Stephen Pye

Hi Max - I'm not a very thorough reader of threads (at least at the moment - very, very busy doing some creative writing and what follows is simply a "sudden thought" - that I might be able to help you as regards acquiring an Arri 2C). I bought one - an Arri 2C - about 12 years ago - on Ebay - from someone in the United States - transaction went very smoothly. I only used the camera once - but it ran perfectly (I still have the 35 mm colour negative) - essentially I was an "over-enthusiastic amateur" - I do not have - as a non-professional - the resources to be shooting 35 mm film on any frequent basis (who does ?). Anyway, if this reply is not a violation of the guidelines of "Cinematographer.com", I'd be happy to consider selling the 2C to you (I'm here in Ireland) - I'll check what I paid for it - my house is in disarray at the moment so even laying my hands on the print off of the original Ebay documentation will not be easy. If I could get back what I paid for the camera, I would be happy (there's some lenses, a motor - not the original motor, 2 film magazines, a battery back and charger). I'd appreciate if nobody else - reading this reply - starts to "chuck in" a bid for the camera - I can understand why someone would do so (assuming he/she is looking for an Arri 2C) but I'm not into attempting to get the very best price. Anyway, it may be that - Max - will be able to source an Arri 2C in the United States - I understand there are a good number of this type of camera out there. Cheers, Stephen

Anyone been to the movie "I am not a Serial Killer" ? This was shot on Super 16 but I would have seen it digitally projected. In the opening credits, then in a scene with Christopher Lloyd working out in a gym and in one scene after that, a hair is quite noticeable on screen for a few moments. Don't know whether it was a hair in the camera gate or something that crept in at the digital transfer stage. With the pristine presentation that one gets with digital projection, it's actually comforting to see something like this (for those of us who grew up with film projection and remember the odd gremlin creeping in now and then). Perhaps the film crew or production team noticed the presence of the hair and decided to leave it in as part of the movie's "quirky aesthetic".

Hi - turns out the footage was properly transferred to colour - it also turns out that there appears to have been some quirk with the S video connection I was using as my Sony 1800 is now playing back colour properly.So my faith in my Ebay purchase of an item - the Sony 1800 - ( and in the Lab that did the telecine ) has not been shaken ! Stephen.

Thanks to all for those helpful replies - I'm going tomorrow to a facility house here in Dublin, Ireland with the tape for them to play it through one of their machines and that will establish definitively if it's B & W or not ( in other other words was it a telecining mistake or is my Beta machine acting up - I don't have any other tapes of known quality to put through the machine ).Interesting that it is thought it could be the Sony - I'm so used to everything that I've bought so far on Ebay working satisfactorily that my first hunch was that it was a glitch in the telecine process rather than a fault in something I bought off a complete stranger ! ( though the seller is reputable and if turns out to be machine that is at fault, I'm sure everything will be resolved to my satisfaction ). cheers, Stephen

Thanks Rob - will have to explore those avenues unless Lab does get back to my e-mail with what their position is on this.The Sony manual on the UVW1800 P doesn't list ( in the Troubleshooting section ) playback in B & W of colour material as something that can occur. cheers, Stephen.

Hi - I played on a Sony UVW 1800 P Betacam deck a tape of some 35 mm colour neg processed and telecined to Beta SP - it was done by a reputable Lab in England.I'm getting only a B & W image - is it a convention of some Labs to do the initial one light transfer ( of the rushes or "dailies" as you good folk in the U.S. describe them ) to monochrome ? Lab hasn't got back on my e-mail on the matter and the annoying thing is I have no other Beta SP tape to check out the Betacam deck which I've just bought on Ebay from a reputable seller and which seems to be working fine ( using the S- Video output to a colour monitor ).Obviously it could, nevertheless, be the deck - it could, of course, be something embarrassingly stupid on my part - I'm not naming the Lab in question - everything else on this micro-project ( albeit on 35 mm ) has been handled by them fine so far and perhaps there's someone out there who has a simple answer on this ? Thanks.

Thanks for that information - if IMDB have their facts right then that puts a different complexion on my comments - however, I'd be surprised if the specific scenes I mentioned as exhibiting noticeably inferior image quality were shot otherwise than with a digital motion camera.

As a non -professional member but someone with a deep abiding interest in photographic quality from his teens, just thought I would post a summary of my views of the movie "Public Enemies" which I saw screened here in Ireland last night - if you consider the subject of film versus digital to be now boring or a topic that has been done to death, please stop reading now ! "Public Enemies" was shot wholly on digital, I understand.The screening of the movie I viewed was in a well appointed, modern cinema - it was a projected 35 mm print print to which the digital content had been transferred.That in itself was interesting as every so often a print blemish or scratch would appear on the otherwise very pristine image quality of the digitally originated footage - that's not criticism - just an observation on the way the marrying of the two media can impact on the subjective viewing experience ! Overall, I thought the image quality in most scenes to be very good and I'm giving an assessment as someone who would regard himself as ultra- critical and reluctant to accept the widespread use of digital in motion picturing making.There's one large caveat I will enter but in most scenes ,in terms of colour rendering, the appearance of subtle textures from the chrome of 1930s automobiles, the various costumes, people's hair, skin, the brickwork and facades of various buildings and structures, large vistas of landscapes, etc. one couldn't really say 35mm film would have rendered them appreciably better.The actual rendition of movement/motion did have that smoothness one has long associated with video but I don't myself consider that to be a huge minus.Equally there were some scenes where the image looked almost too pristine and "clinical" but I think we're dealing here with fairly fine matters of degree and certainly it could be thrown back at me that I'm nostalgic for a bit of grain ! Anyway, the caveat is that the scenes , possibly shot in available light, of a night-time FBI stake-out of a fancy country retreat ( a complex of wooden, single storey structures, I think ) ,where Dillinger and his associates are "holed up", were appreciably inferior to the image quality of the majority of the scenes.Whether it was the low light and the succession of shots with very rapid movements of the actors and the presence of some "hot spots", but I thought I was viewing a playback from a video assist rather than something that a paying member of the public would expect from a big budget Hollywood movie ! That's quite a swipe but I challenge anyone who cares about the look of our movies to sit through those scenes and not experience a sinking feeling in their heart ! If that "look" was deliberately sought after by Michael Mann and his D.P., then all I can say, with respect to those 2 very experienced professionals, is that it was very misguided and is the sort of thing that won't promote the wider acceptance of digital in movie making.Anyway, the length of this post may already have vexed the forum convener so I'll end on this note about "high-end " hi- def. - very good but could be better !

Hi - anyone any views on a camera operator , working solo on some wildlife photography, lugging an Arriflex SR2 ( one 400ft mag only and 10 to 1 zoom ) in a backpack around some mountainous terrain in Ireland ? I'm thinking of one of the backpacks Lowepro ( not sure how much of a profile Lowepro has in the U.S. ) make.You can assume I have a reasonable level of fitness.A short tripod , to be used with the camera, would be carried by hand. thanks, Stephen Pye.