Mike Panczenko

Hey, - no, to change the mag from meters to feet it is SUPPOSED to happen by pressing in both dimples on the back simultaneously. What happens often though, is the electronics will freak out, and switch from meters to feet, or vice versa, on their own, or not be able to be set back. Often, also, the battery that keeps the counter alive when the mag is not on the camera will die, and you can't reset it unless it is powered off the camera. The electronic counter on the mag is a weak point in that system. If it does suddenly change from meters to feet, or vice versa, it is often a contact mating problem, and if you reseat the mag on the body, it will often fix the problem.

Nothing different doing a test with the LT than any other modern camera. Two things to watch out for- if you do a timing test where you mark the film with a sharpie and inch the camera to check the shutter timing, be aware that on the Arricams, you cannot inch it like you would an older camera. The movement and the shutter are electronically synced, so what you need to do, is set the camera to its slowest frame rate, and run it while looking in the lens port. Inching it won't give an accurate representation. Also, check to make sure the mags are in your desired meters or feet. They will be off, and the mag counters are a constant issue of either dying, or freaking out going to the one you don't want. It feeds the counter on the body, so that is something to check, as well. Make sure you know how to convert to the different modes- handheld vs. steadicam vs. studio. It's all allen key based, so make sure you know how to do this. Make sure it has current software- older software on the Arricams can lead to jams. Nothing too different from any other modern camera- just a few things to be aware of. Hope this helps!

Wanted to give kudos for the very entertaining ICG interview, Eric!

In 35/16mm you would measure from the focal plane. In B4 style ENG video mounts- but not all the cine style mounts!!!- you would measure from the front element, or the green marking on the lens barrel.

No, it's not really the loader's job to do that. I was just saying that on short term without a dedicated loader- where the 2nd also loads, they would be expected to do the same thing, at least making mental notes of millimeter, etc. But then they are really a 2nd. Don't get me started on how many times the UPM will hire people and say, "We have a 1st and a loader, no 2nd..." It's a total misunderstanding of the camera dept.

On a feature/episodic it is the 2nd ACs job to log the lens distance, size, height, stop, filtration,etc, so that when doing coverage or pickups- even months after the shoot is over, it can be recreated and/or matched. The log books are very important, especially on VFX heavy films. 9 shots out of 10 won't need to be matched, but when you get that one that does, it is very important to have the info written down. On a job where the loader is also the 2nd- commercial and music video world- he would be expected to pick up the slack. But... on the same token, on a commercial/music video you would not usually keep a log book. It is only for long term projects usually. On a camera report, I will usually write the stop, focal length, filtration, and any unusual settings- off speed or non 180 shutter. Everything else that must be recorded I'll put in the log book. I wouldn't put specific sections for lens distance/size/height on a report. Just a general "info" section.

"Use the loop guards! the pressure plate is ON THE MAG! also blow out the camera like crazy with every change, and instruct your loader to treat every mag like its the camera gate." // James, in regards to your suggestion to blow out the camera like crazy every change, do you find the camera runs dustier/dirtier than other cameras?

I think the majority of the movie was Genesis, with some FX on RED.

The platter on the take-up side is very small, and it's edges, unlike the rounded-off plastic of most other Arris or Panavision, is a sharp metal. Make sure to wind several turns on the take-up side after loading to make sure it is taking up evenly, because if it is dishing at all, it can be extremely dusty, from the edges of the platter scraping off bits of emulsion. Check the seal with the lids too, on the mags. They are not permanently hinged like SRs or Aatons, they are designed like Arri II/III lids, with the locating pins that you need to insert, and then flip down. I would tape around the seams, like you do with Arri II/III mags, just for safety. The lids have a surprising amount of play in them when force is exerted on them- not a bad idea to tape the seams, or just wrap it with a piece of tape.

I did a job a few years ago with Primos where the 1st made sure all of our lenses had the net rings on the back- they need to be RF (rear filter) lenses. I don't remember if it needed the rings themselves, or just the RF capability, but it limited the beam of light coming out of the rear element, and it cut down on flares when shooting Super 35, by preventing light from bouncing around. Finding a way to duplicate this in PL might help solve the problem?

If I'm understanding correctly, I think you are asking if you wind the takeup extremely tightly, so that it is extremely highly tensioned, why is it scratching? You are not supposed to wind with so much tension- in theory it can cause cinch marks or other scratching from rubbing against itself, but I also have not ever seen scratching that could be linked to overly tensioning the takeup. What stock are you shooting with? I have had worse scratching issues with certain stocks than with others. Are you shooting in the cold? Certain circumstances can cause technical issues to exist in areas where there wouldn't normally be.

Soft side always on the camera body itself and/or AKS that "become" part of the working camera- mattebox/siders/eyebrow/(mags if you decide to mount something on them such as a transmitter for steadicam.) Everything else that would be attached- transmitter, cine/Panatape readout/board for focus marks/filter tabs- they would all be hard velcro. The reasoning I have been told (but I question the necessity) is that the hard velcro, being scratchy and stiff, is better off not touching the camera, for fear of scratching the paint job. The more important reason is that it's industry standard and if you stick with the convention, you will never run into problems.

I wasn't talking about myself Karl- I'm wondering about SE distributors, in particular. One SE place I get film from prints the RGB levels on the can tape itself. But others do not, so I will often send those rolls in for clip testing anyways- I rarely act as a DP, so the amount of film I actually shoot when I do get the chance is low enough to be able to afford the scattered clip test. Considering though that different emulsions have different base fog densities, I was curious how thorough an inspection the labs will do on the film. For example, if film was bought from a SE reseller that came from a student film- I would necessarily trust that the can would match the actual film. So when they do the clip test, if they did not actually inspect the emulsion to ensure it matches the can, they could be providing an inaccurate Dmin to compare to. Also, physical damage such as pressure marks can be there, but not in image area. Basically, problems can be there beyond basic age fog. So how in depth do they get when they clip test? Are they checking the edgecode to make sure it matches the can, then comparing it to the Dmin values they have for that particular stock? Are they doing an eye inspection to, or is it just thrown onto the densitometer and given no in depth visual inspection, to ensure no physical damage or abberations outside of picture area? That's more what I'm getting at.

I have sent film in for clip testing numerous times but wonder, beyond checking dmin what do they do? Do they check for physical damage, xrays, check to make sure emulsion matches the can (to make sure misidentifaction is not the issue?), do they check age and mfg. date, or is it just a yes/no? Which is what I've gotten usually. What is standard lab opertating procedure ? Also is it the same as a sensiotomic test?

Thank you all for the time you took to answer my questions- this is why I love this forum!

Also, would the drying cabinet settings ever need to be varied for normal processing, even slightly, for whatever reason (including different stocks), or is that only when you are pushing or pulling? Will all stocks be dry before exiting the cabinet in normal processing, or do you need to finesse the settings even in normal processing? I think a tour of my local lab is in order. Thank you all for shedding light on this shadowy area for me!

Now as far as drying goes, if a stock is not dry when it should be, due to whatever factor- liquid retention, structural damage, etc, is the lab aware and can they continue to dry it until it is fully dry, or will they take the neg out of the drying racks, and end up with a soaking wet neg that is subject to warping and distortion? Basically, would they be aware it is still wet and be able to give it extra time and TLC to remedy that, or will it be screwed once it's out of the drying racks? I really appreciate all the insight into lab procedures. I've been an assistant for 6 years, and when it comes down to it, there is almost nothing I know about true lab procedures. Of course we all know the basics and the theory, but just as a lab tech wouldn't necessarily know how to lace up a Panaflex, what happens once the film actually goes into the bath is such a mystery! I am loving learning about this. Also, can anyone recommend any good books on lab procedural techniques that would cover other similar areas in depth?

Would the drying ever be a problem in normal processing or is it only in special processing where the time is shortened? Would you trust the results of my clip test considering it was misidentifed and only discovered to be 29 after processing?

Hey guys, thanks for all the responses. I posted this on CML as well, and everyone really pitched in. I appreciate it. I am going to ask the same followup here that I did on CML, please forgive me for copying and pasting! As an assistant, you never really get to see or understand lab procedures in depth. It's a bit of black magic in terms of the specifics of labs. The reason I asked is I recently acquired some shortends of what I thought was '19 off of eBay, and I had them clip tested. It turns out they were actually '29- revealed after the test. Reading that quote about different threading paths for different stocks concerned me that 19 would be developed differently than 29. Am I correct in reading your responses that all ECN2 stocks are processed for the same amount of time in the same loop in the same bath? It seems one could write on the cans, reports, and PO any arbitrary stock number as long as they exposed correctly up front; ie sending in a roll of 5205 exposed properly at 250asa, but in paperwork calling it 5201, and still getting the exact same neg as if you had identified it correctly as 05. Am I correct in thinking this? Does the same apply in b&w or does target gamma throw that processing uniformity out the window? Thanks!

Here is the direct quote: "Machine speed is checked by carefully measuring the time it takes for a given length of film to pass a specific point. Knowing it is possible to use an incorrect processing time when a machine uses different thread-ups for different film stocks, the careful laboratory checks the solution times every time there is a threading change." My question is: why different threading paths for different film stocks? Thanks!

I was reading a manual on lab procedures on the Kodak website, and it mentioned that to ensure the proper run-time in the developer, to ensure that the processing time is the same "when a machine uses different thread ups for different film stocks." Why would different film stocks require different threading paths in the machine? Aren't all ECN-2 stocks standardized to the same times, developers, fixers, etc? What would the purpose be to having dedicated threading paths for particular stocks?

The XL has a different threading path than the regular Millenium. It has two sprocket rollers as opposed to the one big one, and is really the only majorly different Panavision to thread. The Panastar has a few extra rollers, but still has pretty much the same movement.

Both have their pros and cons. Arri cameras use the PL mount (except for those Panavised ones...), which is rock solid. Some of their cameras, such as the 435, are incredibly versatile, in terms of speed capabilities, shutter timing- even motion control capabilities. They can be changed over into a variety of configurations, but mostly use Allen wrenches to do this. They also mostly use different mags for different cameras, at least to a point (a few exceptions being that Arri 2/3 style mags can work on Arri 3, 435, 235, Arri 2 A/B/C, etc; Arricam ST mags can work on Arricam LT, with an adapter). They load for the most part in the 9P style, or have a coaxial design that is used in the BL, 535, and SR mags. And, in terms of mags pre-535, they have a fixed loop length. Panavision cameras use the PV mount, which, while still a great mount, can sometimes go out in extreme conditions, and should be checked regularly on a feature. When it comes to high speed capabilities, there is the Panastar, but most jobs will rent a Panavised 435 instead of using the Panastar, because, while great for it's time, it is not as user friendly, or as technically capable as a 435. Panavision cameras, too, are very configurable, but instead of using Allens to do the work, mostly rely on locks that ratchet components, saving time on tools. They can take behind the lens filters, which save the operator from staring through heavy ND in bright daylight, which can be a plus. The vast majority of their mags are interchangeable, with very few exceptions (Regular Panavision mags won't work on a Panastar, but Panastar mags will work on most other cameras. Also, if I am remembering correctly, Gold mags won't work on the Millenium), which can make the loader's job much simpler, especially on jobs with multiple stocks/cameras. They also load in the 99 style. Panavision mags don't have sprockets in the throat, just rollers, with the loop size being set when threading. The movement designs are also completely different, but that can become a very involved explanation. This is just a very, very brief comparison, but it highlights the fact that, aside from a few differences in design, they are both very capable modern camera designs, and what really matters is the what lenses and stock you shoot with. The camera is a box that can make the job easier to shoot, but unless you are doing VFX plates, the registration between a GII and a 435 will not make much of a difference. The choice of glass available in PL versus PV mount is a major factor in which camera system one would pick, but, also, the relationship with the rental house is not to be underestimated, in terms of choice. Many DPs are loyal to a house or company, and that ease of mind is invaluable when going into a job. Hope this helps!

The 235 is not your camera for this one. It is an MOS camera and makes a racket when filming. You won't be able to record dialogue with it. I have been on shoots where they recorded sound with it, but it was outside in big locales far from the actors. If you are going to shoot 35, your best bet would be to find an old BL3 or something similar, which, since you are shooting 2 perf, will make it very, very hard to find a camera. Modern prime sets are probably going to run too expensive, so you could stick to a limited selection of 1 or 2 fast, older primes, for when you need the stop, and stick to an older zoom or two for most everything else. Your lens selection will be extremely limited, and not comparable with modern optics. Many rental houses will not supply you with what you need, for the price you want, unless you shoot the movie in a week or two, get them to cut a deal, and go with an absolute bare-bones package. As much as I think this is the wrong wey to go, you may be forced to go with privately owned gear, which is often sub-par, at least as far as camera bodies go. This shoot can be done, but there is no wiggle room whatsoever, and it will look low budget- not a bad thing, because that is what it is. Older lenses and a limited lighting package on 2-perf stock is becoming more common with indie films, but, know going in, it will not look like Titanic or Spiderman. If I were you, I would shoot Super 16 for similar cost, get modern cameras, with some decent S16 lenses- 7mm-63mm, and the 11.5-138 (pretty standard zooms for S16) and throw in a few extra lights. Transfer at a well known facility, and you will be getting something pretty much the same, if not better, for your money.