Patrick Anton Saefkow Seaman_64263

The Flash shoots with Arri Alexas, Cooke Primes, and Optimo zooms

Keep in mind that a day with the alexa is quoted at $1000 - $1500 from many places, and since you're getting similar quality with 16mm; it becomes a question of what you want to spend your arm and a leg on.

I just got my hands on some arri standard schneider lenses for my arri sr2 with a pl mount. I did this knowing that adapters exist, but now that I go to buy one I'm a bit confused.

This is the one I'm looking at, it screws into the lens and it's $50, so I can just buy 3 and not worry.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/361428900171?_trksid=p2060353.m2763.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Are there any options that are more in line with what I'm accustomed to where there is a single easy to use adapter? Something that properly adjusts the flange distance like when adapting m43 to ef, and basically acts like it is the mount that the lens expects to be seated in?

I'd love to hear if you have any recommendations. Thanks.

 

Patrick,

I am not sure why the reference to "idiot" but it's a valid question. Entrenched and passionate opinions are par for the course in this forum when it comes to film transport discussions but human egos are just part of the equation. In fact your concept has been implemented to a degree in my two ultrawide film formats called UltraPan8 R8 2.8 and UltraPan8 DS8 3.1 , i.e.

https://www.facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm/info/

"FILM TRANSPORT:

There are two specific variants.

The first utilizes the entire 16mm width of 2 perf Regular 8mm film (R8) in conjunction with the 8mm pulldown cycle. It is called UltraPan8 2.8 R8 and debuted in 2011. The 2.8 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 10.54mm x 3.75mm. Note that this design uses the fact that Regular 8 film fundamentally shares the identical perforation dimensions of Standard 16mm film. Run time is effectively doubled relative to 16mm film magazines as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 113% greater than the Regular 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture). Check out a scanned example,

e.g.

The second adaptation utilizes the full 16mm width of 2 perf Double Super 8 film (DS8) in conjunction with a Super 8 pulldown cycle. It is known as UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 and debuted in 2012. The 3.1 designation refers to it's aspect ratio with an actual frame size of 13.00mm x 4.22mm. Note that the actual frame width is greater than Super 16. Also note that the Super 8 perforation is smaller dimensionally than Regular 8 /16mm which allows more of the 16mm film width to be used. Magazine run time is also doubled as there are 80x UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. The imaging area is 34% greater than the smaller Super 8 format (SMPTE camera aperture),

e.g.

"

The 2nd variant, UP8 DS8 3.1 does require recentering of the lens mount but I managed decent 3.1:1 frame coverage with my Zeiss Jena 10mm Tevidon APO C-Mount as per the 2nd scanned example above absent a re-centered lens mount. I don't have a scanned frame handy at work to illustrate the overscan parameters but the image extends beyond the left/right perfs. If your interested I can possibly post some frames in this thread.

Oh yeah. The math. The total square mm areas generated by both formats is as follows, i.e.

1. UltraPan8 2.8 R8 = 10.54mm x 3.75mm = 39.53 mm²

2. UltraPan8 3.1 DS8 = 13.00mm x 4.22mm = 54.86 mm²

Cheers!

Nicholas

 

Nicholas I mean idiot in a sarcastic way to describe we who obsess over frame size and aperture :).

Interesting stuff you have there. I'd experiment with that for personal use if I were into ultra wide aspect ratios, though 2.35 is extreme enough for me.

I very rarely agree with Matt Workman on things, but he is right about some things. If you want to get a leg up in this business you want to do freebies, but it's up to you what that is. You can do short films with other starving artists, spec work, and produce videos for charities.

When you get to a certain threshold it's important to be compensated even if it's less than your normal rate. If you do a lot of free work that will be your reputation; the guy who does free work. It's totally wrong to work for free on commercial shoots; where the producer will laugh all the way to the bank having exploited desperate young talent.

For shutter speed you can calculate the difference using the simple formula of a/b/2. 60/24/2=1.25 or 1 1/3 stop

Memorize the difference of common frame rates like 24, 48, 60, 120, 240 and so on, but you never know when you'll stumble upon something weird or want something specific.

Just memorize the fstop scale and you're good as far as those are concerned. The math for figuring it out is too complex for my little brain. Just know that 8 is two more than 4, and 11 is one less than 16. Not as many integers as framerates, and most shots are in the T2-T8 range anyhow. I guess magic of knowing = 1 1/3 stop

Iso is easy. Divide one unto the other. 800/640=1.25 or 1 1/3 stop

Looks great. Like others have said; like a classic western film

It depends. From what I've read when shooting 4k 24p mp4 is your only option, then with HD 24p it's just AVCHD. I don't own the camera, so I could be totally wrong.

If you're shooting for 30p, maybe do a test to see which has better quality. I've heard AVCHD has more efficient compression, though I've never pitted two lossy compressions against each other; rather AVCHD vs ProRes or stuff like that.

In my opinion it's best to shoot in the early morning; as that's when everyone's sleeping in, and you get shots that people won't at magic hour sunset.

God is this argument pedantic. Haven't we reached an age where neither is objectively superior, but it's all down to preference? I think with the normalcy of digital the trend now is going the direction of picking formats for the sake of story. The dslr revolution has run it's course so serious artists are done experimenting, and will work with whatever suits them. Audiences accept both, so it from our end it's more like picking a lens for it's qualities; rather than from a technical standpoint.

Ultra 16 goes between the perfs, and super 16 goes near the edge of the film stock. Why not do both? I understand that this is purely hypothetical, as no lab would add new processes nowadays; but would it be possible for the sake of widescreen 2.39:1 photography?

My reasoning is if ultra 16 is 6.3mm tall, then 16/6.3=2.54 and 2.39x6.3 is roughly 15mm. This would mean a gate of 6.3x15mm or 94mm² as compared to a gate of 4.29x10.26mm or 44m²; which is slightly more than twice the negative size.

I get that in real world terms 2 perf 35mm is more accessible with more support, and still has a larger aperture; but it would be very appealing to have this increase in iq while still playing with the ergonomics and artistic advantages of these cameras.

Is there some sort of technical limitation that prevents this from being possible? I can't be the first idiot to think of this.

Pm sent