GWilliamPatrickB

A few months ago I made this offer but I still have some stock I need to get off of my hands to someone who will shoot it.

 

Here's the offer:

 

I have five 400' cans of factory sealed 5217 and one can of factory sealed 5285. These are leftovers from a shoot last November and have been in refrigeration since then. The next 35mm shoot on my schedule is at least seven months down the road (and it's B&W...) so I want some good to come of this film while it is still viable. I would like to trade this film for s16 stock. I will make an even trade, can-per-can of film. One 400' can of s16mm (SUPER 16 ONLY and ON CORE ONLY - NO SPOOLS) for one 400' can of factory sealed 35mm. I will accept any emulsion that is offered by any manufacturer by any person.

Here's the second offer:

 

This stuff is free to any takers...

 

One 275' short end of 7248 standard 16 (2R) dated 3-7-01.

One 400' re-can of 7245 standard 16 (2R) dated 1-24-02.

One 320' short end of 7245 standard 16 (2R) dated 2-25-02.

 

One 400' factory sealed can of 5274.

One 400' factory sealed can of the now discontinued 5620 640T PrimeTime.

These two 35mm cans are of indeterminate age.

 

All cans have been kept in refrigeration as long as I have owned them.

This offer is first come first serve but in the interest of fairness only one can per request, United States and its protectorates only. Please, do not request this film unless you plan on shooting it, if anyone is in dire need of dummy loads I have plenty of those to spare. While the film itself is free I would appreciate five dollars to cover shipping.

 

All items will be shipped UPS Ground and will be clearly marked DO NOT X-RAY.

 

Those that are interested can either email me directly or leave me a message on this site.

I have pvt mailed and public posted I would love to have the 35 mm film for my Arri BL 4s contact me pvt or public please

GWPB

Against my better judgement I may be doing this for a feature shoot. I know this could cause confusion in post so I'm trying to find the best way to clearly communicate to everyone (loader, lab, editor, etc.) which is which. Other than CLEARLY labeling camera reports and slating the heads of camera rolls what would you recommend I do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have worked 3 & 4 perf mixed before. Shoot a framing leader for each and keep rolls seperate. Make sure the reports are correct and the rolls are labeled.

I suppose this is job-related enough... In April I have my first big job as a 1st AC (as opposed to the smaller jobs, not that they don't count) and was wondering what would be the most important things you'd want your 1st AC to do? I will of course be checking the gate, cleaning and mounting lenses, pulling focus, and generally keeping track of the camera and all related items, including the camera operator haha, but if there's anything else anyone can think of that I don't already know, it would be good to hear. This is a really serious job with a waaay bigger budget than I'm used to and I want to do the best job possible.

 

Sorry if this is vague but I can't really think of any specific questions just now. With the 1st AC work I've done before, the camera operator has pulled focus and the sets have been  more laid-back, so this is a little different for me. Thank you in advance! By the way, we're shooting Super 16 on an SR-II. We will also be using a Western dolly on some shots, in which case I would be operating camera and the camera operator would handle the dolly. So again, I'm not totally clueless but I would like some additional info or even some stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont want to rain on your parade but, if the job is as big as you seem to believe, it may be the better stratagy to bow out. Why? Well, going into a high stress job with a pro crew and not being sure of yourself could be a recipe for disaster. If you slip up, are slower than the DP or Production wants or cant answer a 2nd or loaders queery you could let yourself in for big trouble. Certainly with whatever company / producer or DP who hired you will never ask you to work again. With them your reputation would be sealed and written in stone as the one who could not handle it. Make sure you know the camera inside and out can load with competence and show no nerves to anyone. Like lions at a hunt, crew members always seem to be able to tell if someone is nervous. And like another poster said, if you are going to be involved with tricky focus pulls and have not done them before, it would be best if some other situation came up that precluded you from working that particular shoot (until you KNOW you can deal with it) That said GOOD LUCK. The first first when it comes off, is a moment you will never forget and will point to as a milestone in your personal development in this very frustrating and very rewarding career.

All the best with a very hard decision.

GWPB

Hello,

I am looking to buy (3)  400ft. Arri 35-III.  Lost a case with three mags

on a shoot last week.  Desperatly need to replace them ASAP.

Can you guys help me out with any leads as to where I might locate

some clean mags.  All help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

eric

eric2yu@hotmail.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recently sold an ARRI III with mags to Jim Higgins of JH Films in CA. His #'s are 661 264 0004 and 661 916 5521

Good luck GWPB

Surprised it was noisy Jarin, when they launched they were far quieter than either the GII or the BL (though thats not saying much). But really they were very quiet. I suspect it may be in need of a little pitch adjust.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The BL 4s and the Super America are both rated at 20 db the GII is rated at 24 db this is according to the American Cinematographer manual.

GWPB

Depends on the focal-length of the lens -- the longer the lens, the more you can move the filter up & down without seeing off the edges or seeing the filter frame.  If the lens is long enough, you can use a "vertical" grad where the 4x5.6 is mounted vertically with the grad at the top edge, as oppsed to "horizontal" grads where the filter is horizontal and the grad runs across that way.  With vertical grads, you can go up & down more but since the filter is now only 4 wide rather than 5.6, you have to make sure it covers the full width of the image.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It depends on the front element also guys. The Cooke MK III (a very sweet lens that matches the S4's perfectly) front element is SIX inches across. Therefore a 6x6 matte box is necessary.

I have sets of Tiffen coral grads, hard edge and soft edge, in 6x6.  They are in excellent condition. 

Gary

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the reply any other besides coral? Coral is probably the only thing I have lots of at the moment. I would like most any LB 80, 81, 82 & most 85's or cc G's and M's

Best,

GWPB

Academy is 1.37 : 1. In a pinch, it can be used as a 4x3 TV framelines (1.33 : 1) if you keep overscan in mind plus a little more trimming on the sides.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, but why wouldnt it just be called Academy to end confusion?

GWPB

It's mainly because 35mm 2-perf Full Aperture is 2.66 : 1, so there's no need to use anything wider than Academy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is about ground glasses but a little off topic. I just had a GG sent to me by Arri. It was the wrong one! It is a 185 / 137. Now, I have known that 137 was out there but in all my years I have never used one or knew what I would want one for. After going through all my CSC manuals, I still cant find what reason it has to exist. All I get is the acnowlegment that it exists. I want to know WHY. And why on my 185 GG.

It is the same width and is higher and lower / equally top and bottom.

GWPB

I am looking to buy 48 mm drop ins and 4 x 4 cc and lb filters in good condition.

Thanks,

GWPB

Just when you least expect it... dead tach on my 2C.  I got this camera pretty recently, and I haven't had to service anything on it yet.  Anybody have recommendations on a service provider?  I'm in North Carolina... but anything in the USA would work.  Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Axel Broda he is in CA. CSC, better known as ARRI use him when the new younger techs cant fix the camera. He is a legend around NFL ( he converted all their 16mm cams. to super 16 ) and ARRi. his # is 661 821 6725.

GWPB

Optically, they are pretty close in performance. My experience was that the HP was especially good at the long end. Mechanically, they are very different animals and this is a big difference. While more compact, the HP is mechanically less robust than the Cooke. The sections comprising its housing can become loose and rattly with even modest use. It is also a transitional design - not a true internal focus unit. Its front may not rotate, but it does track in and out. Its focus movement is very susceptible to entry of dust and mechanical wear. Angenieux corrected this in the HR.

 

The Mk-II Cooke is a true "fixed volume" internal focus design, but it has one unique quirk. Its zoom group tracks in a spiral cam, and therefore rotates during zooming. Some units have a noticable rotary tracking error as a result. This is very hard to correct, but usually minor in nature. Personally, knowing how sharp and robust these lenses were in rental service, I think they are the best value in a used 35mm 10-1 bar none. It is also far less bulky than the original Mk-I Cine Varotal 10-1.

Charles www.seriousgear.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoops, quite right I had the "soft" reputation statement reversed.

GWPB

Assuming the lenses are in the same condition... which lens is better?

 

The Cooke 25-250mm MKII T3.9 or.....

The Angenieux 25-250 T3.7 HP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is often too personal a question to ask in a forum. I will, with my own personal bias, try to be a little less bias than I am about these two pieces of glass. The Ang. is a little softer by reputation in the long end and will have a tendancy to ramp the stop. The Cooke is by rep. a little softer in the short end but closer to the MK III performance except for the dust sealing upgrades, stop and larger front element. The Ang. is now 3 generations out of mfg. The Cooke is one gen. out from current mfg. The Ang. is reputed to be "cooler" the Cooke "warmer" almost as good a fit with the S4 primes as the MK III. Hope my bias didnt show up too much. Also, the Cooke went out of popularity as much for its weight as the "look" when the HR Ang. came out, it was much lighter. Now, with the new Optimo the weight disparity seems to be a little more even and some are coming back to the Cooke. But, the new Optimo is a sharp lens with filters that try to match the warmth of the Cooke primes when it is used with them. These are not all the differences but it covers , I hope the major ones.

GWPB

.

I am looking for 5 x 6 filters and old 6 x 6 marginally damaged filters that can be cut down to fit a

5 x6 hanger slot.

GWPB

You're assuming a digital post. What about an optical printer blow-up to scope?  You don't want to mix 3 and 4-perf negative plus have to worry about two different framing styles for 2.39 extraction, especially when A and B camera footage were intercut back and forth in the same scene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, quite right David. However, I am also making the assumption anyone playing around with 35mm has gone and hired a real DP that would not make such a mistake.

GWPB

Well, a bigger problem is if this is a B-camera, how will the A-camera be set-up?  You don't want one camera doing common top 2.39 within the Academy aperture and another doing center extraction 2.39 within the Super-35 aperture.  If the "2.39 within Academy" is just for your own projects, then whether you choose common top or center just depends on which you prefer to deal with and how often you plan on zooming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same way it would if you wound up shooting 1, 3 perf and 1, 4 perf as in episodics. Shoot a framing leader and there is no worriy about the A and B camera setup difference.

GWPB

Phil nailed it, but let's put the issue in far simpler terms.  With every step information is lost.  There's the outside world, there's what passes through a lens, what is captured on film or electronic sensor, what gets transferred to video or compressed onto a video format or squeezed into a codec, what makes it to a print, etc., etc.  With every single step there is information lost.  So the earlier one shifts the image in the direction they are ultimately trying to acheive the more of the useful information will ultimately be retained in the final product.  I try to get as much as possible done in lighting and filtering when shooting, then attenuate the effects with each continuing step.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mitch and Phil are correct. One other thing to consider. Every time someone like a producer says "post" they should say "money" It is less costly to do as much in camera as you can. I just finished a 24p shoot and they are now wallowing in "no money land post". I only Operated on the movie (a two cam. shoot) and heard "we will do it in post" so many times that I knew before we finished that unless we got our pay checks before the post sessions, we were screwed for our last weeks pay. Well, I just heard that it is so expensive they may not be able to finish unless more "POST" is available. Remember, I said use the word post and money as interchangable. Thank God we all got paid right away.

GWPB

Also, I seem to recall that the barrel rotation for Macro lenses tends to be longer, allowing more space between the barrel's distance marks for the near objects.  This might get annoying when using the lens as a non-Macro lens and having to rotate the barrel so much for a simple focus-rack as the object-to-camera distance changed.

 

I found by accident that one of the side-benefits of using a tilt-focus lens like the 45mm with the lens left unslanted, i.e. normal, is that the lens focuses closer than some 50mm primes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The lenses I have, which are conversions, behave normally until you reach the macro end. At that point, the more "macro" you get the further the barrel rotates. Like I said before, depth of field questions are for another day. Really though, I have not ever asked for a focus pull at 2" to 2 1/4".

It would be pure misery for the 1st AC as rhe closer you get the further the pull.

GWPB

kevin haggerty was the director co-producer

i heard he moved to NYC

Watch out for this guy hes a crook

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you should watch yourself with that kind of talk! If someone in your opinion is "not a nice person" there are other ways to say it without putting yourself on the block for a future lawsuit. After all a guy who makes people do what has allegedly been said to do, would not think twice about being an ass and serving "papers" for defamation and or slander. Your best bet at this point is to get back on this forum and edit or remove your post.

GWPB

I've never seen that with raw stock.  The tails of prints tend to pick up a lot of crud, but the only problem I've ever seen on the tails of raw stock is chips getting picked out when the fold hits the sprockets. Perhaps John Pytlak can comment on this. 

 

I'd agree, though, that rolling out is bad practice in principal photography.  I used to do it a lot on inserts and stock footage when I was using up short ends, and the extra cleanup time was only my own.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to mention it is not overly healthy for the camera mechanism to run bare. After talkiing to some camera techs about cold weather techniques even they said use a rental if thats what you are doing to "warm" or loosen the movement before shooting in cold climates. It is akin to dry firing a weapon without a shell to keep the firing pin from crystalizing. The movement is happier with film in it.

GWPB

Hi,

 

Most zoom lenses will go into macro - they just have to decouple the rear element of the zoom from the rest of the mechanics and move it backwards with respect to the rest of the lens group. Not so sure about primes, though I have seen standard primes with a macro ring.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have some Zeiss lenses that have been converted to Macros they can do everything they could before and close focus. If the conversion is done properly there are no worries. However there are only a handfull of lens techs I would let near a lens for the conversion process as it is not quite a easy/simple as it sounds..

GWPB

The standard reference for a French Flag is a small card on an orticulating arm that attaches to the camera and can be positioned to stop stray light from hitting the lens.  The flap which attaches to the top of the mattebox is generally referred to as an eyebrow.  However, it is also called by many a French Flag, expanding the definition of the term.  Chrosziel, for one, calls their eyebrow a French Flag and it is listed that way in their catalog and labelled as such on the item itself (says it right on mine).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK just because the word AINT is in some dictionaries is no reason to use it! Just because Chroisel is trying to change the accepted definition (accepted in the USA) is no reason to use it. The larger picture is, our profession has set standards and definitions and meanings for certain pieces of equipment. The fact that a piece of equipment is defined (translated) from a cataloge as being something else is no reason to start using it here. The precision with which we work and the definitions we use are for clairity and over the last 100 years or so have come to be rather specific.

Thats how doctors from one side of the country can speak to the other side with clairity. The same holds true for us DP's, Assistants,, Loaders, Rental Houses we comunicate with etc. So after having been doing this for over28 years I cant think of one American rental house or asst. I have worked with that in actuality calls a French Flag an Eyebrow or the other way around. Thats why they have two different names.

GWPB

Hi,

 

I took the french flag off my mattebox; it always seemed like a DV kiddie's accessory and I've only ever had to slip it back on (three screws, half a turn each) once.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry guys but a French flag has nothing to do with a matte box the Eyebrow or Menardis is whats attached to a Mattebox. The French flag is held by an independant arm and is very maneuverable around the front and sides of the box eyebrow, manardis or plane lens.

GWPB

How does one check the flange depth?  Is this this space from the rear of the mount to the back of the lens in a straight line?  I am asking because I have read that some lenses will not clear the mirror on my partciluar camera (a BNCR 2C).  I would like to know how to measure this because sometimes I see excellent BNCR lenses for good prices... but don't know if they will clear the mirror.  I would really hate to smash my mirror too.  Thanks for any advice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Flange depth is not there for checking lens clearence, it is there for focal plane precision. It lets you know that with a properly mounted lens, the place where the film plane is, will be exactly where the lens is focusing the image so the picture is sharp and crisp. If we have done our jobs and set up the shot properly it will be in focus. Now, it just so happens that as a sideline, sometimes, if we measure a lens at the rear (from the mount point to its own end point) we can tell it will have a problem with length. Why sometimes ? Easy, because not all lenses we mount will have the plane of focus properly set and centered on the focal plane even though they clear the mirror.

GWPB

The problem is that he had to "rant and rave" to make his point.  I'm not much of a ranter and raver, and I don't really want to be.  I want to work in a better environment than that.  Sensible conversations SHOULD work, but of course it seems like thats hardly the case anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He didnt make a sound, all the antics came from the Director and DP. It was a 2 cam. shoot and the cameras were a bear to match and back focus on the "A" cam was constantly going out. The follow focus markings may as well not have been written on the wheel from shot to shot. The Angineux lenses also were just a little off in their zoom range for the DP and Director both of which would have prefered about 15 mm longer reach.

GWPB