Jump to content

Brett Allbritton

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Tallahassee, FL
  • My Gear
    Canon 60D, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera

Recent Profile Visitors

6498 profile views
  1. I hate to say this (because I'm sure it comes up again and again), but the lack of new film cameras - or even certain spare parts for older cameras - does make me worry about how long celluloid filmmaking can realistically continue. Hopefully the revived interest in analog filmmaking will result in more people who know how to keep them running, but is it really feasible that people will be able to shoot with these cameras 50 or more years from now? They have to give out eventually, right? Then again, when I visited the ASC a couple of years ago, I got to hand-crank a Mitchell that belonged to Mary Pickford. Our guide assured us that we could load it up and shoot with it today if we wanted, so hopefully I'm wrong.
  2. Hey guys, I stumbled upon this because I'm on a similar hunt. I have a quick question, though: Satsuki mentioned that he was weary of "side-load" designs, but what does that mean? The best I can tell is that a "side-load" tripod is where you have to tighten down on the tripod plate from the side, as compared to something like a Sachtler where you snap the camera plate in place. Is that correct? In particular, I've been eyeing the Miller CX10 head, but it seems that this would fall into that same category? Thanks!
  3. I saw these at some point. It's kind of cool that they did it, but I can't imagine buying one. Honestly, I don't really get why people put so much effort into trying to change their K-3s. The only modification I did to mine was having the loop formers removed (since it seems to be so unanimously recommended in order to prevent scratches). Beyond that, I'm just not very interested. I bought a K-3 because it's a cheap, basic camera that I could learn to shoot film with. Why try and make it into something it's not?
  4. Really? I know 16:9 is a TV format, but I've always thought that "4:3" and "1.33:1" were interchangeable terms since 4/3=1.33. I guess now that you mention it though if someone says 4:3 I do tend to think SD video.
  5. I went through a little bit of a Tarantino fanboy phase in college, but fortunately it waned. As such, I wasn't tremendously excited to see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but it has become my new all-time favorite Tarantino film. Perhaps it helps that I had just been in Hollywood a week or two before seeing it (we even saw them setting up for the film's premiere), so it was partly just fun seeing all the places I had been to during my trip. Beyond that though, I found it absolutely captivating. I get why people would think it's boring; I even found myself thinking to myself "I should be bored right now...but somehow I'm totally engaged." I was just so in love with the vibe. The acting, production design, and cinematography stuck with me for days after seeing it. I think the best description of the movie compared it to the Hitchcock "bomb under the table" idea. We all know this is leading up to the Manson murders, so Tarantino could have the characters do seemingly unrelated or unimportant things (Sharon Tate seeing her own movie, for instance) and have the audience thinking to themselves "Is this really going to happen? Is it really going where I think it is?" The whole movie is a "bomb under the table." I also appreciate that this movie feels so mature compared to some of his other movies, and which is another reason it has become my new favorite (interesting considering my previous favorite was Kill Bill...) Frankly, my least favorite part was the ending, which I imagine most people will be drawn to since it's the most "Tarantino."
  6. I haven't invested in any cine lenses yet, just a handful of still lenses here and there. Generally, I've been looking for camera packages that come with a good zoom lens. I figure that will be sufficient for most of my personal projects.
  7. Thanks for the input, guys. That footage is lovely, Will! The more I've thought about it since posting this, the more I'm set on investing in a sound-sync regular 16 camera in the near future. The 4:3 aspect ratio really wasn't a problem for me in the first place anyway, and as you guys said, it can be cropped if needed. I tested this recently after I had some 200T and 250D developed (shot with my Krasnogorsk), and I think it looked pretty great when cropped to 1.85:1. I doubt anybody would notice the difference, and I can certainly imagine that if I had shot with some really nice prime lenses, then people especially wouldn't notice. I guess this raises the inevitable question then; what are your recommendations? Having just read Jon Fauer's Arriflex 16SR Book, I'm leaning towards an SR 1 or 2 at the moment, but I do find Aatons to be quite lovely, and Eclairs seem to be very affordable. My big concern is their longevity, though; considering these cameras are already old, I'd like to ensure that I get the most use I can from whichever I end up deciding on. Any guidance is highly appreciated!
  8. Point taken. I was actually thinking about this after I posted and regretted using the word "obsolete;" it's much stronger than what I meant. I was really just anticipating responses from the point of view that film is outdated and we should all move on. As for 4:3, I happen to really like it and appreciate when modern films use it. Too many young filmmakers seem to think that in order to look "filmic" you need to put Cinemascope letterbox bars on everything, so it's refreshing when I see aspect ratio being recognized as a creative tool. It's strange to say but I find myself occasionally having to remind people that some of the best movies of all time are in Academy Ratio. I'm also quite curious, why do you say that it's the most dynamic aspect ratio? This is another reason why I find myself considering a Regular 16 camera; 4:3 is just not a deal-breaker for me. I might add that my K-3 is regular 16 and I'm quite content with that. I've seen so many people insist on converting their K-3, but to me, considering the benefit versus the effort, that just feels like trying to make the camera into something it's not.
  9. I work in TV, so when it comes to 16mm I'm just an enthusiast, and all of my 16mm footage so far has been on my Krasnogorsk-3, which has served me well. Having said that, I would like to eventually shoot some more ambitious projects on film (requiring sound, longer takes, etc), but unfortunately the closest place I could rent a film camera from is about five hours away. Because of this, I occasionally find myself browsing eBay for cameras, and often Regular 16 cameras such as Arri SRs, Aatons, or CP-16s are available. I can't help but wonder how worthwhile buying a Regular 16 camera is though; Super 16 seems to be preferable in every way. I guess Regular 16 is good if you want a 4:3 aspect ratio, but it seems like most people would prefer to shoot Super 16 and crop the sides instead. Likewise, if you wanted a wider aspect ratio, you could crop the top and bottom of your Regular 16 image, but Super 16 would require less cropping and give you a bigger image area. It's also worth noting that many Regular 16 cameras can be converted to Super 16, but for the cost it seems like you might as well have just bought a Super 16 camera in the first place. As I said, I'm not a professional when it comes to film, so I'm not sure if I will ever be able to justify purchasing my own professional-level 16mm camera. However, the (generally) lower cost of Regular 16 cameras does make it a little tempting sometimes. What do you guys think, are Regular 16 cameras worth investing in? Note: Yes, I recognize that both Regular 16 and Super 16 would widely be considered "obsolete" these days, so strictly speaking they probably aren't worth "investing" in. I just mean this in the context of those who enjoy shooting celluloid.
  10. Hey everyone, I'm looking for old, expired 400' rolls of 16mm that I can use to practice loading. I'm planning to start shooting 16mm more seriously and don't want to have to worry about potentially wasting brand new film while I familiarize myself with the process. Thanks!
  11. To bolster David's point, alongside their political bias they also tend to publish factually inaccurate material: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ Other than that though, I'm going to stay of out of this as I lack the knowledge, experience, and especially eloquence to speak any further.
  12. So a solution came to mind, but I really don't know if it would work in practice. The idea is to have rods come from my 15mm LWS baseplate, attach them to the LWS part at the top of a Studio to LWS Adaptor, then run some short rods out from the bottom Studio part and attach the matte box to those. Basically, the adaptor and matte box would hang from the LWS rods coming from my baseplate. My intuition tells me that professionals will find this needlessly complicated, but I figured it was at least worth consideration. My other concern is whether that would put some unnecessary strain on the system. Like I said, I'm not sure if this would work in practice.
  13. Hey everybody, I'm trying to find a matte box to use for an upcoming project (whenever that might be considering this pandemic), and in the process I was offered an old Super16 camera matte box for 15mm Studio rods at a good price. I've seen brackets available that allow you to use a 15mm LWS matte box on 19mm and 15mm Studio rods, but I'm curious if there are any options to use a 15mm Studio matte box with 15mm LWS rods. I imagine this is possible even with the offset, but I wouldn't know. Should I pass?
  14. Thanks, Dom! I figured I was probably being overprotective, but you never know.
  • Create New...