Why hello, Miss Penelope...

[Keith Mottram]

penelope

 

I see your a 2 perf lady?

 

Keith

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Interesting. Seems like someone wants to be a force in bringing 2 perf to the forefront.

Also looks like it's going to use the same type of composite material used in the A-Minima...or it could just be the material used for the mockup. One thing's for certain, doesn't look like the mags are going to be any easier to load than the 35-3.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

penelope

 

I see your a 2 perf lady?

 

Keith

 

The only problem with 2 perfs or 3 is that they have to pass an IN/IP stage.

I would easily used this system only if I knew that it can be done without this, wich is impossible.

All the theaters are running standard 4-perfs.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Laurent Andrieux]

Isn't 2 perfs designed to give a 2.35 ratio ? So that you actually print 35 mm anamorphic (4 perfs) or 70 mm ?

[Keith Mottram]

The only problem with 2 perfs or 3 is that they have to pass an IN/IP stage.

I would easily used this system only if I knew that it can be done without this, wich is impossible.

All the theaters are running standard 4-perfs.

Dimitrios Koukas

 

Er, DI? The stock savings would easily pay for a film out and DI.

 

keith

[Adam Frisch FSF]

The only problem with 2 perfs or 3 is that they have to pass an IN/IP stage.

I would easily used this system only if I knew that it can be done without this, wich is impossible.

All the theaters are running standard 4-perfs.

Dimitrios Koukas

 

Well, that's how the world is going. Digital Intermediate is probably done on more features today than

finished the old analog way, for better or worse. And 2-perf makes perfect sense in a DI environmnet.

So does Super-35 - when DI takes over fully, then Standard 35 is dead.

[Stephen Williams]

Er, DI? The stock savings would easily pay for a film out and DI.

keith

 

Hi,

 

Depends on the shooting ratio but the savings on 50,000' of stock and processing will be nowhere near the cost of a DI. The telecine or scanning costs will be roughly the same.

 

Stephen

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Er, DI? The stock savings would easily pay for a film out and DI.

 

keith

 

I am working in the advertising eleven years now and I would definately suggest this if it's for tv, but I am not going to if it is for theaters.

DI is in a really good track and it's allready established, but for me it can't compare with a contact print.

Dimitrios Koukas

[Stephen Williams]

, but for me it can't compare with a contact print.

Dimitrios Koukas

 

 

Hi,

 

I have to agree unless the DI is 4k and very well done.

 

Stephen

[Keith Mottram]

Hi,

 

Depends on the shooting ratio but the savings on 50,000' of stock and processing will be nowhere near the cost of a DI. The telecine or scanning costs will be roughly the same.

 

Stephen

 

I dont know you can get a DI and print for about £40000 if you shop around (lustre and arri laser), when you take into account the costs of opticals etc, the ballparks aren't clear cut.

 

Keith

[Stephen Williams]

I dont know you can get a DI and print for about £40000 if you shop around (lustre and arri laser), when you take into account the costs of opticals etc, the ballparks aren't clear cut.

 

Keith

 

Keith,

 

Depending on the deals done I guess film savings is about £15000-20000.

You've quoted £ so I guess your UK based. Could you tell me where?

 

Many thanks,

 

Stephen

[Stephen Williams]

Isn't 2 perfs designed to give a 2.35 ratio ? So that you actually print 35 mm anamorphic (4 perfs) or 70 mm ?

 

Hi Laurent,

 

Exactly.

 

Its easier to convert cameras as you don't need to move the lens centre. Therefore older zoom lenses can be used without any risk of vingnetting, saving more money!

 

Stephen

[Laurent Andrieux]

Thanks Stephen !

 

I was just posting after Dimitrios's post, whos was pointing out the fact that theaters release 4 perf 35 mm positive.

[Keith Mottram]

Keith,

 

Depending on the deals done I guess film savings is about £15000-20000.

You've quoted £ so I guess your UK based. Could you tell me where?

 

Many thanks,

 

Stephen

 

Stephen,

 

The figure I quoted is higher than a quote my producer got for a DI and print on a feature Doc I'm posting currently, cant post the details here. The facility is in eastern europe (I can't be more specific till I talk to my producer), the colourist is top notch- I've seen his reel. Sometimes it pays to travel! If I can give more details I'll share them with you.

 

Keith

[Thomas Chatelet]

Hi,

 

I have more informations about this camera.

It will be sale at the same price of the XTRprod !

 

And it may become an hybrid camera, runing with 35 mm ...and HD mags.

One day, you'll be able to change from one "world" to an another by a "simple" switch (Beauviala -aäton CEO- said it may take 2 minutes to switch a HD mag by a 35 mm mag... He didn' say but I guess switching from a 35 mm mag to an HD mag would be a lot more hard to be done that quickly).

 

Any way, this option will arrive far later after the shipping of the Penelope, he also said, the CMOS and CCD chips are not ready yet, the portative storage technology is too young (he's is very expected by the hollographic storage technology), and the processors that could fit with the Jpeg2000 codec greed are just rising (a CoreDuo in a HD mag ?), he said.

For all those reasons, he'd rather wait and see a bit more.

 

Exciting, isn't it ?

Edited April 13, 2006 by thomas.chat

[Keith Mottram]

Hi,

 

I have more informations about this camera.

It will be sale at the same price of the XTRprod !

 

And it may become an hybrid camera, runing with 35 mm ...and HD mags.

One day, you'll be able to change from one "world" to an another by a "simple" switch (Beauviala -aäton CEO- said it may take 2 minutes to switch a HD mag by a 35 mm mag... He didn' say but I guess switching from a 35 mm mag to an HD mag would be a lot more hard to be done that quickly).

 

Any way, this option will arrive far later after the shipping of the Penelope, he also said, the CMOS and CCD chips are not ready yet, the portative storage technology is too young (he's is very expected by the hollographic storage technology), and the processors that could fit with the Jpeg2000 codec greed are just rising (a CoreDuo in a HD mag ?), he said.

For all those reasons, he'd rather wait and see a bit more.

 

Exciting, isn't it ?

 

Thomas can you give a link to your source?

 

thank you

 

Keith

[Thomas Chatelet]

Sorry keith,

 

but there is no direct internet link. I'm taking those informations from an interview that Beauviala gave to Lumières - Les Cahiers de l'AFC #1 2006, published last month. You'll find and order it on the AFC web site.

 

Thomas

[Thomas Chatelet]

By the way, what he exactly said about the price is that it should be close from a 16mm camera price. He didn't mentioned the XTR prod specifically. That was a short cut of mine. And the Core Duo thing is also a speculation.

Just to be clear...

And sorry for the no sense part : "Beauviala is expecting a lot from the holographic storage technology" is better english... :rolleyes:

Edited April 13, 2006 by thomas.chat

[Max Jacoby]

I'm glad to hear that there will be a 4 perf movement for the camera as well. So people shooting anamorphic have the option of using this camera too.

 

Lumières - Les Cahiers de l'AFC #1 2006, published last month.

Do you find this magazine worthwhile? I like the AFC website, there is a lot of information on current films and how they were shot.

[Thomas Chatelet]

I'm glad to hear that there will be a 4 perf movement for the camera as well. So people shooting anamorphic have the option of using this camera too.

Do you find this magazine worthwhile? I like the AFC website, there is a lot of information on current films and how they were shot.

It definitly whothwhiles but I'm not sure it's been translated in english... but it may be not not a problem for you to read french. ;)

 

Ciao

 

Thomas

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Sorry keith,

 

but there is no direct internet link. I'm taking those informations from an interview that Beauviala gave to Lumières - Les Cahiers de l'AFC #1 2006, published last month. You'll find and order it on the AFC web site.

 

Thomas

 

---Here are a couple of machine translated articles from the above mentioned site:

 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...hl%3Den%26lr%3D

 

 

<<1>>

Site remelted by Oniris Productions on Spip Side of the technique / Cameras / Cameras Film / In the Letter of the AFC 147 (October 2005)

 

LAaton Penelope

presented by Aaton

Here the photograph of the prototype Aaton Penelope. Cest the only autosilencieuse camera 35 mm with instantaneous stores ever built, and cest also the first camera 35 mm which gives up for always the 4Perf of Dickson/Edison.

The mechanism dentraînement of film does not function quen 3Perf for the accros of the 1,66:1, 1,78:1, 1,85:1, or in 2Perf for the "addicts" of the Scope.

 

 

Rare "the cinematographers" which played with it appreciated its setting out of cheek, and more particularly its adaptation grosses heads and gaucher(e)s of loeil. They noted lutilisation dun new alloy polycarbonate/aluminium soundproofing dévidement film, and bringing a lightness which makes it possible to put it without tiredness lépaule, under the elbow, or between the legs according to the height desired for the plan.

Another characteristic, a second battery "one-board" Li-Ion 80 W supplies the engines of diaph and point without exhausting the devoted principal battery with engine-film.

 

A very new video-assist "pure Aaton" with progressive analysis generates images of vertical definition twice higher than that of the apparatuses known to date.

 

To see the answer of Jean-Pierre Beauviala to the questions which Pénélope raises.

<<2>>

 

AFC newsletter 147 (october 2005)

 

The Aaton Penelope

presented by Aaton

Here is a photo of the Aaton Penelope prototype. This is the only auto-silenced 35 mm camera with instantaneous magazines that was ever built and it is also the first 35 mm camera that definitively abandons Dickson/Edison?s 4-perf film.

The film-pulling mechanism only works with 3-perf for lovers of 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1 formats or with 2-perf for Scope addicts.

 

The few ?cinematographers" who have had a chance to play with it appreciated the way it aims and more especially its adjustments for wide heads or for left-eyed operators. They also commented on the use of a new polycarbonate/aluminium alloy that sound-proofs the film-winding mechanism and is so light that its can be used from the shoulder, under the arm or between the legs without being tiring, depending on the height of the film shot. Another specificity: a second on-board Li-Ion 80 W battery powers the diaphragm and focus motors without draining the main battery that powers the film motor.

A brand new ?pure Aaton? video-assist using progressive analysis generates images with vertical definition twice as powerful as other apparatus currently available.

 

In reply to the questions received following the announcement of the Penelope 3-perf that eliminates 4-perf film and therefore 2:1 anamorphosed Scope format...

Just as Eastmancolor marked the death of the unwieldy Technicolor cameras, the appearance of very high quality 4K digital intermediate format - which shows the grain of the film - is likely to eliminate 2:1 anamorphosis during filming.

When the first 5247 was released, the 3 dinosaur negatives disappeared almost instantly. Only the dye transfer technique hung on for another few years. Similarly, the projection of 2:1 anamorphosed prints will stand its ground until digital projectors become the rule.

 

If rental companies want to keep a step ahead, they should convert their stock of lenses from 2:1 group cylindrical lenses to 1.42:1 format. This would mean that the whole of the Super 35 3-perf 1.66:1 surface would be used to record 2.35:1 format since there is no longer the need to reserve a sound track on the same surface of the negative.

This would result in 1.42:1 anamorphotic lenses being smaller, lighter and easier to correct and the use of de-anamorphotic viewfinders would become less of a gymnastic ordeal to construct (it is even possible to line up frames without de-anamorphosing 1.42:1 format), a 30 % saving and they have the advantage of the long 3-perf magazines. All this would not cost a penny more for the digital scan and shoot because it?s child?s play to complete the remaining anamorphosis digitally to produce a standard Scope inter-negative compatible with all the Scope projectors in the world.

 

We tried to promote this idea 20 years ago with Joe Dunton who worked for Panavision at the time, but to no avail because at that time, ?digital intermediate? was in limbo and the remaining anamorphosis had to be done by optical projection and modifying the contact printer was far too complicated... especially in the USA.

Three years ago, we carried out Super 16 DI trials at Éclair using an amateur 1.5 Iscorama anamorphoser without encountering any particular problems, but since scans at that time were in HD 4:2:2 format and the shoot was in 2K, the results were slightly sluggish. This would not be the case today using a 4K ArriScan at the outset

 

 

<<3>>

 

Site remelted by Oniris Productions on Spip Side of the technique / Cameras / Cameras Film / In the Letter of the AFC 148 (November 2005)

 

Response to the reactions on Penelope 3Perf which excludes the 4Perf, therefore Scope

by Jean-Pierre Beauviala of the Aaton company

After l article announcing the Penelope camera, Jean-Pierre Beauviala answers the concerns caused by the 3Perf.

 

Since lArriScan and other scanners 4K appeared, them which analyze the grain * original film, the smoothness and the depth of color of negative are finally respected. It ny has thus more qualitative reason not to use the "DIGITAL Intermediate" in the manufacture of positive the dexploitation, quite to the contrary.

 

Considering what the numerical chain is an absolute wall between the original support and the support of diffusion, why thus still film into anamorphic 1:2 on a square image 4Perf with heavy objectives réminiscents of the Technicolor cameras?

 

Cétait justified with lépoque where lon could make only copies contact and where as of the catch of sights one was to waste the negative one to hold place with the future track his copies.

 

Those which want to turn in Scope 1:2 with Penelope 3Perf (which I point out it was drawn to be quiet and ultra handy) have two options: either Super 35 1:2.35 "spherical" traditional which nutilise not all the surface available from negative the 1:1,66, or lanamorphosé "root of 2" (because everyone knows that root of 2 per root of 2 that made 2). As it ny needs more concerning the track its this soft anamorphosis occupies all the surface which becomes close to that of negative Scope 1:2 on 4Perf.

 

What would be malignant on behalf of the manufacturers anamorphosés dobjectifs would be dadapter their flotillas by replacing the group of cylinder lens 1:2 by a group 1:1,42 easier to correct, smaller and light. In these times of mobile cinema it would be well seen! (Note that lanamorphose 1:1,42 is so soft quon can even tally without desanamorphosor).

 

Cest then a play denfant dexécuter the remainder of lanamorphose (still a blow of 1:1,42) in the numerical chain to leave a internégatif scope 1:2 compatible with all the projectors Scope 4Perf the world.

 

We had tried to promote this idea 20 years ago at Panavision, but at lépoque the "DIGITAL Intermediate" was in the limbs, it was necessary to carry out the remainder of lanamorphose by optical pulling and cétait well too complicated to especially modify the printers... in the USA preserving country sil in is.

 

Four years ago, we carried out tests at Eclair to leave dun negative Super 16 photographed with a anamorphosor 1,5 Iscorama without any particular problem. However as the scan was done with lépoque in HD 4:2:2 and the shot in 2K, the result was a little softie. It would not be any more the case while leaving dun ArriScan 4K.

 

Who wants to carry out tests with us?

(Jean-Pierre Beauviala)

 

---The last translation reminds me of PKDick's 'Galactic Pot-healer'. One of the charecter plays a game where he and other bored workers send each other multiple machine translations of book titles and quotes, then try to figure out the original.

 

So Beauviala is advocating the use of 1.4x anamorphics with 3-perf.

It seems that a 1.33x would be a better fit fot a 1.78:1 frame.

 

Also that S16 with an Iscorama is workable with a very good scan is a bit intriging.

 

---LV

[Jonathan Benny]

This is an exciting camera.

 

I'm in France for two months this summer and am going to try to see if I can somehow get a look at it.

 

I think that "giving up" the 4-perf movement is a bold choice but its not a dealbreaker for me.

 

JB

[Max Jacoby]

I'm afraid this whole talk of giving up anamorphic is just plain silly. As has been noted, there will be a 4perf movement available.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Don't know if it's only the links that changed but I found the article here (and the english version looks better than just a "machine translation") :

 

english version

 

french version

 

I like the idea of a 1.41 ratio instead if 1:2, actually. I think scope is frustrating because of optical problems, my self. That lower ratio could reduce them.

[Arni Heimir]

Do 1.42:1 optics exists? What is he talking about?