Mitch Gross

Any lab with a Spirit should be able to handle 2-perf just fine. Only negatives to 2-perf are: - greater danger of a hair in the gate (check often and keep her clean) - old beater camera conversions (know what you're getting yourself into or call us for a Penelope!) - innappropriate viewfinder & videotap optics (on some of those old beaters) This isn't meant to be a knock on some of the camera conversions such as the ones Bruce does. Just a warning on the condition of certain cameras I personally know are out there.

Film and digital. We have clients who have put them on 35mm, Super-16, HDSLR, Phantom, RED One and 2/3" video with a Pro-35. They have a slightly different look than the Ultra primes and some clients prefer this look. The Ultra Primes are great lenses and I certainly don't wish to demean them. This is about options and personal preferences. There is a great deal of difference between the stills lenses such as the ZFs and the CP.2s. The individual optical elements are hand-picked for best performance and color matching. The iris has fourteen blades instead of nine for a rounder aperture, which makes for a more pleasing bokeh (out of focus imaging characteristics). A far more robust construction means less focus shift and image shift due to mechanical imprecision (on a looser stills lens the image can be effected from pressure on the focus ring axially as opposed to adjusting rotationally). The larger diameter barrel means more focus reference marks at far greater precision. Steve, feel free to email me directly (mitch-at-abelcine-dot-com).

Have to reach back into memory here ... I think most Ultras are okay and the Cookes will fit if the viewfinder arm is parallel to the camera base (not angled down). It's been a long time since I had an SR in front of me so I could be off on this. Are you that locked into the camera body? I find that most people will go for lens choice over camera choice. Any Aaton or an ARRI 416 will let you use the glass you want.

We have them for sale and rent and clients have been very satisfied. Some prefer them to the Ultra Primes, and those Zeiss lenses are more than three times the price.

No, they will interfere. You can swing the viewfinder way up and the camera will work, but the operating is rather uncomfortable. This is why there is such a different viewfinder to camera intersection design on the 416. Interestingly enough, the Master Primes will fit fine on all Aatons, even the ones that are 35 years old.

But really I find all this "individual worth" stuff very tiresome. Personally I'm under no illusions that I'm anything other than a completely replaceable, entirely unremarkable human being and I don't think anyone has ever shown the slightest appreciation of or respect for anything I've ever done, and nor would I expect it. Unfortunately, we are not all unique and special. Phil, how the hell do you even get out of bed in the morning? Seriously, seek out some therapy.

Phil, I am not a Phantom Tech, but I know the work they do. You believe that you could do everything their job entails with just a few hours of training. You are wrong. There is a reason to have various technicians on a set performing various jobs. Pricipally it is because if just one person tries to do them all it will either take a very long time to get the work done and it is likely that something will be missed. I know you think you know better than everyone else Phil, but I'm going to rely on my experience to say that you are most likely incorrect in this instance. As far as defining a dream camera as a "light-to-SDI box", I feel that this shows a lack of knowledge and/or appreciation for what is available and possible in camera technology today. Be it filtering, use of RAW workflow or other camera sdjustments, there is a lot possible that this philosophy ignores.

Then why would you operate a Phantom solo? You can buy/rent a Ferrari, but Mario Andretti would still run rings around you. You could buy/rent a Steadicam, but Larry McConkey would certainly out operate you. You could buy/rent a violin, buy Yoyo Ma would sound a lot better than you. A Phantom Tech learns various specifics on how the Phantom cameras and related gear works, and then earns lots of experience the hard way, by doing the work. Along the way he or she picks up various bits of useful info. Where certain problems lie, how other technology can interact in odd ways, what one can "get away with" or not, etc. It is skill and craft. It is why we are all not just cogs in a great machine, and why we have individual worth. Some people are better than others because they have more experience and some are better because they have greater aptitude. Either way, it is a fact that some people are better than others.

You could certainly do this although I would suggest using something like a Cinedeck to record the shots unless you needed something really small and light, in which case I would suggest the nanoFlash. You might also want to look at the less expensive v210 or v310 model Phantoms.

Anyone who thinks that there is a less expensive alternative in high speed imaging than shooting digitally really needs to step back for a moment. Phantom technology has brought the price down in an incredibly dramatic measure. I've talked with producers that tell me that they have saved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on individual productions due to Phantom. We have sold Phantoms to many, many clients. I do not know of any who are unhappy with their purchase. Most come back to buy more. Our own are working all the time. The new Phantom Flex is really an amazing machine. More than twice the sensitivity of the Phantom HD Gold. Higher MTF within its resolution than other cameras without aliasing issues. Great dynamic range. The camera is a breeze to use and is smaller and lighter than other cameras. And it delivers pretty, pretty pictures. What's not to love? BTW, the Phantom short film posted at the head of this thread was shot more than three years ago on a prototype of the original Phantom HD. It still looks great but we've come a long way since then. The Phantom Flex will be on display this Saturday with yours truly at the DGA Digital Day in LA.

The ALEXA's sensor is an evolution of the D-21's sensor, and the Penelope-Delta's sensor will be an evolution of previous Dalsa sensors. The chip that will be inside the Penelope-Delta will not be the same as what was in any of the Dalsa Origin or Evolution cameras, and even those cameras had different chips during the course of their brief history. These new chips are years of improvements beyond the previous versions.

We have multiple Aaton Penelopes in our rental department and we have also sold a bunch and provide service and support for them. They are very robust cameras with little performance issue. The Penelope is perhaps the single most elegant film camera design I've ever seen. It is an excellent machine and we have yet to have a single AC, Operator or DP who has had anything but rave reviews for it. On every shoot it has either been the A-camera or started as a B-camera and quickly turned into the A-camera. Crews love it.

Oops, yes. Steve not Rob. Been a long time.

She's of no relation -- I once asked Rob Cardellini the inventor. I love Cardellini clamps but there is one feature of the Mafer that it does not share. The Mafer allows the in to be pulled and then it can be mounted to the end of a baby stud. This means that Mafers can be mounted together like a kinda cheeseboro, or stuck onto the end of a stand or various other rigging. I used to stick one on the top of a lightstand and hold a boom pole for talking head interviews. Good for grabbing speedrail for a simple overhead rig as well.

Les Bosher in the UK makes one.

I'll just say that no one will be seeing them anytime soon. I know a bit about "where the bodies are buried" (not literally) and as far as the lenses go -- well, I have some.

You might think Hollywood wouldn't build sets like that again, yet Brian DePalma had just such a set built for Mission to Mars.

I know where they are, and they are not for sale. And anyway, what would you do with them? You couldn't deal with the files in any way without special hardware and software.

David doesn't just shoot theatrical motion pictures. The series "The Good Wife" starring Julianna Margulies premiered last night. Rich warm tones and subtle diffusion really flattered the actresses. Ms. Margulies is in her mid-forties but looked great. The show had a real look to it unlike so much of the bland TV out there.

You can get a Miro4 from Abel as well. 800x600 resolution with a frame rate up to 1265fps. Only $1200/day and no Phantom Tech required (but suggested).

This is not true. Please do not post statements on the internet as fact unless you know them to be so and can prove it. I in fact do know what company manufactures the lenses and it is not Cooke, who have absolutely nothing to do with them. The lenses are made in Japan, as stated by RED and in fact marked on the lenses as such. Cooke is in the UK.

Tim, as it says in the title to this thread, the sensor on the GH1 is 17.3x13mm, which is a bit smaller than the RED One sensor. The Hot Rod adaptor is purely mechanical, with no optics within. So the field of view on a given lens will be a little tighter on the GH1 than on a Super-35 film camera. There are no issues with physical clearances of any kind for the lenses and the camera. The GH1 does not have a mirror as it uses an electronic viewfinder. One of the great design features of the Micro 4/3rd format is that it is so shallow a flange depth that there are adapters for just about any other lens mount available.

The Hot Rod PL mount adapter for the GH-1 is available exclusively from Abel Cine Tech. Now available for rent as well. http://www.abelcine.com/store/product.php?productid=1001600

This would not be in the original RAW files. It is possible that it is an issue with the debayering process, as there are any number of ways to do this work incorrectly. They may have even taken the HD-SDI right out of the camera and recorded this to a deck. Usually fine for video finish, but not for a DI.

Tim was incorrect. The adapter is an arial imager and therefore does not alter the depth of field of the camera sensor because there is no rephotographing going on, only demagnification. This is physics. There is no magic going on here. The only possible change in apparent depth of field is that in using high quality optics instead of the "free" inexpensive zoom included with the camera, the improved resolving capabilities of the glass can make the difference between what is and is not in focus more apparent, thereby creating the perception of a shallower depth of field.