Christian Appelt

- sorry for the typo stuff, couldn't edit my previous post any more...

@Dominic: Although I have no scientific answer to your initial question, here are some possible explanations: 1. German film is basically TV Since the mid-1960s, the public film funding system (Filmfoerderung) depends on TV money. Hardly can a film be produced without TV money. The German cinema market is dominated by U.S. product, most domestic films are comedies or semi-arthouse stuff (women above 50 and/or Third Reich stuff, RAF-type 1970s terrorism is another option). TV people read, develop and greenlight scripts, decide about money, so they have a great impact. Most German films, even if they have good actors and script, look depressing alike to me. When watching TV, I can spot a german-made movie after 2 seconds, sound turned off. They usually have a "play it safe", soft light look with greenish or yellowish shadows that make me sick. Or they stick to the "this shot blue on the left, yellow-orange on the right side" cliché which is not exciting either. Either it's long lenses all the way, or the sets look cluttered with so much unnecessary detail that you. Neither long nor shorts focal length lenses are used in a creative way. TV style sideway camera movement is meant to keep audiences from falling asleep. (Even worse are many French productions shown on ARTE TV, looking like they shot with surveillance cameras at +16dB under mercury street lights). 2. There is no free lunch (for copycats) This goes for both cinema and TV productions from Germany. Anytime a special look or technique comes - mostly from the U.S. - everybody wants to use it. They see high quality TV stuff like CSI or 24 and try to imitate it at a fraction of the budget. Not possible. It was the same with bleach bypass, hand-held camera and imitation autofocus shots. I am not against any of these techniques, but people tend to forget that nobody watches CSI, 24 or whatever because of handheld shots or rack focus stuff, but that these shows are well-scripted, character-driven and played by excellent actors. Some German producers believe they can copy a look (and usually they fail even at the strictly technical level), use it as a kind of fancy wrapping to make mediocre routine stuff exciting to an audience. IT DOES NOT WORK. NEVER HAS. Some German filmmakers think they can deliver on the same level of craftsmanship as their international counterparts - the truth is that they couldn't even if someone gave them the budget. 3. Dialogue driven screenplays German screenplays tend to be very talky. Many films are no more than illustrated radio - like filmed plays with a few transitional scenes to link locations. Try to watch an average German film without sound, and you'll see what I mean. 4. Not knowing your history From my experience with film students (I mean people from film schools), I got the impression that they know their Spielberg, Tarantino and Cameron, but nothing else. If you watch a lot of German films made after WWII, there are real masterpieces of cinematography, especially in black & white. You can be quite sure no student will have heard about NACHTS WENN DER TEUFEL KAM (1958, dir. Robert Siodmak), shot by DP Franz Krause who also did PATHS OF GLORY. Neither will he or she have seen DIE ENDLOSE NACHT (Endless Night, 1964, dir. Will Tremper), shot in haunting anamorphic b&w at the foggy Berlin airport by DP Hans Jura. They've never heard of DAS FEUERSCHIFF (The Light Ship, 1962, dir. Ladislao Vajda), as dark as b&w can get, shot by DP Heinz Pehlke. It's not just about knowing the national film heritage, be assured most of them never saw a film by Tarkovski, Orson Welles, David Lean or Jacques Tati. I'm not suggesting that watching every movie made will make you a great filmmaker, but knowing techniques and styles will help making your own decisions, finding your own solutions. Too many filmmakers are like would-be painters who never stepped in a museum or looked a reproductions. To sum it up, if the average German film/TV look is not desired, it can be avoided simply: DO WHAT SERVES THE STORY. Work harder and tell your story in images that do more than keep talking actors in the frame. In contemporary German films, I like the work of Fatih Aikin (SOUL KITCHEN, DP Rainer Klausmann). Very pure and simple stuff, always serving the story. The same goes for Tom Tykver and DP Frank Griebe (RUN LOLA RUN, THE INTERNATIONAL).

Chris, thank you for pointing to the article/interview! Nice to hear that Mr Abrams does realize he was carried away a bit. :) Nothing wrong about things looking cool, but in this case I felt the permanent use of a technical gimmick came between me and the qualities of the movie (actors and what they did). I find nothing wrong with "visual shorthands" like strange filtered skies à la CSI, rack focus shots with long lenses and rough zoom shots centering in on a detail when I watch TV, but it certainly does not add anything on the big silver screen, just distracts. This may be a professional deformation, but I have noticed that movie audiences often start to talk and lose contact during sequences which are done that way, while they usually focus and keep quieter when there is a well composed static shot that allows you to watch the actors doing what they do best. Of course this requires a good script and great actors, otherwise you will need constant motion to keep the audience from falling asleep. Mr Abrams has achieved to breathe new life into STAR TREK, and maybe he will change to a more classic style in the next installation(s).

In my opinion, STAR TREK delivers all a fan could wish for. Good script, excellent casting, respect for the rules & connections established by 40 years of Star Trek tv & movie stuff. B) I felt they made the right decisions in almost all creative departments from set design to costumes and props, and I felt well entertained. Personally, I do not like this particular style of directing and cinematography because I am willing to see the movie when I sit down in a theatre, this is not TV where fast editing, constant motion and big closeups are needed to keep viewers from changing the channel. The special look of the anamorphic process was reduced to its mere artifacts, and I hated how they put these lens flares into almost every shot, even when there was no light source in the picture which would create a flare in classic anamorphic filming. Creating depth and interesting wide angle views would have given moire of a "big movie feeling" to me. I found most physical action scenes staged disappointingly because it was all Shakycam and fast editing. Since STAR TREK is about the characters, this doesn't really hurt the movie, but does this really feel exciting to anyone? Noticed a number of rather unpleasant out-of-focus shots, like during Captain Pike's interrogation or when Spocks speaks to his younger self. In some cases the director's "keep-it-moving-all-the-time" style weakens the moment, like in the court scene when Spock and Kirk face each other, separated by the width of the format. The shot is IMHO spoiled by the usual side tracking movement. But most of these points are a matter of taste, I suppose, and to me the new STAR TREK film feels a lot better than almost any of the previous theatrical entries (except the space dock scenes from the Robert Wise movie, of course...).

Over decades, there has been the idea that affordable easy to use tools (camera, sound, editing) will result in better films and make it possible for young filmmakers to get their work shown and seen. If you look up some issues of FILMMAKER'S NEWSLETTER from the 1960s and 1960s, you will see how people believed in the holy grail of filmmaking: Give them faster stocks, faster lenses, lighter cameras, big zoom ratios, automatic iris control, better sound technology and PRESTO! everybody will have a chance to make better films. Different technologies were called milestones in freeing the filmmaker and giving him/her the ultimate caméra stylo for creative expression: 16mm, Super-8, single system mag sound, analog video and finally DV: Push the button and technology will take care of all the difficult stuff. Please note that I am talking about the attitude, not about film, video or digital technology. I believe an artist can produce good work with almost any kind of moving image system. But I just hate the constant whining about not getting a chance to do the movie, lacking this and lacking that. My experience taught me that the people complaining the loudest - never read a book about any kind of photography, analog or digital image technology, - never went to a museum to look at pictures, - never tried to get an apprentice job so they could learn about making films, - are often too lazy to experiment or afraid of making mistakes from which they can learn - usually have some Guru like Tarantino or Lucas and fantasize about making movies for the world but without the blood, sweat and learning pain that goes with any kind of artistic work. (BTW, I'm not referring to anybody who posted in this thread, just talking about people I met and who told me they were filmmakers IF JUST...) Do we need more push-the-button "democratic" tools, do we need to remove any professional compentence because lazy people regard it as an obstacle? I doubt it. Look at the short films made by Polish film students in the 1950s and 1960s, done on film with the barest resource, short supply of film stock and equipment; films like Roman Polanski's. Then show me the recent filmic masterpieces which were made possible by recent technology. A friend of mine is shooting his first feature on 35mm anamorphic financed by and shot between commercial jobs. You can make films with very limited resources if you know what you are doing and your project is good enough to attract people. - My friend's former boss has been talking forever about hitting it big, putting together a huge European science fiction film. He claims that no one should make a movie using his own money, and I am quite certain he will never makle anything but the mid-range TV commercial stuff he is involved in. Not a matter of technology, it's about the attitude. Easy to claim that you're a filmmaker, hard to get your ass out of the chair and create something, especially if you have to do work you don't like to pay for the work you desire to do. Another thing the armchair guys don't feel like doing - they expect the world to provide them with technology and money although they never have done any artistic work that would persuade anyone to do this. /end of rant/

FWIW - I was told by a guy who repairs 8mm equipment that some Single 8 cameras require adjustment of film gate/pressure plate if you want to use film stock that has been cut down from 35mm (like Fuji Velvia and other slide films) because the base is thicker than the original Single 8 reversal stock. This may explain why registration is not good in some cases.

Another suggestion: Shoot a few feet of simple test patterns (Siemens stars will do), take your 2-perf negative, make up a short loop and watch in in a movie theatre. Much better to spot back focus or pressure plate problems on a huge screen, 4-perf will work fine because you are not concerned with motion but only with your test pattern. That's what I do when I use vintage equipment for commercial jobs. Just my $0.02... ;)

Jason, films like FUNNY GIRL were shot on low speed negative, in anamorphic format and a special style of lighting (which most modern filmmakers rather dislike). IMHO stylized set design had a lot more influence on the film's color scheme than the dye transfer process, although it certainly made colors stand out. But certain 1950s/1960s Eastman color contact prints (often made on step printers from the OCN) have similar "living" colors, I remember a vintage print of THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV where I would have sworn it had to be Technicolor...but Eastman Color (Metrocolor) it was, with a slight fade, of course. But dye transfer prints were by no means always the best process in terms of image or color quality. Look at 1950s CinemaScope films, most of the Technicolor prints up to 1956 had less resolution and much less shadow detail than the Eastman contacts prints from OCN. Of course the dye transfer colors did not fade over the years, but if you watch a movie in a print made up from both Eastman and Technicolor footage, the latter will look softer and slightly muddy in dark scenes. The best quality in Technicolor release printing could be seen when they did reductions from Vistavision or Technirama large format negatives. I was quite impressed by the new (and last) Technicolor dye transfer process used for some prints of APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX - I wish I could have seen THE THIN RED LINE in dye transfer too.

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY was filmed in Ultra Panavision which is 65mm 5-perf format plus 1.25x anamorphic compression. UP prints have to be screened with an additional anamorphic adapter lens, more on UP (formerly MGM Camera 65) can be found here: AWSM - Ultra Panavision Wing

Since the camera body has just the transport claw and the actual transport action is done by the mag sprockets, I'd look for the mag. Peter, have you tried another mag with your b&w stock, and if so, does the same problem arise? I suspect that something in the mag is not adjusted correctly, just so much that thinner b&w stock can "slip through" while slightly thicker color neg will not. Max, we discussed the problem of Orwo stocks in another thread, but IIRC you had these problems with a fairly new Arri, was it a 235 or 435? I did a lot of IIB and IIC shooting with both old Orwo and new Filmotec/Orwo stocks and nothing like the lost loop problem described here ever came up. The IIC's movement is so simple that it will pull through almost anything the mag sprockets will transport. Years ago I ran shrunken 20 year old Ilford b&w stock through my Arri, and even a few cans of Svema neg that was really badly perforated. Never lost the loop or had a jammed mag. Simon, if you look at the mag sprockets, you can see they do not fill the perf holes, so they will work with a larger hole as well. KS perfs are not a problem with the IIC because it has no register pin, just the transport claw. I have shot titles to replace damaged titles from a silent film by using b&w positive stock which has KS perfs, and they came out steady (well, as steady as a IIC can be).

In the original theatrical release of THE SAND PEBBLES, a 70mm blowup version was made by step-printing from the original 35mm anamorphic camera negative. Must have looked great, I just missed the screening of a vintage print at the Schauburg cinema in Karlsruhe, Germany.

I sincerely try to be open for any new film done with some style and originality, even if it is not in a style I like or about a subject I find fascinating. Actually, I sometimes have to force myself to see new releases because I know the chance of finding a jewel among the rubble has become so small. When I read comments about new films in this forum, I try to understand and share the excitement for movies considered as works of quality, but most of the time I feel disappointed after seeing the film myself. I could describe my sense of disappointment about certain films, but most of the time it makes people angry because they find it insulting or suspect one wants to doubt their ability to judge. Reactions range from "If that film is not good enough for you, which is?" to "You prefer some pretentious art film?". In fact, I was raised on mainstream entertainment like STAR WARS or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and came to see and like art films and classics much later and on a trial and error basis. So I should be used to and excited by every new reincarnation of the post-1980s BLAM (Big Loud Action Movie) like a frequent McDonald's customer who never thinks of giving up his BigMac or craves for more refined food. For myself, I have come to this temporary conclusions: - I try to see as many old movies as possible in theatres because that's the way they were meant to be seen. There are so many excellent films that I could do very well without new films. - The danger in that is that it spoils the viewer for many new films because he usually remembers seeing something comparable, only better acted, photographed and directed years or even decades before. - With new films, and especially those that get praised the most, I try to expect nothing and be open for what good can be found. - Craftsmanship and quality of single elements like acting, photography and writing has little to do with what I consider a film's total quality. Yesterday I saw - on DVD, I have to admit - Christopher Nolan's THE PRESTIGE which is considered a good film by most people who saw it. What I saw was a sum of qualities: Fine actors, an acceptable script, good photography and even a surprising turn to end the film. My respect to everyone involved, they certainly did their best to make this a film worth seeing. But THE PRESTIGE with all its qualities had no impact on me, raised to interest or emotion except some hope that they would not use the Tesla character as a mere gadget, which is what happened. - This is what happens to me with most new quality films, I feel they are only well-meant extensions of their own previews. All of this is insignificant to the world, and I realize that I am not in the age target group for THE DARK KNIGHT although I love superhero movies. Again, I watch and listen how others seem to get excited and praise it as the best film they have seen in years. For them it must be so, I do not doubt their words, but I am grateful if at least some sequences in a quality film have an impact on me, like the sequence with the eyeless monster in PAN'S LABYRINTH. To me it seems that people who know only the films of the last five to ten years and no classics at all have more fun. You can enjoy the imitation more if you haven't seen the original - funny that FLASH GORDON was mentioned in this thread, I enjoyed it when I was a kid and like it more the older I get. A film that was almost painful for me to watch again in a theatre was STAR WARS because in the meantime I had seen the great classic action and adventure movies that it borrowed from and felt embarrassed by Mr Lucas' borrowings from Carlos Castaneda books. Maybe someone who only has seen FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX (2004, dir. John Moore) will consider it a great film, maybe he would be bored by FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX (1965, dir. Robert Aldrich) and complain about lack of action and the actors looking average to ugly compared to today's leading men. On the other hand, who remembers STAGECOACH (1965, dir. Gordon Douglas), THE CABINET OF DR CALIGARI (1962, dir. Robert Kay) or M (1951, dir. Joseph Losey)? :)

Saw THE DARK KNIGHT in a 35mm version. Cinematography was okay and certainly served the story and overall style of the picture, but I found nothing exceptional. Maybe the IMAX version would have impressed me more. It's hard to get a judgement from a mass release print which may look quite different from what others here may have seen. Sharpness was okay, but not very good for anamorphic origination, some extreme long shots lacked definition. A few shots (like Morgan Freeman on a Hongkong rooftop) had poor contrast, but I suspect this has more to do with dupe printing. On certain sets like the top-lit Ken-Adamesque Batcave, I would have preferred more depth of field, and personally I find it annoying when in intensely acted scenes (some monologue shots showing the Joker) the actor pops in and out of focus. IMHO Maggie Gyllenhall looked not very pretty, certainly no beautifying lighting for her. I like the fact that they did not desaturate the image more which happens a lot on "dark" movies. There is a beautiful close shot of Michael Caine (picking up a letter, IIRC) where some red object really pops out of the almost monochrome picture. To sum it up, it was all done with craftmanship and good taste, but it's not showcase cinematography. It helps to tell the story and focus attention on the actors, so it does the job quite well.

That's right, maybe Karl remembered BATTLE OF THE BULGE which was shot in Ultra Panavision and had even more tanks! - Has anybody seen the HD-DVD of this UP film?

Karl Borowski wrote: Karl, you're absolutely right. I have noticed that a lot of people working in HD formats (at least non-feature film work) actually DETEST reality. They prefer postproduction to production work. Recently I had the pleasure of watching a guy who was shooting promotional stuff for some company, and he didn't even bother to frame his HD shots properly. I asked him if he wasn't concerned about a really ugly lime green trashcan in a street shot, to which he replied he would tone it down in post. I believe he just didn't want to get his hands dirty moving it six feet! I talked to him about his work mode, and I realized he HATED shooting reality, he tried to get his "raw footage" as fast as possible so he could get back to his nice, clean editing room where he would fiddle around with transitions and effects plugins all night. You can imagine how his "films" look - combining the detail of HD with all "arty" clichés you ever saw. To impress me further, he showed me an "exciting" action scene he had shot "Bourne style", just to play around with his muzzle fire effect plugin... I'm not saying every filmmaker needs to be in love with reality, but too many filmmakers neither know how to make artistic use of reality nor to create filmic reality from scratch like the old masters did on their sound stages (I actually prefer Vincente Minnelli's Scotland sets to most Dogma films :) ).

"Old Masters": Leon Shamroy (The Agony and the Ecstasy) Eugen Schüfftan / Eugene Shuftan (The Hustler) Russell Metty (Spartacus) James Wong Howe (Shanghai Express) Jack Cardiff (Black Narcissus) Contemporary: Roger Deakins (The Hudsucker Proxy) Robby Mueller (Mystery Train) Jost Vacano (Das Boot) Roger Pratt (12 Monkeys) Jean-Marie Dreujou (La Fille sur le Pont) This game surely takes time! I spent almost an hour thinking about my favourite DPs without even noticing it... :)

You will find both sytems of digital stereoscopic projection discussed in detail here: Film-Tech.com (click "Forums" and use search function).

How does the flare look in the frames next to this one (before and after)? It may have something to do with the combination of light source (sun in the back or a carbon-brute behind the camera) and the windshield of the car - looks like it is made of two pieces of flat glass, so it should give a different reflection than a modern curved windshield. I'm just guessing... :) Can't remember seeing such a strange flare in old movies shot spherical.

Stephen is right. I recall vaguely that one rental house had older 1970s anamorphics (Kowa, IIRC) in Arri Standard, but that was 15 years ago. Glen, why don't you just email or call the rental companies and ask about it? It doesn't really matter what you find a company's online rental lists, most of the time they will be able to pull something out of storage that has not been asked for in decades and make you a decent offer. From my experience, they even will tell you to whom they sold a vintage piece of equipment years ago so you might rent it from that person. I never met a person at any rental house with anything but a helpful and friendly attitude. Talking to people is extremely important and will get results. If you want to shoot 4-perf anamorphic, there a some options: 1. Rent a modern camera and modern anamorphic lenses. A number of well known rental companies offer that service. 2. Try to buy a Arri Standard mount anamorphic lens . Good luck, I tried this for years and gave up. Not even a single prime lens was to be found, not to mention a zoom lens or a set of primes. 3. Rent a Arri standard mount anamorphic lens. As I said above, you have to be persistent and talk to every rental company in the area. Maybe they have an old lens - which may have certain drawbacks for your project or not (lens speed, image quality, weight etc). 4. If you absolutely want to use that particular Arri 35, consider having the lens turret replaced by a new PL mount hard front. This will enable you to rent and use all the modern anamorphic lenses available and give you the maximum image quality possible with your camera. This may be much cheaper than trying to convert anything to Arri Standard mount. In fact, buying a set of Lomo anamorphics converted to PL may cost much less than rental, depending on the time you're shooting and whether later additional shooting is necessary. Owning good quality lenses is a good thing, and the Lomos are fine. 5. Buy a Konvas 2M set or even a Kinor with a set of Lomo lenses. You will find dependable dealers and maintenance people at www.konvas.org - in my opinion the Konvas is even superior to an Arri 35 in terms of registration, and you can change mags very fast. If you want sync sound, there are some people on this forum able to give you excellent advice on Kinors and sell or rent one to you. 6. The cheapest solution is to get an anamorphic adapter lens to put it in front of your existing spherical Arri lenses. Will take some machining for support and restrict your choice of lenses (zoom lenses are out, wide angle below 45mm too), and you have to adapt your style of shooting to it. Good quality front anamorphic adapters can be found in Rafael Pankratau's web shop: www There is definitely a solution for any kind of budget and film. Don't waste time trying to find exotic equipment unless you're a collector. If you want to make your movie, get the best tools available at your budget.

Yeah, how about a Nikon 300mm f/2 lens? CameraQuest: Nikon 300mm f/2 Nikkor 300mm f/2 US$ 29.000 back then - and made on special order only. Weighs about 19 lbs. and should work nicely with the Wilcam VV cameras or the Actionflex 8-perf... :)

Do you mean Arri Standard lens mount or has your camera been converted to single PL mount?

I don't remember what thread type it was, but certainly nonstandard. many years ago, I tried to get an adapter ring for it and was told it would have to be hand made at high cost. IIRC there used to be a special rotating adapter to keep the lens on axis if the camera lens had a rotating front which is the case with most Super 8 cameras. Doesn't your Schneider zoom lens rotate too? I would try The Widescreen Centre, they used to distribute the Kowa 8Z and may know another solution. The Widescreen Centre UK

I agree with Chris about Minolta's Autometer IV - easy to use and very rugged. Have been using one for years and it has taken numerous shocks and drops...still works fine.

Sound to me like they screened a DVD like it was done with recent anniversary presentations (POLTERGEIST) ! - I remember seeing WAR GAMES on the big screen - it looked quite good. - Hm, I could have sworn I saw a Super-35-type anamorphic print, but IMDB says it was 1.85 format.

David Mullen wrote Didn't Clairmont offer two modern Wilcam VV cameras for rental, one highspeed model and a sound camera running quite silent? Nothing said about it on their rental site, though. A few VV hardware links: VV custom made by Fries GeoFilms has a Fries VV and a thing called MiniVista, about the size of an Arri 3. Can be seen on this DP website: Michael Reinecke GeoFilm Group Trumbullflex 8-perf Beaumonte VV camera Rotavision Down Under So if you want to shoot VistaVision, there are cameras to rent. IIRC there is also a french company and the "Actionflex 8-perf" built by Gerhard Fromm of Munich. Make your choice, Glen! :)