Nguyen D. Nguyen
-
Posts
52 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nguyen D. Nguyen
-
-
---If it were silent, why would Mitchell have made the huge blimp?
I htink the S actually stands for 'system', since the blimp with the video assisst is called the 'System 35' blimp.
I would think that at 24fps the MkII/S35R would sound like an NC, though maybe a bit noisier since the NC doesn't have the mirror shutter.
---LV
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.
-
-
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)?
-
HI
The "thing" you are talking about is called feedcuter (translation from German). It looks useful but its not. Maybe I can dig out one from bailsman if you rely need one.
Could you email me? Maybe we can work it out. From my experience actually, the device is pretty useful.
(nguyendneyugn@yahoo.com)
-
Hi, I know there must be hundreds of posts about this subject but still I haven't been able to clear my thoughts.
I would like to know what camera suits best to my needs. I am a film student and I'm specially interested in makin music videos and short films that allow me to increase my knoeledge in cinematography. My budget is also an issue since I really don't have more than 6.000 us, to spend.
I was guessing that my best choices would be canon's XL2 or panasonic DVX 100A because of their 24p function, but what about sony's new HD models or going straight ahead with a film camera.
The main plataforms for my work hopefully would be local televison but then again if I want to send any of my shorts out to the festival circuits I must get a copy on film, and as far as I know that can be really expensive.
I will apreciate any comments , thanks.
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.
-
Did you read the part about having to get the sound transferred to mag and getting an ink coding machine? You're cutting picture AND sound, remember. It's not as simple as getting a workprint.
Don't do this without cutting something short first on someone else's flatbed editing system before you commit to doing a larger project this way. Cutting a movie on film requires a lot of planning and organization and a careful understanding of workflow, lest you find yourself crawling on the floor looking for a two-frame trim that you need to put back in...
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 personally don't see the business case to own anything besides a beginner camera and light meter unless you can rent your equipment to the productions that hire your services and often enough to pay for your equipment--and hopefully provide a ROI as well.
Alternatively, having equipment could provide access to shooting opportunities you wouldn't have otherwise--as in very low budget pictures where providing equipment can make possible a project which otherwise could not afford a rental. (such as a 48 hour film)
In either scenario you effectively become your own "rental house."
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.
-
Speaking of cheap 16mm cameras, does anyone have any thoughts about the K-3? They're all over eBay for less than $200 for a whole kit, and I'm sure they work well enough, but has anyone here actually used one? I'd like to read about any experiences.
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.
-
Hello all, I'm new to the whole camera aspect of film and would appreciate some expertly advice on which camera to start with.
I've had my eyes sent these two options but i am not technically informed on whether they are reliable for such a price.
Both cameras appear in good functioning condition but vary in items.
If anyone could share their thoughts on these selections or may recommend me a more suited camera i would deeply appreciate it. I am willing to spend up 3000 dollars on a good camera package.
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.
-
Stanley also had a habit of forcing actors to integrate themselves into a role. If an actor asked him "how should I do this?" He'd force them to do it every possible way till they said that they had enough.
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?
-
I would be shooting shorts and if I got the xl2 I would shoot some events such as weddings. I could probably make more money with the xl2 but, I wouldn’t be getting experience shooting on a real professional format.
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.
-
This may be a strange question but its something I’m trying to decide.
Ok, here is my Q. there are two cameras that I am considering. A canon XL2 and a Konvas 2M… ok I realize that these are two very different cameras and formats, but I’m trying to decide whether to buy the Xl2 and shoot a lot more for the money. Or buy the Konvas and get less, but real film experience. So digital (more shooting) or film (real experience)?
Hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance..
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.
-
Do you currently have either a film editing room or a digital editing system? If so, this should influence your decision because that's a fairly significant cost. If you go the film route, you also need to print sound and you also need to sync and code the dailies, meaning you need a coding machine (probably an Acmade, but it could be something else), either rented or owned. If you go the telecine route, the sound is usually synced for you by the transfer house, although the cheaper you try to go the more likely it is that you'll be fixing a lot of that sync sound during editorial. You do, of course, eliminate any and all issues regarding negative cutting by editing on film, since by supplying a work picture you ensure absolute accuracy.
As for printing picture vs. telecine, the costs are not that different, about .20-.25 per foot. In telecine you have to pay for the tape stock, which makes up some of the difference provided you're using a professional tape format. You can find "bargain" telecine rates of considerably less, but you get what you pay for. Someone else mentioned being able to see focus problems in a telecine transfer, but this is precisely what you **can't** judge. To properly judge focus issues, you need either a film print or, at the very least, an HD telecine transfer.
Yes, I do have access to a flatbed editor (or easily can get access to one) and a digital editing system.
So basically, processing the negative and getting a workprint made is cheaper, right? I suspected as much, which is good, because I do prefer to do it the old way (makes me focus more on every little frame till I get sick, not that digital isn't good too). I like holding my pictures and feeling them in my hands. Call it old fashion, but I do put a lot of work into it, so I gotta get the most out of it.
I kind of figured that in order to have a workable workprint on digital, you'd need to get a pretty high D.I. like an HD master. If that's the case, the costs look like they're better spent elsewhere.
Cool, thanks for the response.
-
It all depends on the quality of your telecine (and the corresponding price) versus the quality of your workprint. If you get a B&W workprint, chances are that it is going to be cheaper than your 2K telecine transfer. Also, it depends on what sort of equipment you have access to. With a little looking around, I have found a guy who has a 16mm contact printer that he'll let me use for free. All that my workprints are going to cost is the price of print stock and chemistry. Like I said it all depends. If you could tell me what labs you are considering for workprinting and how long your movie is I could probably give you a better idea what a workprint would cost.
Regards.
~Karl Borowski
Let's say, for example, you want to shoot about 10 (~1000ft) minutes of 35mm color or b/w, and you want to make an ... acceptable, but not great quality telecine (just to edit, so you can at least judge the most critical things, like correct focus, fogging, etc.). The lab that I used for my previous film was fotokem down in la, so I'd be glad to know if there are other more cost-effective film developing labs, in north and south CA. I paid about 150-170 for a b/w 400 16mm negative to be developed and had a one-light workprint struck from it.
Again, the quality really doesnt' have to be that great, it's just for editing purposes and should at least have the timecode so i can match the original film negative.
-
Hello all,
I have a very quick question (asking for a possibly lengthy response) about shooting on 35mm and getting the negative processed.
If I were to shoot on 35mm, which would cost less:
(1) Getting the negative developed and making a one-light workprint to edit manually
(2) Getting the negative developed and doing a one-light telecine with the time-codes to edit in final cut.
I'm talking specifically about the processing (I have access to both manual and computer editing systems). I was thinking of doing a telecine instead, editing it on final cut, and outputting an EDL so I can conform the negative. Is the cost of making a workprint vs. telecine very big? By how much so? Thanks.
-
Exactly my thoughts. I think Kubrick's philosophy was that the more you make an actor go through a take, the more they start to lose themselves in it (but they why not just rehearsals...). I think he currently holds the world record for number-of-takes on a dialogue scene from the Shining.
-
It's hell.
Nah, just kidding. Being that I shot 16mm before, shooting my first test roll of 35mm was a bit daunting at first with my arri iic, but it really isn't that different aside from size and weight. Another thing I tended to notice is that when you shoot on 35, knowing there is more at stake, you tend to be a lot more careful and wary working within your limitations.
So purely in that sense, with more at stake, you plan better and (not always), your story tends to be better thought out since you feel your investment is higher than, say, getting a miniDV camera where the stock is technically infinite for 10 bucks.
-
I am looking for a person with a strong sense for business in film production to join up with and start a film production company, someone who is very serious about it as much as I am, to co-schedule, plan, finance, preferably someone who knows what is required in a film production in terms of cost. I am currently working on a script I hope to direct, but I would also like to produce it with someone else.
I have experience and am very familiar with production, but my training is mostly in writing and directing however (on a lower budget), currently finishing up one ask we speak. I have a portfolio of all the expenses and such, all kept in file. I have an idea for a feature, but need someone to help me in a joint partnership to get it off the ground.
Preferably, you should live around south California. Please contact me for more details on the specific idea descriptions, and we can spend time discussing exactly what we need and how we can achieve it, from writing a business model and getting the blueprints together. This will hopefully be a long term deal, and before you secure your confidence, I would be happy to discuss my idea with you as extensively as possible including how marketable the film will be alongside the artistic merit.
Here's my email:
nguyeneyugn@hotmail.com
-
The camera has been posted on ebay. Any further questions can be emailed, but you can see the status of it here.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=7526018458
-
too rich for my blood.
Depends on how desperate I get. We can get negotiable, hint hint, nudge nudge, wink wink, snuh snuh...
-
Hi,
You must have bought from a dealer with a guarante for that price!
Good luck
Stephen
Yeah, I thought I'd be hanging onto it for much longer, but as it's not the case, I need to let go of it for now. Know of anyone interested? If I don't get any responses within a few days, I'll probably have to get it up onto ebay. They charge high commission fees, don't they.
-
Hello all,
I have an arriflex IIC BV model 35mm film camera for sale. This camera was fully serviced before I bought it and has not been used since (except briefly to test the magazine); this camera model has a variable shutter from 15 to 165 degrees in 15 degree increments AND has been fitted with a PL mount for all modern glass. It also comes with a V/S motor with power cable (24 fps included), one 200 ft magazine, a copy of the original instruction manual and a custom made carrying case with interior foam padding. The power cables are standard 4-pin XLR female connectors.
I am selling this because I was originally planning on shooting a project, but some very unexpected money problems came up so I need to strap up some cash fast. I really do not want to part with this camera, but my current financial situation leaves me with absolutely no choice.
This is a very super solid workhorse of a camera in incredibly good condition (functionally, I give it a 9.5 and cosmetically, I give it a 9 , both out of ten). I will NOT, however, sell this camera for anything less than 5350 as I bought it for 6500 to begin with. If you want, I can also throw in a cinema products crystal motor and cable for an extra 550. I will ship VERY promptly, though depending on how promptly you need it, shipping charges will go up accordingly.
Please email at nguyeneyugn@hotmail, or call me at 805-252-2584. Phone is best since I always have my cell with me. emails will take about one day to get back to. Thanks.
Versatility for under $15k?
in 35mm
Posted
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 ...