Daniel Klockenkemper

Since you're in LA, most of the grip / rag companies will happily make you something custom - the Rag Place has "Any size available upon request" for basically every item - though there are off-the-shelf things that should work for you:

Canvas Grip has 42" x 42" floppies made for SUVs; I've creatively (and just barely) squeezed a couple of them into a full-size sedan - http://www.canvasgrip.com/p/FL35.html

Modern Studio has a 40" x 40" floppy, as well as floppy cutters in lots of sizes - http://modernstudio.com/product-category/technical-fabrics/flags-cutters-floppies/ The 4 foot wag flag might also be of interest to you. Their nets are offered in 30" x 36" off the shelf - http://modernstudio.com/product-category/technical-fabrics/framed-scrims/ Modern will also happily make something custom for you, I imagine putting a different fabric over a 40" frame wouldn't change the price much at all.

I work part time at a lighting and grip company and we have a lot of items from both the above companies. I'm sure there are similar products from other vendors, too, if you dig through their catalogs.

There's an interview with Claudio Miranda, ASC that discusses the background footage used in the sky tower scenes. It sounds like they shot with 3 Red Epic cameras and stitched them together to get the 15K front-projected image. http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/03/29/claudio-miranda-asc-on-oblivion/

Agree with you on that, no need to get a little rude... What I ment were not the clipped highlights but rather the lifeless looking skin tones. Clipped highlights can not be pulled back, thats clear to me, but lifeless looking skin tones you can easily change in the DI, so maybe these skin tones are wanted the way they are??

Maybe that's just how Tom Cruise's skin tone looks these days? :P

The general rule for exposing old film is that you subtract one stop of speed for every decade past the expiration date in order to compensate for base fog. The expiration date for film is typically 2 to 3 years after manufacture; higher-speed films are affected significantly more quickly than slower films, and color films are affected more so than black and white. I've seen 25 ASA black and white film from the 1970s exposed 40 years later and come out looking great, so 50 ISO color film that's only 5 years old should have negligible loss of speed given proper storage.

A Cameflex mount on a lens looks like this. It was the mount on Eclair cameras - mainly the CM3 a.k.a. the Cameflex (35mm) and the NPR (16mm). If you have a Cameflex-mount lens, there are adapters to convert it to C mount. Of the cameras which have a hard Cameflex mount, either they also have a C mount (NPR) or are not possible to convert (CM3).

If I were in your situation, I would probably hold out for a good deal on a IIC. While they're quite old at this point, there are many of them around, so finding parts and service for them shouldn't be an impossible task. You're also correct that lens choices will be better, especially if you find one that's been converted to PL mount. (Nikon mount conversions are not unheard of either, which broadens your lens options considerably.)

The Russian Konvas cameras are perfectly capable when they're in good condition, but you are limited to older Lomo lenses, which are respectable optically but I've found to be lacking in build quality. Prices on Lomos have also climbed considerably due to digital shooters wanting vintage lenses with character, so in my opinion there not even much of a good deal anymore. Maintenance on a Konvas camera could also be difficult to find, so if anything breaks you may have to purchase another camera.

I don't have any personal experience with Eyemos, but they're supposedly very simple and reliable. I think there are many out there still in use as crash cameras or for when the most compact camera is necessary. Lens selection may be an issue with Eyemos as well, though I think the largest limitation is the 100-foot loads. I'd be hesitant to get one as a primary camera for work purposes.

All of the cameras you mention are noisy in operation, even with crystal-sync motors, so shooting dialogue would be a challenge. If you're playing the waiting game for a IIC, you could also keep your eyes peeled for an older Arri BL; I've seen a few sell at rock-bottom prices comparable to that of IICs on occasion.

For a 2K or larger light, you'll need a variable autotransformer, also known as a variac. Unlike router controls, variacs are large and heavy - the windings are all copper, and thus more expensive. You can find used ones out there if you're on a budget - I have one that originally was for dimming lights in an old theater.

I would imagine that Ektar 100 is probably the closest equivalent to 50D. It was the first still film from Kodak that was based on their motion picture products - Ektar was introduced in fall 2008, while the Portra films were reformulated in late 2010 / early 2011. I usually rate Ektar 100 at 64 or 50.

Try your local glass supply or framing company and ask them to cut you a piece of museum glass in the size you need.

Examples of the Tamron lens are a little easier to find. Here are a few links with samples:

http://forum.manualfocus.org//viewtopic.php?pid=82658#p82658

The user Abbazz posted images on pages 1 and 3 of this thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/new-pictorialism-soft-focus-alert-t40873.html among other lens examples (not all of which achieve softness by the same means). The same user posted additional examples here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/84187-soft-focus-lenses-actually-useful-3.html

Hello Guillaume,

I would guess that the soft effect is a spherical aberration control. It would allow you to dial in the amount by which you can make the lens "less perfect." See the following:

http://www.cookeoptics.com/cooke.nsf/products/s4i_more.html

http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/51A.html

I have a set of Cine Kowa primes, which are identical to the Ultra Ts aside from the nameplate. I think you'll find them an improvement over the Angenieux 12-120, particularly in low-light situations. I haven't used the Angenieux for probably 4 or 5 years, but I remember it needed to be stopped down pretty far to look decent. My experience with the Cine Kowas is:

T1.25 - soft, but you can get away with it sometimes

T2 - decent

T2.8 - very good

T4 - great

As for the Zeiss, I've used a 10-100 converted for Super 16 (Optex 12-120 T2.4). It's a really nice lens, and covers a useful range. The portholing at close focus on the wide end is limiting, especially if you're trying to cram the camera into a tight space. The more advanced coatings on Zeiss lenses give them higher contrast than the Ultra Ts, which can give the at-a-glance impression of higher sharpness if you're comparing them side by side. Color-wise, the Ultra Ts have warmer, less-saturated reproduction than Zeiss, though if you mix lenses it's easy to adjust any differences if you're transferring to video.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer.

http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/1980-Today/index.htm

Vision 500T was introduced in 1996 and discontinued in 2005/2006.

Thank you, David and Jean-Louis. :)

Any suggestions for additional topics?

Hi Jeroen,

Is the PL-mount adapter a c-mount type or the ACL external thread mount (I think it is called TS mount)? Would you consider selling it seperately?

Regards,

Daniel

I've written a series of articles about shooting Super 8, and I'd appreciate some feedback. I work at a camera store / photo lab, and we sometimes have customers bring in a Super 8 camera and want to know how to use it. Since they're generally familiar with photography already, I wrote these articles with that in mind, to explain the conceptual difference between filming movies and shooting still images, and to gather that knowledge into a single resource. I have three parts so far:

Part I is a general introduction

Part II describes various features of Super 8 movie cameras.

Part III covers film stocks, color balance, and camera compatibility.

I'm working on part IV, and plan to address where to process the film, where to transfer it to video, how to incorporate sound, and more about the movie-making process. I'd appreciate any comments on the first three parts, as well as any suggestions for topics to cover in part 4.

Thank you,

Daniel

I'm rather late to this party, and there some good points have definitely been made already. I could be considered a "film guy," since I've shot pretty exclusively on film for the last four years, but I started off as a computer/tech nerd. I switched to shooting on film when I realized that it was easiest and best for the way I wanted to realize narrative imagery, and was the best fit for my ideal creative process.

I believe that the tools artists use shapes their creative process, and filmmaking is no exception. I think the greatest loss if film is no longer viable will be the loss of direct movie-making tools. Case in point: I own an Eclair ACL, which is around a 40-year-old camera design, and it's about as simple to use as a movie camera could be. Because I've been using it for a few years, I know exactly how it behaves; I can rely on its consistency. The same is true of photographic emulsion - I can simply load a roll and start shooting, and know how it will look after it's been processed.

Video technology is lacking in these respects. Camera behavior changes from one software update to the next, and more new camera models come out every year. Will there be a digital camera I can rely upon for 40 years? Likewise, for video imagery that quantifiably approaches the characteristics of film at this point in time, it has to be shot with grading in mind.

Without that direct connection with the medium and the process, I feel that there's less room for the creative aspect, and thus less opportunity for artistic inspiration to strike. Further, without the penalty that wasted film footage incurs, the creative process becomes less decisive and less committed to achieving an artistic goal than ever before. For my own part, I want to take risks and commit to my creative choices, and current digital working methods are less conducive to that.

Will digital tools become more streamlined in the future? I hope so. I don't see why people feel like they have to take sides. If someone is creatively inspired by their medium of choice, that's wonderful. But there's no need for anyone to denigrate mine.

I've shot over 10,000 feet of 16mm with my ACL in the past year. One of those projects had a successful Kickstarter campaign that gave us the funding to film macro photography of live spiders. The ACL was crucial for that shoot - the crazy assortment of lenses I had for close-up work wouldn't have been available or affordable to use on any other camera.

Other drawbacks to gyros include the noise (they spin at 15k RPM or so, like a power tool), and the fact that you can't change directions quickly. If it's a linear tracking shot with minimal panning (which is a good idea with long focal lengths anyway) that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

You're absolutely right. it had been a very long day...

No worries, we've all been there. Best,

Daniel

A gyro rig would be one way to go, although it does add considerably to the weight. It's also worth noting that 100mm on Super 16 is only equivalent to 50mm on a 35mm sized sensor, which is not considered long.

You have your conversion backwards. Use this converter: http://www.panavision.co.nz/main/kbase/reference/tblelenseqvform.asp 100mm on "Super 16 1.78 HDTV TV Transmitted" has an angle of view 6.7° wide, which is equivalent to 179mm for 35mm 1.78 HDTV Transmitted (or 204mm for Super 35 1.78 HDTV TV Transmitted).

Hi,

I'm about to shoot a short and I've been thinking of using mainly long lenses (above 50mm).

Some shots are going to be handheld tracking shots and I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with that sort of stuff and if there is any trick to keep it as steady (but still dynamic - no steady) and avoid making the audience nauseous?

I'm shooting with the C300 with Zeiss Primes using a Vokas shoulder mount and possibly an Easyrig...

 

Thanks,

 

Yair.

I have done a handheld tracking shot with a zoom lens at around 100mm on Super 16. I used a Ken-lab KS-8 gyroscope to stabilize the camera; you can rent them from aerial photography companies.

Giorgio,

It does look mostly like an ACL II. It has the larger base with XLR and external sync connectors; on-board battery holder; and the heavy-duty, mirror-parking motor (though it is superficially different from the motor on my ACL II). It also has the anatomical hand grip, though I haven't seen an extended hand grip like that one before - which seems useful, as the short anatomical hand grip interferes with the rod supports on my Eclair.

The finder does look like the orientable Angenieux version from an ACL 1.5. Knowing the serial number of the camera and motor would be useful in determining if it is an ACL II, or if all the parts unique to the ACL II were reassembled onto an earlier model. More likely, the Kinoptik finder was damaged in some way and replaced with the Angenieux. Whether the magazine is of English or French manufacture would also be good to know.

My understanding is that there are no mechanical differences between the 1.5 and II, though, so I would consider the actual operational condition to be more important. I would find out if they have any records of the camera being serviced, or any other information about the history of the camera. Good luck.

Daniel

There is a nuance to the Canon FD lens mount which might cause some confusion. With the lens removed from a camera, the aperture ring on an FD lens does not change the aperture. The lens mount on a Canon FD camera enables the aperture ring. In principle, an FD -> c-mount adapter should do the same thing. If your adapter is not properly constructed, it may not be activating the aperture ring on the lens. This is easy enough to test; mount the FD lens onto the adapter and see if it works.

Phil,

Doing a quick Google search by image (as suggested in another thread) shows that the images and description are very similar to this thread on Reduser from 2010: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?45831-Steal-My-Glass!-Ebay-Auction-for-various-lenses-and-FF-gear I would be highly suspect of the legitimacy of the craigslist ad, especially considering the price - prices on vintage glass has been holding steady if not elevating due to the popularity of Red cameras, DSLRs with PL mounts, etc.

Gregg,

I have the adapter-within-adapter setup you describe. The rotation for the lens to feel tight is about noon to 2 o'clock.

My Arri adapter is also very snug in place. I have to put the mount on the camera to remove the Arri adapter, but since I have no CA-mount lenses I just leave the two adapters together all the time.

Daniel

John,

The intersection between the sets of Super 8 cameras with interchangeable lenses and cameras quiet enough to record dialogue is to my knowledge null. Beaulieu cameras have a c-mount for interchangeable lens use, with the widest available a 3.5mm. Almost all other cameras have non-interchangeable zoom lenses.

If you're looking to record sound, your best bet is to find a Braun Nizo camera from the 4-digit series (e.g., 1040, 2056, 4080). These cameras are belt driven, which greatly reduces the noise of the camera. I have a Nizo 6080 model, and it's inaudible outdoors or indoors when the room is not quiet. (It is audible in very quiet rooms, but what camera isn't? Throw a blanket over the camera.) While I haven't performed any real tests - like Matt, I like to forgo dialogue when I can - they supposedly remain in sync for over a minute. (A crystal sync modification is possible, but very uncommon.) If you look for one of these cameras, be sure to get one that is in confirmed good working order. The belts which make them so quiet are also their Achilles' heel, and if the camera has been sitting for a long time the belt might be dried out and could break when you try to run it.

Another option would be to use a noisy camera and record the location dialogue as a reference track, then rerecord it properly and add the spoken parts during editing. It's a bit more labor intensive, but saves you the trouble of hunting down a special super 8 camera.