Phillip Mosness

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?

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Also what format? 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? 

Looks like Super 16mm 

Lots of people find the Chinese lanterns to be quick and convenient for soft ambient. 

They're also very budget friendly. 

2x on super 16mm seems like a waste of negative real estate, but the ad looks nice. I like that saturation of color. 

1.5 X would allow you to crop very little and still give you a lot of that scope-y goodness. 

They did manage to keep the grain to a minimum, almost removing the 16mm look in most shots.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I find the grain level to be rather appealing in the same way I like the see the texture in a pencil drawing.

Do you happen to remember the stop / shutter speed ?

Keikki, I was convinced your film was 35mm because of the general depth of field , but IMDB says you shot on an Aaton xtr.

Did you crop super 16 for that aspect ratio?

Really nice work.

Somebody at a lab told me that Ektachrome shifts toward purple when cross processed.

Has anyone had any experience with this?

I love the ingenuity here, even if it's not ready for prime time yet. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU4QEDkgoec

"Depending on the scanner they might have just left a software switch flipped, so it would not matter Pix quality wise, this is possible on a machine like the Scan Station or Xena that has a "flip horizontal" button in the setup."

Ha ha Robert. That happened to me from some 35mm you guys  scanned for me a few years ago, I flipped it in post and it's still some of the best footage I've gotten scanned . 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'this look'. 

Are you talking about the slight matte around the edges?

I ask because I've sent  batches of super 35 and standard (academy)35 to the same place for scanning and it didn't seen to confuse them. The academy footage had a slight rounded-corner gate look as above, but not nearly that pronounced. 

Hello, This question might be better served as its own topic. 

I've owned both cameras you've mentioned. 

The big difference between the looks of the two cameras will be the shutter speeds. 

The Nizo has a 220 degree shutter , 1/39th , and will show a lot more motion blur. 

The Beaulieu has a quicker guillotine shutter and will look somewhat strobe like.

1/96th (normal) or 1'60th (LL)

If it's an action scene, it'll be more obvious.

Isn't the problem more on the take-up side? 

If you take up onto a standard spool you'll need something other than the 100' box in which to unload the roll since it'll be too large.

This is one mild pet peeve about the Aaton magazines

On 4/17/2021 at 2:56 PM, Satsuki Murashige said:

As a fellow Moviecam SL owner, this is very good to know. Thank you!

I'm assuming that the SL and Compact are similar in that they have less room in the opening. 

I know that any PL mount adapter that sticks out more that a centimeter(if I remember) is going to collide with the walls in there.

My Arri BL and 2C are much more forgiving in that regard. 

Not to mention the side mounted mirror of the 2C vs. Bottom mirror on most others can make a difference. 

Does anyone have any practical experience getting 15mm rods onto super8?

The problem I'm having is my cameras Leicina Special and Beaulieu 6008 both have offset tripod mounts so the rods on a Zacuto style baseplate end up being way off.

Any solutions would be awesome.

Thanks

On 4/1/2021 at 7:03 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

This was the last time I shot it... but this is a bit cheating because some of it is color negative turned B&W for the sake of higher ISO and more dynamic range in dark scenes. 

https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/71441272

"you are unauthorized for this action"

Is there a password or something? 

13 hours ago, Raymond Zananiri said:

I have a lot of oct-18 lomos as well. I love them all for their image. However, for some reason, most of them, especially the wider ones, have rear elements that protrude too deep. I use them with a PL adapter. But some of my favorites are not usable not only with film cameras but sometimes with some digital cameras as well. 

Hi Raymond,

What cameras are you using?

I haven't found the back elements a problem with the exception of one 22mm. 

I have found some adapters will hit the inner cavity of my Moviecam, though.

10 hours ago, Sean Fisher said:

Thanks Phillip. That's very helpful to know. May I ask what lenses you are using? I'm looking at some Flektogons right now.

I wish I had a full set of matching cinema primes, but for now I own a mish-mash of inexpensive lenses. A lot of them are OCT-18 Lomos with adapters and a few M42 still lenses with PL adapters. 

Not all M42 lenses fit into a PL adapter. There's some info online about that.  The Helios 58mm works well for the vintage look, but many M42 lenses are impractical for cinema, as they were designed for stills and quite tiny .

I don't have any experience with the Flektogons but I'm sure they'd work decently for the price. 

Keep in mind, I'm not a pro DP. I shoot my personal projects with whatever I can cobble together. 

I have not had any issues with the Ironglass adapters on my 2C. I have three of their M42 adapted lenses and zero problems.

I have other makes of M42 adapters, also without problems.

I can't comment on the newer lenses but in looking at them I suspect they're all fine.

The only lens I ever had a problem with was an old 22 mm Lomo adapted from OCT-18 that was barely touching the rotating mirror. I filed down a little of the metal near the rear element ( real mickey mouse attempt on my part) but it worked fine. 

Does this model use a separate battery for the meter?

Cameras can tell the speed of the film based on the size of the notch on the edge of the plastic cartridge. 

Apparently there's a way to 'hack' the cartridge to get an automatic camera to read a cartridge to the closest setting the camera can meter for.

If you can get the camera to read a 50 D as a 25D that would wok fine since that'll only over expose by 1 stop. Lots of people over expose  Negative stocks by a stop in general. 

Here's a couple of links.

http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Super_8_Cartridge_Notch_Ruler