Stephen Alexander Griebel

SOLD

$3250. Serious inquiries only please.

Just wrapped on a short with this workhorse. Asking $3400 + shipping. Photos: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1J0ddoEpSZV3z24-K53eflvjJwfe7wOgv?usp=sharing -Arri B mount -Aaton mount included -Hood w/ 1 4x4 filter tray

PM sent David!

How? I'm sure a better physicist than I could prove it on paper. I'll chalk it up to the universe's will.

The actual glass broke clean in two right down the center of the ratio marks-- I lucked into an Arri HSR II and have since tossed the glass unfortunately. The XTR/plus lacks the wonderful cartridge system of your Prod, Tyler ?. The bare glass is cemented directly to an adjustable 16/S16 sliding arm.

I was adjusting the arm to square the alignment in the viewfinder when the glass became uncemented, bounced out of the lens port, and split into two halves on my floor. Would even be open to standard 16mm at this point. Thanks!

aimimage has them for 400 GBP.

Interested in your adapters. PM sent!

Yeh, I never understood how Hitchcock, who abhorred outdoor (realistic) shooting and promoted a sort of neo-German expressionism, stylization and artifice throughout his career, could make such a statement. But of course, prominent directors have a history of saying catchy things which are often contradictory to a prior maxim... I believe Maestro Fellini takes the cake on that one. I would say that some biopics and documentaries are real life with all the boring bits taken out, but not most of them, and certainly not most narrative feature films. I'm sorry but dialogue, blocking, performance, etc are most often meticulously crafted, not winged on the spot i.e., not even situational reality, be it bright or boring. At best movies are some sort of life with a bunch of interesting things added.

Allow me to blow the dust off this post-- PHHHHHHHHW. Alright, having sent the test roll out three weeks ago, it just arrived today. I was pleasantly surprised by the results. Due to the low light of the projection and the limited space of the theater room, I had to shoot wide open (1.4 on my Bauer 715 xl) and at 30-40mm focal length (about half of the Angenieux's 6-90mm range). Thus, the image isn't as crisp as possible (even for super 8) but I rather like what came out. Also, again for exposure reasons, I could not afford the stops for a daylight filter in camera, so I (easily) corrected it in post to match the source, though not for the file which is linked. Shot at 24fps Vision2 200T, pushed 2 stops. I cropped the projected footage by zooming in a bit tighter to make a better image-- it was a compromise that I'm glad I made. RED.mpg SUPER8.mpg As you can see, this is not the patronizing scratch, grain and flicker that Robert Rodriguez fed his eager fans in Planet Terror with a flip of the switch in Avid. My reasons are for the feel of film, not exactly grain, scratches or weave, but for the softening which the medium provides and how it used to interpret light. I know its all the same film nowadayz, but I believe the smaller gauge stocks (super8, 16) capture light the way 35mm used to, though one must deal with the inevitable grain. The original projection is a slew of clips available on the many Red footage forums. The only footage I really liked was shot by nordeffects (the juggler stuff) but I guess I'm just a sucker for natural light, low contrast and a nice wide-angle lens. If the links provided are too much of a bother, try these (my computer will be on to seed most of the day): http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4522544/S...544.TPB.torrent http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/4522539/R...539.TPB.torrent

deep breath...and release... Well, I do thank you for your initial discretion, Rory, but "traditional" is highly subjective and I'd say that what I'm trying to do is get back to "tradition" which was neither ultra-clear nor realistic, though due to technical limitations of the times. I disagree. I have only seen theories which expose your own ideologies of clarity as a precondition to our medium. Kubrick didn't like modern stocks because they were too close to reality, and not just because Eyes Wide Shut was based on Traumnovelle, so he pushed it to its extremes. Renoir discussed with Rivette this very problem of how film stocks were getting faster and clearer IN THE 60s, and the problems that come with clarity. Oils will burn in theaters for smells (Japanese are currently doing this last I heard) and you will be immersed in a world indistinguishable from you own, and you may chose to experience the rustling of wind through evergreen leaves in a dark theater and not in the woods beyond it. Granted, Rivette and Renoir immediately agreed that you should not fight this evolution, and that you must not. However, I think had they known how close Kodak and Cinealta have come to reality, they may have changed their minds. I love clarity for national geographic and things which are dangerous or impossible to see with your own eyes. However, movies are not real. They are an escape. If you want reality go stand on the street corner-- I believe that was said by old Hitch himself. And I have not once written that film is useless, just absurd and tedious. This has been voiced by many top filmmakers over the years, including Coppola. For now it is essential. This much is obvious. Finally, I would not do the boardmembers here, nor myself, the disgrace of posting these overhyped results on youtube. Clips will be hi-res, I assure you.

The way I see it (and Dave Mullen has mentioned this in response to another thread on projection) HD and the digital medium in general feels more lifelike than film, which is a bit ironic, as film has "character" in every single one of its flickers, scratches, weaves, and golf-ball sized pieces of grain, not to mention the fact that it is made from wood cellulose and cotton, as opposed to digital, which is pure raw data. Somehow, even in panning, etc it portrays life "truer"-- perhaps partially due to its economy and efficiency, thus its prevalence in reality TV, news (certainly true, at least with video), etc. Anywho, digital's ability to capture life could serve as a rolling snapshot, and recorded on film that would otherwise be recording the same thing, only in reality. The thing is, I don't know, and the only person on this forum who apparently does, Saul Rodgar, said the result was something neither film nor digital. Wow, neither: to me that sounds worth experimenting upon. To be honest, I thought there would be a little more support or at least curiosity, but oh well, enough squawking from me. I ordered a roll of Ektachrome 64t and some vision 200 with my "student" discount at Kodak, so I hope to have everything developed and posted in a couple weeks. I would prefer 16mm but I don't have the arri of my dreams quite yet, so this will have to do (only no crystal-synch...) Will let you guys know as soon as I do.

Thanks Saul and Marcel for the only constructive responses in this thread. • Film: waste of time & money… Uh, check. -- Cost of film, time spent loading (paying assistant to do it if you're too busy), lab fees, waiting for dailys, not being able to see your results immediately for review... Uh, yeh, check I guess. And inefficient to boot, lack of low-light sensitivity and bulky equipment. It's tough to shoot and go, get long takes without expensive, bulky magazines. I don't know what you're arguing. • HD: waste of time and money… Um, OK, check. -- I don't like the look. Others are with me. Of all my criticism of film, I prefer the look and that's a clincher for me. Even a good story can be uninteresting if the format is also-- movies are primarily visual and aesthetic, otherwise go read a book. Check again. • Mini-DV: Good origination format! *cough* Check. --I don't know what you're saying here at all really. I merely mentioned how Lynch's use of the digital medium, in this case mini-DV, was more INTERESTING than any other digital film I've seen. Once you get into $100K+ HD cameras-- Vipers and Cinealtas, you might as well be looking at 35mm (but then again, they don't for reasons above-- see the first "Check"). I don't even want to dignify that with a *cough* check. It's beginning to sound (and feel) like a physical in here. • Downgrading 4k to Super8: worth trying… Hrrm, check? -- It won't be anywhere near 4K as I can only find 2K and will be burning to a standard DVD. Super 8 is interesting to look at, I'm sorry you don't agree. Is it worth trying? I believe so-- thank bog in his Heaven that not everyone in this world shares Rory's puritanical views on experimentation. I asked the community here for empirical expertise, not opinions of close-minded people. Your results sound interesting Saul, I'll let you know what happens with mine. Anyway, off to see High Noon in 35mm.

Yeh, I've seen a lot of cheap DIY telecine jobs where people project super 8 or 16mm and record the screen digitally and it looks like film, so it makes since that it would be the same the other way around. However, I would say that the current technique of xferring HD to film is done in a way to maintain the precision of the original (as well as the aforementioned lack of digital projection nationwide) not for artistic reasons. I am less concerned with such "sophisticated" ways of further blending film and digital (until they are one indistinguishable hyper-reality) than I am with observing how contrasty reversals and 16mm might see the same digital scene through various focal lengths and speeds. I'd say it's a waste of time and money to shoot a great script in such an uninteresting format as HD. If you're gonna go digital, you need look no further than Inland Empire, which was, of course, much more "filmic" when I saw it projected on 35mm than on projected DVD. However, its aesthetic appeal is due to both Lynch's unique genius and the fact that he chose to shoot it on mini-DV, its pixels roughly equivalent to grain, but mainly the lower quality, which is why many out there prefer super 8 and 16mm. Scott, I'd also say it's a waste of time and money to shoot an entire feature on film. Many filmmakers have found it absurd that you must run film through a camera to record what you see. Well, now you don't, only there's something about it which don't quite sit right, at least with this guy. Anyway, I know someone with a theater room, so I might project a DVD of Red footage and film it in super 8 just to see. Will post results when I get them.

Sorry for posting in the General Discussion area, but I'd like to get input from all film AND digital guys (and gals) as well as yall in lighting, special effects, etc... I prefer the look of film but the ease and economy of shooting digital. Has anyone tried to do both, shooting, editing, projecting digitally, then filming that with a crystal-synched 16mm or 35mm camera? It would be shot on something comparable to the big Red One (I have seen footage and find it too video for my taste) so it would be very high quality footage to start with. How would it compare to a "naturally" filmed version of the same scene (what quality)? Would it perhaps produce something entirely different and unexpected? I don't have access to this equipment right now, so I thought I might ask if anyone out there does, might be worth the experiment. I've been writing my current project for the past three years and am getting to the fun part-- financing-- so I need to decide (for the budget) whether to go film or, if this test works as I hope, go this other route. Another question would be whether it is possible to accomplish a flicker-free recording for the length of the "film" (digital hybrid I guess is more on the mark). Synching with a film projector has certainly been done, and I'm sure digital projectors run at a perfect 24fps, but hey, I'm only assuming. Just think-- no more wasted film, you buy what you need. You've got the night-time sensitivity of HD digital cameras. I'm not sure if you can tweak the projector to shine brighter (thus allowing different speed film stocks) or if it would be bright enough from the start where you could use a slower film (less than 500) for a bit of grain-reprieve (I don't like grain overkill). I've had this idea for a while and haven't been able to find any attempts from others, but I thought I'd ask you guys. Cheers!

Ahhh..."comet-tailing"... I did an exhausted search for "tail", which as always, left me disappointed. I guess you just have to keep at it :unsure:

As ugly as just about everything of early-mid 80s video was, the light tails (especially on hot lights) is something strangely attractive. Does anyone know if its possible to reproduce this on film-- it may be something akin to a slower shutter, the equivalent of streaks but if so, that's not what I'm looking for. It seems like something inherent in the format and it was "corrected" to give video a sharper look but I was wondering if anyone knows the technical reason behind it-- tape stock, processor, lens? It was done on Boogie Nights-- I'd have to go back and watch the commentary again (I think PTA talks about it) but it loooks like someone stole my copy. Hmmm.... Anyway, I'm pretty sure he just went out and got his hands on vintage tapes and cameras though. Lastly, what about post? Again, it seems like something that must be done in (or in front of) the camera but hey, they're doing wonders recreating each and every fault inherent in each and every medium, so why not nasty video?

It's Monday and still no drive. I called and got a UPS tracking number just to see when to be at my house. Well, I found out why I haven't received it yet-- it's in South Carolina for some ungodly reason (I'm in Virginia). I'm sorry, guys-- I understand that others have had worse experience-- like processing troubles, but I think the situation now qualifies as "awful", if not before this latest debacle. And just because my film wasn't botched by the lab doesn't change the fact that it'll now take a miracle to make those two festivals-- AFI because-- well, it's AFI and I really believe in my project, and Austin because I'm moving to the city late September, so I'll be there for the festival. I know there are thousands of other festivals but traveling and promoting aren't cheap and that is no argument for me to look past Cinelab's unbelievable ineptness. I know that editing in a few days would be cutting it close, but I've done it before (three straight days sans sleep-- gracias Escobar) on a picture with special effects and a longer running time. That's all thanks to Vegas, which is lightning fast compared to any NLE in a pinch. Well, how's one day sound, Vegas? You know, I still think we can do it... Nick, I'm not sure what happened with MacDrive, but it simply would not recognize the external drive which was supplied by Cinelab. Apparently it had both Mac and PC partitions to further complicate matters. They could have easily partitioned the drive in FAT which both Mac and PC read but all their computers are Macs which won't write to FAT.

I should have known something was up earlier this year when I had a test roll of 7265 plus-x on my new Bauer 715xl processed and telecinied. They included not a full data file (as requested) but a standard-play DVD, with a 30mb filesize. Needless to say, I wanted to see how good their setup was (and one would think they would want the same if I were to stick with them) but hey it wasn't the end of the world. Well, it turned out my external lightmeter wasn't functioning properly so everything was underexposed. I got a new meter and about a month ago shot another test roll and got that out Priority. They say they received it on the 3rd of June and when a week passed without word I called them-- "it should be out soon". OK. By that time I was struck by something simple and easy to shoot (both essential as I'm trying to make the short deadline at AFI and Austin Film Fest) that just might work. I was running out of time and could not wait any longer for my test roll. Within three days I had shot 8 cartridges and immediately sent them out Priority, and they were received in two days. Well, that was over three weeks ago. I have been told time and time again that the stuff was processed and that it was going out "this afternoon". And I asked about my test roll-- they're just going to include it on the hard drive transfer-- thanks guys, a lot of good that does me! Well, the external HD finally arrived two days ago and guess what-- Windows wouldn't recognize it. I immediately called them, requesting their computer guy-- "Oooh, he just stepped out". I leave my info and he's supposed to call me back. Well, an hour later (and an hour before their closing time) I call back and WOW, someone's there to assist me-- I'm glad I called. Anyway, turns out they sent a MAC PARTITIONED DRIVE (yes I downloaded MacDrive to no avail). I could not believe it, seeing how I specified that I had a PC both on the order form and in the many talks to their staff, but how they would not even call to check whether you've got a pc or mac is beyond me. So, I race over to the nearest UPS store that hasn't had a pick up yet (in the next county) and overnight the drive back to Cinelab (they were kind enough to pay for postage I should add) and was assured that they would have the drive to me by today, Saturday. I even left them a message yesterday (during business hours) making sure that they overnight with Saturday delivery or else it will not arrive until Monday. Well, as Saturday is coming to a close, it looks like they didn't care to do that, and I have lost another two precious days (four total) due to their incompetence. One would think that a company dealing with filmmakers would understand deadlines or at least be sympathetic towards those who have struggled getting stuff ON celluloid and payed them well to get it OFF. On a side note, they charged my mother's card for both the test roll and the transfer, even though I requested that my father be billed for the transfer but that is the least of our worries right now. Well, I've got three days to sift through the footage, and grind out a film, scored and titled...assuming I get the drive on Monday. As for the transfer, I'll let you know when I do and post grabs-- they better be spectacular (assuming what they developed is OK :] ) I know these guys are cheap, but I would pay double what I did to have that time back. Just thought I'd let those out there shopping for transfer houses know.

Hey guys. Just got a 715 and compendium from germany real cheap. The compendium is called an ewa-SK8 and it says it supports Bauer, but the 715's lens is super-long when focused to macro, and I don't know how to fit it exactly. There's a nizo on the box and in the manual (which is in German) but no diagram for the 715. I've spent about two days now trying to figure out various ways to attach it, but there's little to no support with all the "arms" which I have to bracket together across the long length of the body (Bauer geniously placed the screw thread on the far back of the bottom too). Anyone attached one of these guys before? Also, just as a general ?, do you set the matte in front of the lens when it's at its longest? It's kind of a pain to bring the allen wrench and adjust the thing for every setup. The matte seems to be visible up until about 17m, then it doesnt' show in frame. Here's a link to my kit: http://www.super8camera-shop.com/shop/images/big/ewa.jpg They've got great prices here, highly recommended. Just have to wait a couple weeks for shipping.

forgot to mention that I'm using an external meter (the internal compensates I assume).

I keep on reading how to compensate for super 8mm reflex viewfinders' light loss and am wondering if by simply closing the eyelid on the viewfinder you can save the 1/3 stop lost by it (that's the number I have found on these forums). If so, as long as your eye is pressed firmly, wouldn't that stop the loss as well-- I know that's the way it was with my reflex 35mm Konvas but I'm not sure if the split-image viewfinder has this affect or not.

I've got about 3500 ft. of 5222 B&W stock and 400 ft. of 5277 Color that I'd like to get rid of. The ends range from 200- 400ft and have been refrigerated since I received them a few months ago from LA. If anyone's interested, make me an offer-- thought I'd go straight to you just because I'm not sure about getting middled by selling it back to a distributor. But then again, I dunno, that's why I'm asking yall... I'm selling all my 35mm equipment and stock so I can move to 16mm for more flexibility. Thanks!

Hi guys. Got an upcoming shoot on 5222 and I have a scene which involves someone walking down a long stretch of red carpet, bulbs flashing on both sides of him. It's a long backwards track as he walks toward the camera. I can't really afford all the extras so I'm doing it ultra-stylized by blacking everything out and just having bulbs flash. Couple questions: 1 Which bulbs are good for this sort of thing? If they're terribly expensive or hard to find: 2 Could I just shoot a few ones by themselves and add them in post? For the culmination as the character reaches the end of the carpet, I'd like to find one of those old 50s era standalone flashes with the circular fixture for a montage CU-- any idea on how to expose these guys? I'm pushing two stops. Thanks as always.