Bruce Taylor

Regular 16 is nice. You can get an excellent R16 camera with good lenses dirt cheap and make wonderful pictures with it. Or buy a camera that is native S16 or already a converted R16 with the proper lenses. Fewer headaches are best, then you can concentrate on making your movie! Best, Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

I don't want to sound snarky, but do you have any assets? If you have none, then you might want to "go naked," and if you get sued you can declare bankruptcy and be done with it. But seriously, if you own anything and/or you want to be a responsible person, you should be insured! You're paying people to work for you, so you should do the right thing. Production insurance is not expensive compared to what can happen and the liability exposure you could be in for. I am not an insurance agent or expert, but I can give you my opinion: 1) If you rent a house, you are responsible for any damage. Yes, the owner probably has insurance, but you are the responsible party. If the owner makes a claim to his insurance company they may pay the owner but then they are going to sue you as the person responsible. Also, homeowners insurance can have deductables as high as 10% of the value house. That's a big number. You don't need to list everyone on the liability insurance. When you rent a house there is usually a clause in the rental contract that states that the house will be used a dwelling. If you have different intentions you should inform the owner. 2) I wouldn't suggest paying people "out of pocket." I would think you can use them as an independent contractor and give them a 1099, but you should check with someone that knows IRS regs on that. Stay out of a tax mess. 3) If they are an independent contractor, and your description seems accurate, they are responsible for their own insurance and taxes. Give 'em a 1099 if you're concerned about it and you should be off the hook. I would suggest you do a search for the current regs on the definition of an independent contractor-- it's pretty straightforward. If you're working with a group of people on a rented property and poeple are getting paid, you really should cover your butt, and theirs, by buying a short term policy. I have been very happy working with Katherine Wong at Heffernan Insurance, (213) 236-0511, https://www.buymyinsurancenow.com . They specialize in small productions and she should be able to answer all your questions accurately and in detail. Good luck, it isn't really that hard to get all your ducks in a row and sleep well at night! Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Hmmm. Paul, what are you keeping an eye out for, an XR35 with a full set of superspeed CP primes? I have to admit, if I had the cash one of those or a full-on BNCR kit would be fun to have in the garage. Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

Enough about the dreaded Konvas mags! They aren't that hard, you just need to get used to them, and it really doesn't take that long. I suffered the same anxiety until I actually started loading them. Once you get the habit down, it's really a no brainer. Steve posted the same links I used. Just give yourself plenty of time to practice before the shoot and you'll be fine. When you're practicing, be sure to mount it and run it on the camera before you give yourself a pat on the back, it is not difficult to have it "look" right but be threaded backwards on the lower sprocket, I did that any number of times until I got it down. Like Steve said, inch the movement to have the claw protruding slightly before you mount the mag, then inch it forward to be sure you have it engaged with the film. Also, I was having a problem with jitter at the beginning of a mag and someone told me to run a few moments at 8fps before going to full speed. That made the jitters go away. I rent my Konvas out and I have shown a lot of people how to load the mags, they all "get it" and produce great looking footage. Good luck, Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Well, I agree, it's a terrific lens. Everyone that has rented it has been very pleased, even tk people have been impressed with the anamorphic. The rear anamorphic attachment works great. Simple, effective, and you end up with a 40-240 zoom, so it's still pretty wide on the wide end. T3.4 is what you end up with using the adapter if memory serves. Very inexpensive compared to using primes, great macro features too, though you can't use it in anamorphic mode. You can use rear mounted gel filters too, which keeps costs down, 'cuz otherwise you're looking at 6x6s on the front. It does have funny zoom and focus gears though. I have used the Zacuto clamp on gears that work well, or even better are the delrin gears Steve Morton is making for $100 a piece. They interference fit right over the original gears. One word of warning. The zoom movement requires very little effort to move it. Many of these lenses have been destroyed when shipped and the internal zoom elements slam into the front stationary elements. Be sure to put a piece of tape on the zoom barrel in the middle range of movement when it is shipped. Enjoy! Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

I couldn't just let this slide by. Konvi are not particular concerning the sprocket holes, as they do not have a registration pin like many MOS cameras of the day (Eclair, Arri). So Kodak or B&H perfed film works fine. I don't know what you might mean by, "I gave up repairing it." Did you have a camera repair technician look at it or was it a DIY affair? Like any similar low production, hand fitted, precision piece of machinery they need regular professional care. Something as simple as a misadjusted or improperly threaded magazine will easily cause jams. (The only time I have had my Konvas jam was when I made the errors in mag loading) As to the original post, 35mm motion picture cameras and anamorphic optics are not inexpensive, no matter how old, that plus you're over $100 an hour for a tech to keep it maintained properly. Seriously, an old Konvas with a set of decent anamorphics is way over 10k, and there isn't anything cheaper than that! The 16mm Arri S, BL, Bolex route would be much more reasonable. They make great images at very low cost. Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Bruening! Here I am trying to be fair and balanced and you come up with this one-sided, unsupported recommendation! You are, of course, correct as well. 2 perf would surely look beautiful while potentially being more economical than S or U16. Bruce

The focus and zoom rings spin very freely on these lenses. Which brings me to a very important point of you are not already aware: secure the zoom ring when transporting the lens! Many of these lenses have been rendered useless when the moving elements inside the lens slam into the front elements, shattering them. I always put a piece of tape in the middle of the range to keep it from moving. The macro function is works well, almost up to the front element. Gel filters at the rear of the lens work nicely in the holder. I haven't found any glass ones that fit, so rear ffd issues are moot! Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Bruce Taylor at Indie 35 rents his Russian 2-perf 35 mm for a very reasonable amount Thanks for the plug, Saul. the website is www.Indi35.com, BTW. I think it would only make sense to buy a camera if you were going to shoot it over a long period of time with the intention of selling it when you were done. That could be economical. There are some amazing deals out there these days on very nice modern Arri and Aaton S16 cameras. Otherwise hiring a DP with his own kit seems sensible. I think 2 perf 35mm is great (obviously!), especially if your project calls for a 2.4:1 aspect ratio image. However, sync sound 35mm gear is heavy, requires a lot of cases and is not easy to move around like 16mm is. If location sound is not important, Arri IIC or Konvas 35mm cameras are very portable, cheap to buy or rent (though 2 perf conversions are expensive). Alternatively- depending on the project- you could get really creative. There's no reason you couldn't shoot MOS S16 or U16 with a Bolex (for portablility), sound with a S16mm Aaton (for economy) and the big landscapes in 4 perf anamorphic (or 2 perf flat) 35mm. You have a lot of possibilities. Good luck, Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Regarding camera choice I'd run some film through each one, shoot test charts and check the noise levels and registration. With any older machinery the outward appearance is not always a good indication of what's going on inside. The most beat up looking one may work the best. Test. If you're shooting outside noise shouldn't be an issue with any of these cameras unless there is something wrong. I don't think the stock choice should be too complicated. Chose a film that's going to be appropriate for shooting exteriors in LA. The slow daylight stocks or a slow tungsten stock corrected for daylight would probably be best. But again, why not get a small amount of each stock you're considering and shoot some tests at your location? Then you'll get all the information you need. If you have enough money on this project to go out and rent cameras you certainly have enough for a few 100' rolls of film to test with. One other thing that should be obvious: as long as you get the exposure pretty close and can frame well, the quality of the story and acting are going to be what make the film watchable, not whether you are using Vision 2 or 3. I've been shooting Vision 1 stocks lately because they were so cheap (short ends), and the footage looked great. Good luck and remember to have fun, Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Do you want to mimic classical painters? There are lots of big heavy art books to browse. You should look through them. I do love the landscapes particularly. I admire the looks many cinematographers have created while applying that "painterly" look to their work. But I often don't find it that interesting, to my taste anyway (Barry Lyndon excepted). I would like to suggest you look at everything. Why limit yourself to figurative painting? Look at sculpture, nonfigurative/abstract painting and drawing, 3 dimensional work. Conceptual work from the 60's onward, sound, music, architecture. Suck it all in. Use it all. Please, be an artist. Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Yes, pretty much what Steve said. You can shoot full 4 perf 35mm 'scope with a turret Konvas for very little money-- shoot $0.05 a foot short ends and it is crazy cheap and true anamorphic. 2 perf 35mm has the aspect ratio you love, but won't have the artifacts (oblong bokeh, short dof, interesting flares) and hassles (slow, cumbersome lenses) that anamorphics will. 2 perf 2.4:1 will however have a hell of a lot more film real estate than any 16mm format, and have something more like the shorter depth of field you'll see in 3 or 4 perf 35mm. Uses 1/2 the film too. The cost of 2 perf conversion is around $6000 plus the camera and lenses. Not a small financial commitment. If you're more interested in experimenting than a working production package, you can have a lot of fun experimenting with 16mm or S8 cameras and optical attachments. I see a lot of wild set ups on this board that look interesting and very cheap to make. Shoot reversal film and direct project the camera original-- cheap and fun. Alternatively you can rent any of what you probably want. I share your fascination with 'scope aspect ratios and have Russian cameras in 35mm 4 perf anamorphic and 2 perf configurations available. A complete Konvas anamorphic (35,50,75mm primes or 40-200 zoom) camera package is $355 a day. Good luck and have fun! Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

That seems to be true most of the time. I have a few Konvas lenses that have gears and what looks like an Arri pitch rather than the Kinor pitch-- and then there's the 20-120 Lomo zoom with beveled gears that don't fit any standard follow focus. There a number of other Konvas lenses that don't have the "scallops". Any of the non geared OCT19 lenses can be rigged for standard gears pretty easily. Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

I have heard from some, and noted myself, that the 1014xls is much more quiet than the 814xls. If you will be recording sound that may be something to consider. I bought my 1014 new in about 1980. I just pulled some old reels out a few weeks ago and projected them, my goodness they look terrific. Crisp and steady. There's not much that beats projected reversal camera original! Enjoy, Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Hi Olex, I think there are several OST-19 lens mounts for the RED. I personally bought one from Long Valley Equipment. It requires removal of the RED mount which is replaced with the Long Valley mount. The OST-19 mount is well made and works like a champ. The anamorphic Lomos mount nicely. Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Phil, I've heard of these frankenmacs. I need to get an editing system. I want to be able to edit HD and output it to good lookng DVDs. I'd like to be able to generate EDLs for negative cutting, 2 perf and 4 perf 35mm. I don't want to spend a lot of money. I don't want to learn more than one editing program, and all the younger people I talk to are using FCP. Is there any reason not to use the frankenmac with FCP? Thanks, Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Bruening, you're up to something. Can't tell what, but something's stirring in that noodle of yours. You haven't gone out and purchased a Konvas, have you? Or are you dreaming up some film-out device that uses a Konvas mag? Unfortunately, I have no idea what goes on under the thin black covers on the mags-- when they don't work I send 'em out. If you want to get a look inside one, let me know and I'll send you one. Bruce

Yep, Bernie's your man. It's even the name of his business! If you don't know him, he is an ex-factory Eclair tech, so he knows them like nobody's business. His price will be a small fraction of your previous quote. I can only guess that your Vancouver tech did not want the job and quoted big instead of just saying no. Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

All the Kinor lenses (AFAIK) will work on the the OCT19 mount Konvas. Many Konvas lenses will work on the Kinor, but be especially careful with shorter focal lengths, like 22mm and below as they will likely hit the Kinor mirror or may simply not clear the limited slace behind the Kinor lens mount. I have a 75mm Lomo macro that will not fit the Kinor as there is a protrusion of the barrel behind the lens mount flange. I didn't know about the squarefront anamorphics not fitting the Kinor-- thank's for that tip, Steve. Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com

Actually they are very easy to unscrew from the focusing mount, leaving the focusing threads exposed. They are then very easy to clean and relubricate. Just be sure you get the threads started the same way they came apart or you can't focus to infinity. A dash of lubrication between the mount and the turret will help too. The OCT19 mount lenses are a whole different deal. Bruce Taylor

Thanks for the tip on the Cokin filters-- I didn't know they made them that big. I liked Cokin filters when I used them years ago, as long as they don't get scratched! I'll look into them for the original filter frames. Yes, I looked into cutting 6x6 filters to fit the Russian filter frames, but with 6x6 filters being so expensive plus having them cut at $45 each, I thought I'd go with the Arri matte box. I'm going to look into shaving Rafael's 4x5.65 filter adapters to fit the Kinor anamorphic matte box, let me know if you come up with a solution first. Let us all know how your short end experience goes when you shoot your teaser. Bruce

DR Group spun off their film sales, here's a blurb from their website: "If you call the DR Group, our receptionist will transfer you to a representative of Film Source L.A. for your convenience. The new telephone number for our former film division is 818.484.3236 or you can find FSLA on the web at:http://www.filmsourcela.com" One of my 2 perf clients got a screaming good deal for something like 30,000 feet. Haven't heard if they had any problems with it. I think they paid $.05 a foot for 5218. Steve, about the matte box/filter deal, as you know the Russian filters are not the same size as western filters. If you are using the swing away matte and you get Rafael's 4x4 or 4x5.65 adapters you're good. But his adapters don't fit the anamorphic matte box or the special matte box for the OPF18 20-120 Lomo zoom. I'm trying to adapt an Arri 6x6 matte box to cover the anamorphic and zoom, but that is going to take some thought and machining. Bruce

Hey Steve, Using the teaser to test film and equipment sounds like the perfect idea. My experiences with the Russian gear have been good, but there are many, many details that will need to be addressed before you can start shooting reliably. All the power supply/charger and cable issues have to be worked out. Obviously the functionality of everything has to be checked and you'll have some surprises. I am still working out filter issues with the various matte boxes. The nits and nats have consumed a surprising amount of my effort and time. Best of luck, Bruce

You need two types of insurance. You need to have liability insurance and insurance on your gear for theft, damage when it's in your possession. Then you need to get a certificate of insurance from the rentee which they will supply. You need to get a deposit to cover their insurance deductable as well. There are companies that specialize in this. I'm in the LA area, so I use Insurance West for my insurance company as a rental house. I've had great luck using www.buymyinsurancenow.com for clients that don't have a production policy through a school or larger production company. Kat Wong has been very helpful to my clients. I have some insurance info on this page of my site: http://www.indi35.com/tips_and_links Be sure you're covered before you send the gear out. I am new to this and I have been happy with the way my clients have treated the gear. When I explain that it's my stuff and I really care about it, they seem to take better care. Good luck, Bruce Taylor www.indi35.com

All the film I've used from them has been telecined, so I can't comment on fog levels, but that is a good point. I may have had a problem with some 50D I got from them. It was very overexposed (2 to 3 stops) on 2 different shooting days, and I think it highly unlikely I made a consistent mistake like that. I need to put that reel up on some rewinds to check the edge ID, but I suspect it was mis-labeled 250D stock. The picture was still usable for my purposes fortunately, but that is something to take into consideration. I had a light scratch on one roll too, but it only occurred on that one roll and I was never able to determine if it was the camera/mag or the film itself. Again, I was still able to use the footage. You would probably be safer with recans, though taking some additional time and checking the shortend rolls (develop a snip) would take a little time but may be worth the effort. Overall, if you're shooting a no-money shoot (like me), I think it is well worth the risk. Especially if reshoots are not impossible. The thing is, if the film has been removed from the can, loaded into a mag, then unloaded and relabeled, there is the likelyhood (inevitability?) of a mistake once in awhile. I pick my film up at the ReelGoodFilm storefront, and the inventory is impressive. At least 2 rooms stacked floor to ceiling packed with cans of 35mm film. Their inventory comes from tv shows, features and commercials they tell me. It all seems to be fresh. It is not a fly-by-night operation, they are legit. It's so cheap you should order some and try it. Then give them a heads up when you are looking for 70k' of stock. Good luck! Bruce Taylor www.Indi35.com