Jonathan Bel

I've got some Fuji vivid short ends labeled from November 2010. They've been refrigerated and then frozen since then. I know I will certainly need to order fresh stock directly from Fuji while filming since I don't have enough to finish. would their be any obvious comparisons on screen to the new and the old after using both?

Hey Paul, that's great news. I guess there's a lot of factors to consider with career choices. I think one of the most important ones though, and I say this because it seems many people in the film/video industry are passionately blind to their "non-work" life and often forget what's really important. I don't think, even a big time filmmaker in hollywood can ever quench his discontentment with consistant work. After all work is work, it's paycheck but its always great if you can enjoy it at the same time. At the end of the day, relationships, loved ones and life outside of work should be the aspiration. Films come and go, gigs are short and sweet but people are never really satisfied with their work in the industry anyway. Many independants have pierced themselves with sorrows because they were slaves to their creative juices but in the end, money was wasted, glory was not achieved and the end product was forgotten. But when you have something infront of you, I say take it and let it happen. You can figure things out on your time off if you have something else in mind. Bigger cities with strong audio-visual communities are always better suited for guys like yourself so it's well to consider.

terminology 101, lol. thanks Dave

I might do a screen test with some of the vivid8547 i have left and see what it gives me at different densities. when you said "hot source with filter", are we talking lights with higher temperature then rated for stock? if so, generally how much hotter. I noticed some of the fluorescents in the frames were as blown out white as the other scenes where it's obvious they were beaming HMI's through the windows. daylight tubes?

I was watching some episodes from the first season of law and order shot back in the 90's and I noticed in most, if not all the scenes, the luminous sources had coronas or halo-like glows while everything else in the scenes including the actors were sharp and unaffected. Would this be created with the use of a low density pro-mist filter, something like 1/4? I'd like to replicate the look if I knew how.

The 3 pin XlR I have has a variable speed controller box linked in the middle and then it plugs into my motor. The XLR usually plugs into my 18vdc battery belt. Is there any pigtail adapter I can get for this? If I get a connector like this, wire the positive/negative and link to power supply? will that work?

Yes it's me again with my Arri 2C. So I just looked into a 0-30v variable 5 amp DC power supply. My motor is a 16-24v CRA-6A Xtal cine products crystal, 2 amp. Anyway, what it boils down to here is finding a way to connect the XLR cable to the power supply. It's a 3 pin. Here are some pictures. Any bright minds?

thanks for clearing that up Dom, I'll print that. Thanks Phil. Found out I'll be able to get 2 extra battery belts on set which is a relief. Nothing like telling the actors to take a hike because of "NiCad failure".

Try posting it on Ebay and then share the link here (although i don't think the admin likes "for sale" posts) Usually those shopping for film cameras want to see macro close-ups of the claw/aperture, lenses and overall camera accessories to see what condition the gear's in before making a decision. Add to that a price with the option to purchase. If you make a proper appraisal and set a fair price, you shouldn't have any trouble selling it. It should be tested before and if required, pay to get it serviced before shipping it out because the buyer shouldn't have to worry about it, at least for a long while. All the best.

I don't know exactly how to check the voltage, I just plug my battery into the motor. It's on 16.8. The motor is a 24fps constant speed. Not sure what that draws out precisely. It has an "overnight" charger and there's no light indicating when it's fully "charged". Plugs into the battery on a 5 pin XLR, plugs into the wall, hit a button, light turns red. I just assume a 8 hour charge will do the job and the battery will re-stabilize itself after unplugging it but I have no way of knowing when and when not to charge. Common sense tells you to recharge when the frame rate drops but i don't know how much motor time this battery "should" giving me anyway. I may have left it plugged into the wall for 10-12 hours at times which may have shortened the life span in past. I used this camera for tests in the past so it was subject to shallow discharge and recharge. I would shoot a few rolls and soon find it sinking to 22fps, and lower and lower. Remove the magazine the and tachometer needle went back up. So how do you know when you've reached 1.1 volts or in my case 15.4 volts? And for how long to charge at that rate? I contacted cine 60 for specifics of my charger but they weren't very helpful unless your inquiring about buying one of their products. My pack is being re-celled now at a battery store, getting it back next week.

I just recelled a cine 60 battery pack and this time around I'd like preserve the memory of the nicad cells for some time. What's the easiest way to fully discharge a battery belt or pack after the frame rate dips without leaving it plugged into the motor and abusing the movement and waiting for it to fully run out of juice. This is for a 2A camera. 16.8vlts

does anyone know or have an idea what he's using in the clip? some of the other clips show him plugged into a generator.

I'm throwing this out there for anyone who has used and/or still uses the Arri 2C/B or A. I recently caught a video of deaf filmmaker Robert Hoskin shooting with this camera. Seems he uses it exclusively. Anyway, I noticed he had a long cable running from his motor to what looks to be a outlet inside a restaurant. There is some type of regulator box between the cable and the power source. (in the other clips he's running his cable into a small generator) here's the link. http://www.youtube.com/user/Silencebound#p/u/20/J9tHfQYAVFU I've always used a belt to power my camera but I'd love to know if I can power it indoors with a special cable to a wall outlet. Is this possible?

I know many of us have had discussions about this, more specifically on the future state of film and it's manufacturing. I want to start a conversation about film usage, not a film v.s digital broohaha. My wish isn't to stir up film buffs because I am a strict film user myself. I just want to have a healthy discussion about it. When I heard roger deakins recently say that he doesn't expect or see a reason to ever use film again after his experiance with the alexa, and the fact that studios want all theatre chains to convert to digital projectors, I started asking myself how far off it would be before the whole film process would become regarded as a "unnecessary costly expenditure" and consequently become a "no option" for bigwig filmmakers. Some say not for another decade, some say a century, but it's not possible for anyone to know the timing or it even ever happening. There are many factors to all of this. My question is to anyone out there. How bad would it need to be for kodak and fuji to bring film manufacturing to a halt? I don't know how massive or how complex the making of the stuff is for them and how their revenues look at the moment. Could they ever operate a smaller production if the numbers dropped drastically or would they have to stop completely? would the prices go through the roof or come down? And this is for anyone in hollywood. How digital has lala land become at this point? I know almost all features are still shooting 35mm all over the globe, but more and more, dropping the celluloid for the new gyzmos to save money and avoid the "film process inconveniences". Not that that has improved the quality of films in any way. So to go back to the topic title, would it be unwise to invest in a very expensive film camera package at this point in time or in a few years? Nothing seems to indicate there is, film is still the only real reliable "perfected technology" for cinema. any comments?

I don't know about most DP's working today, I would assume most of them would prefer to work on "film" projects because, truthfully, most of them are technical junkie artists and film offers them sweat and adrenaline. There's more pressure working with film which keeps them on their toes helps them master "the perfect shot". I think many of them have had to familiarize themselves with certain high end digital cameras for the sake of getting work and testing the medium. I find working on projects that are being shot on digital less and less enticing and frankly I don't really like the idea of being on those sets much anymore. As I like being on the camera crew when I'm away from my screenwriting habits, loading film, doing scratch tests etc, and I just feel unmotivated sitting there now. I can't seem to take it seriously because I know what its going to look like when projected. When you point a film camera at your subjects, your pointing a loaded gun. It keeps the actors a little tense, everyone knows the next roll of 400 feet or whatever is going to cost a few hundred bucks. So you have a sense of solidarity. Everything that seems to take away from film is the talk of money and that's the first mistake. But again, this is an independent sector complaint because a lot of Indy warriors try to pay for their films out of their pockets instead of approaching investors. Any well planned production can come up with enough film stock to shoot the thing. Sure, it's the story and the amount of creative genius that goes into the art department and performances that inspires me, but I can't seem to feel like it's all a waste of effort if your not capturing it on a purely fine tuned, time tested, graceful medium that is the industry standard for a reason. I have been asked to sit and watch long digital films at "crew preview screenings" and always find myself grinding in my chair and having difficulty keeping my eye line in sync with the screen. But I guess it's true that people in the industry "never look at films the same again". I really don't spend my time worrying about it, but at times, I have to remind people where they put their efforts, it should be considered with film from the start. People like James Cameron are riding on careers with wonderful movies that were all shot on celluloid. Cameron is a known technical gear head and it seems strange how he snubs film, something that he used during his entire career. I know a lot of directors have had the unfortunate mishaps of losing a "million dollar shot" during a bad lab accident or a "dropped mag". But they dealt with it anyway and made their films. Many times, what they re-shot did actually cut better in the final film. But when I hear this used as a con to film, it just as easy to say a digital camera can short circuit and breakdown. Anyway, issues like that are rare these days if your work with pros. Digital development maybe considered infant compared to film technology, but I can't imagine a tangible medium with a electronic one ever being one and the same. You keep hearing centrists who say it doesn't matter, it's all about the story. I think they're not being honest. But it does matter. Just as a storyteller around a campfire depends on the smooth articulation of his voice to make the story fun and captivating, a story being captured needs to enchant the watcher. 3d is not the revolution, it only represents a tiny percentage of movies. Most films wouldn't work well with it. I actually took my glasses off during avatar because I lost the beautiful saturated colors with them on. I found it a little silly. I only like it with Imax films, like roller coasters rides and so on. Avatar was really an experimental film if you think about it. Anyway, as this rant continues, I want to emphasize that when your making movies, your not thinking how great it's going to be to be able to do as many retakes as possible without loading a camera or how great it is that you can rent a camera that imitates film closely. Your just thinking on all the cons and fears of potential film disasters instead of doing what the pros do. You should be thinking, this movie is going to look beautiful, project beautifully and I'm going to budget to get it into the cinema. People don;t have to be intimidated by handling film or treat like a fragile vase. I made a darkroom out of my closet and began processing black and white 35mm film to get comfortable handling the stuff. You know your medium, it ups your confidence. If you mess up your exposure, do it again and again. Go on IMDB and look up your favorite movies. Hit the tech specs and voila. 35mm, super 16mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, etc. Keep your digital camera for your home movies. No I don't work for Kodak.