GeorgeSelinsky

I shot a feature with a IIc. We post-dubbed almost everything. I tried using one of those FFT filters for fun, but I never got what I'd consider to be useable audio. MAYBE outdoors if you shot with a long lense, it's doable. FFT filters majorly color the sound if you notice. It takes a lot of work to get it to sound right.

The only time I got the IIc quiet enough was when I had to shoot inside of a Humvy. I was outdoors and using a 50mm lens, the actors were inside with windows rolled up. That WORKED, and no FFT filters necessary.

I really don't suggest trying this kind of technique, at best you're going to get useable dialog but your footsteps and moves are going to get shot. The Arri II's noise pattern is like an air conditioner, it's spread through many frequencies, so it's hard to get rid of it.

If I had to get a really cheap 35mm camera, I'd go for the Konvas. The Eyemo is really a clunker, I own one and it's really not user friendly. I don't like it handheld either. I wish Bolex made a 35mm version of the H16, that would have been probably my favorite MOS camera ever.

P.S. In essence with first time features in particular, someone often starts by saying something like "I can plan this out real careful and do it with the same money I'd use to buy a car". In reality, what happens is that you start shooting, you get the dailies back, you start editing, and begin to see certain mistakes, problems, and also at the same time get ideas, etc. Your money will run out because nothing ever goes as planned, and then you put it on the shelf until you raise more and can start shooting again (or you eventually just give up because you feel you've made too many mistakes and don't want to bother fixing them because your morale is shot). Eventually you get it to some stage of completeness and show it around. You may get a sale, you may raise money for finishing it (which requires legal work), or it may sit indefinitely on a shelf. Thus is the life of a first time flick, if you're self sponsored...

As Dave correctly said, I did shoot a 35mm micro budget feature (currently seeking distribution). I directed, co-produced, shot, edited, did sound work, and a number of other things. Very exhausting, took us 5 years.

I shot with an Arri IIc using the old stock Cooke lenses (an Eyemo was used for a few scenes), nearly everything was done MOS and post dubbed later. It was a pretty dialog intense film, so getting everyone in the dubbing chair took time.

I shot most of it on the now nearly defunct 5279.

What I like about shooting 35mm:

1) Shortends are overall a better bargain than with 16mm.

2) Processing per foot can in some labs be cheaper than 16mm (even though it's twice the footage per minute).

3) No difference in transfer costs.

4) 500 asa film is fine, pushing one stop is survivable.

5) Dust is smaller.

6) A bit easier and more foolproof to thread.

7) It's 35 dammit!

What I didn't like:

1) Using a heavier, noisier camera which stands out more if you're shooting w/o a permit, unlike a Bolex which you can hide in your coat (even the olive colored Eyemo can look like a friggin BOMB or weapon to a security person).

2) Being more worried about focus.

3) Having to reload the mag more often.

4) Having loads of film cans taking up space at home.

5) Slow motion being a bigger issue (the Arri II can't really do it, and the cameras that can are either very bulky or are wicked expensive).

People who shoot a film on a 2:1 ratio are not going to get good results. I started by thinking I'd do that, but my ratio ended up being about 7:1. Even the lab manager (at the late great Lab Link) said that independents almost always shoot more than they plan they will. If you want to learn about filmmaking, don't skimp on coverage - you will find that you're going to have to go back and reshoot otherwise, or will have to shoot stupid cutaways that mean nothing but are necessary to cover things up, or will have to live with bad shots/performances/cuts. On a good day I'd get a 4:1 or 5:1 coverage. A few scenes I did 2.5:1, but I don't like to take chances.

The biggest problem will be a camera of course. Shooting MOS and post dubbing is a major pain, but for us the only other option would be to either get the Arri blimp (a beast that makes the camera weigh 100 lbs and makes operating the camera tough), or to get a Mitchell BNCR which weighs over 100 lbs and is just huge. The BL 1 was out of our budget range, now they're going for a little less than before the HD craze hit. And if we went sync, we'd have to deflect at least $1000 for sound equipment that would produce anything worthwhile, and find a competent soundman.

Anyway, good luck. A first time film is a major crap shoot, your biggest achievement is not being majorly succesful with it but getting it actually finished and distributed (even self-distributed, if it is necessary to do so). If you manage to do that PLUS make your money back, consider yourself very, very fortunate. And if you get major festival recognition and a distributor wants to push you all the way, well that's like winning the powerball jackpot.

Should we assume that you have already transferred the footage once already?

 

I don't think you've shared enough information to get the most accurate workflow.

First I want to thank everyone who took the time to write such helpful replies!

Our feature is 132 minutes long, 35mm, we shot about 80,000 ft. I didn't yet do a cut count, I'm in the process of conforming our edit right now.

My problem is that we simply won't have the time to do a negative cut at this stage of the game. Negative cutters need at least a month to do it right, plus we have to retransfer our entire film and reassemble it before doing the final EDL since I was badly advised NOT to get keycode on my initial transfers. As of now I have mini DV transfers that I've been editing from. I'm hoping that with the HD conform maybe I won't have to spend 5 thousand bucks and two weeks on a retransfer, since if we make a mistake by a frame or two it can be easily adjusted.

We have a few segments that would require opticals, and this is much less expensive for HD than scanning the negative. etc.

To top it off, the way it's looking now we're going to have to settle with a temporary music track. To change a music track on 35mm costs around 4 thousand for the optical plus 4 thousand for another print (well, less if the change is on select reels but still fairly expensive compared to HD).

Thanks again for your time and suggestions!

- George.

I have a situation coming up. We're submitting our feature right now to a film festival. My decision is most likely to show an HD CAM version of our film, because we still may change the soundtrack and that will cost us much less on a digital medium than on an optical track.

My question is this, if I decide to go off the negative flats that I have right now, without a negative cut, will that significantly increase the expense of the HD transfer? This is a time sensitive issue as the negative cut will take at least a month - and we may or may not have that time. Some of you have working experience doing this, anyone have a realistic time estimate?

Also, how do they usually do it, go through each flat one by one and transfer the shots that are used in each flat, then the transferred footage is reassembled on an editing system? Or do they scroll through the flat and find each shot, transfer it frame to frame, then scroll to find the next one, etc?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

- George.

I made a feature film with an Arri IIc. There is no way to get it quiet unless you get a very heavy blimp for it. Forget it, you can hear it in the next room and even on the next floor!

The only way I did it was to re-dub all the audio, dialog, moves, footsteps, ambience, you name it. It was an interesting but extremely time consuming process.

Check this out: http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html

The main reason you'd shoot 35mm right now is for historical reasons, by the time you get enough money and a script together to shoot a film, 35mm film may be history!

Of course, 35mm is cool. The first time you get your rushes back you're all excited about seeing such crispy images, all filmed by YOU. It's sorta like the forbidden fruit, the format of the pro's. But then you quickly get over that buzz, and then it's just business as usual.

If your hands itch, like mine did once, go get some short ends and see if you can borrow a 35mm camera for a day or rent one over a weekend. You're still going to be stuck for lab minimums, we're talking $70 per item (negative processing is an "item", film dailies is another "item", video transfer another "item"). If you get a print done and want to see it in all its on screen glory, a guy at the lab will run it on a projector for you once or twice.

Best bet if you really want the film look is to stick to 16mm right now. You can get the equipment cheaper, it still looks VERY GOOD, and if you want to project the film 16mm projectors are a very cheap commodity. If you're so into the 35mm look, shoot on the 100 asa or 50 asa color negative stocks, that'll give you a very close approximation (and it'll teach you to light). If you want to have some fun shoot the Plus X reversal B&W, that's a close match to 35mm B&W film (even though you need a LOT of light).

Most important of all, it matters WHAT you're putting on film, not the tool you're using :)

What Summit would have done is splice a sync beep into the optical track & transfer the track to mag, since scanners aren't single system optical.

Then transfer picture and mag double system.

I had to do a transfer of a 16mm print with optical sound, the rank we used had an optical sound head on it. I'd imagine most of them do.

I'd say the Eyemo is the closest camera to a Bolex in terms of format, but it's rougher and heavier than a Bolex. If the Bolex feels like a clock, the Eyemo by contrast feels more like a sewing machine. You really get the sense that it's a combat camera, like this thing takes both 35mm film and 30-06 cartridges. I wouldn't be surprised if throughout WWII there were a few Nazi casualties from hurled Eyemos :D

No frame counters unfortunately like on some Bolexes. You can do nice animation motors for it though, it has a shaft.

Reflex eyemos often run about three times or more the cost of a stock non reflex. Some outfit out in Texas has a PL mount Eyemo reflex package as high as $10,000. They keep putting it on ebay but nobody bothers to bid on it. You're dealing with a pellicle or prism reflex here which will have some light loss. There were a lot of Nikon mount reflex Eyemo's. They used to go for around 2-3 g's.

If you attach a motor to the Eyemo it's going to add weight and make loads of noise. I had a 120 vac motor for it and it sounded like the dentist's drill.

The Arri IIc is no Bolex. It's a great camera, and for a 400' camera it handholds pretty well. It's designed for utmost simplicity and that's why it's great. No frame counters, footage counter is on the mag and goes straight off the film itself. The motor coupling might be a pain if you want to design motors, it's a threaded gear.

Konvas is basically the same animal as the Cameflex. Really noisy, I'd say a tad louder than the IIc. Also has a threaded gear I THINK, forgot.

I would not recommend investing money in a camera, because it will outdate very soon unless it's a film camera :P Lights seem like an allright investment, you'll always need lights.

This is a very good point. Computers, software (even though its upgradeable), and video cameras all change fast and you have to adapt with the times to remain competitive. Today I couldn't imagine editing a commerical piece on a Powermac 8500 and Premiere 4.2, I'd loose my head. But 8 years ago boy did I get excited when I saw that thing go, and I finished my first documentary on it. Back ten years ago I could take a Canon L-2 Hi 8 camera and score a gig with it. Today I wouldn't think about showing up anywhere with that thing...

Lights change least of all through the times, the last significant invention that impacted people's use was the quartz halogen bulb which increased efficiency by 50%. An old beat up Mole Richardson still does the job just fine. Yes, you have HMI's, Kino's, Dedo's, but a quartz light does the job just dandy for most indoor locations. Of course there will be a day when they'll come up with lights that use very little juice and run very cool, but the pace of such technical developments is slow compared to digital cameras and computers.

The only thing that probably changes less than lights is a C stand and gobo arm. That's the cockroach of the equipment arsenal, they'll still be around when my great grandchildren will be walking past film sets.

- G.

Consider that both Double X and Plus X were designed in the 1950's, that will explain why they are so grainy. This is not T-grain technology...

Personally I really like Double X in 35mm, wish I could shoot a whole feature on it someday. It's a nice low contrast look. Although I've never tried it, they say it's very pusheable. In 16mm it has its own aesthetic which is very interesting, the grain is much more visible of course which is part of the look.

Plus X negative for me never fit into any category neatly, as Russians like to say "It's neither fish nor meat". To me it's main purpose is if you're shooting B&W outdoors and have a lot of light to deal with. The 80 asa makes life a little easier, you're not always so closed down.

Ilford's 125 asa version is nicer imho, is a bit faster, has more snap and I'd say the same grain. Ilford's high speed 400 asa film drops a whole stop in tungsten light, on spec its grainier than Double X but has considerably more snap (contrast).

As for reversal, you know what the story is. Either straight to tape, direct projection (visible splices and scratches/dust all over), or a high contrast B&W reversal print. Not a good thing to shoot if you're just getting started with the exposure meter. Tri X is all contrast and grain (sorta like the Ilford 400 negative, but even contrastier), but Plus X reversal is really beautiful. I've only shot the old version which was 50 asa in daylight and 40 indoors, but it was VERY low grain and very deep blacks. Sweet stock but unless you're filming out in a sunlit field or beach, not very practical. They say the new version is a stop faster with "a slight grain penalty". Just how slight I haven't yet seen for myself.

Anyway, good luck...

Check out my site, http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/index.html

I haven't really done anything with it in a looong time but the Yahoo group is fairly active, if you want to join that.

- G.

The one way you can get audio and picture to line up perfectly is if you have what is called an "interlock" system worked out, where each frame that you advance the camera you advance the audio recorder. Doing this with unsprocketed magnetic tape is impossible because there is no easy way to control the exact position of the tape, which is also prone to stretching.

You'd have to use a recorder that uses magnetic sprocketed film (they used to have those back in the old days, before the Nagra and Pilottone - although I don't believe they worked on interlock). That's quite a difficult beast to get out there.

You can sorta get away with shooting sync using non sync gear (even with a spring camera) if you're willing to spend time in a video editing program cutting and stretching/compressing the soundtrack to make up for the sync drift (pitch correction may be necessary). In that case I advise you to use a video camera or other digital device for sound recording since analog tape drifts like crazy. You'll already have a camera that is drifting out of sync, so the audio should be as stable as possible.

Another problem is that most cameras which aren't designed for sound make a ton of noise, the larger the format the louder. Unless you're outdoors and are shooting from a distance, you're going to get camera chatter on your sound track. Some 8mm cameras might be small and quiet enough if you do a quick blimp on them (throw a jacket over them or mush it between two pillows), but it's not fun to shoot like that.

Consider post dubbing your film, see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html

I've got some DP and tota lights, plus a Mole inkie (love that little bugger).

In reality I've discovered if you're filming in a small to medium sized interior location, you can do so much with three or even two lights plus a fill card. I mean, sometimes you don't even have ROOM to safely put more than that amount of lights in an interior, nor the amperage to carry the current. Granted if you want to shoot at an f 8 with 100 speed film, or are filming large spaces, you're going to need more.

I think owning a modest lighting package is a good idea (like some open face or fresnel 1K's, an inkie or two), as is owning an MOS movie camera. I shot an entire feature with that alone (well, I got a bunch of cheap 500 W Home Depot lights for an interior auditorium once, but that's it)

If you're doing small projects rental houses are a hassle. First of all you need to set up an insurance policy or put your credit card on the line. Second of all you have to arrange to pick up the equipment (which is often located in a traffic heavy city, in some dumpy industrial area where there's no parking), and be punctually there to drop it off for check in time or be fined. Then you also have to check the condition of the equipment to make sure they don't hit you with damage that isn't your fault. Ultimately you're just as responsible for the gear as if you own it. If its stolen insurance only covers it if it was literally stolen from under your nose (anything stolen beyond a certain distance from production/security personel is considered "gross negligence" and not covered).

But when you're shooting on someone else's money or have a big project coming up, by all means rent. You can get better equipment that way.

I'm also a II c owner, shot an entire feature with it and then post dubbed everything (http://www.geocities.com/gselinsky/nonsync.html).

It's a reliable strong beast. I wouldn't run it at high speeds though (above 32 fps), that's asking for registration hell. Some people claim to be able to use high speed with it, but maybe their cameras are modified...

As is correctly said, the lenses are the real deal. Usually the IIc's come with either Schneider Xenons or Cooke Panchro's, those are from the fifties. It's a softer, lower contrast look generally speaking. I actually think it's nice, but it's not that sharp snappy Zeiss look that you're probably used to seeing.

- G.

Phil,

 

Tell that to David Samuelson. He shot newsreel with a 35mm Mitchell BNC on his own.

 

Stephen

Er, you mean an NC. I think it would take Lou Farigno to be a one man crew with a BNC, the damn thing weighs 120 lbs minus support!

I've shot a lot of one man crew 35mm with an Arri IIc, with and without support. It's totally doeable.

- G.

Hi,

 

Yeah but they're still too expensive. It's plastic, which is still cheap, coated (very carefully) with chemicals containing absolutely minute amounts of silver.

 

The source of the expense is because it's manufactured in a place and manner which encourages it, and because they can get away with it.

 

The source of the expense in the UK is because they can get away with it, and probably don't particularly notice or care about markets outside the US.

 

I bet it doesn't cost this much in Bombay.

 

Phil

I think film more than any time in history is getting a run for its money these days. I mean, with HD coming in so strong it's really becoming a problem. Labs are starting to lower prices, short ends are selling for less. cameras also. Now's probably a better time than ever to be shooting 35.

I own a 35mm camera that delivers images that are better than those HDTV cameras that would be within my budgetary reach (granted, I've got old glass on mine but even that's better imho). If I sprung for the latest HDTV camera right now, two years later I'd already be getting nervous and wanting to upgrade. I have a video camera that I got which cost 2 grand back in 1997 and is now worthless. My Arri cost me 5 g's, it's 3 decades old, and I'm going to keep using it whenever I can unless I have a project with a big shooting ratio.

- G.

George,

 

Give Matthew Wagenecht a call he is a very experienced and meticulous negative cutter here in Massachusetts, he also has 35mm and 16mm camera gear and shoots a fair bit. I think he would at least consider taking the job and I know that if he did it would get done right.

 

Matt 617-244-6730

 

-Rob-

Thanks Rob! I will give Matt a call.

I actually did a lot of investigation in the interim, I spoke to Andy Pratt negative cutting in Seattle and they basically ran down the numbers for me. The way it looks, it's pretty much the same to match by eye or to retransfer everything and reconform with keycode.

Anyway, we saved some money in the beginning but now have to shell out, so much for keycode being "a waste of money", lol.

- George.

Hello folks,

Back when I was shooting my 35mm feature we had little money, and one person at the lab advised us that keycode "is a waste of money". Back in the late 90's when I was learning this stuff, keycode was brand spanking new and negative cutters charged $7 a cut to go off an avid output with 30 FPS TC burnt in, and $3 a cut off a workprint. Today negative cutters demand keycode and flexfiles, I had two prominent neg cutters in the city refuse to take on my job because I didn't have keycode. They didn't care if I didn't hold them up to a guarantee for sync, one kindly said "Wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, do it yourself". Thanks, but I'm not about to spend a month doing this...

Retransferring all our footage is going to cost us over $6K, plus time to redigitize and reassemble the edit. A cheaper option is to scroll through each flat on rewinds and a synchronizer, note the key numbers beginning on each new lab splice, then burn in the keycode manually on the video dailies files (it's basically a frame timer that can be done in Virtual Dub), reassemble the cut (easier this way) and pass that off to a neg cutter. A final option is to find someone who still does "match by eye", but so far I've found only one place in Seattle and that's an awful far way to drive your negative (I'm in NYC).

Also, I just discovered these cats in Jersey who seem to have some interesting "digital matchback" system:

http://www.diligentsystems.com/ I wrote them an email, I'll see what they say, but I was interested if anyone here has any experience with them or has any ideas about this altogether?

As always a big thank you in advance,

- George.

Hello all!

It's been ages since I've been here, I hope all are doing well. See some regulars that have stayed faithful here and kept things flowing.

I'm wondering, have digital intermediate prices come down since 2004 when I was last searching? I've got a 35mm feature that I was considering going the DI route. Back in 2004 the story was that a 2K DI cost around $150K and up, just wondering if any late advances have made matters easier.

My best and thanks for any advice,

- George.

Oh and P.S., in case anyone knows, is there any special software that Premiere 6.5 needs to capture 24p with the regular pulldown, or can it just firewire it up normally? Thanks!

- G.

If the day ever comes where the police tell me to move along, I'll just do as they ask and be polite.  When they're gone I'll go back to the spot I was at, and shoot it any way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've shared your luck in that department. I've filmed with a tripod mounted Arriflex IIc in many places in New York (mostly busy streets in Queens, I never risked tripods in Manhattan), and I've also gone handheld on the NY subway system with my Arri a few times, I kept it hidden. No police ever noticed, the one time we were filming and a cop was nearby he was casually curious and even offered to move his car!

But... this doesn't always happen by far. Having gone to filmschool I can tell you that many, many film students have been told to move along by cops. Many have also been caught filming in the NYC transit system, and the penalty there can be "confiscated camera". Not fun...

Remote locations aren't that much safer sometimes either. I'll never forget how glad I was that I got a permit for my student film when I had to film at the Robert Moses State Park beach. Who'd think that in March when there's virtually nobody at the beach, the security would drive up and ask us "what are you doing?". I had a CP 16 on a tripod and about 4 people with me. If I hadn't flashed that permit to this guy, we would have had to move and we would never have finished our day.

When money is at stake does it pay to take a chance like that? If a cop moves you, and you come back when he or she is gone, that doesn't mean they won't come back again (and in that case, you can be assured they won't be happy campers). Even if you succeed, unless it's an overcast day the sun has probably changed its angle (may not a problem if you have a gennie with an HMI and silk, but that's being quite inconspicuous). That can hurt.

So, it pays to get a permit when things are critical, unless you're doing MOS and you're fine with handheld plus a bounce board. Even though I have always skirted permits, if I get a very important shoot I won't be cheap and I'll hire the insurance and do the paperwork with the mayor's office.

Hello everyone,

I'm back after a very long absence :) Hope you are all doing well!

I wanted to ask if anyone knows of a favorite NYC (Manhattan or Queens) rental house that is good to rent an XL-2 from, maybe also a light steadicam and a few lights. I just got a last second job that's shooting on Friday and the guy I used to rent from is no longer around.

I don't currently have any insurance, so I'm looking for someone flexible.

Thanks for your suggestions!

- George.

I believe A-1 reversal in NYC still processes and for a decent price.

- G.