Phillip Mosness

On page 52 they mention an Arri BL 3 but not a BL 4, as well as an SR 2 but not an SR 3, it could narrow it down to 1982-1986.

Does anyone know where to find this style of plate screw? Thanks

Sorry I'm just getting around to commenting . I have a couple of the magazines in this topic, but I've seldome used them for any extended time. In fact the most I really did was hold the camera by the handle to do a walking shot close to the ground. as you can imagine from the pic, it's a very front-heavy situation. It would be imperative to have support in front like this old style brace, if it can be rigged to attach to a flat base, etc.

Hey there. Many 35III mounts were recentered for Super 35 but perhaps your ground glass is for Academy. It's fairly simple to switch those out.

There's a technique that was discussed here a few years back that sounds interesting. The idea is to rate Tri-X at 100asa and process it as a negative and pull 1 stop. The concept was suggested by the DP of The Lighthouse Jarin Blaschke as an alternative to shooting 5222 for that film. I don't recall why they didn't go with it, because it sounds like it was quite a nice result. Maybe they couldn't get enough Tri-X in 35mm? With a little looking there are some examples to view.

Avoid putting film in your checked in luggage. The x-rays for checked luggage can be much harsher than the carry on machines. I've had mixed results with asking for a hand check. Last month I had a 400' re-can of 5222 and asked for a hand check at the Burbank airport. I was denied, and it had to go through the x-ray, yet I had had no trouble a year before with a new 400' roll of 5203. The only difference seemed to be that one was factory new in the cardboard case, and the other had different tape on the edge, etc. It can really depend on who you're talking to.

I get mine from Reel Good Film in Hollywood on Sunset Blvd.

It can be a bit challenging to rate lenses in this way. Is this list from one person's perspective from general usage, or some sort of clinical testing with charts etc.? It can be tough because sometimes sharpness can be more about perceived contrast that a lens can deliver. I own/have owned a few of the ones listed, so this is just anecdotal. The #1 on the list is the10mm Cinegon for my Leicina. It's a fine lens. I don't find it any different than the Schneider 6-66 zoom that comes with the Leicina Special, though. It sure is small, though. Makes a great compact set up. The Best lens I ever owned was the Angenieux 6-90mm on my Beaulieux 6008. Knocked it out of the park with contrast and an indescribable texture with projected reversal. I found it stronger than the more modern 6-90mm I currently have or the 6-80mm 1.2, which is usually higher on these lists. "In al the R10 will produce the sharpest images as it has the better lens and film handling using the mini ramps and wood-pecker like stop pins which keep the film still during exposure." I have an R-10. GREAT camera. Solid. Durable. But, I haven't found the little pins to have any effect on image quality or stabilization. Stable image seems to be a weaker link than lens choice with super 8. The Logmar camera is the only camera that has shown me how much you can get out of the format with a real pressure plate etc.

He's sorely missed. He helped me with a Cooke Zoom around 2018, I think. Easy to chat with and I would gladly have continued to send him stuff. Life has some unfortunate realities.

You could try Duall In new Jersey. https://www.duallcamera.com/services/index.shtml

Visual Products would be the first place I'd call. Here's a video about this.

Looks great. I've never used the Cooke zoom on mine. Seems like a focal range that covers most prime sets. Have you compared it to other zooms?

Do you know when this was made?

It's pretty subtle, I'm not sure if I would have necessarily even noticed as I was expecting much worse. The slight movement at the beginning on the flowers looks more like the camera getting touched a bit while shooting with a long lens and a bit of bounce as the camera stops. I'm assuming your loop was the same as always. Did you shoot anything else with the same magazine that has the same issue? Has the cam been serviced recently? Was it all through that load or maybe near the front or end? I had issues as my belts were wearing out but that was more drastic than a bit of weave.

Somewhere out there there's a two perf Mitchell floating around. It was used to shoot a Bigfoot movie in 2010. Surely it's not the only one. This probably doesn't help the OP, though.

Hi Ryan. Firstly, kudos for putting it out there for people to watch and comment. So, I'm writing as a person who shoots films on the side of my regular animation work, so take anything I say with a grain o' salt. Since this piece would seem to qualify as somewhat experimental, it sort of falls into a category to which it's more difficult to critique since it's so much more subjective. When things are a more straightforward narrative, it's easier to offer ideas on cinematography as a storytelling medium, but in work like this it'll be more "gut reaction", I think. I will say I like the heavier backlighting. It's a stylistic approach who's aesthetics I happen to enjoy. I offers a great high contrast image that's strong. The color in the bathtub scenes is a nice change from the heavy blacks. I would have enjoyed even more of that as a respite from the contrastier images to help balance the work. On to the "roasting" part, haha. My biggest issue is more in the editing than in any particular shot or lighting scheme. The strobing cut's are really harsh on this writer's eyes and I think a little goes a long way. I'm watching on a smaller laptop and it quickly wore out its welcome. If I had been a theater I think I would have actually looked a way fairly soon. The same would be true of the faux jitters brought in in post. I'm not saying there's not method to the choice made, however there's a point past which an effect has gone from enhancing a piece to undermining the impact. I really liked the effect of the actress' head in silhouette doubled to create an egg-like shape. Very nice. I enjoyed many shots and the actress had a great look for the subject.

I've used my Optex 5.5 on my Bolex Super 16mm SBM using a PL mount adaper. It worked just fine. The 4mm should also be fine since it's also designed for Super 16.

I don't have the 4mm but I do have the Optex 5.5 and I've used it on my Bolex . There's no reason to think the 4mm would be any different. It'll cover super 16,but since It's not a RX lens so you could get aberrations from the prism if you open wider than T 3.5ish.

I don't know whether or not being 2 perf affects the amount of power the cameras require, but I have the 4 perf versions of both. My Arri 2c is a 16 volt system. Once you put a mag and film on it, 12 volts may not have enough juice to get it to speed. The Arri III is a 12 volt system, so if it conked out on 12 volts, you may have other issues.

I chatted briefly with a projectionist at a theater showing Dune part 2 in 70mm and he mentioned the film print cost $20,000. This kind of threw me. Does that sound right?

Since this is a fan-made trailer, it's hard to have a reaction to it. Being an admirer of his past work, I am really looking forward to this. I also enjoy speculating how stylized he's planning to go. Will it be German Expressionism or more grounded? Can't wait.

I think I saw the Kubrick exhibit in Paris around 2011, I think. Possibly the best exhibit I've seen for motion pictures. Unbelievably thorough. The Cooke, Zeiss, and Schneider lenses that you find on the 2c turret are quite dinky compared to the typical PL mount lenses today. I think a lot of that has to do with the uniform diameters and focus /iris gears of modern lenses as compared with the old butterfly focus. It's funny to think how tiny some of the elements in those lenses are. . I love my 2c. It's a great, time tested design. Your picture shows a 200' magazine. A 400' load it can get pretty heavy for handheld after a while, but there are magazines designed for shouldering that can make it somewhat less burdensome.

Looks great! Really nice contrast.

Stéphane, You're generally safe putting 35mm lenses on your 16mm camera. It's the reverse that can be a problem. 16mm lenses, especially the wider focal lengths, protrude too far and will hit the mirror on a 35mm camera, like the 2C That's been my experience. Are you searching for certain focal lengths?

Hello, So I just got an anamorphic viewfinder part for my 2C and find that it doesn't fit all that well. It'll go in, but it can't seem to turn because it'll hit the round part protruding in there. Did Arri make a different door for anamorphic viewfinders?