Christian Appelt

The time it takes to load may be another issue. Maybe you want to do it like Stanley Kubrick in KILLER'S KISS: During the (real) boxing match he and his coproducer shot alternating with two 35mm Eyemos (about 70 seconds of film at 24fps), one had to film while the other was reloading...as Tom Waits once said, "maybe for those of us who like...action." Breaking down negative to smaller rolls is not that big a problem. I did it often with 1000ft 35mm reels to get 400ft & 200ft lengths for my Arriflex, and the best place to do it is a darkroom at your favourite film lab. Most labs have a time of the day where they do not need all their loading rooms, so if you ask them politely, you should get to use their room without a charge (always assuming you get your film processed/printed there ;) ) But for the type of work you described here, the Eclair seems a better choice to me.

Most answers have been given already. Here are some more thoughts on film cameras: 1. Film cameras require high precision. Their mechanisms required expensive manufacturing techniques. You will find that many professional optical/mechanical instruments, unless they have been substituted by electronic devices, are very expensive even today with CAD/CAM techniques. 2. A film camera does not become obsolete as easy as electronic devices. If you have an old camera, put a new lens on it, load a roll of the newest Eastman or Fuji stock - here is your upgrade in resolution, sensitivity and image structure! Nobody will know whether you shot it with a 2003 ArriCam/Panaflex or let's say, a 1964 Arriflex/1975 Konvas. 3. The sale prices for used equipment indicate how much the gear is worth to users who buy it. Therefore, it is sheer nonsense to claim that the prices are not justified. Any 16 or 35mm camera in good condition will allow you to produce films that have the same technical standard as any high budget Hollywood film or TV network production. Try that with a 1980 pro video camera and a U-matic recorder, which sold back then for a price that will shock you. Now that you have got some answers, how about abandoning your hide-and-seek? You do not have to be a professional DoP to use this forum, but if you just want to stir up the old-fashioned film vs. fantastic digital debate, please read what others have said or play your game elsewhere. That said, welcome to the forum! BTW, the persistance of vision and Thomas Armat have very little to do with each other. Read one of Deac Rossell's books on early film technique, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846Living Pictures

Did you look up AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER articles on these films? The f-stops and lens choice of a certain production are often mentioned there.

Use a higher speed film. watching films in a theatre, I dislike anamorphic footage shot at wider than 2.8 - it makes me feel like taking off my glasses (L-2.5/R-3.0) A 500 or 800 ASA film seems like a better solution to me, and shooting at night you will have large dark areas anyway, so don't worry about the grain too much. Besides it's better to have a well exposed neg (of higher speed) than gambling with a 320 stock which may get you into borderline exposure situations. Just my $0.02...

The films I saw looked really sharp, but judging from the old ads they had many different lens types under the DyaliScope banner, from 16mm projection to 35mm attachments and block lenses. Some Dyaliscope films I have seen: THE 400 BLOWS (1959, Truffaut) SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER (1960, F.T.) LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD (1961) THE GENDARME OF ST TROPEZ (1966) In theatres most of them suffered from bad duping (grainy look, lack of steadiness), but when they are shown on TV stations like ARTE TV (French-german culture station) in new transfers, the detail is very good. But I guess they stopped down to a healthy 5.6 or 8, so this is certainly no lens for today's shooting styles... :)

Hm, wonder why vignetting should be more noticeable when shooting wide open, no matter whether it's wide or tele position on the zoom lens? Would have expected just the opposite...

Read a good book on hypnosis. I learned hypnosis many years ago, and there is nothing mysterious to it. Remember that the process of seeing a movie is already a kind of slight trance, provided you are watching a good film. There are many things to take care of, but in my opinion you are most likely to produce a hypnotic effect if you relax the viewer through soothing soundscapes (music, effects) and a deep, rich narrator's voice. The trouble is that part of the audience wants ACTION not relaxation, so this is more of a project for art exhibition, multimedia installations and events like that. Oh, and don't think you're the first one to have that idea - IIRC there are several old horror films with a prologue that attempts to hypnotize the audience. You might get an experienced show hypnotist who knows his business and use him as an actor, maybe it works. Better make a good movie, it's easier than manipulating people by such tricks... ;)

jlamarking, where did you read that? I tried to find more data on older anamorphic systems, but didn't find much. I'd appreciate if you could tell us the book/magazine title.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3800268040&category=4691091/url] I know French and Italian films from the 1960s shot with Dyaliscope, and some of them were extremely sharp. Maybe this would be a good lens for those who want to create a vintage look in anamorphic. B) Does anybody know what kind of mount this is? I have a promotion booklet from the 50s that claims Dyaliscope lenses were available in Arri Standard, Mitchell or Cameflex mounts.

George, when a Konvas sounds like you decribed it, there's a good chance that is was not lubed properly. Even some camera techs think a Konvas does not need to be lubed regularely, but that's a myth. The trick with the noise reduction is not to use a standard filter, but to have a few seconds of camera noise from the actual take. I did a small library of CoolEdit filters with the camera running in different surroundings, like inside a car, in an empty room - only with the right ambience the filtering can work properly. Certainly, it's a limited technique, but it works most of the time. And the mags, well, that's the price you pay for the quick changes. Take off mag, shove in the next, it's a matter of seconds. Loading the mags has not always to be done on location, so I wouldn't mind if it takes a little longer. Being used to the simpler Arri mags, I can understand that one has to get used to it, but one evening practising film loading while watching TV (don't look down, I said!) will cure that forever. :) How to load the dreaded Konvas magazines There are many pitfalls with every kind of vintage equipment, Arri, Konvas, Eyemo or wahtever. If you want it perfectly maintained, ready-to-shoot, rent a camera. If however you like getting to know your tool down to the last spring (in the Konvas pressure plate!), it is, like the Arri, a fine machine. The only weak point is the motors, that's why I advise to buy more than one. :rolleyes:

OK, but that was 50 years ago, even before reel-to-reel sync mag recorders were widely available and when every mix had to be done on multiple mag films. Today, postsynching a small movie is not beyond the reach of low/no budget filmmakers. I have shot my first feature totally MOS. We used an Arri2B for most of the footage, reshooting and additional inserts is being done with a Konvas 2M because more anamorphic lenses are available for that one. Over at the Topica Konvas Forum, there is a good thread about shooting with a Konvas and using modern noise cancellation/reduction software to get the camera noise out. This is certainly NOT for the next Peter Jackson film, but a possible solution for the low budget filmmaker. I never regretted shooting MOS (always recording background atmospheres and the actually spoken dialogue on DAT). In that kind of really low budget work, we would have had very little control over location sound anyway, and with the limited time on many locations, the usual measures to ensure good sound quality were impossible. So we concentrated on getting the best image and the best performance, and even most nonprofessional actors can give good postsynch dialoge if you do it not like ADR where people feel that they must be on guard all the time. I ran a video projection of the telecined dailies in a small sound studio and recorded takes wild, bringing them back in sync in editing. It went faster and the artistic quality of dialogue reading was even better than traditional ADR I did with experienced actors. As for the cameras, the Arri is certainly a noisy beast, it sounds more like an electric coffee grinder. The Konvas IMHO produces more of a purring sound, like a good 16mm projector. However, some people never lubricate their cameras and especially the mags, and these contribute enomously to that total camera noise. If I had to shoot MOS again, I'd use the Konvas all the way because of the more "friendly" noise that can be suppressed in most location recordings (unless you want Sergio-Leone-like closeups two inches before the actor's nose...). :rolleyes:

Hi Stepan, I've never heard the thing called "Dreifuss" in German. It is nearly always referred to as "Spinne" , which means (SURPRISE!) "spider" ! ;) I have seen some handbooks with film terms in different languages, but never bought one of them after leafing through the pages. When I (with my limited knowledge of, let's say: French film tech terms) note immediately that many translations are totally wrong, I will not trust that book. The film dictionaires I have seen till now were obviously made to produce cash (and may give a lot of trouble to their users) :D Chris

Yeah, better get an old Arri. The 2B is okay, too, it has the same movement as the 2C but a simpler viewfinder. The Arri cameras are so simple that you will hardly experience bad surprises. All parts (except for the pre 1952 Arri 1's which you will neither encounter nor want because it has a more primitive movement) are still available and there are many, many good lenses out there in the old Arri Standard mount. You may even get a converted PL-mount Arri so you can use the newest high speed or anamorphic lenses that you rent only for a special purpose. Have the camera checked by a rental house or camera technician, and have it greased/oiled regularly, and if possible, buy a spare motor. Then you have a fine workhorse 35mm camera - it was good enough for Stanley Kubrick & Russ Meyer! :rolleyes: The Konvas is fine, too, but try to get a set of spare parts (they are on eBay sometimes) and have the camera lubricated by a technician. The saying about spare motors goes here too, and I mean it! If you want to shoot anamorphic, it is harder to find anamorphic lenses for old Arris, I would get a Konvas in this case.

...and don't forget to file down the claws, because AFAIK these cameras use film with KS standard perf (square hole) instead of BH negative perforations. That conversion should be a nice project for those long winter nights... ;)

May I recommend INHERIT THE WIND (1960), director Stanley Kramer? This b&w film has amazing camerawork, most of the film takes place in the courtroom. Also great fun to watch Spencer Tracy and Fredric March battling each other. It's a great study in deep-focus cinematography and perfectly timed, ballet-like camera movement. Inherit the Wind DVD

EDIT: :huh: I got a bit carried away when I wrote the following post, Mryendor's initial question was 100% sensible and deserved helpful answers. But I had two or three inquiries from aspiring filmmakers the last week about "how to get a David Fincher look" for their first half-hour film, but "at a home movie budget", and they stated that they couldn't waste their valuable time reading stupid technical literature. They also thought that anyone (actors, technicians) should be grateful forever to learn so much about filmmaking by working on their project (no budget, no catering, no insurance etc.) It went on like this for 40 minutes, then I said goodbye and left them alone. Now let the rant begin... :) /EDIT Certainly it's valuable to know how fine cinematographers managed to get a special look or effects. But in my opinion, all this information is absolutely overrated. First, a lot of what people say in the trade press (that includes the American Cinematographer) is not necessarily true. Many professionals will say how wonderful it was to work with this remote head or that new lens. Often they claim that this kind of shot was impossible to do before the advent of (insert whatever technique/item is in fashion now), and how happy they are they could do it now. Then you watch a good film that is 30, 40, 60 years old, and miraculously there's that impossible camera movement (which can only be done by using XYZ's remote head). Wait a minute, it's a 1939 color film with a 500-pound-Technicolor camera on a crane moved by grips... there must be something wrong! :blink: I remember hearing a "lecture" from what is IMHO the most overrated DOP from Europe working for an American director. He presented a new film (in 1993) and raved about how wonderful Super-35 was. He might never have been able to shoot this top shot without the Blahblah wide angle lens which is not available in anamorphic. I did some calculations and research and found that there were not less than 15 lenses from different manufacturers available covering the same horizontal angle - the DOP was just talking nonsense. He never has shot one frame of anamorphic footage, but he's a star, so why should he change his mode of operations? So he lied, and when two students asked about the lens in question, he smiled like Buddha and said: "Well, let's not get too technical - we don't want to bore the audience, do we?" :angry: NOW. Do not believe every word you read (including these), but here is my advice to any student or beginning filmmaker: 1. DOING IS BETTER THAN READING AND RAVING ABOUT IT You will learn tenfold and waste less of your time when you GO OUT AND SHOOT SOMETHING instead of trying to find out what kind of special cross processing Darius Khondji uses when he makes a bowl of salad. GO OUT AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING. Not on video, because with video you always get an image and have sound to cover what the image lacks. Shoot your own footage on 16mm short ends or recan material, get it processed and go to your lab. Do not just dump it there in the spirit of "I push the button, you do the rest", talk to the people handling your footage. Many of them will be glad to answer your questions. Learn about lighting a scene, because lighting is essential to professional looking material. Read the books that have all the knowledge, like THE 5 C's OF CINEMATOGRAPHY, John Alton's PAINTING WITH LIGHT or Lenny Lipton's INDEPENDENT FILMMAKING. All the information is out there, neatly packed and condensed. Use it. If you want to learn the basics, learn 35mm still photography, this will teach you what film does when and why. I have more respect for anybody who makes a good 16mm short film done professionaly within the budget restrictions than for those smart guys who rave endlessly about the great low budget slasher movie they will certainly start shooting next month, well, at least when everyone has agreed to working for free and not tampering with the filmmaker's creative vision... One year later, you'll find them with a new project and nothing produced in the meantime but hot air. :angry: 2. SEE THE CLASSICS Many beginners think that today's way of filmmaking is the logical result of evolution. So they watch only new movies, maybe those of the last 10 years. This is like a painter who only looks at what's been done since 1994, missing Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Picasso and all the other masters that form our visual heritage. So if you want to learn about filmmaking, watch older movies, and if you can manage it, watch them on the big screen. In many places old films are screened regularly, and it makes the hell of a difference to see them with an audience instead of watching on DVD/video. What you will learn is that most of what you thought to be original is simply a carbon copy of what the "Old Masters" did. Learn from the masters, not from the apprentices! If you like an effects or style, you still can read about it, but then GO OUT AND TRY TO DO IT YOURSELF! 3. TOOLS ARE TOOLS In any kind of work, it's important to have good tools. In filmmaking, it is not important to have a Panavision or ArriCam and 20 hats with the logo on it for the whole team. What you need is a camera with good steadiness and few good lenses. Try them, test them, do not allow yourself to say "Oh, it's only old equipment, I'll pass it for style." You'll go to hell directly, and if not, you deserve it. In art, laziness is unforgivable. If you have no fancy zooms or Vari-Primes, shoot with fixed focal lengths. It didn't stop Messrs. Griffith, Hitchcock or Kubrick from making great films with breathtaking images, so don't worry that your talent will be hindered! (look at Kubrick's KILLER'S KISS if you want to see a visually exciting low-low-budget film!) Know your tools and respect their limitations. No spectator of your finished film will mind whether the shot came from a 2003 Arriflex or a 1969 Konvas MOS camera - there are fine lenses for any old Arri 35, Konvas or Cameflex that will satisfy you even on the largest screens. If you are the possessive type (I admit I am :rolleyes: ), get your own equipment and become familiar with it. All of this is not meant to put down the questions of new filmmakers, but as an encouragement to do their homework. If they are to lazy to read the great books on filmmaking, they will never get a film made. Getting qualified is what makes a professional, not the "professional" gear he uses.

Mitch, great information on that format test, I didn't know that. You are certainly right about all these problems. I would not recommend going 16mm/1.5 anamorphic, but the same goes for Ultra 16! But there may be a film project with a style that lends itself to such experimental formats, for example when you have many scenes playing in long shots, little or no need for focus pulling and so on. There are good movies shot with just one or two prime lenses, but the content would have to fit the style. Many small films go through Digital Intermediate for 35mm release, especially in Scandinavian countries. I would imagine that there'd be little trouble in converting 1.5x anamorphic 16mm to 35mm. As for the optical printing, IIRC there is a 1.5x printing lens made by ISCO, so it should be (in theory) be possible to unsqueeze 1.5x/16mm in duplicate printing. Isco printing system But as we know, finding a lab, setting up special processes and making tests will cost a lot of time & money, so let me repeat: I wouldn't really recommend it any more than Ultra 16, but with DI it is a way. Regarding Iscorama: I did not mean only the adapter lens (which is not a projection lens initially), but ISCO made a block anamorphic lens for SLR photography. I know that a filmmaker here in Germany had one adapted for his Eclair NPR years ago, but I am unable to find his name at present. If I had to do a low budget project (and I have been through it), I would go one of these ways: 1. Have a good 16mm camera converted to S-16 (Bolex or Arri), blow it up to 35mm wide screen. 2. Try to get your hands on a 35mm TechniScope Arriflex. This will save film stock and processing, postproduction can be done on video/NLE, and the printing up to 4-perf is the last step when you really get distribution. 3. Shoot 16mm standard frame, but with a 2x anamorphic lens like KOWA 8-Z (=16-H). Accept the limitations in lens choice and handling, use low speed stock for finest grain, stop down your lens at least two stops from wide open. This negative can be printed up to 35mm scope with slight masking on the left/right. Check that the printer is set up properly to full height anamorphic frame (on 35mm), NOT for 16mm to Academy 35mm! I have seen shorts made that way, and it looked very, very good because the filmmakers accepted and respected the limitations. 4. Buy a Konvas 35mm camera, three anamorphic primes or one zoom lens, get to know the camera and its "bugs" intimately, then shoot on short ends and recan materials. Never had any trouble with it except when using too old high speed stock. This will cost more during shooting, but will be least expensive when you need a print or want to do distribution on your own - just plain contact printing with no optical gadgets. Of course everyone can invent a new format, and I have much sympathy for those which in German language we call "bastler", which translates as "handicraft enthusiast" and means (part derogative, part lovingly) someone who likes to experiment and build things with whatever materials he gets his hands on. (In English, I have read the expression "tinkerer" in that context, does it mean the same?) For some people the fun lies in the process, not in the finished film. :rolleyes: So to all inventors out there: Unless you have to make a living making films or have spent all your money on that magic first feature, do whatever you like. I am looking forward to that revolutionary Single 8 VistaVision format, but IMHO filmmaking is hard enough so think about it before you go nonstandard ways. :)

If you want a wide screen picture and continue using your standard 16 cameras, there is another way. There's a number of excellent anamorphic lenses with an 1.5x squeeze (the Iscorama taking lens is quite good), so you will get a 1:2 aspect ratio. When the camera neg is scanned, the squeeze factor can be changed easily to make either 1.85 or slightly matted scope prints in 35mm, for video/DVD the squeeze can be removed (letterbox) or used for 16:9 format release. Advantages: -No changes inside the camera, full use of standard 16mm frame - Good image quality, much superior to standard 16 matted for wide screen Disadvantages: -Anamorphic adaptors will limit the use of wide angle lenses, but they get you the double taking angle anyway, so this is not as bad as it sounds. -Focus pulling is difficult, anamorphic adaptor has to be mounted in front of basic lens. I think that Joe Dunton of JDC Camera mentioned doing tests with such a 16/anamorphic combination (at Bradford Wide Screen Weekend 2003), he saw it as practicable solution for low budget production.