Nathan Milford

Efke just released an Infrared film for stills I haven't used it. There is also the Ilford SFX which is near IR and the Maco/Rollei film which is similar. You may be able to persuade those manufacturers to cut it down.

There was. Both B&W and Color reversal. They stoped packaging it as a 35mm MP film, unless you ordered enough to make it profitable for them. Now Kodak has announced they will no longer be making Infrared film in any format, for stills or MP.

It is similar in concept to a digital back for a Hasselblad or Rollei. It will be a 4K sensor that will sit where the magazine sits. You can shoot 2-perf, 3-perf, 4-perf and scope as well as (eventually) 4K and possibly they'll allow you to window and down rez etc... But, this all depends on if/when JP finds a sensor technology he likes.

I don't have specs or pricing. The camera is still a prototype.

Fantastic definition Walter. That ought to be in the OED.

Well, don't quote me, but the hope is to get it as light as if not lighter (by simplifying the magazines) than the 35-III. Part of the mission in design was to make it quieter, lighter and easier to load than the 35-III. The 35-III weights about 16lbs with a mag, prime and battery.

I posted this in a 2-perf thread and JPB posted it on the CML, but I think it got buried so here you go: It is (or is on it's way to being) one sweet camera. You'll also note that the magazines are much simpler to boot >8) From Aaton's Home Page:

JP just posted this at the CML:

Eden, I wrote that article. It is not marketing it is my sincere attempt to get my employers to pay attention to the format in anticipation for Penelope. The logic of the passage you cite is thus: Since the 2-perf frame is half the height of a 4-perf frame (as is the 16mm frame) you are fitting twice as much information (picture wise, not resolution wise) on a roll of film. The running times of a 35mm roll of film in 2-perf is the same as with 16mm. To cover 11 minutes of action in 16mm is about 400', the same is true with 2-perf. To cover 11 minutes in 4-perf 35mm you'd need about 1000'. Since you pay per foot for processing and dailies you are paying the same amount for 16mm as you would for 2-perf. It doesn't work that way for color correction because you're paying for time no matter what format. Additionally, a 400' roll of 35mm will cost roughly twice what a 400' roll of 16mm as it is roughly double the film (width wise). You will, however, order LESS rolls of film to cover the same amount of action. The reasons for using the format are not all cost cutting, but cutting your processing and dailies in half as well as obviating the need for heavier, slower, costlier anamorphic lenses in favor of sphericals doesn't hurt. If any of you are going to NAB and are interested in the format, do me a favor: Talk to Pete or Rich Abel at the AbelCine booth about the format. Let them know there is interest. Additionally, lobby the Aaton booth. There is a 2-perf movement for the Aaton 35-III out there that I am trying to convince Aaton to loan us so we can get it into rental and drum up some interest. I know a dozen clients who want to shoot on the format, several productions that would if there were modern equipment and a few that have with Kinors and Eclairs.

Ask pretty much any modern lab / post facility and they should be able to handle 2-perf. Postworks, Technicolor etc...

I am having a heck of a time locating any place other than Magna-Tech and Du-All that sells 16mm projectors. MPE rents them, as do many others... but it is difficult to find anyone who seems to sell them. I am looking with something to evaluate registration tests with, so it would need good registration itself. It seems anything with a Geneva Intermittent movement is way out of our range. Anyone have any leads? Thanks Nathan

The primary difference between the two cameras is the latter's ability to reach 54fps with 16v applied. The former will only go to 32fps. LTR7's as a (fast and loose but not firm) rule are not factory S16 bodies nor are they field switchable. But, many have been converted by now. Late LTR7's and all LTR54's are switchable between S16 and R16. There are scores of small mechanical changes in during the production of both, so I find it is usually better to evaluate any pre-XTR camera on it's own merits. The motor is not detachable and swappable in the Arri 16S sense. The viewfinder system is considerably brighter. You should note that a comparison between an Arri 16S and an Aaton LTR is not quite apt. It belongs in the same class as an Arri 16SR.

Actually, this thread stopped two months ago. You're very wise and all that, but it sincerely distresses me when someone digs up old threads about controversial issues and decides to put their two cents in. It is like riping off a scab, taking a thread like this and drawing attention to it for people to argue about again to no great end other than wasting kilobytes and minutes.

I am sure many of us are very pleased that we could be of some help to you. On a side note, would you be so kind as to post using your real name as your username as per the forums guidelines.

I'm not sure what camera you're hoping to support, but from your previous posts it sounds like you've been shooting with smaller cameras. See this link Not to spam, you're welcome to find a lower price elsewhere and purchase it. You could bring the price down further by getting those legs with a Bogen 501 head. As for getting down less than a foot, you're not going to find much in that price range that doesn't have longish tiedowns or odd mountings or have legs with center tubes. You'd be best suited with a Sachtler DV4 or Panther T4... but those live in the $1000+ range, but you can always mount them to a hi-hat with a 75mm bowl. If you want professional results, use professional equipment, otherwise you'll get prosumer results. A hi-hat + fluid head + camera will typically bring a camera's optical axis near a foot. Baby or normal legs spread almost completely out will do the same, but would be hard to operate around. Otherwise you may just want to use a sandbag or a cine saddle. Good luck, nathan

I noticed this too. It isn't the normal thin blue flare, but blue rings that would grow like smoke rings. Was absolutely bizarre and it happens quite a bit during the movie. I was thinking it was some sort of filter... sort of like the filter for Hawk lenses meant to recreate the Panavision blue flare... but wildly different.

Before you judge, you might want to look at the other videos on youtube and see what he was dealing with from one of his stars >8)

That is not an ARRI, but a Russian knock-off. And it isn;t worth 750. See this eBay auction.

I cringed when I saw that this thread had been resurrected.

Buy and Advert and don't cross post.

Buy and Advert and don't cross post.

Buy and Advert and don't cross post.

Buy and Advert and don't cross post.

Had I a spare 6 grand around I'd go for it. The price isn't outrageous, it is a very rare bird. A properly converted S16/PL Mounted ARRI S would be a beautiful thing. Small, lightweight, durable... simple construction etc.. It would make a great compliment to any S16 camera package as a B or C camera. Or for someone who shoots stock footage....

I've seen older angeniuex zooms for the 35BL in ARRI Std and Bayonet mount. I haven't seen any primes for 35 in B-mount though...