Zac Fettig

The fastest the 514XLS will expose is 250, so the 500T film will meter at 250 automatically, in that camera. No need to notch it. The 200T will be exposed as 160 (next speed down) without the filter and as 100 (with the filter in place).

If you're looking used, you could try a Sekonic L-558. Previous generation. I'll be honest, my 758 is my single most valuable piece of filmmaking kit. I use it all the time. And honestly, it'll probably outlast all the digital cameras I have.

And like Adrian said, fungus=bad, water=bad.

Honestly, you want to avoid a dog leg lens for a BMPCC. You're not going to be using it for framing, and you lose light by having it there. I can't remember how much, I want to say 2/3 of a stop. They're great for old R8 and R16 cameras that don't have reflex viewing. But since it isn't a terribly fast lens to begin with, You can easily get adapters for C-mount or Arri Standard for the BMPCC, but you'll have an easier time if you buy 35mm primes and accept the cropping.

It's a dog leg Angineux, and looks like the mount is missing. It was probably C-mount, originally. Pass on it. The dog leg (a separate viewfinder) is missing, and will leak light like crazy. The mount is missing. You could theoretically build an adapter, but I doubt you could buy one premade. Certainly not cheaply. Unless you have access to a machine shop, it's more trouble than its worth. And no, it would not cover the BMPCC across the whole range without vignetting. It's a R16mm lens, and the camera has a S16 sensor. I'd assume it'll vignette around 12mm.

No problem! Glad to help. And I always enjoy seeing classic equipment up and running. It looks pretty good! Does the laptop power supply provide enough current to start the camera? I've never owned a CP-16 (although somehow I ended up with a Nikon-to-CP adapter in my parts bin: waiting for the day I get my hands on a CP-16R). I think it's supposed to be 20VDC, although I might be wrong, which would put the power around the same as the Arri. (8V*6A=48W, 20V*2.4A=48W). Just curious.

It really depends on how much current is flowing through the leads, and how small they are. If they have a thick enough cross section that they're not burning up, you should be fine. The #6-32 screw should be .138" THK [major diameter], so ~400 amps continuous before it would fuse (assuming copper/brass screws). Since you can run it off batteries, I'm guessing it's in the 1-10 amp range though. And I doubt it'll warm up at all for those kinds of currents. ABS hits glass transition around ~170 F, so you should be safe there too. It should be safe. The ABS is an insulator, so no worries there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge

1) Solder them to a fixed block of metal, then pot them (hot glue will work in a pinch, or electrical tape). You should be able to get 7/64" brass rod fairly cheap. From McMaster: http://www.mcmaster.com/#8859k342/=rw0r2g 2) Not a bad idea at all. I've done the same with Scoopic batteries. Went to 3d print a battery shell and it was nearly $60! 3) The only flaw you'll run into is that the camera will deep draw off the battery: It will pull more current for a short period of time, as opposed to a laptop which will pull a little bit over much longer period of time. Modern batteries (NiMH or Li-ion) tend not to like this very much. You should be fine if you use more batteries in parallel or, switch to a battery meant to be deep drawn. Power tool (cordless drill, etc.) batteries would be a good choice. They're cheap, commonly available, chargers are easily available. Etc. I use external camera flash batteries (Gel Lead Acid) to power my Arri. Hope this helps!

The film base is acetate. It's a sliding contact. You will generate static. It can spark if you're not careful. (Typically has to exceed 15kV, but that can happen) When you're really concerned about static electricity, you use humidity control, ion generators and ground straps.

Gareth, I was saying that the spectral response of the film (how the film reacts to light) is too high at IR wavelengths (700 nanometers) for it to be safe to use night vision goggles around the film. Pav, I'm glad you've gotten lucky. I would like to point out that there are a lot of variables, and YMMV. Maybe your goggles have a good high pass filter over the illumination lamp. Maybe they're high in the IR band. I, personally, think it's a bad idea. But that's just my opinion. Mainly because I don't like taking chances with my negative. Matt, I'm fine with calling it a "Zac." :) For what it's worth though, I think respooling in general is a fine idea, although likely to add scratches to the film. I prefer 400' loads in my Arri, but when I borrow my friends Scoopic, I learned right away that 100' loads are way easier (he has the 400' adapter and a mag, but it's kind of a Rube Goldberg-esque contraption). But usually, I just order daylight loads. Now if someone has a line on a small home perforator for making double perf....

I can believe it will work. But I still think it's a terrible idea. It will work with most slower films, but you will damage higher speed ones. For example, Vision3 50D will probably be safe. The sensitivity of the film to IR (assume lambda=700nm) is near 0. Same with most other films: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/Kodak/motion/Products/Camera_Films/Color_Negative/tech_data/TI5203.pdf Vision3 500T will probably not be. In Vision3 500T, the sensitivity is around 1.3. It will damage the film. Without knowing the sensitivity exactly, it's an unacceptable risk. [Reala 500D was around 0.7 for example]: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/TI2647.pdf I'm a big believer in playing it safe with undeveloped negative.

Nightvision goggles are a terrible idea around unexposed film. Just because you can't see IR, doesn't mean it's invisible to the film. Especially around high speed film. Taking a pair of film winders into the darkroom with you might not be a bad idea though. Spool the whole load onto a 400' projector spool, then respool onto 100' daylight loads. Pray there isn't too much scratching.

I'd recommend trying your hand at Super 8 with a roll of Kodak Tri-X. It's a Black and White Reversal film, so you'll be able to project it. It's rated at ISO 200, so it will slightly overexpose in your camera. It's slightly cheaper, and telecine (converting the film to a video clip) can get expensive. 160 isn't really low light. It's just lower light than being outdoor in full sunlight. If your shooting indoors, you'll either need lights or faster film.

Sorry about the confusion! I was just trying to help. :) There are always a lot of caveats in physics, to account for the real world. Which is why so many textbook physics problems began with statements like: "Take a spherical cow of uniform density in a perfect vacuum..."

Inverse square law always assumes light (or similar free wave energy) is a point source, free to radiate in all directions equally. When you focus it, with a lens, it's true you simply concentrate it. If it's a parabolic reflector, it also orients the light (assuming light is a point source at the focal point of the parabola). This is why a flashlight will throw light so far with a relatively weak bulb. Here's another (hypothetical) example: Surround a light with a big sphere, coated matte black on the inside, with a single hole cut out. Add a long tube over the hole, also black coated on the inside. Two things will happen. The surrounding sphere will get hot (black body radiation), and the light that comes out of the tube will not drop off at the inverse of square of the distance. If the tube is sufficiently long, all light will be oriented to make it as straight as the laser beam example, but with the color spectrum of the original light source, not a single frequency. Practically, it doesn't make a difference. The second you add diffusion over a light, it is no longer oriented, and the inverse square law applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_reflector

No, just unfocused lights. The inverse square law assumes a light source is a point where light is allowed to radiate uniformly in all directions.. If the light is focused (say by a parabolic reflector), the light will drop off, but not necessarily by the square of the distance. If it did, spot lights would have to be much more powerful. Lasers, for example, frequently do not follow the law, since the beam is focused to the point that it doesn't expand. The beam is only subjected to scattering and atmospheric diffraction. It will get less intense but not necessarily by the square of the distance.

Funniest thing I've heard all day!

If it was me, I'd go for performance over physical any day of the week. If money was no object, you could airbrush on 40 pounds. I'd cover it in wardrobe. Keep in mind: http://www.deepglamour.net/deep_glamour/2011/06/the-full-skinny-marilyn-monroe-was-tinyand-so-were-rita-hayworth-judy-garland-grace-kelly-barbra-str.html People were a lot thinner in the 40s. School lunches were introduced just after WW2, because so many people in the US were malnourished to the point they couldn't meet the draft standards.

Register the film? :) They are great cameras, but for that one flaw (also, loop forming is pretty picky on them) The Olympus is a good choice. It's small (it's main selling point back in its day), and high quality. OM mount lenses can go on your T2 with an adapter. Fast film won't have that 20's Silent film look. Most film stocks back then were really slow. You might be able to pull it off with something slower. Double-X will do a decent job. Hi-Con will have the right look, but it's hard to shoot with. If you want to try your hand shooting movie film, try Super 8 first. For about $100, you can buy a cheapo camera (~$20 or so), projector or viewer (~$20 for a Bentley off ebay), a roll of film (Tri-X reversal off B&H: $17) and processing (I BELIEVE Cinelab still charges $15/roll). That won't include telecine. For modern films, many B&W films are shot in color and desaturated in post (ex. The Artist). Double X is great stuff, but it does have its limits. Tri-X, I don't care for. I have yet to try ORWO UN54 or 74N. An Arri 16BL was just used to shoot the sync sound pieces in Following. All the MOS scenes (most of the pretty scenes) were shot on a Bolex. Both are good cameras. If I was buying, however, I'd pass on a BL and buy an SR or SR2. Ideally one already converted to S16. A CP16R is a good choice. A Scoopic is a good choice. Most Aatons are good choices. It all depends on how important sync sound is, and other considerations. Recording sound externally is tricky. But sync is overrated. ADR often has to be done regardless. It can often be freeing to not worry about it while shooting, and just do it in post.

El Mariachi (1992). Just Robert Rodriguez, and whoever he could rope into assisting.

I've used a Zoom H4n and a Marantz PMD660; and the Marantz is better, hands down. Better battery life (especially on phantom power). Cleaner sound. However, it's comparing apples and oranges. A Zoom gives pretty good sound for about a third the cost of the Marantz.

I heard about that. They rent it with a digital camera modified to the lens. Hate to imagine what it costs. But the point was that Kubrick only got the lens in the first place because he was Kubrick (and possibly as "services rendered" for NASA). It would have been/still be beyond the realm of possibility for normal people.

Technical. That's the answer you're looking for. There is a instinctual part, but the majority of it is technical. It's a loaded question. Everything that is recorded, comes in through the lens. Which is what they mean when they say "it's all about the lens." For my example, I'll use an Arri 16 S/B. Standard film school fare for decades. You have to shoot indoors in a room lit by a large bay window. Your light meter reads f11. You decide to go with a 25mm lens. Which one do you choose? Zeiss? Cooke? Schneider? Zeiss Zoom at 25mm? Angenieux Zoom an 25mm? SOM zoom at 25mm? If you only have one choice, the decision is already made. You use what you've got. If you have more than one choice, it can be confusing. Lets say you have a Zeiss and a Cooke. Both lenses are equally sharp. Some will say the Zeiss is more clinical than the Cooke, and the Cooke is warmer. But it really all comes down to the technical side of it. The colors will be a little different from one lens to another, due to differences in design and basic physics. You'll need to plan it out based on what the shot requires, the physical and technical constraints, and the overriding look of the film you're (or more likely the director) are going for. Budget can be a concern. Not everyone can have a Zeiss 50mm f0.7 lens and a Mitchell customized to work together.

Mostly physical limitations. The f number is a ratio of the focal length of the lens to the size of the aperture. For example, to make a 100mm f1.0 lens, you need a 100 mm aperture. So the back of the lens has to be more that 4" across, to accommodate it. To make that happen, you need extremely good glass, and a flange mount free of obstructions. And extremely fine adjustments in the manufacturing process. I want to say that the Zeiss f0.7 lenses were originally meant for a Hasselblad, then adapted to Mitchell BNC.

Most of the ones I've seen have a bunch of AA sized cells welded together (batteries should be spot welded, not soldered) with strips. I've usually replaced them with 12V RC battery packs, that way you just have to solder in two leads (and maybe a capacitor). If you do have the style shown above, it should be really easy to recell.