Jon O'Brien

"Concerti" sounds a bit overly-formal of me, but in many countries that's what they're called. Over here we just call 'em "concertos" (Con-sher-toes, mate - in a drawling Aussie accent).

Requiem for full orchestra excerpt sounded great. Do you compose things like symphonies, concerti and sonatas as well?

Thank you so much Wilfried for your information. Are you saying that, in your opinion, the IIA was more stable image-wise than the IIC? I know that there was a slight design change - I think the cam mechanism that worked the pull-down claw in the later II-series cameras was altered. Or do you mean that the 35-II-series Arri cameras, A, B and C, were all in your opinion more stable for registration than later designs eg. the 35-III and the 435 for instance? I'm genuinely interested to hear your views. I've heard it said that some have called the II the best design ever (for a lightweight MOS camera).

Thanks Dom, hearing that warms the cockles of my heart. I'm serious.

Is it quite possible on a fully-funded, professional movie production, just to name a scenario, to film with Panavision film cameras and anamorphic lenses, but also to add into the mix, as it were, an older Arri MOS camera with non-Panavision eg. PL mount anamorphic lenses on it? Are there any contractual problems with that usually? How difficult is it to match the look and colour rendition etc of two completely different makes of lens for instance Arri and Panavision? So can you combine your own lower-cost gear with major rental house gear to save money on the same production? Eg. you need sync sound Panavision or Arri camera/s with rental lenses etc but also want to use you're own (or your friend's) gear on the same production for MOS shots.

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.