Michael Baltazar

Still available. The camera is located in los angeles but available for shipping. We can work out a deal on shipping too. I've just had the camera checked out and serviced at Clairmont Camera. It's in tip top condition.

Los Angeles

Arri 3 for sale. Very cheap. $3995. The camera is in pristine condition. Arriflex 35-3 Third Generation Body C.E. Crystal base Arri 19mm Sliding Baseplate with Dovetail & Rods (6) 400 foot magazines Jurgens Video Door with Sony video assist camera C.E. Crystal base Wide-angle eyepiece Variable shutter 15-180° Cables Fitted Shipping Cases

Thanks for the suggestions. I still haven't been able to find a tech willing to look at it. I believe it's a minor electrical problem. Maybe even something as simple as a broken fuse box - so I'm thinking maybe even a repair electrician might be able to fix it. Any ideas on that end?

Looking to by a crystal sync motor for my arri 2c. The tobin crystal sync would be ideal but any would do the job.

I'm looking for a tech to repair a crystal sync motor for an arri 2c. It's a 24fps crystal sync pistol grip motor. Does anyone know where I can go in the LA (or even if I have to send it away) who can take a look at it?

If I push a film stock that's exposed normally 1-2 stops when developing and then take down the image 1-2 stops in a DI what's the result grain wise? How about if I pull the stock 1-2 stops. Would I perceive an increase in grain, decrease, or would it not be noticeable? My problem is I had shot a roll of expired stock that I forgot to overexpose and am worried about the graininess of the results. Speed is 500T which doesn't help. m

Anyone know how many amps a cinema products crystal sync 24fps motor for the arri 2c draws running at 24V?

Thanks for the info David. I've also changed the display to my full name.

This is a very basic question, so sorry in advance. Why is that wide shots appear much much softer than closeups or medium shots. Especially in landscapes. Is the resolution discrepancy a result of the lens being used or are there other factors in resolving objects in a distance? And is the soft look 'real' or just 'perceived', meaning closeups just seem sharper because you're perceiving a single object in a finite space.

I have an old cine 60 battery pack. I'm wondering how I find out the charge rate on the battery pack (it just plugs into the wall and doesn't look like there's much circuitry for smart charging), and how do I keep it from overcharging the NICDs?

What percentage is cropped off the edges? It seems it would still be twice the surface area over S16, and you get 35mm depth of field. Resolution wise, what is the difference between 2-perf and super 35 cropped to 2.35? The 20min. long takes on 1000' rolls is what attracts me.

I'm debating the same issue between going 2-perf/3-perf. Why are you deciding on 3-perf?

I Took apart the throat of an arri magazine. Anyone know what the deal is with the copper gear and all the little greased silver balls that go into it? What's the best way of putting this thing back together - i.e. so those little balls are in the right place and the gear turns smoothly. Where exactly (which grooves) should those balls be in? any help is appreciated.

I'm well aware all the issues in post, thanks Landon. (I do know how to add too, by the way =)). The attraction for me is yes, 50% savings on stock, but also the 16mm running times you get w/ 2-perf. 8+ minutes on a 400' load, almost 20 min on a 1000' load. Creatively it opens up a lot more doors with the ability to shoot longer takes. And you could probably finish a 35mm 2.35 feature with a 16mm budget. I'm still up in the air on the issue i.e. weighing the options between converting to either 2-perf or 3-perf. Here's what I'm debating... If I'm shooting 1.85 for tv - say for music videos, shorts, commercials... I don't think the loss of area is an issue since the newest stocks have such fine grain well enough for TV, even HDTV.. Usually I can't tell the difference between 35 and 16 on a TV res anyway. I *might* be able to live with a 1.85 originating from 2-perf on an independent short or even feature. Its still twice the area of 16 I believe. In this case I could convince myself (or whoever I"m working for) its just as well to shoot 2.35 anyway. The drawback comes if I'm using my camera as a B-cam on a shoot that's 1.85. Not having that 1.85 option here without a loss of quality renders my camera useless in this application. In this case having 3-perf would be a better compromise. I guess I was hoping for a best of both worlds solution... I'll still keep debating about it but thanks for all the info everyone.

Aha. Guess I had a misunderstanding of 2-perf and full aperture. Thanks, its all clear now.

I guess I wasn't being clear enough - I was thinking more of using the area between perfs, which looks equal to the area of 1 perforation. Adding half of that on the bottom and half of that on the top. Correct me if I'm wrong, but image area of 2 perf is really the area of 2 perforations plus the area between them. The image area of 3 perf is 3 perforations plus 2 'in-between perf' areas. I guess the semantics of this is confusing - so below is a pic illustrating my proposal. I'm familiar with 3-perf but I'm wondering if this is a viable alternative to 3-perf. even if my proposed 2.5 perf isn't exactly 1.85, would it be close enough? i.e. 2.0:1 or less. Then having to crop only 10% off the sides as such.

Hi, Having read up on 2-perf - I'm interested in pursuing a 2 perf conversion for my camera, but I don't want to give up 1.85 entirely. Its a huge loss of quality to crop a 2 perf 2.39 frame to 1.85, so I'm interested in other solutions... Here was my thought - Looking at a 35mm negative - would it be possible to have a gate that's say half a perf open on the top and bottom. So it would expose more like 2.5 perfs. Essentially maintain as little room possible between frames? This would get me closer to 1.85 and still be at 2 perf motion. Anyone know what this final aspect ratio might be? I realize it might be an issue in post-production - printing and telecine and scanning would have to account for this area - but i'm not worried about that at this stage... Just wondering if this modification is a workable solution when shooting.

Where can one find 3-perf movement of the 2c? And how much can one expect to pay?

Is it possible to have multiple fronts with different mounts for use on a 2c. i.e. I currently have a turret (standard) front, but want to fashion a PL mount front - but I want to be able to switch back to the turret if inclined. Also interested in a 3rd Nikon Mount! Possible?

Where can you get one of these maintenance kits, and is there one specific for the 2c?. I'm located in New Zealand.... and its hard to find anything Arri out here.

Hi, I recently bought a PL mount for my 2c. Its not mounted to a plate or anything though its just the raw mount. Does anyone have specs on how to fashion a plate for this PL mount that I can use to attach it to the camera. Ideally I'd like to be able to swap between the current mount (standard turret) and PL mount. Or, who can I go to that won't charge me $2k for the conversion... thx.

Thanks for all the responses. Here's an update on the light leak issue I'm having in case anyone is interested. After some time, money, and testing, I've concluded its coming from the 'gear' chamber (i.e. the right side of the 2c body where the gears are) most likely kicking up light back into the mag. It must only happen when the gears are in a certain position which is why its intermittent. I've sealed up some holes (like at the tachometer) where I've noticed light coming into this gear chamber, and have managed to minimize the leaks, but there is still a little getting through. So question is - is this chamber 'supposed' to be light proof? Or is it the magazine that's supposed to be light proof at the gear connection?

Aha - didn't think about the transport and registration issues. Still film seemed much more accessible in terms of developing and transferring, but you're right, I've shot so many of these things now that it probably would've been cheaper to just shoot a 200' roll or something. When you say i wouldn't get an idea of exposure - is that because the transfer effectively compensates for a potentially bad exposure? In that case - is the only way to truly judge exposure is by projecting a postive print?

Just to get acquainted with shooting 35mm while saving money, I've been testing out shooting rolls of still film through my arri 2c. I pick up a 36 exposure role which gives me about 60 frames or about 2.5 secs at 24fps. My question is - what kind of quality should I expect from this? I purchase a photocd along with the developing for an extra $5-$10 or so, and it comes back at decent res, over 1k per frame. Then I go in and stabliize the images in a compositing program. But the quality looks dismal - the colors look flat and there's visible grain/noise. How much is this from the camera, negative, or scanning of the film. And I guess the main question is what is the main difference in terms of quality between still film and motion picture film...