Phil Savoie

RCB is used in the UK. Good to hear from you Walter.

I take on board what David says about 3 Perf and feature film. For TV 3 perf is a very useful format and a one worth consideration. Most of the major TV series shooting 35 originate in 3 Perf. They are finishing 16x9 for tape delivery so its just the ticket. Much of my work is 16, 3 Perf allows me to afford to shoot 35. When transfered to HD it looks fantastic. The image quality is brilliant, I'm in love with 3 perf.

I'm sure your aware that by using multiple mags from different sources it throws another variable into the mix when your trying to isolate the cause of scratching (like the use of multiple labs). Since you don't physically have the mags one can't check tension or really inspect the throat, rollers, etc. to rule out the scratches orginating from the mag(s). Was any of the footage shot at high speed? It may be a stock issue as well. I'd also suggest you chat to David Webb or Martin Hammond at Kodak GB Since your in the UK and to see if this problem had been reported before. Perhaps you could ask them for some rolls of out of date stock to scratch test with - maybe zooming a few rolls through at 60fps will point up the problem area. Good luck

I'm trying to track down a Sony B4 to Nikon mount for purchase. FFD not important as it?s for macro. I've been told that there were 2 made by Nikon - one that corrected for the prism to give you the correct focal length and one that didn't - either will do. Any ideas on where to look would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Tony, If your fairly confident it's a issue to do with the new camera I'd call Gunter Zoeh (00-49-8938091402 direct dial from the UK) at the ARRI factory and have a chat. Gunter has been a helpful, knowledgeable resource for years, if he's not your man he'll point you to right person to try and resolve it. Good luck in sorting it out. Please let us know how you get on.

Conrad Hall, Michael Chapman, Vilmos Zsigmond, John Toll, Storaro, and The Prince of Darkness; Gordon Willis

Howdy Chuck, I'm in Wales at the moment but Happy New Year none-the-less! I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. I'm of the mind that although a 2C may be fine- tuned to run at high speed they don't do it that well or for that long. Although a 2C may run at 80 fps holding registration over 50 fps has always been a challenge. The problem of the loop slap is the design of the camera movement. It was first explained to me by Andre Martin who has run Clairmont Cameras' camera department for a good number of years. I discussed it with him after seeing bad registration on more than one camera. I?ll take your suggestion on board about the pressure plate adjustment although I?d worry about scratching the stock. From my point of view the 2C is not a camera I would recommend someone purchase for high speed. The Arri 3 came along and after they sorted the mirror out it was a very useable high-speed camera, built like a brick and one I recommend buying. New Years Cheers from wet and windy Wales.

As Stephen suggested an Arri III is a good way to go. The movement on the Arri 2C is not really made for High Speed ? although they can run at 80fps there tends to be ?loop slap?, for lack of a better term, over 50fps and registration tends to be a bit dodgy.

Dear Werner, If I read you correctly you are looking at comparing film to HD. Your questions are something I?m sure we all ponder as DP?s during the rise of HD origination in today?s production. I spent months researching formats during pre-production of the BBC Natural History Unit?s PLANET EARTH series. This was over three years ago I should note. We were looking for a real world comparison of HD v film. We utilized resolution target charts with line pairs per mm, latitude tests, studio tabletop macro, and outdoor wides for comparison. We shot Super 16 and Super 35 (3 Perf) on 50, 64, 250 and 500 asa stock (both Eastman & Fuji, daylight & tungsten)vs. the Sony 900 and Panasonic Varicam. For the resolution and tabletop macro we used the same lens, a 60mm Zeiss macro that had been tested, projected and was always shot at its optimum t-stop with lighting varied to facilitate this. For other tests we used Zeiss Ultra primes and Zeiss Digi primes for the HD cameras. Film stocks were rated at 40,50,200 and 400 respectively. I used my own 16 & 35mm Arris that were serviced and registration tested prior. The film was scanned via a Spirit at 2K and transferred to D5 HD. Super 35mm was the clear image quality winner with all asa stocks, although the 500 asa had noticeable grain. Super 16 looked better than HD at 50,64 and 250asa (Eastman 250 not Fuji ? the T-grain made a big difference in resolution), while the HD looked an even draw and at times better than 16mm on 500asa. The tests were subjective ? I don?t have direct numbers for comparison, but of the twenty or so individuals who screened the results we all were in agreement. I should also add the tests were conducted at Arri Media in London with the assistance of both Sony and Panasonic reps and engineers, Zeiss primes from Arri Media and donated stock from both Eastman and Fuji. In the end PLANET EARTH was shot multi format, 16mm, 35mm and HD ? with producers choosing the right origination format for the given shoot. This is for the main TV series delivered in HD. At present the Beeb is cutting PLANET EARTH the movie, which I suspect will have more 35mm origination. As I say this was three years ago or so. I know that the HD cameras are getting better but for the type of location run and gun required in nature film I?m personally still favouring film for most shoots for a number of reasons; films picture quality and latitude, robust cameras, low power consumption, optical viewfinders, etc. It would however be interesting and illuminating to re-test HD vs film including the SI and upcoming Red (and others) and a 4/6K scan of the latest film stocks, I?m just waiting for someone to ask me. ; )

Hi Olex, as Frank pointed out the Joker HMIs from 5600K work on both 50 or 60hz on almost any voltage (90-265v) - which is why they are a wonderful little light to travel with. The ballasts are auto senseing and do not need to be switched for voltage or frequency. This is not the norm - most ballasts are not auto senseing nor this flexable in terms of voltage in. If memory serves me correct I have shot with them at 25fps to 150fps at both 50 or 60hz without 'filcker' problems. It would still be good practice to run a quick test to check for any flicker problems prior to any job. cheers

I have a Joker 200 watt with an inverter ? it?s been to many international locations and worked fine. The plug on the wall is an issue when doing work out of country http://www.digitaltigers.com/international-power.shtml is a good web link to international power and plug types. Good luck

I?d suggest you lengthen your exposure, either by interval frame rate or shutter angle. To loose the ?steppy? look you want images that blend together. Long exposures of ¼ to 1 second will give you frames that ramp nicely together in post. The frame rate of any given subject is something so variable it?s often learned via trail and error. Experiment with both shutter speed and frame rate if you like ? but with today?s inexpensive computerized post tools like Final Cut you can ramp away to your hearts content. Because of this it always better to have more frames to ramp/play with.

and Seasons Greetings too!

Glad you mentioned that Mitch. Low tech can be very effective and is often forgotten. cheers Phil

Over uneven ground a camera slung on aircraft cable works very well. The set up requires some anchor points on each end ? poles, trees whatever. As suggested talent can pull the rig behind them or at times it can be advantageous to have a grip walking just behind them in pace holding frame and leading/pushing the camera/sled. This is fairly inexpensive compared to a steadicam op or dolly rental. The camera can be hung from one single large pulley or a more elaborate multi wheel custom rig. You?d be surprised with what you can get with a few rehearsals and a steady hand. A recent thread on the cinematography forum under cablecam addressed some options. Phil Savoie

Brilliant link Jason. I love the Lego cablecam! Also thanks very much for sharing the Fenner link - I'm already thinking about a purchase. On the rope vs. cable - although the rope can run a bit quieter I can never stretch it tight enough compared to aircraft cable. cheers,

Due to the lack of light transmitted through the Bolex viewing system I much prefer the 13x. When I've had bodies Super 16ed I'd would ask for the 13x be added to the job. Phil

Yes. Find a good machinist - mill out two large wheels with cable channels, fit them with Timken tapered aircraft roller bearings, mount them on a frame, fit a articulating sled to hold the camera. Then slide it down a cable..... stopping it is the trick! A good fabrication will set you back anywhere from 3 to 5K USD. I?ve got a few examples of shots done with one on my website if you want to have a peak ? linked under Hotel Heliconia Opening and Autumn Color. Cheers, Phil

I can offer nothing and have no experience doing what you propose. However at the risk of stating the obvious I would shoot extensive tests of all the options. Working on tape, with immediate image feedback is brilliant for testing. And as Phil suggested you may find you can get just the look you both seek via a computer. These days relatively inexpensive plug-ins can produce amazing results. I find one of the most satisfying aspects of our craft is that of discovery. What you are doing is exciting and intriguing. It would be useful, if your agreeable, to would post the results of your work . Good luck with the shoot Cheers, Phil

35mm - I was unaware that 'special' lenses were used - does anyone have some information about the optics? Many thanks, Phil

Shooting 3 Perf 35mm costs about 8% more total over a shoot budgeted for 16mm. This is in terms of stock and transfer only and not a big difference. As an owner/op of both formats I'm not sure about rental cost comparisons - probally not that much different. For DVD release I have to agree with the rest of the posts - S16 looks brilliant when transferred properly - like on a Spirit with a skilled op. When S16 is shot on low ASA stock like Fuji 64 or Eastman 50D with proper craft, optimized F stops and transferred to tape or through the DI route it can be hard to tell 16mm origination from 35. Good photography is good photography, like most things in the end it comes down to the cash at hand. For DVD release (or tape ? HD or SD IMHO) S16 is a wonderful format. cheers,

Hi Mike, Sorry for the late response I was out of town. I have my Zeiss Luminars mounted to a custom PL extension tube(s) set up - specifically for micro photography. We normally use a macro focus stage that shifts the entire camera to and fro and operate with a tilt wedge as well. This type of rig is uncommon but easy to use once your comfortable with pulling focus - it only takes a small adjustment to the stage operated by a hand wheel. With a working distance of less than an inch between the subject and the lens lighting is a challenge - but good fun. cheers,

I was thus wondering when are Macros preferred to Dioptres? -- Marco lenses are designed for the job of magnification. Diopters rarely offer enough magnification or produce the same image quality. Relitively inexpensive still marcos like Nikons function well on cine cameras and give very good results for most needs (with the proper mount). For high magnification, over ten times, diopters won't cut it, micro lenses are required, the best ranges being that of Zeiss Luminar and Leica Photar microscope objectives. These lenses are optimized for maginfications of 10 to 60 times and require custom mounts due to their RMS thread. When mounted on cine/video cameras the results are outstanding. Luminars have been out of production for some time, hence they are highly coveted. Leica still makes the Photars but as with any good optic they are quite pricey. cheers,