Todd Anderson

Hi Luis, I haven't seen anything on the internet, but I purchased the following book on Amazon when I picked up my BL-4 last year. Unfortunately, I paid about $75 for mine, and it looks like the book may be currently out of print, with only two used for about $150 each. Maybe you can try some other sources (ASC bookstore, perhaps?) Book is called "Arriflex 35 Book, Third Edition (Paperback) by ASC, Jon Fauer" Best, Todd Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Arriflex-Book-Third-...3949&sr=8-2

Adam, can you explain in a little more detail the problems one will encounter using Black and White stocks in a Aaton? I have an XTR and a XTRPlus, so I guess when you refer to having a 'striped pressure plate', I would say my magazines looked to have that 'stripe' pattern. Which you can see here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...=tab%3DWatching But anyhow, what kind of 'bright environments' are you specifically talking about. Exteriors with a backlit subject? Shooting into the sun, and that sort of thing... or just bright ambient light in general? No problems shooting a low key scene with hard light, like say using Fresnels and that sort of thing, as long as not much light is being directed towards the lens? Thanks. Todd

Interesting. Though I imagine like most corporations, Kodak's different divisions don't talk to each other and probably even have a bit of a internal rivalry. I'm sure their digital division wants to wipe up the film division, and vice verse... Maybe in the coming years the outcome will become like what vinyl is these days, a small quantity of prints will be made for select art theater's if there is a niche market... just as a small pressing of vinyl goes to the independent stores which cater to the vinyl-philes and the club DJ set...

"I'm not suggesting that digital should go away. I just don't understand why it has to be one or the other. Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to choose their medium?" Jay, Exactly! Thanks, Man..... Todd

Karl, You exactly hit upon two of the main points I was trying to make, albeit, with about one twentieth of the words! Thank you. And Tom, I honestly think that I am in a minority group that pays attentions to things like the subtle variations in fleshtones that film captures. And that is honestly another reason why digital (and I agree with you here) will eventually take over, that is, because most people won't see such things. ... even if I do think that a wider public audience "unconsciously" does sense such variations... I just think they can't always put their fingers on what is different... And admittedly, I can certainly romanticize the whole idea of things like texture, fleshtones in portraiture, craftsmanship long lost, etc... but I'm also the person that buys a vintage 1930's Spanish home, and lives in it with all its faults, as so I can marvel at things like lath and plaster, coved ceilings, all the irregularities and patina of the hard wood floors and roof... the old windows that are a bitch to restore and are not efficient at all, but look wonderful.... I'm just not that person that is going down to Home Depot to pick up all the 'new' materials that sometimes may be better from an engineering stand point, but certainly not from an aesthetic stand point... ...CCD's may eventually be better at capturing more light and more color than film, but I still think electronic imaging will always be a different processes for capturing light than the way film randomly does with all its 'sensors'. So, you can spray more stucco on the side of a building more quickly and efficiently today with all these engineering marvels, but it is the irregularities of applying that same stucco by hand that gives those old walls their souls... So as to embracing it, sure, I totally embrace digital for certain applications?I think it can be great! I honestly do. And it will certainly get even better as it matures. But it will still be different. And so as to 'give in' and not embrace film for all those other projects that require the film aesthetic, that would be like telling me to embrace living in a track home in the middle of Paris because the city planners got together and decided to tear down all the old buildings because they were not worth the extra expense. Todd

Hey Tom, I saw Zodiac in the theater and on Blu-ray... For the theater, I was a bit puzzled as to why Fincher would shoot a 70's period film with digital acquisition, since it kind of goes against the aesthetics of that period. But I gathered that Fincher would rather have that 'total control', meaning he could see the dallies that day and see what was happening 'now', as so he could make the best decision as if he got what he needed before he moved on... so I think that was the directors decision based on the control he needed, versus say, perhaps the right aesthetics... But having said that, I absolutely loved some of the shots in that film. I watched it recently again on Blu-ray, and I thought the scene where the couple are in the straw field by the lake (where they eventually get stabbed) is nothing short of stunning, and one of the most cinematicly memorable moments of that year for me... My biggest complaint with that film having been shot digitally, is that the fleshtones never seem to look correct, or natural. As I think David Mullen has mentioned on this board before, the fleshtones in digital can tend to take on a solid 'band-aid' color. That is what is always the toughest sell for me. In fact, I had to go back and watch that scene I just mentioned in Zodiac to see how they got around that, since the rest of the film it was so noticeable to me... and if you look at that scene, they are brilliantly using the reflections, shadows, and de-focused elements of the straws in the field to break up the fleshtones on the faces...totally worked I think digital is a godsend for certain productions that can take advantage of what that acquisition format has to offer... my point is that we shouldn't be continued into this rapid?almost forceable?path of digital being the only choice because of cost and other market pressures. If we do, art down the road is going to suffer for it. Again, not all art. But the art where as digital is not the right fit... It is still about the story, right? Don't take a side: only film, or only digital, and what have you... just use what you feel works for you and the story... Todd

And honestly, since I originally started this thread, I am not trying to start a flame war either. In fact, I have accepted and like certain aspects and esthetic of some of the newer digital cameras. I may loath the look of older Sony camera's (what a travesty that Coppola's last film was shot with the F900), but I really like some of the stuff I'm seeing with the Panavision Genesis (watch 'The Other Boylen Girl' on Blu-ray, and it is a slight religious experience... a completely different feel than film). And I think some of the RED stuff is great, too. It may not feel as magical to me as film, but I think it would have been interesting to see if digital acquisition may have been something Kubrick may have looked into as an option for some of what he was trying to achieve with certain aspects of 2001.... But my fear is this: that with the signing of the contracts for the studios and the theaters chains to go wholly to digital projection, that this 'could' be too big of a blow for Kodak to hold and that they may just throw in the towel at some point... and that if this were to happen, is would not be due to a loss of demand by the 'artist's' that still want to use film as a medium?would it have not been a horrible artistic choice for the first half of a film like 'Atonement' to be captured digitally?? but do to the financial's and balance sheets of the accountants... ... and so: film or digital, they both are acceptable mediums with advantages and disadvantages, with their own aesthetics,... but let there continue to be just that... a 'choice'... We are heading in the direction, as to, where there won't be that choice because meetings in a boardroom with hand shakes, back pats, and the power of persuasion are going to be leaving it up to the non-artist to decide that, 'this looks good enough'.... and then the consumer will grow accustom to the 'new look' , just as they have unconsciously done so to all those ultra sharp, and clinical digital still photographs, even if it would have perhaps been the better choice to have their wedding 'captured' with a few good Black and White prints from a Hasselblad...than 2,000 images on CD from a Canon digital... but, I digress... Again, just the choices... It would be like telling a painter that he can no longer use oil or charcoal, but MUST use some sort of digital medium, like painting just in Photoshop. Again, the right tool for the job that is going to convey the correct tone, atmosphere, aesthetics, for the project, or story, etc... ...Should we tell the fine art painter that the wall in the museum he wishes to hang his oil painting on will 'only accept' digital prints? It is kind of where we are heading, right? 'Cheaper, easier, faster, sharper and more efficient"... isn't that the promise of all those one's and zero's... Concerning the art, how are all those one's and zero's going to be holding up fifty years from now as we look back? Are our brains going to be able to unlearn what they have been accustomed to for decades as what represents 'a film'? Will the digital projection just blend into the rest of the onslaught of 'digital imagery', such as in the form of websites, televisions, adverts, digital billboards, ... will it all just kind of converge and take on the same lack of texture? ...What is the patina of tomorrow going to be for the art history books?... the difference between VHS, MiniDV and 4K? Todd

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/conten...814a4658dc9eedf I think this is sad... Granted, in some cases Digital Projection will look great, such as films made through some sort of digital acquisition to begin with.... But just like when lead based paint gave way to latex, because they said it 'works just as good'... and CRT's gave way to those horrible LCD's, because they are 'bigger and better with the 1,000,000,000:1 contrast ratio's'...and all the other great analog and quasi-analog mediums that have gone into the land fill... something else loses its 'soul' and stoops to the lowest common denominator of mass consumption... Hopefully, the studios will still archive separations onto film, so we don't have the equivalent of those old 'studio vault fires' that burnt up half of the great silent films, this being, some smart bomb or accidental data dump that wipes out the 'one's and zero's' of tomorrows masterpieces... ... and hopefully the loss of Kodak's saving grace, the big money maker of supplying print stocks, doesn't mean it is one more step to being shut out. And not shut out due to quality, but do to the acceptance of mediocrity... I guess Beelzebub, once again, is standing there pissing on Rembrandt's grave as he's pulling a fast one on us distracting the 'Joneses' with the new gadgets... Damn, I must be getting old... Todd P.S. And goodbye art house theaters. It wasn't enough that we sat on your sans stadium seating, crappy old upholstery. Or withstood those horrible projections with the 10 foot screens...I guess you will be made into parking lots or Wall Marts while we are forced to make a date with the new explosions in 3-D... talk about eternity in flames.

Hi Nick, I purchased two ACL's and one Bolex Super16mm camera from that e-bay seller. The Bolex looked incredible in the picture on the listing, and arrived as such. I was very happy with that purchase. The ACL's I bought were maybe 'a little' hyped more than they were, but I think the seller is not a camera person, but just a sales person in most respects. I think he gets a lot of stuff from older TV stations and such that go out of business in Europe and have the equipment sitting around. Looking at the pictures, it looks like that ACL is in very nice condition. And it is the latest and greatest model of the ACL, which is very desirable. The later viewfinders were MUCH better than the earlier versions; brighter and larger magnification. I would think you are in pretty good shape. And having myself bought about five ACL's the past, I think you got a great camera at a very good price. Though, you probably want to send it off to have it overhauled at some point before some lengthy project, even if it is in mint condition and has been sitting around. Hope that helps, Todd

Actually, I have a set of MK1 16mm Superspeeds, the 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm and 25mm, that DO NOT have the triangular bokeh (three blades). Though, oddly enough, I also have two MKII 16mm Superspeeds, a 16mm and 25mm, and they do have the three blade iris. So I've been confused as to why Zeiss went 'back' to the three blade iris on the second generation? Todd

Andrew, What were you using for lenses on this project? Everything looks great! Love the production design, as well. Looking forward to seeing some quicktime clips... Thanks for posting. Todd

Hi Mitch, That was an interesting quote regarding the SuperSpeeds. I was wondering what the specifics were regarding the "environmental restrictions" in the production of the SuperSpeeds? Thanks, Todd

I just realized another anomaly of not having a exactly centered lens: any lens that does not have a natural perspective, like say a wide-angle lens, or a lens prone to other distortions like 'barreling' or 'pin-cushioning', say on a zoom, would have a slightly off-center effect of such distortions. I suppose it could look a bit disconcerting with one side of the frame 'barreling' to more of a degree, or from a different starting point, than the other side of the frame. For example.

Hi Gregor, Don't know if this helps, but I have a excellent condition and recently overhauled Bolex EBM Super16 with the Bolex bayonet mount for sale at a reasonable price on ebay as we speak. ebay link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...rksid=p3907.m29 Regards, Todd P.S. if the link doesn't work, just go to ebay and type in AATON and you can find it easily without searching through all the bolex stuff.

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on the particulars of converting and/or the shooting of 4-perf Super35mm with an Arri BL3. In short, my questions are: (A) what are the limitations and quirks involved in shooting Super35mm with a silent/full aperture gate, 'without' the re-centering of the PL mount/flange? And (B'), what is required and how difficult is it to re-center the PL mount/flange on a Arri BL3 if Option A, above, is too limiting and/or I wanted the peace of mind of having a 100% spec camera? And if we are talking anything over two, three, or four thousands dollars here for the re-centering, I'll probably happily forgo peace of mind for now :-) .... As I understand it from reading Jon Fauer's Arriflex 35 Book, later model BL's?I'm assuming the 4 or 4s's?required three small modifications when shooting super 35mm (after the obvious step of swapping out the academy gate for a silent/full aperture gate) The three changes were: 1) re-centering of the PL mount my removing the six cheeshead screws in the flange and rotating the flange 180 degrees. Which I imagine re-centered the mount because the new holes were such that they slightly shifted the offset back to the center, be that 2 mm's, or what have you. 2) unscrew the video tap flange and turn the video tap 180 degrees, which I assume has a similar effect as what takes place on the re-centering of the PL mount. 3) re-centering of the base plate tripod mount slightly. From what I can tell my particular BL3 (recently purchased from a rental house in Canada via an acquaintance) has a silent/full aperture gate installed. I can't tell if the mount has been re-centered, though my guess is that is has not. I say this because the camera came with a academy 1:33 ground glass inside it with cross hairs centered for academy. So, I can only assume that unless someone just kind of through that ground glass in there to have something in place for the sale, the last way it was used was academy 1:33 with a silent aperture. I should also mention that my BL3 has a wide-angle eyepiece. So I can see all of the full frame aperture through the viewfinder, albeit the left two corners are slightly obscured do the limitations of the viewfinder. Though, I think for 1:85 and 2:40 extraction I would be fine for framing. So after I take care of the first hurdle, that of putting a proper Super35mm ground glass into place? say one with a re-centerd crosshair with Super 1.85mm markings for center extraction?what problems would I run into optically and otherwise by not re-centering the mount? I made two assumptions myself, which are just that, assumptions. But here they are: 1) I assume seeing how the mount is not re-centered, I would need make sure that any lenses that barely covered Super35mm as it were, would not be vignetting on left side of the frame. Hopefully this may just be a small problem, especially with primes. 2) I also would imagine with a zoom, I may run into problems with the image 'pulling' to one side during any zooming that may take place. And I imagine any lenses that breathed a lot would encounter similar traits. Though it seems zooms seem to take on these traits to some degree as they are. Any other problems here by the non re-centering of the mount? The plane of focus remains the same regardless of leaving the mount at academy or re-centering, correct? Any other quirks? And I guess lastly, if there are too many anomalies that I would encounter by not re-centering the mount, how difficult is it to re-centered the PL mount on a BL-3? Could a technician rotate the PL flange 180 degrees, carefully drill six new holes that are slightly offset by 2 millimeters, or what have you, and that would be that? Or are we opening up a can of worms here and it is best to shoot Super35mm with the silent gate in place and the slight quirks that may be involved with the non-re-centering of the mount? Any help or insight appreciated in advance. Todd