Saul Rodgar

Bingo!

for real?

I have not seen heat do that to image compression, but it could very well be it. Particularly if both your cameras were acting up. If that editor is worth his salt tho, he can cut around the nasty bits. Sounds like a prima donna editor to me. It's not like you were trying to mess up the footage . . .

Looks awesome. An combination of a Penelope (the actual body) and a Dalsa Origin (the chip). No other video camera that I know of has an optical VF. That (among other things) should be the benchmark by which other pro video cameras are measured against when it comes to on-set functionality. By that standard only the Alexa and Panavised Sonys come close. And at "beyond 4k" probably only RED cameras cameras, maybe Alexa, come close. But instead of the heavily compressed RED "raw" footage one gets today, the Delta's SSD recording media, will actually enable one to record fully uncompressed files on board. Just its ability to be switched between film and digital acquisition alone will make it the best camera on the market, IMO. SWEET!

Call Les Bosher, I don't think he recells batteries, but he is the ACL authority in the UK, so he will direct you where to go. www.lesbosher.co.uk

You did a good breakdown of the pros and cons of the two camera systems. The A-Minima ((A-M)) is a very nice modern film camera, but besides the price, it has a big disadvantage over the ACL --which I own and love, despite it's 30 years in use and its general quirkiness-- namely the A-M requires its own special A-winded film, which it is generally harder to find and more expensive than the B-wind used by all other cameras. For some of us, this is a big thing, since re-cans of B-wind film are infinitely easier to find than A-winded re-cans. Given your choices, I'd go for the ACL with the fast glass and spend the difference in actual film and telecine. In North America, techs like Bernie O'Doherty and others will keep any of these old and newer cams purring along, so fear not. BUT if you must consider an Aaton, have you priced LTR or XTRs? I have a fairly earl model LTR in addition to the ACL that I also really like, again, it being really quirky and in need of pampering, even more so than the ACL, really. But later model LTRs and XTRs are more reliable and a joy to shoot with hand held. Not to be overlooked, Arri SRs are getting really cheap of late, and they are great reliable cameras, if less "hand-held friendly" than the LTR/XTR Aatons. It really is a buyers film camera market out there, it has been for the last several years. You may want to keep on doing research, you'll thank yourself for it later.

Truth is, while most ACL mags are interchangeable, it depends on the actual magazines themselves. There are plenty of minute factory variations / 3rd party modifications that I have seen. I have never encountered two completely identical mags aside from a few ones bearing sequential serial numbers, eg. 0001, 0002 or mags belonging to a kit. Some fall of easy, and some munch on film, or make spaghetti on the take up side, etc. I'd have a reputable tech look at them before you film so you can get the best out of them.

I'd get a Beachtek adapter, they make one for HDSLRs: http://www.beachtek.com/dxaslr.html

Yes, title didn't help. But here I thought we'd read something we HAD NOT read before . . . Instead we get Jannard's puffy ego drivel: "Like 65mm film. Better." As usual. YAWN! At the end of the day, Red remains a manufacturer of cameras that have a place in productions but do not slay any other technology. No one can fault Jannard for being a good marketer of his products. We've said it before, we'll say it again: One is best to choose a Red if the camera is the best tool for the job at hand. Here is hoping everybody could move on and shoot some pictures with whatever camera suits our current projects.

Amen to that. Finally we agree on something! We just need the couple of million of producers and execs around the world to think like that and we'll be set. B)

Some of the shows that started on film are going to digital too. Crash was S16 originally and then moved to D21, but then Dennis Hopper died, so that was that. In Plain Sight has also reportedly gone (or is going) to HD from S16, but I can't confirm that.

And here I just got rid of all my film equipment and was planning to buy digital-camera-industry stock. :o :angry: :D

Awesome! Congrats!

Yeah, unfortunately the filmmaking group-think is bigger sensor / aperture is always better, when in reality few low budget / indie productions who dream about showing a print on 35mm on a 50 ft screen are prepared to deal with the focus pulling equipment and talent for acquisition on 35mm and larger film or video formats. A talented cinematographer / director team can get great "shallow focus" images on 2/3" or 16mm cameras.

Several years ago, a friend of mine did a project that did that, but I think he used Technicolor (it is a ll a blur now). I'm not sure if they are still doing that, I couldn't find it on their website. The results are usually good, but it really depends on your source material and the method used to transfer to film -- particularly, if the footage has a lot of blown out highlights, you'll never recover detail there, and it'll look well, like crappy video. There are these guys, which seem to have a good track record: http://www.dvfilm.com/faq.htm Alternatively, you can do it yourself with a sync film camera, a steady tripod and a decently calibrated LCD HDTV. Do a test before you commit to it, tho. I have done it with good results, and there was a movie released 5-6 years ago called Nine Songs whose print was screened at festivals in Europe using that method. Some of us discussed the subject somewhat extensively a few years back on these boards, including the DP for Nine Songs. I'd search the archives if you want more information about it.