Jump to content

WTB: 3-perf movement for MovieCam Compact MK2


Damon Hoydysh

Recommended Posts

Quote

2-PERF CONVERSION

We specialize in converting film cameras into 2-Perf movements. Converting your camera to 2-Perf can save as much as 60% film, and provides a wide cinematic frame. The following cameras we can convert to 2-Perf: ARRI III, ARRI BL, and MovieCam .

https://www.slowmotioninc.com/service

I wonder.... ?

Edited by sines
size of quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
1 hour ago, sines said:

Old website. Arri had complete movements available directly from them for years. Nobody at Slow Motion Inc was hand-modifying cameras to convert them to 2 perf via machining new parts. 

Today the movement kits for the Arricam and Moviecam cameras are all gone. 

Converting without an Arri movement kit is 100% impossible. 

The only cameras that 'can' be converted without a kit are the older BL movement based cameras, and the amount of remaining parts available for those conversions is dwindling daily. I believe the last two remaining kits in the entire country just got gobbled up by a fellow forum member. So that means, even those conversions are not possible anymore as well. 

Don't worry, the next bump in film prices will probably throw a bunch of used cameras into the market. All ya gotta do is be patient. 

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

I am like 5-10 years late to the Techniscope 2-perf party. Derek Cianfrance's " I Know This Much Is True" for HBO recently got me hooked again on considering 2-perf. The movement kit would have to come from an Arricam donor, right? I have a IIC and ArriTechno I am deliberating on. Far too loud for sync sound, but my plans for those camera were far loftier.

Maybe I should reach out to @victor huey because of this.

4-perf is cool for reworking the image some, but I am framing with 2.39 in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
14 hours ago, sines said:

I am like 5-10 years late to the Techniscope 2-perf party.

Techniscope died over 50 years ago and has had a slight resurgence in the last 25 years due to low-budget filmmakers. The main reason is because modern film stock got a lot better and films started to be scanned/finished digitally. It was the digital finishing aspects that really brought it back. Nobody had even thought about Techniscope until the "digital" age. I believe some of the first converted cameras were the 35mm BL's and then Arri caught on to this and made some new movements. But Arri always focused on 4 perf S35mm for "Anamorphic" shooting as it delivers the highest quality image. 
 

14 hours ago, sines said:

The movement kit would have to come from an Arricam donor, right?

Yes, Arri was the only company to make movements for the Moviecam's and Arricam's. 

Cameras like the 35III, 2C, BL and 435 were not easy, but possible to convert without Arri parts. 

14 hours ago, sines said:

I have a IIC and ArriTechno I am deliberating on. Far too loud for sync sound, but my plans for those camera were far loftier.

Right, you'd probably need to find a 2 perf sync sound camera. 

14 hours ago, sines said:

Maybe I should reach out to @victor huey because of this.

Yep, he knows all about this! 

14 hours ago, sines said:

4-perf is cool for reworking the image some, but I am framing with 2.39 in mind.

3 perf is the actual correct format to use. 

See, people don't understand that 2 perf was designed to reserve the soundtrack area. So it does not use the full S35mm width for a 2.40:1 image. 

3 perf does use the full width. So when you crop 3 perf down to 2.40:1, you actually get a 2mm larger image in both width and height. That may not seem like a lot, but mixing that with frame lines which are adjustable, is really nice. Plus not everything you shoot will you want 2.40:1 anyway. Most of the time, people want to adjust their aspect ratio's. I personally like 1.85:1 because it plays nicely on everyone's TV's without big black bars. The 3 perf format is way easier to find cameras for as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

See, people don't understand that 2 perf was designed to reserve the soundtrack area. So it does not use the full S35mm width for a 2.40:1 image. 

People don't actually need to understand that, because it's irrelevant. 

The limiting factor for 2 perf is not the fact that historically the Techniscope format reserved space for the soundtrack, but the fact that it's only 2 perfs high. In other words the limitation is the height, not the width. Academy width 2 perf already gives you natively around 2.35:1, so expanding to S35 width gives you no real advantage with 2 perf, because you can't go any taller.  It's an entirely moot point with modern 2 perf cameras since they tend to have full width apertures anyway.

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

3 perf does use the full width. So when you crop 3 perf down to 2.40:1, you actually get a 2mm larger image in both width and height. 

Since we like to give accurate information here on cinematography.com, I should point out that it's mathematically impossible to increase a 2.40 image by 2mm in both width and height and still maintain the same aspect ratio. If you increase the width by 2mm, the height will increase by less than 1mm. Which is what we find if we look at the Penelope viewing screen framelines for instance:

 (http://www.davidelkins.com/download/download_files/aaton/1002_penelope_viewing_screens.pdf

3 perf 2.35 is 10mm high, while 2 perf 2.39 is 9.35mm high, only 0.65mm less.

As the Aaton guide mentions, that turns out to be only 11% less area. You could theoretically extract a little more from the 3 perf area than the ground glass marks allow, but even going to the very edge of the camera aperture your height for a 2.39 frame would still only be 10.4mm. More realistically, for 2.39 you would extract a 24x10mm area, which is actually not that much bigger than 2 perf. 

Of course 3 perf is a much more versatile format, but there's no need to exaggerate the benefits.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 12:08 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Don't worry, the next bump in film prices will probably throw a bunch of used cameras into the market. All ya gotta do is be patient. 

Didn't really happen with the last bump in film prices. 35mm prices weren't really affected, but 16mm was, and there seems to be fewer cams on the market than ever.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
9 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Didn't really happen with the last bump in film prices. 35mm prices weren't really affected, but 16mm was, and there seems to be fewer cams on the market than ever.

Oh no, the most recent bump ain't nothin' really. The next bump is going to be industry wide, including chemicals. So processing will be more money as well as ALL film stocks. 

I think the reason why we're seeing fewer cameras is simply because people aren't despite for money yet. This economic crash is going to be bad and it will drive people to sell anything they don't need/use on a regular basis. 

So just wait... cameras will show up soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

3 perf 2.35 is 10mm high, while 2 perf 2.39 is 9.35mm high, only 0.65mm less.

Actually, according to the actual techniscope specification, the frame height of 9.47x22mm is an aspect ratio of 2.33:1. 

So to crop it down to 2.35:1 and you're looking at probably 9mm of height total. 

This is why when you increase the frame width from 22mm to 24.49mm (N35mm 2 perf to S35mm 3 perf), to get 2.40:1, we should be seeing an increase over 1mm in height. 

I'm not sure why all the 3 perf (2.35:1 extract) charts do not go to the edges with their math, but if you do go right to the edges, you should see much closer to 2mm in crease in height. 

Sounds like Aaton didn't use the standard techniscope format when they developed the Penelope. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh no, the most recent bump ain't nothin' really. The next bump is going to be industry wide, including chemicals. So processing will be more money as well as ALL film stocks. 

I think the reason why we're seeing fewer cameras is simply because people aren't despite for money yet. This economic crash is going to be bad and it will drive people to sell anything they don't need/use on a regular basis. 

So just wait... cameras will show up soon. 

Film camera prices went down in the early-to-mid 2010s because of the idea that we would no longer be shooting film at some point in the near future. Then, once it became apparent that wasn’t the case, film cameras started to rise in price again, and now we’ve hit the point where film cameras are being sold for the same prices they were selling for pre-Alexa. Prices for stock/processing are certainly going to continue to increase, but that isn’t the same as film being seen as a deprecated format (as it was before). As you can see, the increasingly steep price of renting/owning a film camera hasn’t changed the trajectory of celluloid shooting these past few years, so why instead would increasing stock/processing prices do otherwise?

Instead, I think the poor state of the economy will plateau the prices of cameras at about where they are now (or maybe just return them to the pre-covid 2020 price level). For film cameras to go significantly below the price level they’re at now, what happened in the early 2010s will have to happen again—film will need to be seen as a deprecated format. Specifically, the rental facilities that have been eating up a lot of these expensive cameras would have to deem it a deprecated format. And that would only happen if Kodak shuts down or ceases film production. Certainly not saying that’s an impossibility, but I’m sure none of us want that to happen!

Being an owner/operator will continue to become more difficult (and using a film camera may become a rental-only affair for many), but that’s another matter.

Well, of course that's just my prediction. Remind me of this thread in a year ?

Edited by Raymond Zrike
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
22 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Since we like to give accurate information here on cinematography.com

I would certainly hope so!

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Actually, according to the actual techniscope specification, the frame height of 9.47x22mm is an aspect ratio of 2.33:1. 

So to crop it down to 2.35:1 and you're looking at probably 9mm of height total

If you crop the top and bottom off a 22mm x 9.47mm image to get a 2.35:1 ratio, your new height is 9.36mm - a reduction in 0.11mm.

If you wanted to use the absolute maximum width of your super35 gate, the height of a 2.35:1 frame would be 10.59mm.

So in our most extreme use case, the difference is 1.23mm, not 2mm.  But no one in their right mind would frame for the exact width of their gate on 35mm which is why most of the 3 perf Penelope frame guides have a width of 24mm even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Actually, according to the actual techniscope specification, the frame height of 9.47x22mm is an aspect ratio of 2.33:1. 

So to crop it down to 2.35:1 and you're looking at probably 9mm of height total. 

This is why when you increase the frame width from 22mm to 24.49mm (N35mm 2 perf to S35mm 3 perf), to get 2.40:1, we should be seeing an increase over 1mm in height. 

I'm not sure why all the 3 perf (2.35:1 extract) charts do not go to the edges with their math, but if you do go right to the edges, you should see much closer to 2mm in crease in height. 

You know, it's so easy to do the actual maths rather than making vague estimations. 

To get 2.35:1 with the original Techniscope 22mm width you need a height of 9.36mm. Not much different to 9.47mm.

If you go all the way to the edge of the 3 perf frame -  which is actually 24.9mm wide - you need a height of 10.4mm for 2.39:1 which is about 1 mm taller than 2 perf. I mentioned that in my last post.

But who cares really, the point is that 2 perf is not that much less area than 3 perf 2.39. Anywhere from 11 to 20% less area, while using 33% less film.

 

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Sounds like Aaton didn't use the standard techniscope format when they developed the Penelope. 

Sure they did, we just worked out that the actual height needed for 2.35:1 (the widescreen aspect ratio back them) on a Techniscope camera was 9.36mm - which is the same as the Penelope 2 perf aperture height. You extract a slightly wider frame for 2.39:1 that's all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Film camera prices went down in the early-to-mid 2010s because of the idea that we would no longer be shooting film at some point in the near future.

- Kodak filed bankruptcy
- The two major international lab companies shut down their wet labs globally
- Rental houses flooded the market with used cameras
- The US economy was still re-bounding from a major recession 

Those are the 4 reasons why film cameras were "inexpensive" for a brief period of time, between 2011 - 2016, basically 5 years. 

12 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Then, once it became apparent that wasn’t the case, film cameras started to rise in price again, and now we’ve hit the point where film cameras are being sold for the same prices they were selling for pre-Alexa.

- Kodak securing a multi-year contract to guarantee film production 
- Kodak investing heavily in lab infrastructure both in the US and internationally 
- Multiple smaller labs going back online internationally
- Supply of used cameras decreased, making the prices increase 
- Kodak not raising stock/chemical prices to coincide with inflation 
- Studio's desire to make more profits and found a little niche with film prints once again 
- Many filmmakers wanting to shoot film due to digital imagers not being able to replicate the look they are after 

12 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Prices for stock/processing are certainly going to continue to increase, but that isn’t the same as film being seen as a deprecated format (as it was before). As you can see, the increasingly steep price of renting/owning a film camera hasn’t changed the trajectory of celluloid shooting these past few years, so why instead would increasing stock/processing prices do otherwise?

Actually, what Kodak is doing now, is something I've never seen in the nearly 30 years I've been shooting on film. For example, I was buying 400ft rolls of 16mm color negative from them in 2001, for only 25 dollars less than in 2018. Since 2019, Kodak has raised prices at a level unprecedented in this industry. The first big hike was 2019, then 2021, then 2022 and now we're all expecting an even bigger hike in 2023. So since 2019 the price for a 400ft roll went up nearly $80 dollars. This may not sound like a lot, but you have to also take into account chemical prices going up, which means processing expenses will increase as well. 

The cost to rent cameras, hasn't changed much at all. I stopped renting my camera because the market was so flooded with low-budget renters, it was just not worth the wear and tear on the camera for a few hundred bux. 

The cost of service is also going up. So for owners, parts are becoming more and more rare. Some formerly easy jobs, are becoming harder to do. 

The impact nearly entirely based on how much it costs to "shoot" film, which is stock, processing and transfer mostly. The camera aspects are not even considered generally because rental prices haven't changed much. Plus so many private people own cameras, it's easier than ever to get a hold of a decent camera if you're in the community. 

12 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Instead, I think the poor state of the economy will plateau the prices of cameras at about where they are now (or maybe just return them to the pre-covid 2020 price level).

Film cameras are a novelty, not a required commodity. People will be selling their film cameras like crazy when they have difficulty paying bills. I'm already seeing work drying up in Hollywood, people knocking on my door, more than I've ever had, worse than even during the pandemic. So yes, they will be selling just because they need the cash. 

Will the prices go down? 

Of course they will, because everyone is going to struggle through this upcoming global recession. Remember it's supply and demand. If the demand is low, people will lower their prices so they can actually get that cash. It'll take a while, but it will happen. 

Also, Kodak isn't doing well financially. They have been bleeding cash the last few years, even with the increase of pricing. We could see another bankruptcy in the next 5 years if things continue to get worse. Plus as they raise prices, less and less people will shoot film, they'll have even less income and perhaps increase prices even more to compensate. They will most likely push people like me out of being able to shoot film, most of us are already teetering on being able to. 
 

12 hours ago, Raymond Zrike said:

Specifically, the rental facilities that have been eating up a lot of these expensive cameras would have to deem it a deprecated format.

Far less rental houses have film cameras than before 2011. Film cameras also don't depreciate like digital. So they can sit on film cameras for decades and it won't matter. I'm sure they've already been paid off. So I don't see rental houses dumping good film cameras anytime soon, for sure not something I'd hold my breath waiting for. We are seeing private owners dumping cameras they collected when the prices were low, but not rental houses. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
12 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

But who cares really, the point is that 2 perf is not that much less area than 3 perf 2.39. Anywhere from 11 to 20% less area, while using 33% less film.

It's a pretty dramatic difference actually. I've worked on countless films shot on 2 perf and of course our own shows on 3 perf. It's night and day difference on-screen. Part of that is being able to easily manipulate the framing in post, something not really possible in 2 perf. The other thing is that with 2 perf, you really gotta use pretty wide lenses to get wide angle shots. You're using 16mm and 18mm vs 20mm and 24mm for S35mm 3/4 perf. This is very noticeable in the end result actually, the final image will be flatter due to the wider lenses. I guess if you use longer lenses only, it may not matter, but considering quite a few DP's like wide shots, it is something to consider. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's a pretty dramatic difference actually. I've worked on countless films shot on 2 perf and of course our own shows on 3 perf. It's night and day difference on-screen. 

“Countless” films, eh? I didn’t realise it was such a ubiquitous format. 

7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

..with 2 perf, you really gotta use pretty wide lenses to get wide angle shots. You're using 16mm and 18mm vs 20mm and 24mm for S35mm 3/4 perf. This is very noticeable in the end result actually, the final image will be flatter due to the wider lenses. 

Since we like to give accurate information here on cinematography.com, I should point out that the crop factor difference between 2 perf and 3 perf 2.39 is around 0.9x, going off the width. Using the frame lines in a Penelope it works out to be 0.92x, which translates to 18mm and 22mm to replicate the views of 20mm and 24mm in 3 perf. At its most extreme, extracting right to the edges of the S35 camera aperture (which no one does) you have a 0.88 crop factor which translates to 17.6mm and 21mm. So no, it’s not 16 and 18. 

I think we all understand that you’re not a fan of 2 perf, and maybe you have a 3 perf camera you want to rent, but there’s no need to keep exaggerating the difference just to prove your point.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

This is very noticeable in the end result actually, the final image will be flatter due to the wider lenses.

As flat as in 'Once Upon A Time In The West'?

201602021407once_upon_a_time_in_the_west_03.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

“Countless” films, eh? I didn’t realise it was such a ubiquitous format. 

In the indy world, used quite widely. I have many friends with 2 perf cameras.

We just wrapped up the restoration of one very recently. Hopefully it's distributed. 

2 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

At its most extreme, extracting right to the edges of the S35 camera aperture (which no one does) you have a 0.88 crop factor which translates to 17.6mm and 21mm. So no, it’s not 16 and 18. 

Actually, IDK where you got your numbers from. This is the calculator I use: https://www.scantips.com/lights/cropfactor3.html

2 perf 2.39:1 has a crop factor of 1.819 with a frame size of 21.95x9.15

3 perf 2.39:1 has a crop factor  of 1.6 with a frame size of 24.89x10.41 

(roughly 2.94mm wider and 1.26mm taller for a 2.39:1 aspect ratio image based on maximum aperture data) 

So using a 16mm lens on 2 perf with a 1.819 crop to 3 perf,  you go up around 3.4mm to 19.4mm and since that's really not a lens choice, 20mm is the next "logical" lens. 

Using an 18mm lens on 2 perf with a 1.819 crop to 3 perf, you go up around 4.7mm to 22.7mm and since that's really not a lens choice, 24mm is the next logical choice. 

Again, I have no idea where you get your numbers from, but that is the actual data directly from the aperture numbers and using a crop factor calculator displayed above. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
27 minutes ago, Uli Meyer said:

As flat as in 'Once Upon A Time In The West'?

201602021407once_upon_a_time_in_the_west_03.jpg

Once Upon A Time in the West has a few close up shots with shallow depth of field, but nearly all of the masters are pretty flat. For sure not trying to pick-on or mock a great film, it's not the example I would use, but since Uli brought it up, I'm more then happy to use it as an example as I know the film well. 

image.thumb.jpeg.0f49cd996b9c06d9916ec880d7d87b99.jpegimage.thumb.png.0a74a65296ff3addd58a46ae67ead4f4.pngimage.jpeg.addd819e0a522e208fa4a535dd16d4e0.jpeg

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
15 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Again, I have no idea where you get your numbers from, but that is the actual data directly from the aperture numbers and using a crop factor calculator displayed above. 

Your maths is faulty. Even using those figures, which are undersized for modern 2 perf and the absolute maximum for 3 perf, your focal length calculations are off. 

You’re comparing both formats to full frame rather than each other, which is an extra unnecessary step, but ok, let’s stick with that.

3 perf is 1.6x, while 2 perf is 1.81x.

So a 20mm in 3 perf is equivalent to: 

20mm x 1.6/1.81 = 17.67mm in 2 perf, closest focal length is 18mm.

A 24mm in 3 perf is equivalent to:

24mm x 1.6/1.81 = 21.2mm in 2 perf, closest focal length being 21mm.

Which is exactly what I posted as the most extreme difference, only I used the simpler calculation of a direct crop factor derived from the different format widths. 

In reality, people need to frame with a film camera using the ground glass marks, so the 3 perf extraction will be only 24mm wide, making the difference less. 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
57 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Your maths is faulty. Even using those figures, which are undersized for modern 2 perf and the absolute maximum for 3 perf, your focal length calculations are off. 

My numbers from from the American Cinematographer manual. Maybe Australian cameras and American cameras are different?  I only brought this topic up because I’ve noticed it on set. Since you aren’t on set shooting film on a regular basis, maybe that experience would be humbling instead of always insinuating that I’m always wrong because my “maths” don’t make sense to you, even when I use a known good source and more complex calculator to insure they’re not wrong. 
 

Man you must not have a life to always be on here hounding me and other people about how wrong we are. No wonder everyone left, there is no room to even have a conversion and spitball stuff because everything must be a historical document in your mind. Jesus man. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
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...