginning to integrate it on existing shoots for the various BMW departments I did work for and found it to be a nice look. 

The image shows the crop lines and the original is 4096 x 1856. 
The video on Vimeo jumps between cropped and uncropped footage to retain the film feel. 

I know there’s a lot of discussion about display device sizes but most of my projects required many different versions with different sizes, ratios, etc so I probably worried less about getting everything right and to have footage that was flexible to adapt to whatever. I have noticed an increased use of film and 2:40:1 aspect ratio in many luxury brands such as Louis Vuitton and of course shoe companies. Just watching Peacock I saw Verizon and Alexa choosing the 2:40:1 format so wide is certainly not limited to Sergio Leone westerns anymore (though if you want to know how to compose for wide watch them). 

BMW Certified Collision Centers - Arri 2C techniscope

6237F4F7-245F-4B30-80DA-2242AD8FEAC4.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, the 2-Perf footage looks very nice indeed. Sharp, clear, with just a hint of grain. This format has got it all in my opinion. It's perfect for features and high end commercials, with economy compared to 3 and 4-Perf due to less film used, and with a wider range of lower-priced lenses available. One doesn't need anamorphic flares/stretched bokeh to have a great cinematic film look. Hope Logmar brings out a great new 2-Perf camera soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Wow, the 2-Perf footage looks very nice indeed. Sharp, clear, with just a hint of grain. This format has got it all in my opinion. It's perfect for features and high end commercials, with economy compared to 3 and 4-Perf due to less film used, and with a wider range of lower-priced lenses available. One doesn't need anamorphic flares/stretched bokeh to have a great cinematic film look. Hope Logmar brings out a great new 2-Perf camera soon.

Thanks, Jon! It was a bit of a journey to get everything looking good and I had much better luck with 500T vs 50D, even in daylight. 
As for affordability, I didn’t buy it to make features, just to integrate into my workflow of promotional work and to get the film look without renting an Arri Alexa for $1000 a day. Plus, billing the film/development costs into a project was easy as I never used that much film. Besides, it’s great fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Mullen ASC said:

That's odd because that works out to be a 2.20 : 1 aspect ratio. Maybe the gate was designed for blow-ups to 65mm?

The lab scans a little more area above and below showing a bit of the other frames. The width is close to the 4096 so cropped it works out. Personally, I like the flexibility as some projects I mix digital and film and it’s nice to pop in a visual cue that one is film. People seem to like it, especially when I cover classic car events. Someday, maybe I can get funding for a feature but till then…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Max S. Moore said:

That's amazing work.

Thanks for all the comments.

Jim, is 2c techniscope a fancy name for 2-perf?

I agree it's a great format - with great $$ savings.

Thanks, Max!

Techniscope is the original name back in the era of CinemaScope, SuperScope, Delrama, Vistarama, TechnoVision, PanaScope, WarnerScope, SovScope (USSR), Tohoscope (Japan), etc. It is in modern terms 2-Perf, though this only means something to film people. Basically, they all mean widescreen which today is pretty standard 2:40:1.

The other benefit is that the lenses are standard sizes and can be fitted with PL adapters and used on modern digital cameras. 

All that being said, 2-Perf cameras don’t come up for sale very often. I was fortunate to find an original factory-equipped Arri 2C that I had shipped from England and I haven’t seen another in three years. If you can get one go for it!
98CCA2B9-32E9-489D-8A25-5696687E96C7.jpeg.6c6c09c6e4965d3dd22595c090570992.jpeg

Edited by Jim Perry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2022 at 7:13 PM, Uli Meyer said:

Daniil just messaged to say that his workshop is in Estonia!

If someone's interested, here's Daniil's interview that was made before he was forced to emigrate from Russia. The automatic subtitles from Russia to English aren't exactly exact, but I found it interesting to watch:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2022 at 8:17 AM, Jon O'Brien said:

Hope Logmar brings out a great new 2-Perf camera soon.

I emailed Tommy and asked about whether they might have any plans for producing a 2-Perf camera. He replied and said they have no plans to do so, because the market is already flooded with excellent 35mm cameras. I wonder if therefore someone somewhere might specialise in 2-Perf conversions or conversion kits for existing cameras. As always, I remain curious and keen about the potential of this format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

...I wonder if therefore someone somewhere might specialise in 2-Perf conversions or conversion kits for existing cameras....

There must still be people interested in doing this. Slow Motion Digital in LA say they "convert to 2-Perf: ARRI III, ARRI BL, and MovieCam"......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
13 minutes ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

There must still be people interested in doing this. Slow Motion Digital in LA say they "convert to 2-Perf: ARRI III, ARRI BL, and MovieCam"......

Yet their own rental inventory doesn't have a single 2 perf camera. 

I think the web designer hasn't updated the data. 

Arri 2C, III and BL's are pretty straight forward to convert. 

Moviecam's are not, unless of course they're SLMKII's and you have an Arri 2 perf movement kit your back pocket, which is basically  unobtanium and if ya got one, anyone can convert. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Arri 2C, III and BL's are pretty straight forward to convert. 

Moviecam's are not, unless of course they're SLMKII's and you have an Arri 2 perf movement ...

Arri LT/ST not possible to easily convert?

I'm reliably informed that Panavision will happily convert their 4-perf cameras to 2-Perf but of course that's for the uber big end of town, on big productions, which is of course fine. I wonder how often Panavision cams are actually fitted out in this way for a production.

One occasionally sees a major production these days shot on 2-Perf. 'First Man' made use of it for quite a bit of the film. Also 'I, Tonya'. Looked fabulous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
22 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Arri LT/ST not possible to easily convert?

Not without an entire Arri movement kit. 100% impossible without one. 

22 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'm reliably informed that Panavision will happily convert their 4-perf cameras to 2-Perf but of course that's for the uber big end of town, on big productions, which is of course fine. I wonder how often Panavision cams are actually fitted out in this way for a production.

Panavision of the past is not the same as today. They have a lot of bodies and they are setup for different configs. I'm not aware of XL2's, XL's or Millenniums being setup for 2 perf. However, they DO have GII's setup for 2 perf. I stumbled upon one at Cinegear 2019 actually, think I got a picture somewhere of it. I was shocked they sent such a rare bird to Cinegear. Most of the cameras are 4 perf due to their line of anamorphic lenses. I'm certain moving an XL2 to 3 perf, is no big deal. They have the parts in-house. 

22 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

One occasionally sees a major production these days shot on 2-Perf. 'First Man' made use of it for quite a bit of the film. Also 'I, Tonya'. Looked fabulous.

I think you'll find some DP's who like it, heck if I know why. 3 perf is a FAR better method of capturing and if you're shooting a big show, the benefits of 2 perf simply don't exist. You want the largest negative possible, you want the ability to re-frame in post, but keep the aspect ratio and you absolutely don't care about the 25% savings on film. That really means nothing in the long run. Some people (like Linus) shoot 2 perf because he likes a 400ft load camera (the Penelope) and can get a longer load on 2 perf than 3 perf, which is nice. I have to admit, dealing with 400ft loads on 3 perf is a chore. However, I'd prefer a larger negative and a heavier camera, than a MUCH smaller negative over a smaller camera. Plus with 3 perf, you can use those wonderful 1.3x anamorphic lenses from Hawk and still get the "anamorphic" look, using the full width of the negative, if you wanna risk it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, Jim Perry said:

Just saw 2 Arri 2C 2-perfs for sale, one is a factory movement. Very well equipped with video tap, crystal motor, etc. 
Facebook- Arri 2C Techniscope

Yea 15k! I sold my Aaton 35III for $16k and it's a far better camera... all be it, only 3 perf, but buying 2 perf for a premium is ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

Oh, you sold your beloved 35III? How come? The recent price increase of film?

?

IDK man. I have a lot of thoughts about it. 

First and foremost, it was a very special camera. One of maybe 7 in the world. It had the final movement design, with a positive pulldown claw. It was 3 perf of course. I had lots of neat one-off accessories and the best video tap. However, I never "loved" the camera. It was always clunky to work with. Some rolls were perfect, others the camera would be loud or just not run right. The counters never worked properly either. After our last big short film, I just didn't see the benefit of the small package camera outside of jib/steadi shots, which could have been done with my friends Penelope. I have an Arricam ST at my disposal anytime, so I was like, what's the point of owning my own package? 

Second and probably the main reason why I made the decision was about film. I generally shoot on short ends, which are most of the time 600 - 800ft long. So I always had to break film down in my garage. I have an area just for this, with rewinds and everything. However, static electricity is a real problem because it's so dry in CA, so every motherfucking roll I broke down, had dirt on it. So everything I shot on short ends was dirty. It was so frustrating to watch dailies and slam my head on the desk. So I can't afford to shoot 35mm with dusty shots and/or sealed/new cans. Never gonna happen. 

Finally, I had this huge project I was launching this summer. I needed the cash to get it off the ground. My goal was to throw a bunch of money at it, basically everything I had so we could get it going. So I needed the cash and that was my main impetus to move forward with the sale. After selling the camera, I had a horrible last few months financially and the big project we were going to do, is not going to happen with the equipment we bought. It was a 100% failed project, so now we have to sell everything we got and start all over again from scratch, which will take months. It's a horrible shame and I sold a camera that was really special because of it. 

Reality is, the camera was not rentable. I used it once a year in the last 2 years and didn't see any future projects I really was going to need it for. If it was a Penelope or something rentable, I would have kept it of course. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea 15k! I sold my Aaton 35III for $16k and it's a far better camera... all be it, only 3 perf, but buying 2 perf for a premium is ridiculous. 

Looks like this is for two cameras, one factory and one converted. There’s also the Visual Products base and the Jurgens video door. I recently saw an Arri 2B 2-Perf listed for $9k which sold but I’m not sure for how much. I think people think it should cost the same as any Arri 2C but it’s a differential similar to Arri S16 vs plain 16. 
In any event, it’s the first I’ve seen in three years and looks like a nice camera you can use out of the box. 

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...