andrewbuchanan

Not to repeat too much of what was said above, but I just did a Super 16 short (about 30-mins final run time) and the director/producer chose to use a DVX-100 for the sound (with a mixer in line). I was a little sceptical when I was told about this set-up. BUT, it allowed us to use multiple shotgun mics and the sound quality was good... very good... when all was said and done. So, I second Thomas' opinion. I didn't noticany difference from the DAT recorders I'm used to. There was a little extra sync work in post (not too much), but I was very impressed with the results. I wonder how this would complicate the work flow if you were going to a print? Any editors out there?

I just got some tests with the Elite 7mm back, and I agree it is indeed a very sweet lens. Surprisingly clean image all the way to the edge of the frame and amazingly low distortion for how wide the lens is. I can't wait to shoot something besides a test with it. I also would nominate the Optar Illumina lenses, there is a very nice set in 8.5mm, 9mm, 12mm, 12mm, 25mm, 50mm and they are as sharp and contrasty as anything I have ever used in Super 16. If you need something that is a lot more descreet (smaller and lighter) than a S4, I might look at Optars. Rodrigo, great work on AMORES PERROS, I look forward to seeing more of your films... especially if they are in S16!

I really enjoyed the movie. It took chances, attempted something different, and wasn't the same old poop. The cinematography was at times brillliant, at times average, but was attempting something new. I liked the use of Super 16 in the film and the blend of stills (which were relative to the history fo the story). However some of the comments about Che Guevara written above etc. show a gross misconception about the history of Central and South American, Che's role in it, and a profound ignorance of geopolitics. Comparing Che to Hitler is such a staggeringly foolish statement that it borders on hilarity. I spent a great deal of my late teens and early 20's in Central America. I shot a documentary in Cuba in Septmber of 2001 and there I learned that, as an American I had profound misconceptions about my own country. I learned that we are a nuanced country with moments of profound brilliance and instances of shameful darkness and regret. You could say that our national character has depth. Much the same could be said of Che Guavara. A profoundly wonderful and a profoundly flawed person. One who died for his convictions... which is a little more powerful than say, sitting out of a movie, wouldn't you say? Matt, I would strongly urge you to read some books and learn a little bit about a character which has so profoundly effected our hemisphere before slandering his character with such abandon. Or perhaps before you explain "the complexity of the situation". As I have learned in many of my recent travels, I don't need to be an apologist for yet another ignorant American abroad or at home.

Hi. I saw some lenses on a shoot recently that I had not heard of... called Arvic. They were very nice, well constructed, looked like good lenses. Since I had never heard of them, I looked them up and found absolutely nothing. I found that the Elites correspond on all the focal lengths and t-stops and look very similiar (The Elites are much more polished looking... but the barrel construction and coating look the same). Could they be the same lenses? Has anyone heard of Arvic? Is the glass any good?

I would call this style "over-produced". BUT in technical respects, looks like whole lot of kinos (or some other flourescent sources) were used on most of the sets and some very, very expensive lenses. That's all that looked special to me. These types of films have massive lighting packages and weeks of time to rig things on the sets. This is not a look I would attempt to try and capture on a shoe string budget.

Yes, examples, please. I love to see what other people are doing.

Rob, Try to get an old roll of film and load the camera many many many times in the light before you try it in the dark... that is, if you want it to work. OR get daylight loads of film and go somewhere that isn't in bright sun. They work well and you only lose about 4 feet on the front end. With loading, practice is the only real security. good luck.

Bob, my old roomate and good friend is shooting a 35mm feature there right now (wraps this week). Shoot me a private email and I will get rental/crew info for you.

Once again, Phil has captured that delicate linguistic subtly that the British are so famous for. He is right, though. You will at least $200 per PL adapter, even if you get cheap ones off ebay. SO, even if you get an old Zeiss for $400 you would have to add a $200 adapter... things could still get pretty expensive (though you might be able to meet your $2,500 budget (with a nice 4 lens set - 18, 24, 50, 75). I might also consider getting a Nikon mount for the P+S and getting some Nikkors. All my super telephoto lenses (those past 150mm) are Nikkors (old ones too). And I am always happy with the results they give me. Plus they are CHEAP. You could probably find a nice set of 6 lenses for under $700. Plus 52mm - 72mm Screw in filters are CHEAP. The problem with adpaters? They just aren't the most solid way to mount a lens. And they can slide out of adjustment causing focus problems (though this would be more of a problem with film). Search this forum or google for more info about this. It's a great time for you euro based guys to buy stuff here in the US. The dollar sucks right now, no thanks to our "president".

5 PL mount prime lenses for $2,500? You would be lucky to buy 5 PL mount adpaters for that. Not that I am trying to discourage you, but I have been looking for a PL mount set of lenses for around $5,000 for a while and let me tell you there aren't many... and any PL sets that are under $5,000 you don't want to own. You might be able to get a Cooke zoom or an older Angenieux for that, but it would be a slow lens. Here's what you might consider: Try to get a good set of Arri S or Arri B mount lenses (or build one) and get PL adapters put on them. Visualproducts.com has some good clean peices of glass in Arri S for cheap. I bought my lenses there nd I have been very happy with them. I also think there is a pretty complete 5 lens set of cooke speed panchros on ebay right now. This is what I use as my prime lens package and people really love the look they give (I have never used them with an adapter or a mini35 though). Of course, using adapters isn't ideal - and you have to add focus rings etc. to get the most out of some of the older lenses. Another option might be to adapt some Russian glass to PL... I see lots of nice Konvas lenses for cheap and they make PL adapters for those. I also have some Optars, and they are damn good lenses. $2,500 would rent a lot of lenses... and probably make you some good friends at the rental house.

Coooool. I used to use Nikons in a c-adapter on my S16 Eclair a lot. They look really good particularly the telephotos (wides... okay, but not as good). I think you are on the path to good results.

I've done this before. It looks okay. I did it out of necessity. If I did it again, I would try to get a slower stock from the same series (like Vision or Vision 2) for the regular 16. Then I would match colors contrast etc. in telecine. This would hide the grain a little better. I would not recommend doing this for projection. This differences on a 7 foot tall screen would be pretty stark.

Phil - sounds like you got to play with cool toys so, I think we can let it slide. OKAY, I guess we should balance out the "hatin'" with some love. I was watching Road Warrior the other night and was just BLOWN AWAY by the framing and composition of the shots. I mean it was shocking how well shot and directed that film is. I came to the spot where a by now very pissed off Mel Gibson walks into the garage and steps into the darkness and the matte black bad m$%#!&%^$#r muslce car emerges from the darkness. What a perfect shot. No dolly. No steadicam. Just cinema. The light/dark was used to cover a change in his character: from man to machine. It was beautiful, simple, and most importantly using the camera to tell the story. Anybody else?

I see this question a lot and I think the answer really depends on what you are shooting. Yeah the FX1 and Z1 are high resolution, but the color sampling and compression mean that they are not in the same ballpark with Super 16 that is scanned at a decent to high resolution. "Not even the same sport..." as they say. It is still a 25mbps camera (meaning it has a small pipe to squeeze all that info through). Super 16 can compare well to HD shot on the big (and very expensive low compression HD cameras like the Viper or Dalsa or Sony HDW (or whatever) series - that is, if it is on a decent camera with good lenses and a low speed stock and the exposure is right. That being said, I'm sure under the right circumstances the FX1 and Z1 could get a very respectable image. I would not hesitate to shot a documentary interview where I was in complete contol of all the light on the set with one. I imagine that some people will make some very cool music videos and short films with them too. Shhhhh... don't tell my film loyalist friends. However, if you are asking about shooting a fictional narrative where you want to make things beautiful and you want you viewer to get lost in the REALITY of the story... then I would say no. The little Sonys are another cool digital tool, but they have a very long way to go before they will be in league with 16mm.

I don't know I had a different experience... I had some 250D left around from a shoot (about 4000 feet or so). It was enough to save some money on a doc I was working on, so I decided to use it if I could. It was dated 2002 and though I don't know how it was stored when it was in date, I got it just after it expired and kept it in deep freeze for about a year (winter of 2004). I figured slower stock, kept in deep freeze would be okay. I cut some test strips off and sent them to the lab. The lab got back to me and told me that it tested a little outside the useable numbers, but should be fine if I wasn't projecting. I think the note said... "...for screen no, should be fine for telecine". I don't remember the exact test numbers, but they were not too far out of the ordinary. I went ahead and shot and with the film. When I got the results back, I was shocked. It looked like total s*%t. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, but even the completely ignorant producer could see the contrast and color problems. The bad thing was I ended up looking bad, even though I had followed the correct procedure. Fortunately it wasn't that big of a project. The moral of the story is this: old film is great, but use it for music videos, short projects, things that YOU personally can risk. In a professional circumstance, be very careful because going the cheap route can be more expensive in terms of reputation and future work than you realize.

Yeah yeah, how bad does the two pistol stand-off suck! That should be punishable by death, no drawing and quartering... then death. Big-ups to Phil for that s*$&&y steadicam shot - I hate that one too. It is so played out. ...and who could forget Jeremy with the "camera inside the fridge/mailbox/drawer shot (doesn't this one seem particulary endemic to student films). and f-stop your list... well, it hit close to home, maybe too close. We haven't work together have we?

Just curious, a friend and myself were trying to figure out which shot is the most tired, over-used, and generally played out (beside the obvious guy runs away from bomb in slow motion just as it goes off behind him - which is way too obvious). I had to put forth the shot in the big budget movies where everyone sees the giant object/weather pattern/asteroid in the distance and slowly walks toward camera as they look at it. Perhaps the shadow of the giant wave/spaceship/cold front creeps over them - or maybe some wind blows their hair. I really hate that one. People have been ripping it off since Close Encounters (possible before). Look for it in War of the Worlds. Now, who's next?

To bad about Kiev, I've ordered still lenses from them and was happy with the experience. How does Gregory Mirand's price compare with Kiev's? I have four of the six lenses (I'm missing the 9.5 and the 8) and would like to get them one day.

Under no circumstances should anyone try to LIFT THE MITCHELL BNCR AFTER DRINKING PRUNE JUICE. Seriously, someone could get hurt.

A few tips for shooting in the daylight... 1. Get a Polarizer filter for the front of the lens. ND filters if possible (to set your f/t-stop where YOU want it). 2. Don't let the sun hit the front of the lens (this will cause flares and imperfections like dust to appear). 3. Bring something to bounce soft fill light onto your subject (like the Whiteboard). Also bring a hard reflector (something like a mirror or aluminum foil on a board) that you can use as a hard light source (for a backlight etc). 4. Try to shoot your subjects against a contrasting background (like a sun-lit person against the shadow of a tree, or the silhouette of a person against a sun-lit bank). Otherwise, it is sounds like you are thinking about the right things. Goodluck.

I agree that film is expensive... very expensive, and that is why the #1 rule of filmmaking is this; USE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY. "How hard is it to work with 16mm?" Hmmm, it's next to impossible. I'd quit right now. Order some short ends from film emporium, get a camera and meter and shoot them, that will teach more than posting in this forum. If you use B&W shortends and send them to a cheap lab the pricing isn't that bad. Consider it an investment in your own knowledge. It may cost a few hundred bucks, but it is a lot cheaper than film school... which some of us were dumb enough to pay for.

Frank, Duall Camera (duallcamera.com) had a set listed on their site for a very reasonable price pretty recently. I would call there and visual products. I have had good experiences with both companies. Otherwise, kievcamera.com has a good price for the full set of Optar Illumina (t1.3) primes - which are as good as the Zeiss in my opinion (I have a set myself). Goodluck.

There are some limitations to the built in light meter - but 95% of the time it is spot on with my Sekonic L-508C which was around $600. For the price of the $25 battery adapter, I think it is a pretty good meter. I use mine all the time and have always been happy with the results.

Not to complain... well, okay to complain. I have always been to told I MUST own "The Arri Book" by John Fauer. That it was the Bible for all Arri owners. Finally I broke down and bought a copy (Version 3). Well imagine my surprise when I got to the IIC section and it was only a few pages... I mean like 5 pages. The III and the BLs got like 100 page each. I know it is an old camera, and not the foundation of the movie business - but to everyone who recommends this book to IIC owners please take a look at what you are recommending! I'm not knocking Mr. Fauer in any way I just wanted more info. That being said, there are some useful bits of general info about other things in the book and I wonder if the IIC has more coverage in any of the older versions. Any have the answer?

I've got the same mods on my NPR (and by the way, I LOVE having them it make the camera soooo nice) and I can give you my two cents about this. First the PL is way to go especially if you plan on renting high-end lenses. Most rental places carry PL and the nicest lenses come in PL. If you plan on buying your lenses, the B-mount can be okay (Optars and some nice older Zeiss stuff come in B mount). However - you have to do a B to C adapter, and adapters always suck. I do not know of anyone who make a B hardmount for a NPR. I'd go with a PL and C mount turret. You can get good c-mounts for cheap and then keep your PL for high end rentals. Otherwise, I'd get a custom rod support (that little one rod job can hold up a lens but not a follow focus). Les Bosher did all my work for a great price (even with the expensive shipping) and the camera works great and runs incredibly quiet (much quieter than any SR2 or LTR I've used). A few weeks ago I took the camera into JDC (Joe Dunton Camera) to pick-up some rental gear... everybody loved the custom work on my NPR camera and actaully stepped away from the 535s and Moviecams they were working on to admire it. It felt great, and I'm not sure any other camera would have caused such a reaction. VIVA L' NPR!