Jon O'Brien

The camera on the Bruce Lee film looks to me like a 2C with Panavision lens and matte box on it. You can see Panavision written on the matte box. Looks very similar to the set up that was used for Star Wars (1977) in the Tunisian desert, so a Pan-Arri. A 2C with a PV mount on it and rented out by Panavision until they got rid of them all I think maybe in the early 90s or thereabouts.

The viewfinder might occasionally make some shots more difficult, but a movable extension was made. I've read that they can be tricky to focus, with the eye needing to be carefully centered in line with the viewfinder optics. But with such steady registration they are an amazing design.

I agree, looks like one. Great photo. Thanks!

Here's 'The Man from Snowy River' being filmed in 1981. Not main camera (which was Panavision), but some nice shots of the hardfront modified 2C being used here and there, with Panavision zoom. Kirk Douglas sitting on a horse at one point, waiting for "Action!". Enjoy.

Looking at what few behind the scenes photographs there are, it seems Sergio Leone was using the 2C a lot. Just how much is difficult to say, but at least the famous harmonica scene in 'Once upon a time in the west' was shot on what looks like three Arri 2 cameras. I think it might have been that scene, anyway.

Hi, does anyone know of a feature movie that made it to the big screen and was reasonably successful that was mainly shot on an Arri 2C? Could be 4 perf or Techniscope. I've looked into it but it seems that many films that list the 2C as camera on the production also list another camera, something bigger and pin registered like a Mitchell, which presumably was the main camera used. Anything major that was mainly shot on a 2C ... or a 35-III? Of course would have to have been put in a barney, and/or dubbed. Also, on the big screen, is there likely much noticeable difference between the look of the pin registered III and a non-pin registered Arri 2? Is the 2C really more of a B or C camera, for brief shots, rather than potentially as main camera? (forgetting for the moment about sound recording, and just going by image).

You don't really have to have an actual cat or even a fake prop. But if you must have one then I would go with a fake prop definitely and try to not show it very clearly on screen. That's my outlook. A movie I saw once had a hard hitting effect (for me as a younger person at the time) without showing the dead cat at all. It wasn't necessary as the actor's faces/body language and the sound effect of screeching tyres and someone jumping out of the car to look - that was more than enough to convey the scene and in a way it was much more powerful that way. But it's up to what the director wants of course.

Very nice indeed.

Is the Rear lip OD measurement in Dom's post above effectively measuring the same lens/camera part that I think Nikon calls the throat diameter? On a Nikon this measurement is given as 44mm. In layman's, non-technical terms, this means the hole, as it were, in the front of the camera, and the part of the lens barrel that actually sockets into the camera, is 10mm wider? That's a big difference in diameter.

Exactly. Theoretically speaking it's probably possible to keep getting smaller, and more, information. But we are finite beings. And thankfully so!

So it's happened. Peak Pixel.

Apparently the high speed gate could be adjusted for pressure. http://owyheesound.com/arriflex-ii.php Even mentions ye olde nose grease.

Fair enough, as I'm going by what I was told, as it was before I joined. Looking into it more carefully, I realise the film was released in 2009 so may have been shot late 2008/early 2009. Just looking on Wikipedia I see there was a Panasonic varicam released in 2008 that could shoot 1-30 fps at 1080p, the HPX3700. But as I wasn't on the shoot, and have only shot film myself, I don't know.

The company I work for used a Panasonic Varicam in 2007/2008. I saw a film they made projected in a cinema and it looked pretty good to me. 1080p I believe.

In the original post, Tim mentions a high speed gate for the 2C camera. I'm aware that high speed motors are still available for the 2C, but in what way does the high speed gate differ to the standard gate? Also, does anyone know what a used CE crystal motor might go for these days?

On professional, big productions, fully financed and all that, what sort of money does the camera operator make compared to the DP? Or is that like asking how long is a piece of string? But there must be some general pay grade I suppose.

As they used to say in Australia in the bush, and in the city too: "too right!" I've been to that spot where Kelly and his gang put on their home-made armour and faced the police, with my dad, some years ago. We checked it out. It's just an unassuming scrubby block, totally nondescript. Maybe one day I will make yet another movie on Kelly. Here's John Jarratt as Kelly, in a fine made-for-tv production from the 80s. Shot on 16mm. And yep that vistavision makes an appearance towards the end. I've always said Aussies are innovators.

Ah, I might have figured it out. Many of these filmmakers I've been reading possibly shoot on DSLRs. If they shoot footage on full-frame cameras it might be the case (but I just don't know) that slight darkening in corners is more apparent in digital cinematography. At any rate, I've just read some reviews of still lenses in digital photography that specifically looks into vignetting, and the writers mention - including in the comments below section (always worth reading) - that smaller format cameras, eg. DX sensor cameras, get rid of any apparent vignetting concerns with many lenses. DX or APS-C is close to academy 35mm frame size.

Whoops, I've just remembered seeing a couple of pictures of George Lucas with a Pan-Arri 2C on Star Wars (IV), with a huge Panavision anamorphic lens on it. Perhaps this was possible because of the lens mount modification to PV. I've examined one of these closely and indeed the PV mount protrudes a good distance out from the 2C hard front due to the greater Panavision FFD. But for instance with Nikon lenses the lens is sunk deeper into the camera (Nikon FFD of 46.5mm). But a reputable source said that these lenses can work well with the 2C. Just have to watch that mirror.

Some more explanation. Specifically, I've read that faint vignetting is much more noticeable when using photography lenses in filmmaking. But on the other hand the cine 35mm frame - especially academy width - is already significantly smaller than the 135 format 35mm SLR camera frame (approx. 36 x 24mm). So I can't see why vignetting would be much of a problem. Yet the 'only ever use cine lenses' camp often discuss the vignetting. Thus my question.

We Australians of course have recourse to the Ned Kelly helmet.

Joe Dunton's exposition of Kubrick's favoured lenses for his 2C is very interesting. I notice that his lenses are somewhat narrow in build - and I think this might have been a necessary factor in lens choice for the 2C camera. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a 2C with a large-barrelled (for want of a better term), 'fat' cine lens sticking out the end of it - like something of the girth of a Rokinon Xeen for instance (one make of lens I've done some research on) or bigger. I think the mirror housing might get in the way. Indeed this is what Tyler said recently on another thread. Specifically for the 2C, or IIC if you like to write it like that, are these narrower-bodied lenses more prone to faint vignetting (not hard vignetting, I mean very slight underexposure in the corners of frame)? Now don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting Kubrick would have chosen lenses that vignetted. He was a master. What I'm on about is that I have read (and listened to) quite a bit of advice on the internet about how photography lenses are really not very good for use on cinema cameras. Yep, I've looked carefully into issues of breathing, colour matching, aberration, distortion of wides on cheaper lenses, filter/mattebox issues etc, follow focus/short focus throw and reverse focus, cheap plastic components especially in later AF lenses with sloppy travel, FFD and depth of focus and questions of mount type, and so on ... but the one thing that mainly gets me doubting the use of (many) photography lenses is potential for slight vignetting effects. Specifically on a 2C. I know that there's nothing distinctive about the film gate about this camera - I merely mean that 'thicker' lenses simply may not fit on it. Can anyone direct me to some good information on this subject. I've looked but so far haven't found much expert knowledge on it. There is reams of advice on the internet about how cine lenses are the way to go for filmmakers. I'm not talking about that. That bit is clear. I accept that for a professional production crew it is the only way to go because of so many issues such as focus pulling, breathing etc etc etc.. I'm talking about low budget independent filmmaking and I'm not interested in debating why a low budget filmmaker would even consider shooting on film, let alone 35mm. You will just have to accept that that's the way I would like to go about doing my filmmaking - if I can. Thank you for any advice on this!

All very true. In my defence, I was sort of trying to make a slight joke.

Oh, I know. I should have been more clear. I meant new ones. As in, first one for 2019 ... and shown at the local cinema.

And as Robin said earlier, I think there's a general tendency to want to defend our 'pet' format that we have invested money and experience and research time into. I do it. But really we should all be open to many different ways to film a movie. Any format that suits that production. When's the first feature movie on Super 8 coming out? I promise, if it's good I will go and see it.