Edgar Nyari

Here is the other side. I regret that I didn't notice I was making a shadow exactly on the important part of the gate, at the time of taking this photo.

Here is gate, and the pressure plate. I did a little cleaning so I took the chance to take some good photos. Does anyone spot any anomalies here? I really don't have experience, but to me everything seems fine. I'll add two more photos later if needed, there is a post limit.

The negative is on the way, and I should receive it next week in mail, so I'll check it out.

Well, since it's a super35 gate, the edge of the pressure plate comes pretty close to the edge of the gate, so maybe a tiny slit is somehow made there. But on the other hand, there should be no light in the camera body even if the pressure plate didn't close the frame, because otherwise the entire frame would be exposed once it gets out of the mechanism and runs freely on the inside. Honestly, I can't imagine what could cause such a thin leak.... As for the telecine....I don't think it's a very modern telecine machine. It was a very cheap transfer. Might have been a very old Rank. I'm even seeing slight ghost images of high contrast details, such as street lamp posts, which is something that's certainly an artifact of the telecine process.

On the entire roll, yes. Also forgot to mention that this is super35. And obviously my lens can't handle super35 that well as seen from the vignetting on the left.

Sorry I forgot to mention. This is 35mm, Arriflex 35-3... and I haven't gotten the negs back from the lab yet to check if this is present on the negative. I got the files first by internet, still waiting for the negs.

Hi there, Recently I made some very low light tests with a new camera, and when I got the material back from telecine, I noticed a light spill of some sort on the left edge of frame. I framed it in black so it's easier to see. Don't mind the poor quality of the transfer (plus the image is kinda grainy, because it was exposed intentionally under limiited light conditions). Couple of things come to mind. Could it be light spill from the sprockets on the telecine? One other thing is that, the door and viewfinder I was using has a kind of a mirrored double image on the left side which I can see in the viewfinder beyond the black frame. I have other doors that don't have this "problem" (if it is a problem...I really have no idea...). So I was thinking, what if the light of the mirrored image somehow going back through the groundglass? Any opinions would be most appreciated. thanks

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I have the same question. It's been 6 years, but Phil, did you find out if the Z series fits inside a 4x4 tray? thanks Edgar

thanks again

Hi Satsuki, thanks for the answer. I have a BP-3 that's missing the dovetail so just wanted to know can I get the first one I get my hands on without consideration about what was it used with (BP.-8 or 3 or 9 etc.) Edgar

Hi, Do various types of Arri bridge plates (BP-3, BP-8, BP-9...) all have interchangeable dovetail plates or does each one have their own width and shape of rails? thanks Edgar

Yeah I just did that, let's see what they have to say.

Hi, Does anyone know of any 50s and 60s features shot on Ferrania color negative stock? I've spoken to a person that suggested Fellini preferred to shoot on Ferrania stock (we are talking about color pictures) instead of Eastman, but I haven't been able to find any references whatsoever where this is confirmed. The stock seems to have been discontinued in 1966, so it could only be some of his earlier work, like Boccaccio '70. If you know of any feature films by Fellini or other directors, Italian or otherwise, shot on Ferrania color negative film (printed in any process), can you throw a couple of titles here? And please, if you remember, specify the source of your information. thank you

Yes, he also mentioned TVC labs and their special process. But Eclair managed to somehow separate saturation from contrast (which have a natural correlation), probably using fogging plus something else too. But the results were different from other labs, I'm told. But as you said, it probably wasn't a radical change in the image characteristics. I found our conversation archived by the way, and he mentions Le bonheur (1965) as being an example of this special treatment. Here is a screenshot. This is only a video transfer, but he says it looked like that in prints too. https://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/stills/5207-220ca0019e1eadb075d841fe89e21e86/509_053_original.jpg Upon discussing the various versions of 5247 with this person, I also concluded that Star Wars was shot on the older version of the stock. But the thing is: even though there were two "officially" two versions of 5247, there were constant tweaks to it, so that even the early 5247 (before the series 600) was different in 1974 and in 1976. The last batches of it (which were probably used for Star Wars) didn't have some of the problems that the early batches had, like the color cast in shadows, flesh-to-neutral issues etc, or at least it was not as pronounced. Then when series 600 came out, they further continued tweaking it. It was actually a bit grainier than the previous version. Finally in 1980 or so, a third version came out (though I don't know if Kodak actually considered it to be a new series), which had noticeable differences from the 1976-1980 series 600 version. Then finally in about 1982 or so, it was re-rated to 125ASA, but I don't think they made any significant changes to the emulsion itself. So I think one could discern as much as 4 "versions" (though not officially ) of 5247 from 1974 to 1980. It's a very interesting story. What he told me was that even 5254 was changed from 1968 till the end. It was probably a matter of taste, but he preferred the older version.

I recently had a very interesting conversation with a cinematographer that was active in the years of 5254, and remembers the whole story with various versions of 5247. What he told me, pertaining to what you just said was that a handful of labs (like Eclair in France and some labs in the US I think) had their own proprietary modifications to the ECN process, which were mostly kept secret, but allowed them to change contrast without pushing or pulling. Eclair had a way of decreasing the contrast, while retaining color saturation, which they used on some french film from that time. I can't remember exactly how it was done, but it was not an optical effect, but was something done to the negative itself. If someone is interested, I might be able to find where I archived that. Things like that can't be just googled.

Hi, yes, I was planning on buy some glass filters, but wanted to see if I can make use of this gel at least temporarily. As you suspected, the price is a major consideration because this is my personal stuff. And yes, I do have a 4x5.65 tray in my matte-box set. I also have a 4x6 tray, Thanks for the tip. I'd much rather find a rectangular one of the correct size, because once I get it it's a permanent solution. For now I'll use the gel.

Hi and thanks for your replies, to answer your questions Gregg: The filter is 85B and the camera (Arri 35-III) doesn't have the behind-the-lens option. I actually managed to use it without problems today. What I did was cut two black cardboard frames, and sandwiched the gel in between. It works just fine. Though I can already tell it's not such a good idea on a windy day. Edgar

Hi, I have this old Kodak Wratten filter lying around, and I'm not sure if I can put it to good use. I have a mattebox with metal trays, and I was wondering if the filter can be placed on the mattebox like a glass filter. The filter is 100mmx100mm, which slightly smaller than 4x4, so I guess I'd need something to hold it. Is it possible to make a cardboard frames for it, and sandwitch the gel in between two such frames, so that it's sturdy enough to be held in the tray. Sorry for the beginner's question. thanks Edgar

A lot of people enjoy the look of older filmstocks, including myself, but I think we have to be fair and say that the very characteristics we love about those materials are a product of technical limitations. We cannot blaim Kodak for correcting and improving their products over time. If you have color crossover issues, increased grain and other such problems, and you are an engineer at Kodak, it is only logical that you would attempt to correct them, even if there are a lot of people that like the look your current products are giving. The new stocks make a more objective photographic medium. The reason they look more like digital images, is because both the digital medium and film have been progressing in the direction of this objectivity in capturing light. So eventually they have to cross paths and meet somewhere. All that beings said, visually I get much more satisfaction in watching older films, because the image has more "character" to it. But I also have to give kudos to people at Kodak on improving film technology the way they did.

I do not wish to hijack this thread, but I also don't feel like opening a new one, so I'll just post a similar 35-III related "problem". On one of the doors I have with my 35-III (only one one, the others, which are of a similar design, don't have this problem) the Image I see in my viewfinder looks sort of like this: So instead of all the area around the groundglass image being black, I see mirror reflections of the image within the square. This doesn't appear on the groundglass, only on the door/eyepiece. I'm not sure if this was so from the beginning, since I purchased my camera system, but I only noticed it today. Nothing happened to cause any kind of change or damage in the equipment; no bumps or falls or repairs. I just picked it up and noticed this. If this problem had been already present, I have no idea how come I didn't notice it before. Granted, I haven't used the camera for any shoots yet, so I didn't spend a lot of time looking through the eyepice anyway. Is it possible that some internal part unglued itself, and if so, is there a way of repairing this, without sending the door to be serviced? thanks

There is one thing that makes a difference (between Episode 7 and the original trilogy) which nobody has commented on, but which I feel was partially responsible for people percieving the original films as more "beat up" and "gritty" looking, and that's the filmstock. Looking at these new trailers I notice how much film technology has changed over the years. This becomes more obvious when we see familiar sets and characters on screen, with an 40 year offset in film technology development. Even though the Millenium Falcon is made dirty again, everything just looks so much "cleaner" now, than it used to with the old filmstock. Cleaner shadows and highlights, smoother tone scale etc. There is so much more subtlety in color reproduction; we are talking Vision3 family of stocks vs. the old Eastman 5247. So we should be fair when comparing these two trilogies. We can't expect them to look the same even if they exactly replicated everything, including the lighting style.

I see. Thanks a lot David, and others.

Yes It seems I will have to test. I just wanted to hear some opinion, and maybe eliminate some options first. David, I see what you mean. It's a question of having a better source of image data. But if I were to do a one-light print, the 500T would most certainly be too blue withouth filtration, right?

I also didn't say anything about the workflow. It's going to be shot on 35mm academy, and It will be telecined to HD. That's the final product. But I will make some contact prints just to see how this dusk footage turns out in prints. Here are some examples of the look I'm trying to achieve, and also these photos show the exact light conditions, and also some of these locations are where some of the footage will be shot. http://oi58.tinypic.com/w1uuky.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/2z6h8d1.jpg The first two images are the typical example of the light conditions I have been describing. Notice how the blue light of the sky mixes with the sodium lamp light in the first picture (I don't know what type of light fixtures are in the second picture), and the result is a pinkish tone. Whatever type of filmstock I use, I'd like to be able to capture this pinkishness. It will be easier when it gets graded digitally, but I'd also like to see that captured well in contact prints. The third image is a special case: http://oi61.tinypic.com/2rr79sj.jpg there is a lot of red/magenta here because of the clouds, which are illuminated by the sun (which had already set at that point). So I guess this has to be treated differently then the first two cases. But then again, in this case I'd also like to capture some redness, but not too much; just as it is in this digital picture. thanks Edgar

Thanks to both of you for your replies, Maybe I should have been more specific about what I mean by "dusk". I did some measurements a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember the time exactly, but it was after the sun had set. The reading was about f1.4 at EI of 320. This is the kind of light I'll be shooting with. And David, you are right, I forgot about that, I need to underexpose by at least a stop. With a f2 lens, that leaves me right at shooting full open on a 250 or 500 ISO stock, give or take a third of a stop. As for using (or not using) filtration, I understand completely what both of you are saying, but I'm not sure the light is very warm at the deeper levels of dusk I'm speaking about. In fact, it gets quite blue, and I'm a bit worried that it might get too blue without an 85B on a tungsten stock. For example, I've taken exposures with daylight E6 still film at such conditions, and often I have this problem that the image on film is a little too blue as I get deeper into the dusk, even though it's a daylight stock. I certainly never have problems with the film being too warm. So we are talking about late dusk. Later on I'll try to find some images which are representative of the light conditions (and general look) I'm talking about.