Jon Petro

Tim, how can I contact you about this lens outside of this forum. Jon

Film emporium has a website that is better than most places because they actually post prices so you have an idea before you call where you are starting, and then you can begin haggling them down. They have short ends. I have been told, and I myself have been able to get very very cheap film time and time again from Media Distributors. The DR Group is another big film seller, although I have never dealt with them. They seem to be very large, and I am sure they have plenty of short ends. Call all these places and don't be afraid to barter. Good luck, Jon

Hello, I have two motors for my Eclair NPR. One is working perfectly, the other cannot hold sync. The one that cannot hold sync is a Perfectone Compact Crystal motor, and it is much much quieter than the Beala motor which does run crystal. When the Perfectone Runs the sync light flickers, which to me means it is probably very very close to running perfectly. I would like to check the sync on this motor, but I don't know how to do it. Bernie O' told me it was very close to 24, in the decimals. How does he get this measurement. Curious if anyone knows, feel free to shed some light. Jon

I have shot a bunch of film too, and I can never get used to the image outside the ground glass. The Only time I was able to somewhat frame with ease was when the area outside the 1.85 on a Super America was darkened slightly, and a helpful Arri Glow. And even on that ground glass there were a few set of lines very close together, so it took our first set of dailies to prove which was 1.85 and what wasn't. I do believe the video influence a great deal too. I have shot thousands and thousands of hours of video for my business and find the viewing system so much more agreeable. I simply do not need to see outside my composition. I don't like the cross hairs either. I had Bernie O' redo my ground glass so it was 1.85 only and very dark green outside of the 1.85. Even that was not satisfactory enough. I have since had the area outside of the ground glass painted black. To me this is how you can compose the best shots possible. I also have taken about a million pictures in my life, yet another medium that does not require you to see outside of your final composition. I feel your pain. I don't understand all the extra veiwing in film cameras. I can't see the boom mic being that important a thing to worry about. I have shot plenty of films on video with a boom with no problem. And forget about the ground glasses with a million veiwing lines on it...Super 16, Regular 16, TV, 1.85, Cross Hairs...Those are completely ridiculous in my opinion. I have spoken to some other filmmakers, that although have not expressed the same dislike for complicated open ground glasses, have explained they messed up framing a few times on ground glasses like these.

Haha, wow. My goal would be to get to a place in life where I can say, hand-splice this into a few thousand release prints pronto, thank you. I wonder how many films recently have done anything like that.

Thanks for the info. I did a forum search for 5222 instead of Schindler's List and there was a ton of info about it, so my bad. I never saw this film in theaters as I was only 9 when it was released. I am curious about the grain on a big screen. I feel like Black and White is a great format for indie films that can't afford to worry about color temperature, however if you have to use twice the amount of light I suppose it throws that theory out the window. And from a business perspective I would just imagine it is harder to sell an indie on black and white than color simply because so many movie-goers scoff at black and white. I used to until I was about 14 unfortunately. It's like the equivalent if a foreign film to some people in my opinion. David, do you think pushing a color stock will make it look more contrasty later when converted to black and white? Or should the "crushing" be done in a DI? What do you thin would be the best way to shoot color and achieve the look of Schindler's List? Thanks, Jon Pivko

Anyone know the specs on Schindler's List. I believe the AC Article would be from '93 so I can't get it online. I am assuming the interiors were 5222, and the exteriors were 5231. Although I thought I read somewhere that the whole thing was shot on 5222. I think the grain looks fantastic, but what really gets me are the blacks. I don't think I have ever seen such deep blacks. Was this film pushed a stop or two throughout? Or is that the nature of the stocks? I have seen some recent black and white films like Good Night and Good Luck and there seems to be a ton more gray. I do believe this was shot on Color Negative though, so that might explain it. If anyone knows how Janus shot this I would appreciate being filled in. I tried searching the forum with no luck. Thanks, Jon Pivko

$10,000 is a LOT to make a 16mm short, and you said that is the lowest you would even consider going into a 15 minute 16mm short film. I was not referring to a feature at that point. Do you honestly consider $10,000 to be a requirement when shooting a 15 minute 16mm short film? You want to see my feature budget? I would like to see your 15 minute short budget break down. I can't wait to see how you need to spend 10 grand on a short. I am sure if you want you could spend a million $ on a 15 minute 16mm short, but I don't consider $10,000 to be the minimum by any means, and I don't believe in telling people that either. It is a discouraging thing to say to a person who doesn't have 10 grand lying around, and it is certainly not factual enough to be considered the harsh reality (and with your heavily respected opinion on these boards, Mr. Wilkinson might not consider any alternative). I have made a 10 minute sync sound 16mm film for $500 and it came out great. So I might not have made 30 features David, but based upon my experiences your perspective seems ridiculous. I completely agree that tons of films and filmmakers fail at the ultra low budget level. However I would rather fail with $1,000 on the line then $10,000. So how much "HEARTBREAK" is there when someone makes a shitty film for two million dollars? With there jibs and their HMIs and their Ultra Primes. Money doesn't solve creative problems. I would become a better filmmaker before spending $10,000 on a short. I would encourage Mr. Wilkinson to be creative as possible and make his movie with what he has instead of waiting, saving up, only amassing money rather than artistic strength. People financing their own stuff are in a great position since they know what kind of money they have going into it. For instance, I have $2,000 and I want to make a 10 minute film, well then make a movie you can make for $2,000. I agree with a lot of what you are saying Mr. Mullen, however I don't believe in "Honest Facts" when it comes to making movies. There is no one way to go about it, especially when it comes to spending money. I respect your opinion and all the information you share on these boards, but I just disagree with this one. And this is based on my own filmmaking experiences. There are a lot of ways to shave a cat. Thanks, Jon

Right, and with that mentality Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, Joe Carnahan, Richard Linklater, etc. would not exist. Please do not listen to this kind of advice. You don't need a lot of money to make a movie, especially not a 16mm movie. I have shot 16mm shorts at 1.5:1 or 2:1 for a few hundred dollars. The script is important, I would not recommend a lot of dialogue. Careful planning of your shots is key too. If you know what you have going into the film obviously prepare to rehearse a lot and cover things in simpler ways than Close ups, medium shots, masters, etc of every scene. Find THE shot. For "$10,000" you could buy a super 16mm eclair NPR and enough film to shoot a feature. Frugality is an art that should be studied and mastered, it is the path to larger budgets. Good luck, Jon

Hey guys, I would love to make a Corman picture. As far as I know he still produces low budget exploits. Anyone with any recent experience know what low budget means? 100K? 250k? 50K? Assuming I can get them to look at my work, is it possible they would then say..."let's make a movie?" Or would I have to work my way up at their company? Do I have to use their crew? Do I have to shoot where they want me too? How hard is it to get them to make a film for you? I am sure there must be some Roger Corman experience on this forum. If anyone has any knowledge or advice, let me know, it would be greatly appreciated. Jon

Cool thanks, and thanks for the email. The fast Lomos don't seem to be around anymore, congrats on getting a couple. Jon

Hello, If you check this site: www.lomoscope.com it shows a very complicated way of making your 17EP motor run on a 4 pin XLR port. My theory, and hope you guys can reassure I am correct. An easier way to adapt the motor to run off a 4 Pin Battery or powersource is take the existing Konvas power cord and place a 4 pin male or female connector on the end you want to plug into your power source. So if this is true you can buy a cheap Bescor 12v Battery belt from B&H. Modify the one end of the Konvas cable and plug into your Konvas on the Konvas end of the cable, and then your Battery on the 4 pin side... It seems a whole lot easier and cheaper to do. I am correct that this power configuration would work? Someone with more electronic knowledge would know better. Jon

Adam, Just bought a copy through your website! Thanks, Jon

I agree about the price difference being minor, it really is all about preparation and being creative. I was debating about 35 or super 16mm for a while but ultimately settled on shooting in super 16. It is slightly more affordable to buy and you are really getting twice the takes for your money. However, I think 35mm is really just as viable for ultra low budget filmmaking, and if you factor in the "impressiveness" that surrounded films like El Mariachi and Primer, shooting on 35 would only boost your legend. I just hope I don't regret not putting my money into a 35 set-up when I am watching the dailies. Of course I could always shoot a 35 film over 2 or 3 weeks with a cheap rental. Anyway, hopefully some other people on this forum have their own filmmaking stories to share, frugal or not. Either way, your film is one of the most legendary frugal filmmaking attempts I have ever heard of. What lenses did you shoot on? Did you own them too? Lomos? Thanks, Jon

Haha, that is so great. I have seen the trailer for this film too, very impressive. Where did you get film stock that is that old? Do you recall how much you paid for it? Thanks for the inspiration, Jon

Hey guys, This thread has been dead for well over a year, but I was searching through stuff and could not resist bringing it back to life because I am pretty much in the same boat as so many other people trying to make a FILM for almost NOTHING. I think you can make a 35mm feature for under $15,000 but the biggest key is having a very non-talkie script and doing tons and tons of rehearsal. Once the heads start talking is when the film burns. If you can keep your shooting ratio at or under 2:1 (which is reasonable with very little dialogue) you can do it. Obviously you can't be picky about the stocks you shoot on, a simple formula is the cheapest you can find. It doesn't take much looking around to find 35 for very low prices. You could also rent an older BL and 3 primes for about 2 weeks, and then get a good deal on processing and transfer which is very feasible and has been done many times. I myself have gotten processing and best lite transfer for .20 a foot total on a 35mm feature. If you are only shooting 20,000ft that works out to about 4 grand plus tape stock... Another key would be writing a film that is easily made, and by that I mean what you have access to. You can't spend any money on locations or crew or actors. Food and gas is your only expense since you will be shooting it over two weeks. There are plenty of solid actors that will act for free hoping to just get some scenes on DVD or maybe the film will break out. Buy a DAT and some tapes and tape a decent Shotgun to a hockey stick. As far as lighting goes, keep it simple, pre-plan and use home depot like it is Arri CSC, you will be amazed what you can do with painters lights, 200w bulbs and china balls. Don't set your movie outside at night or in other words don't make rented lights a necessity. with 15k you could afford one or 2 bright lights if you need a bit more, but get ready to get creative. And if you don't own a non linear editing system then you should not be attempting to make a feature...Post Production can easily be free and performed at your own leisure in your bedroom. Of course your only option is to finish on video, but if your movie is any good someone else will pay for the print. This is guaranteed, if your film is great you don't need a print...if it sucks you really don't need a print. I haven't thought about 35mm as an ultra low budget feature that much, but it certainly is feasible. Again, the real riddle is the script. Do not write what you can't film for free, simple as that. If you own a camera or any other equipment you are really set then. Over the last two years I have been slowly assembling a super 16mm package, lighting (some cine but mainly home depot style), sound set-up, and a really nice post production set-up. I can do everything except manufacture film and process it. With the right scripts I can continue to make features for around 10k with modest shooting ratios until someone takes notice of my work. Pre-planning is everything, don't shoot to figure it out later, story board your whole movie. Go to the location with the actors, shoot on a small video camera, cut the scenes together, show them what works and what doesn't. Filmmaking is an affordable hobby if you are careful with it. I remember shooting a short in film school with a 1:1 ratio on a bolex and the project came out as planned. Months later it won a festival and another student filmmaker who had shot on video instantly tried to play the...gee if only I had enough money to shoot on film. I told him it only cost $250 and he was in denial about it. I think we can get caught up in everything you learn at film school or read in American Cinematographer, or see on this forum. Filmmaking does not have to be a giant production. I am convinced that money will not help make your film better at all, it will just make it more expensive. Let's face it Uwe Boll will make poop with or without a budget, and Kubrick could have made something great with a K-3. It's up to you and not your wallet. And for all the naysayers. Give me $15,000 and 8 months and I will show you it is possible. Please. Jon

The NPR is a steal. After the conversion you can have a PL Mount Super 16mm camera with a registration pin, coaxial mags, and a shutter that is adjusted in 5 degree increments from 180 - as small as 5 degrees! You can get a 15mm rods adapter (got mine from Duall Camera) and get all the accessories you want...matte box, follow focus. The only issue you may find, depending on your motor, is that the NPR is not the quietest camera. In my opinion it is a small price to pay, and easy to deal with, get a barney. On top of this the C-mount will allow the use of 35mm still picture lenses which are a cheaper alternative to buying or renting PL Mount lenses. But the fact that you can put the best glass in the world on your camera and get a steady image leaves no limit to how professional your results can be. It can look like the best super 16mm work out there...and on a 30 year old camera. I highly recommend the NPR conversion if you are looking to get your own package. If you have any more questions just let me know. Jon

You're right, no point limiting the choice to lenses made specifically for s16mm. In that case I would have to go with Cooke S4s. They go as wide as 12mm which is good enough for me (although they did make a couple wider lenses for use with Super16). They just seem like this unobtainable fantasy set. Jon

Hey guys, Just wondering...if you could shoot with any prim set for super 16mm what would you pick and why? I know there are not a whole lot of choices, but just wanted to see peoples choices and reasonings. And I know the story and artistic goals will usually push you in a direction (usually the budget) none of this is a factor. If you had the power to use any. What do you think is the best lenses out there? Jon

Hello, I am looking into an Arri 2c. My question involves the gate and ground glass viewing system since I read some stuff on another thread which confused me. Does the Arri 2 c come with an Academy Gate or a Full Aperture Gate? From what I understand they can come with a Full Aperture, but you can't see it in the viewfinder. Is this correct? I am only interested in shooting 1.85. Although this might sound stupid...aren't all 1.85 films shot as 1.85 cropped out of the Academy frame and not the Full Aperture? Don't both Academy and 1.85 discard about 3mm of the side of the film where the soundtrack goes? Full Aperture contains this 3mm I believe. So I guess what I am asking is if I get an Arri 2c with an Aperture gate then I can shoot 1.85 the same way they do it in the industry. I just want to make sure I am not missing out on 3mm, and that my assumption is correct that 1.85 is just a matted Academy Ratio. Furthermore, I would like to make sure that the Arri 2c viewfinder and ground glass system display the entire Academy Frame. If this is the case I can then get the ground glass marked for 1.85 and shoot 1.85 with the same amount of resolution as everyone else. Correct? Is it possible to get a 1.85 gate or a hard matte for the 2c. I cannot tolerate being able to see outside my frame lines. I find it very difficult to frame when you are seeing outside the frame. Maybe too much time with a 35mm SLR or Video Cameras... Could I get my ground glass marked and taped with black tape around 1.85? Sorry so many questions, but thanks for your time, Jon

Hey everyone I am looking into HD and filming with the Cinealta, needless to say the cost of filming without an SRW-1 deck is much more affordable than using one, by over a $1000 a day. I still feel like Sex and Lucia is the probably one of the best films ever shot on video and yet it was made in 2001. So is it safe to assume they shot it via just recording HDCAM in the camera? I watched the making of and didn't notice any type of video village or external deck...don't think they even had them back then. I also looked at some behind the scenes pictures and they are using one of the Canon zooms. I was amazed that a movie made 7 years ago with a zoom still looks better than recent HD efforts. Also there are moments in Wolf Creek and Me and You and Everyone We Know that really look fantastic (I believe they were both shot HDCAM with zooms). I am yet to see Jackpot, but I have heard good things, and for an early HD movie I am assuming it was also shot HDCAM. If I rented an f900R and shot without an SRW-1 deck I believe, after perusing the forums, that I will be shooting in 3:1:1 and with lower resolution than the camera+SRW-1 deck is capable of pulling off. The downside of this to me seems besides the obvious less resolution, there is less ability to color grade in post. I would shoot 2.35 like Sex and Lucia (which was definitely heavily graded) and obviously if fortune comes my way it will be outputed to 35mm film for theaters. Will I be kicking myself later if I go without the deck? I am not doing any visual effects. However I would want to color correct. Is shooting in 3:1:1 that limiting? I look at Sex and Lucia and don't get what people are really preaching, unless I am missing something and most of that was done in camera with filters and such. What concerns me more is cropping to 2.35 without the gained resolution of the SRW-1 deck. Again I recognize Sex and Lucia where this didn't seem to be a factor as it looked great. Has anyone any knowledge or experience (Mr. David Mullen I am sure you can help) that could steer me in the right direction. It is still early, but this decision lets me know what kind of camera budget to shoot for. Thanks, Jon