Nathan Milford

Well one of the major points in development was to make it quieter than that 35-III which is between 28-30db realisticly (no matter what the documentation says). I assume they'll suceed as they're being more practical (rather than theoretical as with the 35-III) in thier approach to the movement design. Reducing price and simplifying the design (which also helps price) are two of the other major goals. The magazines will be mechanically simpler for example, thus cheaper and probably lighter. JP mentioned adding the ability to use Nikon DX-format lenses (and presumably normal Nikon lenses). But, it's still a prototype and realistically speculating on the final product is akin to discussing what the REDONE will be able to do. That is to say, nothing is set in stone. I'm terribly excited about the camera eitherway... - nathan

It is still in prototyping, so they haven't given a final price. Only that it should be less than thier previous 35mm offering.

Depends on who you're asking. It is nowhere near as quiet as an XTRprod or an ARRICAM, but generally I find it to be suitable for sync in most situations, but if your in an absolutly dead room, at minimum focus from a mic'd subject... you may want to use the barney and you may need to scrub the camera noise in post... but I've shot in a relativly quiet room at a reasonable distance from any mic'd subject and had no problems whatsoever.

I saw it at the NY premiere. Wonderfully done. It's very much like a filmic version of Kris Malkiewicz's book Film Lighting, just a bunch of cinematographers' anecdotes and advice. I imagine a very difficult film to edit as it was completely talking heads (they fit in 110 cinematographers in 86 minutes) with no outside material or cutting to examples. I think I heard one person complain that it's all done with single source soft lighting for the interview setups... but you'll notice subtle differences between cinematgraphers as Brian Heller and the other cinematographers tried to add little bits of each of the subjects style to the lighting. Even the colorist, John Dowdell, got into the 'spirit' (allbeit on an ARRISCANNER, pun intended) when doing the D.I. you'll notice. Our very own David Mullen, ASC made an appearence. I loved listening to Storraro's passion and Willis' cynicism. I wish somone would put those two in a 50's screw-ball comedy together, it'd be classic. Also when Roger Deakins criticises the choice of camera position for the interview... Jon Fauer promised that the DVD would have much more material on it. I have a DVD of it here on my desk, but I'm not sure if it's just the film alone as the period between when they screened it and when I got the DVD was too soon for them to process the 10 additional hours of material he mentioned. Either way, it's very well done considering the constraints of fitting that many people in that space. It's very different from Visions of Light, but they complement each other very well.

It's usually cropped and off-centered as per Academy 4-perf, but the soundtrack area remains unused. The 2-perf ARRI 2C's, Eclairs and Kinor's I've seen all use this method.. I imagine Aaton will follow suit so when you switch from 4-perf to 2-perf you will not need to re-center the lens mount and viewing optics. Eric at ARRI mentioned that they were developing a 2-perf movement for the 235 at the last SMPTE NY meeting, but didn't give a timeframe.

I've had a few clients come through wanting to shoot cropped 2.35 S16. We have the groundglasses for it and I've even custom modified an A-Minima for it... but I think it's wasteful and from what Mitch tells me (and from what I've read elsewhere) any optical solution is kludgy. Shoot 2-Perf 35mm >8) Natural 2.35 aspect ratio with (faster, lighter) spherical lenses using half the negative real estate per image record keeps the costs (and mag running times) near S16. If you're finishing on a video format or with a D.I. already, the cost differential is negligable.

Almost all rental houses and private owners (G&E, Camera, Sound etc...) have clauses in their rental agreements that state that whether you checkout the equipment or not, if you leave the premesis with the equipment under contract you are liable for that equipment and party renting the equipment is not responsible for it's condition beyond that point. I.E. if you don't catch it when you do a proper checkout, even if those renting it to you should have, they are not liable for any damages done to your film because you signed the rental agreement. If you're lucky and you approach them correctly you can get them to give you a free rental of the same gear for the same amount of time as before, much like a lab would replace the stock, but not reimburse you for the production costs of the film. There are always exceptional cases but the rental industry wouldn't be able to make a profit if they were tied up in mounds of court cases trying to sift through what was user error and equipment error. It's just the risk you take in renting. To not insure and not do a proper, thorough check-out of equipment is pure lunacy.

Anders Uhl, who I had the good fortune of running in to today, has a modified Pen Half-Frame camera with a PL mount. You can contact him via: http://www.thedopshop.com/

It's a bad time for NY rental facilities as NYCES is this week, so much of thier rental fleets will be at thier own or at other booths. Give Matthew Rydell in our rental department a call (use the number in my signature). Also between Jesse Rosen and Mitch Gross we have quite a bit of experience with live multicam events.

And you can use modern lenses, modern accessories like a video tap, a modulus 3000 and a bartech. They typically shoot flashback scenes clean.

You're absolutly correct. Super 8 is the next big format, as long as you're willing to sacrifice image quality and choose your shots carefully as to not upset the many shortcomings of the format and limit yourself to 50D (out of ALL of the other stocks already avaliable) to avoid golfball grain. I'm sure Kodak is listening and is generously willing to risk a loss to fuel the fire behind this hot professional format and equipment manufacturers are flocking to the format I'm sure. No use arguing with the religous, you've converted me... do you nuts have secret handshake and do I get to ride around in the Super-8-mobile? Your fervor might, one day, match that of the RED fourms on dvxuser. >8)

Hello Zachary, I'm the guy who serviced your camera and I'm also the guy you talked to about your loading quandry. Ignore the second roller in the diagram. I have never seen a magazine with the second roller as it was phased out and removed from existing magazines many, many years ago. Attached is the diagram on the inside of your older-generation magazines which is misleading. Ignore the second 'phantom' roller. Also attached is a picture of a properly loaded take-up from a magazine similar to yours. - Nathan

It may be impolitic for me to say, but... I just don't understand the mentality of people who think that Super 8 is a tool for, or solution to, any serious production problem other than "lets shoot something that looks like Super 8." Why doesn't Arri or Aaton make a Super 8 Camera?!?!? Why shoot HD when you can use Super 8?!?! Why don't hit primetime TV shows use Super 8 for some of thier production?!?!? Why doesn't Kodak release more stocks for Super 8?@!? These questions answer themselves unless you have absolutly no understanding of modern production and economics. You can cite, cost savings, portability or even the fact that it is film (vs. video that is), but it still makes little or no sense to any working professional to employ the format in any way other than for a niche. I repair film cameras. I love film, and still shoot it for stills almost exclusivly. I enjoy Super 8 and I own several Super 8 cameras. I've seen it blown up to 35mm and I've seen scanned at 2K... it's still Super 8. It's a wonderful niche format, like pixelvision, and a great format to learn filmmaking with. Hell, I'm shooting my wedding in Super 8 (and Super 16mm), but I just can't take the format or it's cheerleaders seriously when they ask questions like that.

With no shutter you will get a continuous smear of exposure. A phase shifted (or mis-timed) shutter will streak the image, but you will still have an definte image, the degree of which depends on how much you phase the shutter.

Your link sends you to a page that says:

We did a 48 DVX100 shoot in times square for a music video once. Once setup with identical settings, we further matched cameras by adding or removing whole cameras as there could be variences between cameras that can only be adjusted by an engineer (read: not a DIT, but an EE). You don't have the same control you'd have with a Varicam or SDX900... so you just got to replace the camera.

Sound like it lost the loop. More like 'built in a tank factory.' You can get them on eBay for under a hundred bucks. All that money wasted...

Howdy, The topic comes up every month or two. A quick search should show a few threads on the topic. - nathan

This whole posting should be read in a bewildered and bemused voice and not in any aggressive mannor at all. I forgot who said it (and I imagine someone will get offended), but: "Fighting on the internet is like winning the special olympics... You' may have won, but you're still retarded." There are professionals on this forum, people who make thier living in the industry and there are students and amateurs who post with the false-bravado of those who have practical experience working with camera systems like those being described in these threads. The differences between the two are highly visable. Very few in the former group are piping up and when they do it's substinative or conservative and rarely is it a deliberate attack on any person or idea. If you're in the latter group, your opinions don't matter, except to other people in that group. Like all of the failed writers soon to be english compsition teachers hanging out in coffee shops arguing over inane drivel and critical theory that has no bearing on the world, or worse, ex-filmmakers who become professional critics. How quickly do you fall into ad hominem attacks or almost violently defending one format over another. I am absolutly amused with the confidence and conviction that many people seem to post while it's perfectly obvious they've only shot things well out of the scope of what the Red camera might be used for (DVX feature... but the script is good right?) with tools well out of the veil of what Red is aiming for (I can't wait for when I can ingest 4K into my powerbook). It's all crap math and speculation untill Jannard produces a final, shipping, product. Wait for the camera and stop acting like petulent children. There are serious people on this forum... you are probably not one of them.

Ahh, Cortland dropped that one off Friday. I'll take a look at it Monday or Tuesday. A Level four only take me half a day so I should have it done before the end of the week. You have a few options for a video assist. You can get a top-handle 'addie' tap which can be $5000 for B+W and or $6000 for color. You can get an old VR30 tube tap from e-bay, but we don't service them, they're 1970's electronics and are evil little buggers to troubleshoot. When Rik brings his rube tap in Monday I'm just going to laugh at him >8) You'd also need the relay optics and pellicule which may add an additional grand to the total. I don't remember 499 having video relay optics. You can get an AZ Spectrum tap or a Visual Products tap. I believe they're both around $2000 but I don't know if that include the relay optics and pellicule. - nathan

Sounds like the shutter timing is off. The shutter is probably out of synch with the claw, thus causing the film to have streaks down the frame as the film is not covered during it's pulldown. Send it to a professional, get it cleaned, lubed and adjusted... or better yet overhauled. For $40 bucks... you're going to want to throw a couple hundred into it... otherwise you just wasted $40 bucks. - nathan

For developing your own film? I'm assuming B+W... For 52/7222 labs typically use D-96, which is very similar to D-76. I think D-96 has more metol and a lot less hydroquinone than D-76, you should shoot tests, and you may need to reduce or increase your film's effective ISO... I've been toying with doing stand processing in Rodinol for 5222, maybe actually induce bromide streaking and other processing artifacts. You can google about, there are lots of posts on photo.net and elsewhere about processing 5222 in Tmax, HC-110 etc...

HA! I say... HA!

Not quite a reply. It's been in development for quite a while. I gotta say though, I used to be so-so about Aaton's video assists up to this point... Arri always had a better system... but this one might be the one...

If you shot DS8 all the way across, you'd have 16mm. >8)