Phillip Mosness

I think much of the footage was actually made for a tv mini series The Bible, and later more footage was shot for this film. Seems like a theatrical release was a bit risky, but a 28 million opening weekend isn't a flop. I imagine the budget wasn't too high and there is a market for biblical work, but after Passion of the Christ, you kind of need anything new to feel visually inspired, or why bother?

Looks like it's still 1/48th according to these folks but maybe they're talking about later models with different shutter angle http://cinematography.net/edited-pages/Can%20someone%20explain%20butterfly%20shutters%20%20.htm

The Criterion release of The Sweet Smell of Success has a short documentary on James Wong Howe from 1973 in which he tells a few fun stories, and at one point he shows a lighting demonstration. It's somewhat contrived but it's fun to watch him directing the lighting on an interior set, and offer his thinking. It goes without saying that the photography in Sweet Smell of Success is superb and the blu ray looks swell.

Are you hoping for a quiet camera for sync sound? If not, I'd lean toward the Bolex, but I'd expect you to be in the $500 plus range for one that's ready to go. Otherwise almost any camera would need the once over before you carry it across the globe.

I understand that we can take off the core holder on the feed side of the mag by unscrewing on little screw, but the last time I looked at the take-up side it didn't look like there was a way to do the same. Am I missing something? This was always pretty easy on my Eclair ACL.

As I mentioned before, there's no reason to try and modify a smaller gate for this idea. Any image that falls outside on the edges will just be cropped off during the transfer process to get the 2.39 aspect ratio. The unsqueezing will happen during the scan to digital. I think most post houses can do this Aslo, the wider a lens you use, the more likely you'll get vignetting since the anamorphic lens will be mounted in front of your main lens. If it's maximum coverage and grain reduction, i'd continue to suggest super 16 with a 1.33X adaptor like the one from Letus as a possible option, although I haven't seen any super 16 footage from this set up yet, just video. http://letusdirect.com/cart/letus-anamorphx-adapter.html

Hello, If you do a search on these forums, you'll find some more info on this, since people have wanted to shoot scope aspect ratio with 16mm before. But briefly I'll mention that the native aspect on standard 16mm is about 1.37. This is because the gate on the camera. There's no reason to try to manufacture a 1.19 gate on a camera, it wouldn't benefit you. Not all anamorpic lenses are 2x. There are 1.75x that would turn 1.37 to 2.43, and that's going to be the closest. This is assuming you're putting an anamorphic adaptor in front of a prime or zoom lens. There's another option right now, though, and that is starting with a super 16mm camera with a 1.67 gate plus 1.33x anamorphic lenses, then a tiny bit of cropping and voila, a scope aspect ratio. Hawk makes 1.33x lenses(expensive) Check the Letus adaptor for super 16 for under 2 grand. As far as far as "who could manufacture such a film", we're all using the same 16mm film. No one is going to make anything new for an experimental format. No need to reinvent the wheel. We've got single perf, and double perf.

I know what you mean. They do that thing where they advertise a whole bunch of things at once with a giant price, as apposed to individual items with their own descriptions. Then when they do have a single camera, like the Aaton 35 III, it has some weird caviats like an odd rebate, or a hugely different price if you dare to use paypal. It's kind of a big turnoff.

Yes, some stocks are naturally grainier than others, but much of the variation can be attributed to factors other than processing. Unless you mean variations between different rolls of the same stock that you've shot yourself. If you're looking at other people's footage online, there could be a multitude of factors in play. Exposure, lenses, transfer, etc.

If it helps Mark, I'll mention that the Tri-X in that clip was done with a Bolex with Switars, and the Vision stocks were shot with an Aaton with a Zeiss zoom. The 7222 was with an Eclair ACL and a Angenieux 9.5-57 and the roll of film was probably a decade old. I personally like the 7222 and would sooner use that on a short than Tri-X, but these things are so very subjective.

Here's a few quick shots I cut together to compare. Double X, Tri-x, desaturated vision3 50, desaturated vision3 500.

You can also consider desaturating less grainy color stocks in post.

Thanks, Alexandre. Yes I understand the "you get what you pay for" aspect of these things, however there seems to have been a major market shift in the last few years that puts higher quality products in a price range that independents can afford. Gadgets that used to be relegated to industry professional are available to the average joe. Exciting times, really. With that in mind, I don't see enough difference in a $3,000 FF with the Arri name on it over the Lanparte unit you mentioned. At least not for my needs.

Hello, I'm considering a follow focus for my cam and I'm wondering if the gear teeth are all pretty standard. I haven't noticed much comment on variations, so would most work? Also, why the huge huge range in price? Not looking for anything super high end but I see things from $150 to several thousand. Kinda surprising. Thanks, P

Not sure if this helps, but here's a test of several lenses including the Optica Elites http://matthayslett.com/salt-iii-high-speed-lens-shootout-wfo/

Now I have to see Captain Phillips in the theater. I'm alwaiys interested in this format in theatrical release partially because it's what I currently shoot in. Also to see how people perceive it when we talk after. I suspect people may get a "documentary" feel out of that footage but may not know exactly why. Little more grain, yes, but the increased depth of field has a lot to do with it.

I rented The World's End on Blu ray, having already seen it in the theater. One reason for seeing it again was to get a better look at the opening which was shot in super 16, cropped to 2.35. It looks quite good. I'm sure the format was chosen because the opening is a story told in flashback. The thing is, they used flash frames and uneven exposure to further contrast the footage from the rest of the anamorphic 35mm film. What it tells me is that the super 16 is actually too good looking on it's own, so it required further embellishment to offset the look. I suspect if the opening were left on it's own it would actually have cut well enough that it wouldn't have provided much contrast overall.

If that's Osaka, I think I took a shot of that crab back there on that building back in '99, haha. It's legs move if I remember corectly. Since the business are closed, it's safe to guess the photo is early morning on the way to school of that's an indication on where the sun is, along with some soft highlights hitting the walls above the kids and bouncing off the walls on the right which are out of the picture.

Is there much benefit to a 4k scan of 2 perf? I would think more so with anamorphic, where the perportions could take advantage of 4k, but if someone can explain what the advantage is I'd love to know.

Could the effect be shot by itself then projected onto the actress? Like in small format, 16mm or super8 reversal and projected? Or with a video projector?

Is there also a problem with the rear element protruding further than 35mm lenses? I was told this when I bought some PL mount 16mm primes recently.

Other than the shapes of lens flares, what difference is made by the number of blades in the iris mechanism?

I can't really tell 100% from the video assist, but at first glance it doesn't really look like 2.35, which seems odd considering P.T.A seems fond of anamorphic (when he's not shooting 65mm) I'm guessing 1.85....OK after writing that I looked up the film on IMDB and it says 1.85

Well good news, it wasn't the camera. The post house put up the footage again and it's fine now. It was some problem with the film not seating properly in the gate. On a side note the Optex converted Zeiss 12-120 T 2.4 is a swell lens.

Well it looks like the filter rings may be why I had severe vignetting with my first test footage. I'll try again with those off and I bet I'll see a big change. Oddly, the previous owner has lots of nice filters for the lens, but how he used them is now baffling given what I see happening with them on the lens. He claimed not having any problems like this. On a separate note, I've heard that gel filters are more consistent than glass anyway. Not sure if that's true, but it may be my only choice.