Uli Meyer

I've got the two-pronged tool and the allen key and followed the procedure as described but it's not moving at all, not one millimeter.

Thanks Dom! I mistakenly said it is the Universal view finder but it actually is the Lite viewfinder.

The Universal viewfinder on my Arricam LT won’t swivel. I haven’t noticed this since I bought it because there was no need to move it. Today I checked the camera and noticed it won’t move at all. I did loosen the swivel screw at the top with the two pronged Arri tool and even removed it and the pin entirely but no change. The viewfinder is stuck in its original position. Has anyone here come across this? Any advice how it can be fixed? Thank you!

Robin, the initial post has no reference to a film being "ruined" because it was shot digital. People have commented that the trailer looks video-ish and cheap but that is not a comment about the quality of the story. Nobody has dismissed the film. How can they, nobody has seen it yet. Forgive me but you often get very agitated about things that are not actually being said.

I didn't read the original post as that. Maybe there was nothing to defend? Anyway, here's to good films. Whichever method.

I would much rather see a great film than a boring film, no matter how it was shot. But you can't tell from the trailer if this film is going to be any good (the subject matter is very timely though and maybe that is why Malick chose to go digital? To connect history to today?) But that wasn't the point of the OP. I have noticed that every time somebody voices a preference for film on here, you are nearly always there getting all defensive in favor of digital. Personally, I love the whole analogue process but that doesn't make me blind to a good film, whatever medium.

Robin, I am one hundred percent sure that Roger Deakins can tell if some films have been shot digital or analogue. I'm also sure that there are some films where he can't tell and those are the ones that he was referring to. As you have mentioned yourself, some digital films are shot soft and some analogue films very sharp. Mission Impossible is still shot on film and it is often hard to tell. But that doesn't mean it is a rule. The trailer looks digital. You don't have to be a Roger Deakins to be allowed to make that observation. To me it does and that is the point that some here were making. That's all. Personally, I don't like it.

I second that. This is a forum about cinematography after all. A discussion about the tools used to tell a story is part of the cinematographer's job. The trailer looks like a story I want to watch and I am intrigued by the composition and wide angle shots. Yet sometimes it does feel like you are watching a video. It does feel digital. To say that top cinematographers can not tell the difference is not quite true, is it? Yes, there are films that have been shot digital and worked on in post to look like film quite successfully. And there are analogue films that didn't take advantage of what analogue does offer. and maybe Malick chose the digital look for a reason. But one can't say that this looks the same as film. It doesn't.

We shot on 35mm film at 32fps and scanned the footage at 24fps. You won’t get any problems if you avoid slowing down footage in post.

Hi Stuart, Thank you! And yes, the same Michael.

Thanks Robin!

All the shots that feature the woman in my short 'From Life' were filmed at 32 frames per second. Apart from the end where she is running which were shot at 72 frames per second. Maybe this helps?

If it doesn't make any difference, I totally agree. Absolutely no point in shooting film if you can't get anything out of the medium that is different. I want to stress that I don't think film is generally "better" than digital. But I love the look and feel of film when it is used for its unique properties. In which case it is worth the inconvenience and expense, at least from an artistic point of view.

A beautifully shot image on 16mm compared to a beautifully shot digital image will look different. I don't think every lay person would necessarily go for the latter, although the latter is what most people are used to looking at. I would suggest to the OP that if your budget limits you to 16mm and you want to shoot film, embrace it for what it is and use it that way. As Phil said. If one could make Super 16mm look like 35mm, there would be no need to shoot on 35mm. The question maybe is "How To Make The Most Out Of 16mm"?

Exceeding in what way? If you are going for a specific film look, why pick a digital camera? Which digital camera produces a film look without having to tweak the images in post? Honest question.