Robin Phillips

1 hour ago, Luis Chavarry said:

From your perspective, Have DI’s gotten better to where they are indistinguishable from a photochemically finished film ?

I'd side with Tyler on this one. For 35mm and smaller gauges especially, you're going to have a better experience even if you ultimately do a film out. And its arguably been better for a long time now. 

that being said I love the subtle gate weave on a print and still think that can be easier on the eyes when everything goes 100% right. And yes Im the sort of sociopath that will put a tiny bit of artificial gate weave on a master going to a DCP if they'll let me.

it should also be noted that a photochemical finish when you're talking 65mm and imax film can make sense from a maximizing quality perspective. If you were to say scan 5 perf 65mm 50D and output it back to film, Im not sure if you're going to easily be able to get that printed at more than 4k. Higher resolution scanning is possible, but going back to film is the problem. You also have to account for DCPs maxing out at 4k (and the bitrate for 4k and 2k DCP is the same...), so you are arguably loosing resolution vs going fully photochemical and then back to a 65mm print. 

Now all of that being said, its not like they make super sharp glass like master primes for the 65mm and imax film formats. Imax likes to say their film has a resolution of something like 18k, but I dont believe any glass compatible with their camera system is capable of achieving that level of performance. The only lenses Im aware of that can pull that off are what they're using on that system for the Las Vegas Sphere 

this is a really cool find, thanks for posting it. hopefully they make a good product and will post some test scans soon

8 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Thanks Robin! You may be right in regards to the blue rendition. I'm planning a short film and would have a complete set of the focal lengths I need if I mix my UPs with my Standard Speeds. Just wondering if that would be noticeable.

of all things, to my eye the Supreme primes actually seem closer to the standard speeds in color rendition than the Ultras. I assumed that was part of the design with the supremes, to basically provide a modern alternative to using the older glass. so that might be an alternative if you're super worried about color matching. But I think that generally most people wont notice either way since you can push things around in resolve a little if needed

its always been my impression that theres a little more blue rendition in the standard speeds, but the main thing you get with the ultra primes is the sharpness, even when at T2. granted I havent tested them against each other with charts, but thats always been my impression. the ultras are definitely shaper than the old super speeds wide open

so I've never run into this on an SR3, but self resetting fuses take time to reset (can be minutes or more). And if you still have all those accessories attached after the rest, you may still have the same problem. I specifically run some accessories off my battery or battery plate's additional power plugs whenever possible just to not tax the aging electronics.

if its urgent this might be a call Andree sort of thing if you're in LA and see, should it remain problematic, if he can do an emergency check on it.

But I think the max draw should be in the SR3 manual, and if all those devices add up to more than the body can handle you know what went wrong. 

12 hours ago, Allison Copp said:

@Tyler Purcell

I don't mind the standard look myself but it seems the only 400' rolls I can find are single perf or 500T. Am I stuck with 100' rolls for 50D or 250D?

Are you saying you cant find double perf rolls that arent 500T? cause single perf 16mm is available in 50d, 200t, 250d, 500t and ektachrome without issue, as well as B&W. you can order direct from kodak (which usually means calling them, they dont sell online), cinestill stocks 16mm and for a little while was willing to ship 400ft rolls. theres also frame24 in the UK, who tend to be a little cheaper even with shipping to the US (still not sure why, but I've never had any xray damage or anything from them). B&H also sells 16mm in the US, but they mark things up so much the only way that makes sense is if you have a student account with them. 

if I remember right, NTSC had a slightly non square pixel aspect ratio. I've seen things like this happen when the file is mastered with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio when it should be slightly different. a google search says the NTSC pixel aspect ratio was 1:0.906. This should be correctable in davinci resolve either by  manually distorting the vertical or by setting the correct pixel aspect ratio value. bringing it into an NTSC timeline alone might correct it in resolve itself, then you'd just need to export with the correct settings.

the old documentary hand clap with notes trick can work. but if it were me I'd just have a smart slate thats jammed to your audio device. so long as sound is rolling, you dont technically need to clap it you can just open the arm and let the TC run, and pan the camera briefly to see the slate. you can then match the timecode manually in post.

back in the day there were telecine machines that could actually take the timecode the Aaton would print onto the film and the tape audio and kind automatically jam the two in the transfer, but I dont think anyone is running a scanner anymore that can do that. 

having done evening available light tests with 16mm 7219 before, IMO you can push one stop so long as you rate at 800. It will be grainy, but still usable and even can be digitally cleaned up without much effort. 2 stops is an unrecoverable mess of confetti. in 35mm you can get away with more due to the extra negative size and the relative reduction in grain size.

11 minutes ago, Samuel Preston said:

I live in the EU, I haven’t seen any of the previous strikes affect the prices of gear over here. Maybe I just didn’t notice. 

But I’ll get in touch with AM and ask about what their movement includes or needs thanks!

Yeah the main thing is I need to check all other components of the 435 and see if they’re good, but i’m just figuring out feasibility of the project currently and trying to gather recourses to make it work.

I am an idiot for not reading your location. Honestly, if you're in Germany it may make more sense to have Arri check the camera out if Arri Munich will still look at private cameras. I know Berlin and Munich arent exactly right next to eachother, but if they'll look at it thatd be a lot easier than buying a camera in the EU, shipping to the US, then sent back to the EU. 

Cinefascilities is in the netherlands and I believe also services 435s, so that would be another local-ish option. At least an EU option.

But even being in the EU, there may be opportunities to buy US based cameras at a lower price if this strike goes down. I'd imagine locally prices might go up with so much US production looking to shift out of country right now.

Anyway, Im not trying to discourage you but rather make sure you dont buy a camera that will cost more to get operational than just buying a used but complete camera from square one. the last thing you want is to accidentally buy a money pit

7 hours ago, Samuel Preston said:

I have the opportunity to pick up a 435 with no movement for next to nothing, the am cameras movement would cost 6000, even with labor costs and the camera it would cost 1/2 of what ulis kit is up for. 

I’m not hoping for anything to be ‘low cost’ I’m a camera tech, I know what these things rightfully cost. But the end result would be, as i said, only a fraction of the cost of the current market prices. 

honestly, if you want a 435 just wait a bit and maybe try to pick one up if IATSE strikes. lots of people are currently dumping all kinds of gear to prepare for that eventuality.

a 435 with no movement is probably more valuable as spare parts. I think you'd need to know from someone like Andree at AMcaemra what other parts you would need. I remember last year there was a 535 3 perf movement kit for sale, and it had much more than the movement. there was the gate, the 3 perf gate mask, and a back panel of some sort that was required. 

plus, if you are picking up a camera without a movement, you have no way of testing to see what is or isnt working on the camera. what if the movement was pulled cause the board fried (or damaged)? 435 main boards are not common. What if one of the motors is no good? 

If you really want to, I'd get as many photos and videos as possible of this camera body and send them to Andree to see what he thinks. 

though again, a busted camera might be worth something to the right person for the spare parts

I dont think there are that many out there, and the ones that are out there appear to be workhorses (and money makers in the right hands). 

3 perf kits are uncommon at this point, which makes them quite valuable. you also need the 3 perf gate, not just the movement.

not sure what you're intending on using your 435 for, but finding and doing a 3 perf conversion may cost a lot more than any additional film costs incured by shooting 4 perf if its just for personal projects. 

if you need 3 perf for rentals and jobs, you probably would want to find an actual 3 perf camera. Arri certified pre owned actually had some 3 perf 435s for sale not too long ago, might be worth looking into if you need one asap. 

editing post cause I mis read that you want it for super 16.

I have one of these on my 435, and its exceptionally low latency and Im quite happy with it. Its perfectly fine to operate off of, and much lower latency than my SR3 VP IVS replacement tap (which I am not comfortable operating off of). the Mothco at least for the 435 can be operated off of, and Im fairly sure Oli using the same camera for all of his taps. 

Its not as good as an indie assist or Andree's camera he has for the 435 and SR3 elbow optic color and DR wise, but if what you need is HD for gauging focus remotely and/or making everyone less anxious I think its a good tap

Tyler covered the problems of going super wide fov with the s8 format. I would suggest, if you want to be on film, to actually just rent a 16mm or super 16mm camera, maybe a bolex. there are one or two 4-ish mm lens options out there, which would get you into the territory of an 8mm on 35mm film. The ones I remember off the top of my head are the Optex 4mm and the Century 6mm with the wide angle converter that makes it into a 4.5mm lens. I'd venture the century will be sharper than the optex, though my only experience with the optex line was their 8mm on super 16 (which was not a very sharp lens). 

If you're outside a major production hub it may be difficult to find some of this stuff, but there are some vendors out there who lean into film equipment over digital. I think Duall camera in NJ has a fair amount of 16 and s16 options. on the west coast old fast glass has a nice selection of stuff. 

but I would definitely rent if this is going to be a single project. if theres no money for production insurance, you may just want to deal with digital and super 8 film emulation. 

IIRC Hoyte van Hoytema has said they've output around 6k to imax film before for digital composites. Im not sure who their vendor was, but I'd imagine its fotokem

1 hour ago, Johnny Liu said:

First off, I would like to thank everyone who has responded to my post so far.  A lot of you have written a lot - a whole lot - about the subject and it's been a great learning experience!  Thanks for the time you have put into your feedback.

I know someone who is selling a CP-16R that has been converted into Ultra 16 for a fair price and I am giving it some thought.  I was originally thinking I needed a 16mm camera that is in Super 16 format, but reading up more on Super 16 and Ultra 16 today - and the aspect ratios of theatrical releases and streaming - and I am thinking that I may not necessarily need Super 16.  In fact, Ultra 16 seems to possibly make a lot of sense.

It seems that (from what I can see), theatrical releases are either 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.  Streaming releases are 16:9, which is 1.78:1, which is close to 1.85:1.  Ultra 16 is 1.85:1.  Super 16 is 1.66:1.  Thus, to get Super 16 footage converted to 1.85:1, you would have to crop off a little bit off the top and bottom anyways. 

Thus, I am thinking that Ultra 16 is not so bad then.  Am I mistaken?

FYI Ultra 16 as a format is not compatible with some film scanners. ones that can do overscan it'll be fine, but I dont think it works on a spirit or a scanity. ultra 16 is also not really a professional format, so there was never really a high end, precision conversion for that. you also may be a bit outside the image circle on some n16 lenses. I've been told before that ultra 16 can get some weird flaring sometimes. if something is wrong with the conversion you get, it may be problematic to fix.

You might be better off with a N16 camera, and just get into the practice of over exposing a little and/or doing a little post sharpening. there are some plugins out there like neat video that will let you de-grain, sharpen, and then mix back the original grain into the picture too.

If you want to go with that converted CP16, I would ask to see some footage from it that was shot with a wide angle lens just to make sure nothing funky is going on. I'd also check maybe with visual products what they would charge for basically a new camera inspection and service, that way you are all set up. 

I would also just check with at least Kodak lab in atlanta to see if they can do utlra16 on their scanstation. I believe they can, but you just want to make sure you're all good with whatever vendors you think you'll be relying on with this format

I think just to add, Im not sure if OP is fully aware of the need for crystal speed cameras for sync. you need crystal sync in order for the camera image to remain consistent in timing and thus be able to sync audio to. if your camera does not have a crystal speed controller either built in or attached externally, you will not be able to have sync sound with the picture

51 minutes ago, Ian Forbes said:

Sorted now, can you see the listing?

yup

not sure if you are limiting this to UK sales only, but FYI it only shows up on the uk site and not the .com site, even if you search world wide

maybe, but personally I've never seen any footage of those lenses that I liked. but I suppose its also possible that the lenses were not collimated to their maximum performance, which was reading fine digitally but wasnt quite there for film?

looks like it was 4 perf 35mm on an arricam lt with atlas orion anamorphics 

https://theasc.com/articles/framing-up-for-flowers#:~:text=Cinematographer Marcell Rév%2C ASC%2C HCA,her album Endless Summer Vacation.

honestly Im a little surprised, the resolution felt less than what you'd expect for 4 perf anamorphic. though I suppose its possible the atlas lenses are not that sharp. article doesnt say they pushed the stock, but the grain level almost feels like they did. but again, if the lenses are not super sharp that could just be drawing attention to the grain

59 minutes ago, Johnny Liu said:

If it was today or a couple months from now, I would say my budget for a camera (no lenses) would be up to $4000.

My thought is that I would like to make some kind of production (still figuring it out) that would have enough picture quality to be able to appear on streaming services - and (big dream) - perhaps even theatrical release.  I know I probably can't get more vague than that, but thanks.

 

I am not sure you'll be able to get a super 16 camera for that price that isnt a bolex, and even then it might be tricky. I would not count on being able to convert any regular 16 cameras to super 16 btw, and ultra 16 can be a bad idea (its not a professional format, and can result in weird flares or issues with some scanners). Conversions are labor intensive and the parts are generally not available. but if you had the parts, you might easily be spending another 5 grand just on a conversion. 

TBH I would not be willing to use anything older than an SR3 or maybe an aaton XTR for anything going somewhere big. you want the image stability of later cameras, along with a PL mount. you also want the ability to have the camera repaired fairly quickly and easily. its even getting hard to get some spare parts for the later arri and aaton cameras now, its much worse for older ones. In a professional shooting environment I'd very much be wanting to rent rather than use a film camera thats pre 1990. To buy, those cameras are going for a good $20k+ right now. Keep in mind you need to have a resource that can service and maintain your camera, as they are not like digital cameras. you've got parts that can wear down, things that need ocasional greasing etc.

As for your video assist questions, a 1080p low latency HD tap can be used to check focus, but that is dependent on knowing that everything is dialed in correctly - flange depth, lenses, ground glass, and tap mount. If you are using an older camera, the amount of light getting to the tap might not be great and thus may only be so useful. Generally on film, if you know your lens mount and lenses are dialed in, measuring with a measuring tape or laser is the way to do focus. But if everything is dialed in and you dont have a tap camera with latency issues you can operate off the video tap if need be. 

Im not trying to be down on your goals, but you definitely dont want to get into a money pit of an old camera that winds up costing thousands more than you anticipated. 

can you give us an idea of your budget and how you will use the camera?