Daniel Klockenkemper

I've made up brackets like this for when I've had to mix lightweight and studio components. There are lots of inexpensive rod clamps available these days, so customizing things to your needs is easier than ever before. Of course, you might have to budget a generous amount of time for inexpensive parts to come from overseas; if you need something quickly it's always more expensive. What matte box are you trying to use? It's a bit unusual for Super 16 accessories to be studio format; almost all of the S16 cameras I've used have been primarily set up for 15mm lightweight rods.

CVP maintains the most extensive catalog I've encountered so far, and includes images taken with each lens so you can see the illumination falloff for yourself: https://cvp.com/tools/cameralens

One piece of advice I've heard - the more similar two choices are, the less it matters which you choose, since the results will be similar in the end. I think that applies here, since the two lenses are incredibly similar in almost every way - practically zero breathing, with negligible distortion or other aberrations. It's like they were designed to meet the same specification... On paper, the only notable difference between them is that the LWZ has an interchangeable mount option. While I generally have a slight preference for Zeiss, sometimes I prefer a different look for a project. Is there any way you could get both lenses together in the same room with your film camera? Personally, I've found it much easier to determine my feelings and preference between two lenses when looking at each of them through a ground glass.

Hi Elliott, I'm guessing you're going to be shipping your film somewhere else for processing. Film is pretty resilient. The worst that could happen is that the film in the center of the reel relaxes a little bit and has some room to move around; as a result, any bits of dust or debris that's currently sandwiched between the emulsion and the base could possibly make small scratches if the film moves around as the reel becomes less taught during transport. If you have to send it to the lab this way, make sure you note that the core is missing before you send it to the lab. I think lab employees appreciate it when you tell them about darkroom surprises in advance. 🙂 If you have some time to deal with it before you ship the film - If that reel didn't roll out during the middle of a performance (which, if it did, you should mark that roll as having a 'critical end'), you could always trim a tiny bit of film out from the center, and the core should be able to fit in the center of the roll again.

Hi Brian, There's certainly both a technical and philosophical difference between the two - the incident meter tells you how much light is traveling through a particular point in space on set, while a spot meter tells you the actual amount of light reflecting off of a subject towards the camera position. If you wanted to indulge your inner Ansel Adams and think in terms of the zone system, a spot meter would be the way to go. If you know your acquisition medium well enough, it might be possible to use a spot meter exclusively. But in practice, I've almost always relied on my incident meter. In the not so distant past, when I filmed on film and had separate spot and incident meters, I would take out my spot meter mainly to check a practical or a very saturated color to check that was within the stock's dynamic range. Using a reflected meter requires advance knowledge of your capture medium's dynamic range / tone response in order to be truly useful. With digital cameras, a waveform meter that's interpreting the camera's log response can replace a spot meter, and saves you some of the trouble of interpreting how a scene-reflected value corresponds to a camera tone / code value. The last couple Sekonic meters I've owned have had both functions in one, so sometimes it's faster to just spot meter something from where I'm standing than to walk back to the camera or the DIT station and bring up a waveform. There is some marginal value to having a second meter on hand to check the meters' measurements against one another - I did have an incident meter fail on me in the middle of production once. But if you can only afford one meter for now, I'd say your money would be better spent having your incident meter calibrated to ensure that it's accurate.

Hello Kitae, thank you for posting your tests! It's always good to see what the results look like in the real world - we get a much better sense of each camera's performance by watching the video, versus comparing unofficial estimates. I also find it frustrating that this information is not published by most manufacturers. Readout speed is a factual, quantifiable number, just like resolution, bit rate, or power draw. One would think that manufacturers with low rolling shutter numbers would want to promote it. There's a long-running thread on DVXuser.com with a list of rolling shutter figures: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue! Though those figures might not be entirely accurate, the people involved seem to have done their best to get as close as they can. Cinema5D.com has recently changed their method for measuring rolling shutter, filming a 300Hz strobe and counting the number of pulse lines per frame. This seems like a repeatable method that will be much more accurate than guessing based on panning a camera back and forth. Unfortunately, they've tested very few cameras with their new method. It could be possible to construct a portable 300Hz strobe tester - something like an Expodisc diffuser with an LED strobe behind it, that could cover the front of a lens and be taken to a trade show (whenever we have public trade shows again!), rental house, or retail showroom. If we have to measure these numbers ourselves, it would be best if we could eliminate the guess work.

This is extremely unlikely to work. The counterbalance capacity of a tripod head depends on the center of gravity height for the payload. Film cameras have a much higher CoG, so the payload capacity is much reduced. And putting a film camera on a 75mm ball base would be asking for trouble. 🙂 I concur with Phil, something like a Sachtler Video 20 or Miller ArrowX 7 might be the minimum one could get away with using a lighter film camera like the 235, but they'd probably be right at the upper limit. I also advise testing your heaviest build, with a full dummy load in your most top-heavy magazine. I used the highest-end Vision head (in non-HD version) once with a Moviecam Compact with carbon fiber magazine and prime lens - it just barely worked with the magazine in the rear position; the top mount was too much for it to handle.

There is a thread on this topic from 2015, Dom Jaeger gives a nice explanation:

Mercury and sodium vapor are both high-pressure gas-discharge lamps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-discharge_lamp#Types

The quality of that picture is quite bad - most of the inside of the mount just disappears into the image compression! But I'm going to hazard a guess that the Aaton mount is a removable adapter. The thing that catches my eye is that slim metal lever at about 1 o'clock, behind the clamp ring. The clamp ring, with its square-ish lever, positively locks the lens to the mount... What purpose could that other lever serve, if not to loosen the TS mount tightening ring? It would make sense because the physical space is limited; it'd be difficult to remove the mount without the lever. It also makes sense because permanently converting the mount is probably more work than making an adapter, and would negate one of the best things about the camera.

Jordan, can you post a picture or two of the lens mount on your camera? I think that would go a long way towards clearing up the confusion. I've seen the ACL's base lens mount referred to in a few different ways. It's been called both a TS mount and a CA-1 mount. Curiously, Chrosziel still uses a version of this mount on their TP6 lens projector, referring to it as "Eclair C-Mount" and "Full Frame C-Mount" (both of which are not correct at all, since the actual C-mount is eliminated in order to have a wider projection opening). Because of this, you can purchase new lens adapters from Chrosziel for PL mount or EF mount that are quite expensive, but presumably of exceptionally good quality. It'd be very unusual to permanently convert the camera mount, since the TS adapter system is quite robust.

I think that it *should* be, if it's similar enough to the designs of other later Moviecams and the Arricams. Finding an available 2-perf movement could be a challenge. It'd probably be best to consult with an expert, such as Andree Martin of AM Camera: https://www.amcamera.com/contact/

Concerning normal 16mm vs. Super 16, the benefits to Super 16 are small but would be worthwhile. The largest benefit is that Super 16mm cameras are more modern, and so will be more user friendly and compatible with modern camera accessories (wireless, etc.). Even if a modern camera has its gate centered for N16, it probably still exposes the S16 area; the lens mount and finder are only shifted over. Unless you need to strike prints directly from the analog elements, there's no absolute need to film in N16. How much room there is to re-frame the image in post depends on the lenses' image circle. Vantage doesn't explicitly state the image circle diameter for the 2x V-lite 16 anamorphics. Assuming full coverage, I would expect horizontal framing could be shifted a few percent before the image quality degrades at the edges of frame; my speculation is that longer focal lengths might offer more adjustment than wides. Another small benefit is that a 2x anamorphic extraction from the center of the S16 frame probably won't have flares/reflections off the side of the gate when a light source in frame passes out of frame. (Though some people like this, since it's an obvious artefact that's unique to film.) Lastly, I wouldn't worry about anamorphic desqueeze in the viewfinder. I've heard many camera operators prefer viewing a squeezed image in an optical viewfinder since it can be sharper (though this is certainly camera dependent), and the VF image is larger. It's fairly easy to find a monitor that can desqueeze or scale its image for the director / clients.

Jordan, You'd probably need a converter rated for a higher power draw... like this one, which is rated for 3A: https://www.shapewlb.com/panasonic-au-eva1-sony-fs7-fs5-regulated-d-tap-power-cable One could easily cut off the barrel plug and solder on an XLR connector - it's one of the easiest soldering jobs you could ask for, and a 4-pin Neutrik XLR is less than $10. Gregg posted some power draw figures in an old thread here: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/53313-acl-ii-at-75fps-power-requirement/&tab=comments#comment-358669 Based on that, a 3A converter should be able to handle 24 or 50 fps, but might be iffy at 75fps, especially if your camera hasn't been serviced recently. For sustained high-speed takes, you'd probably have to look at building a custom converter. There are plenty of high-current DC-DC converters one can get off the shelf; it'd probably cost less than a new V-mount battery.

KinoGrip makes an "Aaton inspired" wooden hand grip that seems like the closest imitation: https://www.kinogrip.com/ You can choose from a range of customizations to add, one of which is Left-Handed Grip: https://www.kinogrip.com/store/p2/Grip_and_Cable_Upgrades.html I have no affiliation with them and have not bought from them, I just know they exist.