Nguyen D. Nguyen

So basically as noisy as an Arri IIC? Interesting, I knew they were MOS, but I thought they'd be a bit quieter than the Arri IIs and the Konvasi? One guy who offered to sell me one said "it's MOS, but it's not 'noisy'." I had no idea what he was talking about (or how that could be possible?), but he had a crystal motor and ran it at 24 fps. Strange ...

This is where I read the information http://indycine.com/manuals/S35Rp.htm What you're saying makes a lot more sense though; or it could be that they meant "silent" but only with the blimp. What's the noise level of an NC?

On discussing noise level, does anyone have any idea what the noise level is for the Mitchell MKII and S35R cameras? The two are based on similar designs, and S35R stands for 'Silent 35mm Reflex', yet it's still categorized as an MOS camera?

I am posting here because I've searched around but I can't seem to find any definitive answers: What is the Arri BL-2's noise level compared to the BL-1 and the BL-3? And, if you fitted the camera with a PL-mount, BUT, used a Bayonet-to-PL adapter to use Bayonet mount lenses, how does that affect the noise level? I heard that the BL-2s were quieter than the BL-2 since it used a dual registration pin layout instead of the four pins used in the BL-1 (though it sacrificed high speed filming), but I also hear that fitting the camera with a PL mount increases the camera noise through the lens mount. I'm not sure if using adapters would make a difference. Any help is appreciated.

I've looked everywhere and called various places, but no one can give me a straight answer. Does anyone knows the difference between the Arri oil light and the Arri oil heavy? Does it make a difference which on you use to lubricate an arri iic camera?

Hello, I came across a periscope finder that is used on the arri 16s/b, and I was wondering if it is compatible with the arri iic's viewfinder optics. I'm pretty sure that it is (or at least based on what I read about simple low-budget modifications for the camera) but can someone confirm this? And if it is, are there any special compromises (aside from the rotating image)?

Could you email me? Maybe we can work it out. From my experience actually, the device is pretty useful. (nguyendneyugn@yahoo.com)

I think the first question you need to consider is what the primary result of your project will be (on film or on video), since it's usually most cost effective to stay within the medium you're working in (if the end result is to be film, shoot film. If video, shoot video). If this were an important work of art, I'd shoot on film for archival purposes to protect your investment (since film is hardware independent, the technology is in the film itself and can be scanned into future video formats), then you'd need to work out your budget and see what deals can be had.

Thanks for the advice. I'm still in the very infantile stage of the preproduction process where we're trying to work out all the numbers and details first. Every project I've worked on so far, we've used a DAT recorder and it wasn't synced dialogue (sound effects were about the closest thing) and most of the projects have been short so far.

I tend to agree with renting as well actually, although I own my own arri iic I use for pickup shots, and rent a higher grade arri for sync dialogue shooting. I think it's the smartest purchase I ever made for the price that was offered. It's been a fabulous learning tool as well as a work tool I use. But I can never imagine myself ever owning anything beyond this, not even a lens. But since the camera has a pl mount, the lenses are too expensive for any practical person to own anyways.

I used to use those K-3 cameras in college. They are russian wind-up 16mm MOS cameras, but unlike the bolexes, their reliability is very questionable. Some cameras seem to work absolutely flawlessly, while others jam up for no apparent reason. The built-in lightmeter is also a joke. BUT, it is a 16mm camera and you can pick up whole packages for less than 150. So I'd say it's a very good learning tool for MOS 16mm, but I definitely wouldn't consider using it for any dialogue or more seriously budgeted 16mm work. Maybe to do some dangerous pickup shots that might put the camera at risk. And H16 bolex rex series cameras aren't that much higher priced than k-3s. I'd take a bolex over a k-3. Bolexes are super reliable, so I think of the extra money paid as insurance for the K-3.

I would STRONGLY recommend you get an Eclair NPR or ACL (if you really want to invest in a 16mm camera package). They are both easily upgradable to super-16, they are silent and crystal-synced, they're pretty cheap to pick up on ebay (at least a lot cheaper than the arri SRs and the 16mm aatons, AND the NPR has a variable shutter, something that's practically a steal for the price. The viewfinder has pretty decent brightness and can be handheld well enough. There are downsides. The npr has a slightly ackward shape and like David said, it's heavy, so it's not ideal for handheld work. The NPR is also incredibly easy to load (from my experience with it). Not as easy as the SRs, but it is a coaxial mag, so you can preload and snap on very quickly. The only quibble I had with the NPR was that the mag would snap on, but they have this dinky little latch that doesn't really do much. So I'd recommend using gaffer tape over the magazine and the handle to keep it secure just in case.

I hope to get to that point someday. I mean, being able to do that many takes without having to worry about the cost of stock too much. I think it was also Kubrick who said that film stock is supposed to be peanuts compared to how much you spend on paying the actors in a major budget. But as for shooting for the first time, it's a wonderful feeling, I must say. Knowing that my arri iic is pumping the same 35mm stock and using the same lenses as high level professional productions, and part of a more than 100 year tradition is quite a thrill. So there was this feeling of "greatness" to it, even if it's just madness on my part, but it gets you motivated to do great things with those rolls of celluloid you have. Thank god for short ends, eh?

Okay, so you're goal is to make a living off of it? If you need to get a career with it right away, the xl-2 makes more sense. It gives you more footage for your money. Really, it's not about what format is the 'best', it's just what's right for your purposes (it'd make no sense to shoot a wedding on 35). But if your goal is to learn the film craft, and hopefully submit it to festivals which tend to only take film prints, then I'd go with the konvas. I think at the moment, you should just get priorities very clear and very straight with what EXACTLY you plan to do going into video/film making. Good luck.

Yeah, I think in the end, you have to consider where you'll end up. The rule, as I've been told, is that if you plan to finish in one medium, it's ALWAYS more cost effective to stay within that medium. Is it for home use? Theatrical distribution? Just my personal opinion, and this is only personal, If you can afford an XL2 (~5000 USD$?), you can easily get a konvas 2m (or even 1m) off of ebay for around 1000-1500. I'd get some 35mm film stock, learn all there is about working the equipment and just shoot some VERY brief shorts. It's different for each person, but you tend to learn a LOT more when you shoot in film, so think of it as an exercise. But of course, you know more about yourself than I do, so a digital path might feel better. Don't get me wrong, the XL-2 is a great camera (I've used a dvx100 myself at one point, so I'm sure the xl-2 must be on par or better if it came out later). Yes, film does cost more, but the experience you gain through the difficulties you'll face by working on it are well worth it, IMO. And if you know how to look around, you can get some pretttttty good deals. 35mm, unlike 16, has a magically little secret called short ends you can get pretty good deals on. But if y Just my thoughts.