Jump to content

Mihai Meda

Basic Member
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  1. Thank you for the answers and advice Chuck! The rolls have already been developed and the results came out fine (about 2 weeks ago). I bought the mags from Visual Products, I wonder if I could send them back for them to check the clutches. The warranty was only 90 days (which passed) but this was the first time I shot anything since I got them. They said, however, that thay are both checked and calibrated. PS Normally, can you really flex 1,000 feet rolls? I remember them being very rigid even when unexposed, taken out from the black bag and loaded inside the tent.
  2. Sorry about the old display name, I didn't have time to post anything since the rules changed. Anyway, now it's fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Chuck, the wind is tight. I can't flex the rolls, especially at 1,000'. I hope I'm understanding the question correctly.
  3. Hello! I would appreciate any advice here. I've been shooting a no-budget feature recently with the Arri 35BL1 camera, using two 1,000 feet 35BL magazines (I believe they are BL2 magazines actually, but they fit on the BL1 just fine, and I think the problem is definitely not here). Anyway, every time I used to stop the camera after a take and approximately 70 unexposed feet were left in the camera, on the next take the mag would invariable jam immediately. On the contrary, if we ran a longer take (let's say from 100 feet left till the very end of the roll), nothing would happen. But the moment we had 70 or less left, it would jam. Obviously we tried to avoid doing that as much as possible. Anyone knows what's the problem? Do the mags need to be checked for tension or anything else? I'm sure it has to do with the fact that you have so much film on one side (they are coaxial mags) and so less on the other side. I tried it by hand as well in the tent and I had the same problem as well (turning the knob would not move the (big) already-exposed roll, and the incoming raw film would jam - again, only when aprox 930' or more were exposed). So, I ruled out the motor of the camera not having enough torque (although I never considered this seriously, as I'm sure it has something to do with the magazines). BOTH magazines had exactly the same issue during the shoot. 400' mags worked fine. Like I said, we tried to never stop the camera after we only had about 100' left, and we never had a problem in that scenario, but obviously I want to get to the bottom of this. Any help? Thanks in advance! Mike
  4. Hello! Are there any PL to BNCR adapter? I am looking into using a PL mount lens on my BNCR BL2 camera. I looked around and I couldn't find any. Do they make them? Average price? Also (different topic), I thought you can use a PL lens on a BNCR camera, but not vice-versa (using a BNCR mount lens on a PL camera), due to the flange focal distance difference. But I just saw this picture. Just curious. I have the exact same lens (whole set - Canon K-35 in BNCR mount) And thanks for any pointers to PL-BNCR mount adapters.
  5. Hello, I started the thread to find an answer out of curiousity. I own a set of prime lenses with BNCR mounts so I have no intention whatsoever of spending money towards changing the mount (and lenses) to PL. But seeing in more than one place that fitting the camera with a PL mount "eliminates the need of the infamous lens blimp", I just wondered if I'm lucky enough (with my BNCR mount) to have the same advantage as with a PL. That's all. Of course everyone wants better results in all directions, but basically I didn't start the thread because I was dissatisfied, it was only to find out if the PL and BNCR are the same soundwise. Thanks!
  6. OK so the BL1 with PL mount is noisier than the original BL1 with a lens blimp. That's one answer. It means the best results are still attainable only with the old lens blimp... The second question (the one that started the thread), is the camera less noisy with a PL mount than with a BNCR mount? That would mean the PL has something (soundwise) that the BNCR doesn't, and I certanly don't think that's the case. Bottom line, I got acceptable results with the BNCR mount even indoors. Of course, it depends on the mic placement, distance to the camera etc etc.
  7. The problem is that I have never shot with a BL-1 fitted with a PL mount, or a BL-1 with the original mount and lens blimp. Only with the BL-1 fitted with the BNCR mount, so I have no terms of compairisons. I don't know which option is noisiest. Thus my question above. Outdoors I have no problems. Indoors, I use my barney on the camera (body AND magazine), and sideways the noise is fine. But there is still noise out in the front, coming through the lens. But again, I don't know if it's better or worse then the other set-ups mentioned above. Any other experiences or ideas about BNCR vs PL in terms of noise?
  8. Hello, Some 35BL1s are fitted with a PL mount in order to minimize the sound coming through the lens mount. People are doing this (or did this), I believe, to eliminate the big lens blimp necessary when shooting with the BL1 (leaving the other PL advantages aside). I've been shooting with a ArriBL-1 that was fitted with a BNCR mount. I wonder if the BNCR mount performs the same function as the PL mount in terms of eliminating some of the noise. The BNCR mount is even stronger, so I would think it is at least as good as the PL mount as far as decibels are concerned. Anyone has a more informed answer on this issue? Thanks.
  9. Nobody knows if the Arri III eyepiece extension is interchangeable with the Arri 35BL series? Thanks.
  10. Hi, I was wondering, would an Arri III extension eyepiece (9') fit my 35BL1 camera eye piece? Thanks!
  11. Thanks for the reply David! OK, I will end my search now... By the way, there IS an article on you this coming issue (March). Read it! Congratulations. I see you like Kubrick, too, one of the "usual suspects". Thanks again for the info. All the best, Bog
  12. Hello! So far I've collected all American Cinematographer issues featuring Stanley Kubrick's movies -- EXCEPT the one featuring A Clockwork Orange. In fact, since I wasn't even able to retrieve some info on it, I began to think that maybe this film was not even featured in American Cinematographer! That would be pretty interesting... Can somebody confirm/deny that? And if it really exists, can somebody inform me on the year/month it appeared? That way, I can focus my efforts of getting it in the right direction, and maybe with greater success. Thanks!
  13. Thanks for all the replies. So, is it true that these lenses are for still photography at the end of the day?
  14. Hello! I own a complete set (18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 55mm and 85mm) of Canon K35mm lenses, all in BNCR mount. So far, they performed flawlessly. Recently I have come across this statement on the webpage of a 35mm sales/rental company: --- PRODUCT FEATURES: These lenses are quite possibly the best kept secret in 35mm motion picture prime lenses. Originally made by Canon for still photography, these lenses are very sharp and contrasty as well as rugged. The speed on these lenses are second only to the Zeiss Super Speeds (at half the price!). They have been beautifully rehoused and feature expanded focus scales and integrated focus gears. ATTENTION P+S Technik 35Pro Owners: You may have noticed that some lenses intended for 35mm film shooting produce images with dark corners when used on the P+S Technik Adapters. Since these Canons were originally made for 35mm still photography, they produce an image circle larger than that of lenses designed specifically for use on 35mm motion picture cameras (which have a smaller image area than 35mm still photography). This feature enables the Canon K35 lenses to produce a bright image from edge to edge on a P+S Technik Pro35 adapter making them an excellent, affordable lens choice. --- Just out of curiosity, is this true? Are these lenses for still photography? I had no idea. I also saw them featured in the American Cinematographer, March 1976 issue (the Barry Lyndon one), on page 255. It even says there "specifically designed for professional cinematography [...], they are the result of an extensive and painstaking research program [...] by Canon abd Cinema Products Corporation, in cooperation with the Research Center of the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers". And, if I'm not mistaken, they were awarded an Academy Award for innocation in motion picture cinematography, too. Well, anyone has any more details about it? Are they in fact still photography lenses adapted only later on for motion picture use? Thanks! PS And, anyone else owning/using the K35 lenses out there?
  15. I will check on THE ELEMENTS OF COLOR and THE PERCEPTION OF COLOR, thanks John and madsen. I've already read Blain Brown's book, they are both good. To go back to my first point: I am not interested that much anymore in the physical properties of light/color, or simply the mechanism of vision. So no need for tutorials or physics book. As I said, I am interested to learn how people use color creatively. How color affects us psychologically, what are the cultural associations in different civilizations, and so on. How different colors (or combinations) affect people, even subconsciously. Again - not necessarily in film. Architecture. design, painting, etc. How color affects us in general. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...