Aapo Lettinen

Both the moviecam sl and aaton 353 were used on sync sound scenes in the 90s and 2000s. The film 21grams used the SL a lot for example.

Cinephiles rarely work in film industry, and if they do, they may have very hard time adapting to the not-what-they-thought-it-would-be working environment. it is much easier and funnier to watch a movie at home and complain about every image, especially without knowing the context eg. why the creative and technical decisions were actually made and why they led the movie to look like that. actually the reasoning behind the decisions could then make lot of sense and that's what the cinephiles would be worried about: to understand that the persons behind the movie were actually top professionals doing their best with the available resources and chose the best equipment and techniques they could to help the movie become better. Because the cinephiles would not want to know that even THEY could not have made the movie better were they been on set instead of those other guys. better scripts would help most movies though, especially the hollywood ones where the script is usually very weak even if the rest of the production is top notch

remember that video data generally does not compress well so you are generally using the NATIVE CAPACITY of a LTO tape, the hardware/software compression does not generally benefit you at all. Depending on one's system and file structure and material used etc. the REAL WRITTEN CAPACITY with video material may be about 85 - 95% of the LTO tape's native capacity. For example, for LTO5 (which I'm mostly using at the moment) one can normally store about 1.4TB - 1.47TB of video per tape. calculating for about 1.4TB per tape is quite safe with the LTO5 if you know your system well. LTO is cost effective for mid to long term storage because it needs less work and energy and maintenance than other systems. especially the work involved is quite expensive and that's why HDD storage is very bad solution for long term because it needs constant maintenance and data migration

I use the older straight viewfinder Konvas which has a lot smaller motor which does not go on the way of the Ronin tilt axis, I'm not sure if the 2m could be fitted at all (may be too wide with the crystal motor) . the older oct18 mount Konvas lenses are considerably cheaper than oct19 mount ones and have a nice vintage look, so a oct18 based Konvas model could be better for you if the lens cost is an issue. The main issue with the Ronin setup is that the Konvas is very top heavy and will need weights fitted on the bottom to prevent Ronin motors from overloading and shutting down (which also leads to the camera tilting violently to either direction which may damage the tilt stoppers on the motor) . As mentioned the 1KCP model fits even the regular Ronin if the viewfinder is removed and the additional weights installed on the bottom but it will be much better if having the full Ronin extensions (tilt, C, pan) to make if fit perfectly (C-arm extensions = full tilt capability with the Konvas without the magazine restricting movement , tilt extensions = less need for the additional weights to fit the Konvas so lighter overall setup and less stress to the motors , pan arm extension= possibility to balance the overall setup perfectly with the c-arm extensions installed so that the overall setup is not front heavy and balances correctly so that panning works well and does not lead to complicated side movement )

LET'S SWITCH BACK TO CAMERA PORN, IT WAS MUCH MORE INTERESTING THAN COMPARING WHO HAS THE BIGGEST, EHM, SHOW ON THEIR RESUME :lol: Here's a Konvas 1KCP on Ronin, I will make a video tap for it soon which goes in the place of the viewfinder tube :lol: I now have the C-arm extensions so that it tilts a little better than with standard setup

one needs to be pretty wealthy person to learn and practice cinematography only on film, especially if starting from zero :blink: I was talking about shooting for end product, not for shooting only tests and for operating experience. if one is not experienced enough to shoot something worthy with a camera then of course one needs to first buy a cheap entry level camera for basic tests and for gaining experience and then move on to more challenging scenarios and camera systems. by my experience, a 4 or 5 year old low or mid range camera is worth nothing when doing even basic indie stuff here in Finland, nobody wants it because it is not up to todays image quality requirements and it just disturbs everybody to watch the final image :blink: generally a low or mid level camera (like a dslr) does not even survive that 4 or 5 years without breaking up and when it happens two or 3 years after the purchase, it is probably not worth it to repair the camera anymore, cheaper to buy a similar used one instead for replacement or alternatively update to a newer camera model. I personally have a 5Dmark2 from 2009 which has somehow magically somewhat survived to this day without service or repair parts but it is so old technology that I only use it for stills couple of times a year or when a friend wants to borrow a camera for a short film and I don't want to give something I would need by myself. Or when I need a expendable camera for a situation where there is a considerable risk of breaking the camera or losing it forever for whatever reason, for example when using it with a cheap Chinese underwater bag like this http://www.ebay.com/itm/20M-Underwater-Waterproof-Camera-Case-for-Canon-750D-70D-5D-II-760D-7D-D90-D7200-/192178379385?hash=item2cbeb95a79:g:cEQAAOSwB09YJDvl :lol: Yes of course you can use the old camera for SOME stuff (if it still works, quite often not) but it may not be a good idea and the image quality difference compared to newer gear may be very distracting even if the older gear is only used on few select shots (remember the crappy Gopro shots on The Hobbitt for example? ) ------- WHEN THIS BECAME ANOTHER FILM vs. DIGITAL THREAD BTW, there will never be end to these ones I'm afraid :D

Not true. Updating digital equipment is pretty expensive because they have so limited lifespan, especially if you need to change the lens set at the same time. storing and managing the data will also cost you something depending on how you shoot, what your workflow is and which formats you use. Digital shooters almost always forget the hidden costs and always presume that they would shoot hours and hours of material with 1000:1 ratios or something which is impossible anyway because of the other larger costs involved . and there is a pretty huge difference if your camera body and possibly the lenses will need to be completely updated every two or three years and you will only get peanuts if trying to sell the 3 year old video equipment, VS a camera body which needs to be updated only every 20 or 30 years or so and lenses which can serve you even longer because the formats and mounts are more standardised. I don't fully understand the Pocket Camera thing especially nowadays when fullhd originating has almost no commercial value and the Pocket concept/design is not that ideal for shooting very large amounts of material, so it is not that good for documentary stuff and is difficult to sell to customers if trying to do commercial work. for indie work it should be OK I guess if you aren't planning to get any revenue from the movie but otherwise the concept is just plain bad by my opinion and the image does not look visually that stunning either... the only reason to buy one would be if you already own a huge lot of great quality S16 lenses which you can't sell so could as well shoot some indie stuff with them for "free" (not free of course) ;)

I think that paradoxically the biggest threat for film origination could actually be the SCREENWRITING more than technical or aesthetics... because the script dictates the genre and locations and mood of the film quite a lot and if it calls for, for example, lots of remote locations, certain types of lighting conditions, long scenes with certain type of operating, etc. it may not be practical to shoot the movie on film for practical and economical reasons even if the film would otherwise benefit from film origination. In recent years it has been especially difficult because global depression necessitates (again) transforming the movies more towards fantasy/scifi/action/comedy instead of period/drama/relationships related content and in current environment it is much more practical to shoot this type of content (fantasy/scifi/action/comedy) on digital (lots of vfx, lots of cameras, high speed shots, handheld, the need to make visually stunning crystal clear scenes for young audience, etc) Certain types of movies benefit a lot from film origination but if other genres are more asked for because of the economical and political environment, then digital is used more and more...

old grainy and foggy color shifted stocks may be good for flashback or dream sequences, no need to throw them away ;)

I use the nose grease trick regularly :lol: it is also great for making temporary custom streak filters on location ;) it is also a great way to get those "what the hell is he doing" looks B) I would suspect the silicone residue would be very bad in processing baths and the lab would not like it but don't know for sure. A lab tech would know better about this

it would always be best to use centered masking for the 2perf area. in telecine/scanning one just needs to offset the image so that the both passes are visible. because the film is aligned in camera only by the markings it would not matter whether one would mask centered or off-centered but for the image the centered method would be much much better

daylight load cameras like Eyemos would be easier to use for this technique because it is much easier to find the frame markings at the start of the roll when you can handle the rolls in daylight. Quick change magazines are very tricky for this, especially the Konvas cameras where you need to open and realign the magazine in changing bag instead of just adjusting the film position just before attaching the magazine to the camera (the Konvas movement will jam if your loop are wrong size by about 1 or 2 perforations so you can't really adjust the film position in other way than opening the magazine in changing bag every time you have adjusted the position so that you can correct the loops, then reattaching the mag to the camera and hoping that the alignment does not change from your last adjustment.... you should have a mark near the frameline marks which you can feel in the changing bag so that you can approximate the film position when loading the magazine. a small punch for example. otherwise would be too time consuming to use this method with most cameras, especially the quick change mag ones where you can't just wind the mag forward to find your markings

one could either ran it through the scanner two times with 4perf pulldown but masking first the upper part of the image and then the lower part. But it would be more economic, if getting enough vertical resolution from the scanner, to scan the whole 4perf open gate area (the two streams at the same time) and then separate them in edit (very easy to do). of course the whole roll will be ruined if one screws up aligning the film perfectly at the start of the roll when shooting the second pass. similarly, if one has problems in the middle of the roll and needs to open the movement, the alignment will be ruined and one may need to leave the rest of the roll unexposed which ruins the cost-effectiveness. as others said, should work OK with every camera which can use separate gate masks. rewinding the film will make changing the rolls a bit complicated and will add some dust to them which may be a problem in 2perf. other way to do it would be to leave the end of the roll, maybe about 20 or 30ft or so, unexposed. to stop the camera before the roll ends and before the stock is running too low on the feed side, then mark the PASS1 framelines to couple of adjacent frames, then running the camera couple of feets so that you can get enough tail for threading the camera again. then cutting the film and throwing the rest 15-25feets of the raw stock away, flipping the takeup side roll to the feed side, threading the camera, aligning the film so that the PASS1 framelines DO NOT show in the gate (so that you are exposing for the 2ND PASS areas) and then shooting the second pass.

this is not necessary with most 16mm mags, for example SR or XTR mags (one will only expose a small amount of film if loading the mag transport/takeup side in daylight) but it may be very handy if loading the mags in dusty conditions. if having for example the Eclair NPR (feed roll on the transport side of the mag) then one needs to thread the film completely in changing bag too to avoid ruining the roll. same of course with 2c/35-3/435/arricam/moviecam/Kinor/Konvas/Cameflex/Aaton35 etc mags. taping the whole mag seams may be necessary in dusty conditions though one would also need a rain cover or similar for additional protection. most cameras don't need the door seams to be fully taped to be secure but some older models may require it, especially if having lots of vibrations etc

yep it was Aputure V-Converter A810. Never tested it but could be useful if you already have a cheap monitor

I saw a box made for indie market which adds overlays and peaking and histogram (I think it might had have waveform too) to a hdmi signal so one can add functionality to any hdmi monitor, even the cheapest ones. I think it was Aputure brand or similar. though nowadays you could just buy one of the cheaper sdi recorders like atomos and use that as a onboard monitor if on a budget. you can also play with for example Blackmagic Mini Converters if you just need the sdi signal to a tv for example. though they are not very ideal in semi pro or pro environment but you can create interesting systems with them

I use the Sigma 70-200/2.8 ex dg hsm II a lot, I like it much more than the rokinok lenses though it breathes a bit so i dont recommend it for shots where you need to pull focus. It is also not parfocal but that wasnt absolutely needed in your use?

for learning Cinematography it is also very important to watch BAD movies. seeing clearly which of their choices are working and which are not, and all the time thinking how and why they ended using that solution and would there have been any better choice considering the time and budget etc. Appreciate the good ones - Learn from the bad ones -type of thinking ;)

the point of Top Tens , as I see it, is to give people references what other persons are interested in and they can cross reference the trends and highly appreciated styles to get ideas where they can head on next for inspiration. A single person's Top Ten is totally insignificant but if, for example, 20 different people mention the same movie for cinematography, then it is probably worth checking

low compression RAW may be very problematic if you are shooting lots of material per day and especially if shooting on remote locations or having lots of company moves per day. you may not have to worry about this if you're just the DP or Director but your poor DIT does... not a problem in high end productions but may be quite challenging in mid and low budget. or in every production which has lots of cameras and tight schedule. anyway, why not adding an onboard 444 codec, preferably with both 10bit and 12bit options? maybe even something that tolerates underexposure much better than XAVC?

also too expensive. should be less than 30k with the raw recorder and viewfinder I think :lol:

I would really like to see something like a updated F55 concept with easily changeable mount adapters, relatively lightweight and "small", high framerates over 200fps in full resolution, high quality raw, high iso... kind of a multi purpose camera like the F5 is, not a "we want to make a VaricamLT style camera with similar stupid flaws and just name it differently" type of concept. thank goodness it at least HAS raw options and not just some 422 nonsense when wanting higher framerates than 30 :blink:

I am a bit worried about the framerates the camera offers. nowadays it should be able to reach at least 60fps in 5k or 6k and well over 100fps in 4k to be competitive, preferably at least 120 or 180 or 200+ fps in 4k. those framerates in the specs are, for example, not enough for (animal) nature footage, and barely enough for commercials if slow motion is not needed... that limits its market quite a bit. way better than the Varicam35 concept but it should just have much higher framerates I think

you could try some mirrorless like gh5/gh4/a7s2 with couple of lenses and a photo tripod /lightweight video tripod +shoulder set. if you are doing interviews etc. you will need a separate audio recorder and also a small on camera mic like rode videomic or similar. the small audio recorder and the mics needed if doing interviews and stuff. if using wireless mics you need to check the local regulations for frequencies which are legal to use, they vary from country to country (you may accidentally interfere with the local military frequencies for example :ph34r: )

yeah the curving scratches are very odd. it might be that they are originating from something else than the camera gate area unless the pressure plate is wobbling around a lot. if you have access to the original negative you can check which side the scratches are on and which kind of pattern/interval the wobbling scratches have, that may add some light to the origin of them. the curving scratches seem to have a repeating pattern which might be caused by a roller for example (a lab issue??) or the film moving around side to side in the film channel either feed or takeup side when something is scratching it (a mag issue) . gate scratches are normally happening only if you have a bad DIY super16 modification which has left sharp edges to the gate. and with this type of cameras (SR series) the gate scratches should not curve/move around at all, they should be straight lines... as Tyler said it would be easiest to first scratch test the magazine and if that has not issues, then look for a lab issue