Christian Appelt

I did some frame grabs from the PAL DVD (about 1:08 hrs into the movie) to illustrate the strange focus problem. The camera moves back with the group of actors and there is some zooming in. Free Image Gallery with PicTiger

Good interview with JWH in this book: Five American cinematographers interviews with Karl Struss, Joseph Ruttenberg, Jamens Wong Howe, Linwood Dunn, and William H. Clothler by Scott Eyman Metuchen, NJ [u.a.], Scarecrow, 1987 ISBN: 0-8108-1974-0

David Mullen wrote: David, from your decription, it seems to me that the film did fascinate you in a certain way, at least you had some fun watching the total artistic disaster. I'd say really bad films - never seem to end, even at 70 minutes running time; - have NO VALUES at all, not beautiful women/men, interesting landscapes, adequate cinematography, they just run until they are over; - are not funny, not even unintentional, just depressing. Jess Franco did a number of such films, obviously shot in someone's house & garden on two weekends, starring unattractive women walking around for no reason, being stabbed for no reason, with electronic organ music droning on forever. There's a special nihilistic quality to Eurotrash cinema, even low-quality American films tried to stick to certain mechanic genre rules and present their "values" , but I saw many European exploitation films that never delivered anything. (However, seeing again OCTAMAN might change my mind... :) )

Yes, it runs slower because the same length of film will carry twice as much 2-perf images compared to 4-perf. It may be possible, but expensive because the Konvas movement needs much more machining than let's say with an Arriflex IIC that could be changed to Techniscope by exchanging a few parts. Solid Entertainment (www.solidentertainment.se) does have Konvas 2M cameras converted to 2-perf and may advise you on possible conversions, but expect it to be expensive. Personally, I do not think it makes sense for an older 1M camera. Remember that for 2-perf you need excellent lens performance because the image will be magnified more than with 4-perf, and I doubt that all older OCT-18 lenses will do that job. With a 2M converted to PL-mount, you have access to a variety of high quality glass. The KS perf is larger than the BH negative holes, so it should work. But talk to someone who knows the conversion stuff. Look here: http://www.arandafilm.com.au/pages/page7.html

This is definitely the old movement, so the camera's not a IIA, most likely an Arri II. Could you post a picture of the closed camera front/operator's side? Starting with IIA, the heart-shaped excenter drive was used for all Arri IIx cameras. Your camera should have a 120-degree-mirror shutter, the later 180-degree shutter came later with model IIA. Where did you find that camera, and what serial number does it have?

Tim Burton's ED WOOD is one of my favourite movies - great acting, great photography, and IMHO a good decision where to end the story. - In my opinion, the real Ed Wood never deserved to be called The Worst Film Director of All Times. His best-known films are extremely strange, but they are not totally bad. I'm certain that Wood knew exactly what kind of image or mood he wanted to create, he only lacked the talent and/or self-criticism to execute his wishes. Because he tried to mix things that were of interest to himself with B-movie routines, Wood films never bored me - they were more like watching some strange experimental stuff. Calling him the worst director of all times seems unjust to me, dozens of exploitation film directors turned out films that were never meant to be any good - Wood at least tried. I'd choose PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE any time over ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS, REPTILICUS or THE GIANT CLAW ! :)

Chances are quite good it will work out. Depending on the front of your zoom lens (how close can it get to the Foton-A back), you should get down to about 40mm on the wide side. Of course, you lose the convenience of coupled focusing with the Foton-A/zoom combination. The original zoom is not a bad lens to begin with, so it might not be worth the trouble unless you have a really excellent modern zoom to replace with. The Foton-A plus modern spherical primes should also look excellent IMHO.

This lab specialises in recreating tinting & toning of silent films: Haghefilm website They just did the restauration of the 1920s silent version of HAMLET starring Asta Nielsen using their own process. In theory, tinting should be easy, the recipes and formulas are available in numerous books on photography, and tinting can be done in a film processing machine. Shorts lengths can be processes in a processing tank using Tetenal or Colorvir chemistry sets. I wouldn't go the way of tinting/toning and printing to a color dupe. The T/T colors usually cannot be replicated and tend to change in printing, if you just want tints, talk your lab into doing a test from b/w negative to color positive, creating the tinting by changing printer light settings. I had this done for a commercial with color neg & b/w neg intercut, and the monochrome parts in the answer print looked quite psychedelic... ;)

John, please look up Barry Salt's book FILM STYLE & TECHNOLOGY, Amazon: Film Style & Technology it covers the film stocks available from 1900 up to the 1960s and a lot more of interesting data (processing differences between studios, "in-house f-stops" and so on). Excellent book - though I haven't read the 2nd edition.

Bertrand, you may look at Volker Schlöndorff's film DER NEUNTE TAG / THE NINTH DAY where the desaturation was done through optical printing. I think it looks a bit different from desaturation done in D.I., maybe because the double optical printing process results in a different grain structure and contrast build-up. Unfortunately, I could see the film in a bad projection situation only, so I'm not really sure about it. You may look at some pictures from this movie here (click on DER NEUNTE TAG): Der neunte Tag / The Ninth Day DP Tomas Erhart who convinced the director to use that process can be contacted here: BVK - Tomas Erhart

What type of camera do you intend to use, and what will be your release format?

Just wait for the U.S. remake - somewhat bizzare, like making a Finnish version of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. :rolleyes: Weinsteins To Remake The Lives of Others

Just wait for the U.S. remake - somewhat bizzare, like making a Finnish version of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. :rolleyes: Weinsteins To Remake The Lives of Others

Just wanted to add that the article's headline says Arriflex with new Mirror Shutter Note the picture, here you can see the then-new heart-shaped claw drive so familiar to us Arrificionados ;).

D. Goulder wrote: I have scanned an article taken from FILM TECHNIKUM, a German film technology paper, printed in June 1954, page 154: The text is in German, I will translate a few passages (some people on this forum speak German, so they can correct my amateur translation if necessary): "Image steadiness had not been sufficient for all applications of the Arriflex, a price that had to be paid for the comfort of reflex viewing. The engineering departement of Arnold & Richter, Munich, have tried to improve on this to encourage the use of Arriflex for a wider field of applications. They have succeeded in this by creating both a new 180-degree mirror shutter and a new film transport/pulldown system. This has resulted in 50% more exposure time, excellent steadiness and absence of any excess vibration." On the photo, you can see the then-new heart-shaped claw drive so familiar to us Arrificionados ;). In another issue of FILM TECHNIKUM and the other trade paper KINOTECHNIK, there is an advertisement by Arri for "the new model IIA camera with improved 180-degree-shutter and superior steadiness". Could not scan that one because the bound volume is very brittle, I'll scan another one next time I have access to a single magazine. There is definitely no difference between Arri IIA, B, and C regarding the claw mechanism. My IIA no. 3962 has 180 degrees too. In the past, some people have tried to resell ARRI II models as IIA, maybe this is where the myth came from... :)

Frank, all Arri 2A models had an 180 degree shutter. Only the Arri I+II had the smaller shutter opening. You can make sure that your camera is a IIA by removing the small plastic cover over the claw drive - Arri II has a round disk, IIA and later models have a eccentric (heart-shaped) disk.

IIRC, this particular camera was an "Ostcam" that had been converted to 65mm and Bell&Howell perfs. Did it show up again, or what's your special interest in it, if I may ask? :)

On the Continent, you could ask Peter Märtin at Vantage Film, they know a lot about Russian anamorphic lens technology and should be able to service your lenses. www.vantagefilm.com petermartin@vantagefilm.com phone +49 961 26795

David, did the faded 2001 print you saw already have duped sections in the last reel (Bowman meeting his older self)? This is a damage that was apparently done during initial release printing, and some vintage prints have it, others don't - it is very visible in the new 70mm release prints. I saw a new 70mm print of PATTON two years ago and the new CLEOPATRA last year. Not sure whether PATTON was really struck from OCN, for a 1969 65mm production it has a bit too much visible grain (compared to ICE STATION ZEBRA, THE BIBLE or AIRPORT). CLEOPATRA had great detail, but the color timing was a bit off, the whole film leaning more towards yellow. I guess that since these new 70mm prints are a side product of making new protection masters, there is not enough money to make two or three prints until the timing is perfect. Within these commercial limits, I was grateful to see PATTON and CLEOPATRA, but SOUND OF MUSIC was done so bad that no young person will ecer understand what 70mm was all about. That's why I enjoy watching even faded vintage 70mm prints (as long as density is not gone altogether), and especially with Technirama, there seems to be no way to recreate the vintage look of optically step-printing Technirama to 70mm positive.

Kenny, now try to imagine that LAWRENCE looked even better in older prints because they were struck off the original camera negative! :blink: That cannot be done with old and damaged negatives, so all restored versions are at least two generations further away than vintage prints. The only new 70mm print I have seen that had the unbelievable original Todd-AO look was the 70mm THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY (1965, DP Leon Shamroy) - if you ever get a chance to see it, don't miss it.

All sub-35mm formats were produced on safety base, except for very early 17.5mm formats that were cut down from 35mm stock.

Check the tension of your feed spool. Maybe it has too much tension, and when the film roll's diameter gets smaller, tension can get high enough to make the film slip through the feed sprocket, causing the loop to shrink. Also check the pressure pad on the top sprocket wheel that comes before the loop - if you pull the film by hand to the left (direction of feed spool), can you make it slip over the teeth? Might be a worn or maladjusted pressure pad and/or too much friction on the feed spool.

Yeah, 40mm comes closer to what the eye sees (IIRC, John Alonzo said that he tried for CHINATOWN which focal length came closest, he said about 43mm would be correct), but for some applications like shooting inside cars or very narrow stairs and corridors the 35mm has advantages. When I was shooting up high on lighting catwalks of a theatre, I was glad to have the 35mm to cover it all. :) From what James wrote, I thought he was thinking about buying another Lomo anamorphic lens, and I never heard of a 40mm prime from Russia...

Are you sure you made the upper loop big enough when you did load the camera? Load a bit of discarded film, let the camera run at slowest speed and watch the upper loop: It may become small, but the film must never be tightened, otherwise you get the phenomenon you described. Please check this and tell us what you found out (when you're at it, look at the lower loop too). BTW, the Beaulieu has no register pin, only the claw that pulls the film down.

No. You should definitely get a f=35mm anamorphic. It can be very helpful in tight spots, when you're doing handheld work, and in situation where you want a bit more depth of field. I would rather shoot without a zoom lens than without a wide angle lens.