Raymond Zrike
-
Posts
244 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Raymond Zrike
-
-
On 6/16/2023 at 1:04 PM, aapo lettinen said:
On the last low budget shoot I did the lighting budget only allowed shooting at ISO 2000 or more. My regular iso for lit scenes was 4000 and for most indie persons it would be tough to get enough lighting gear and crew to shoot lower than 640 or 800 ISO. if one needs from 3 to 10 times more lighting gear to shoot on film it really limits what one can do in low budget levels, especially because more gear needs lots more crew as well and there is serious limitations in available electric power one can have on these budget levels (usually one is limited to from 2kw to 6kw maximum in most situations by my experience.
I’m confused where all your light is going? I don’t really have much issue exposing for film, even the slower stocks like 200T. Just some rough math—Arri quotes (for the 650W Plus) 110 fc at 9.8’ full flood and 544 fc at 9.8’ spot while Kodak’s spec sheet for 200T says it requires just 50 fc at f/2.8. That seems like plenty to me, even with diffusion. 650W is definitely a budget light—bought a couple for $200 recently. You can have a few of those on a basic household circuit. Add on the fact that Super Speeds are fine at T2+, and I’ve got Ultra 16s which are fine wide open at T1.3. I’ve even shot 500T with household bulbs.
Admittedly, I like my lighting very straightforward and unadorned—I point a couple lights at a person and shoot, basically. Other people may want much more light, much further away, and pointed 180 degrees away from the subject or something, but that isn’t usually the vibe I go for and thankfully that keeps the lighting budget moderately low, even when shooting on film.
And you might run into budgetary issues if you’re trying to light much larger spaces, but then you can’t really call that low-budget filmmaking anymore anyway.
As for camera costs, I’ve had my SR3 with HD tap on Sharegrid in NYC since the beginning of the year at the lowest price I’ve seen in LA/NYC (will be off the market for a couple months now as I shoot a feature). I get about two rentals per month, which is alright, but not a ton. I think it is simply just the cost of the stock that holds low-low-budget productions back. Music videos tend to be able to afford film because they have such short runtimes with low shooting ratios, but narrative work is where it gets tight. But that really is only a problem for the very budgetarily starved (i.e. any production that defaults to shooting on a Blackmagic camera). For a production that is in the Alexa/Venice price bracket, film, especially s16, isn’t much of a budgetary change. That’s why you see so many of these low-budget-but-not-Blackmagic-low-budget movies that go to Cannes pick film.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Does anyone have any examples of 500T rated at around 320 versus 200T at box speed on super-16?
I’m going to be shooting about 7000’ in a small interior soon. I’ll have a set of Arri tungstens (a couple 1ks, 650Ws, 350Ws, and 150Ws). I expect to be shooting in the 150-400 ASA range most of the time, so I’m wondering which of these two options to pick. I have Ultra 16s, so I’m comfortable going down to T1.3/T2.
I see some other threads about this, but the videos that people link to are almost all 720p videos from a decade ago.
We don't have the budget for tests. In my head, I slightly prefer 500T, but my reasons don't make any sense, so I'm looking for opinions. Sharpness and saturation are paramount.
I was planning on just going ahead with an order of a bunch of 200T, but our provider is out of stock, so it's making me reconsider. We can delay the production if 200T is truly what we need.
Planning on a 4K HDR DI.
-
How do you swap the focus scales?
-
Yeah, it seems unfortunate that no other company has manufactured a 1.2x since there is still a bit of a market for one. I’ve got my eBay notifications turned on.
Although, I was mainly planning to use it with the Optimo 17-80mm I just bought, but it looks like it pretty much covers an Alexa 35 at 4K which was my primary concern. I’d need the 1.2x to cover open gate though.
-
Does anyone have a 1.2x expander/extender PL-to-PL mount for sale? I believe Veydra was the only manufacturer to make one, but if there is another 1.2x model I'm unaware of, let me know.
-
Does anyone have a triangular aperture 18mm? Sometimes people call them B-Speeds, sometimes Mk 1, but either way, I’m talking about the triangular aperture version.
-
That photo is of Ultra Primes, not Ultra 16s.
-
What’s the problem with flipping the camera on its side? I’ve used all sorts of cameras, although never an LF, on their sides. For instance, I flip the camera sideways for full body shots on a green screen.
-
The trend in optical design you’re describing definitely seems to be the case for many manufacturers.
Regarding the original Optimo zooms and the Optimo Style zooms, they seem to still both be sold new on B&H:
Of course, B&H’s “special order” items aren’t the most reliable sources for what lenses are still being manufactured (I remember that they claimed Zeiss Ultra 16s where in stock recently until someone questioned them about it), but presumably they were both being manufactured semi-recently at the same time. How does Angenieux justify the price difference if both are comparable with film cameras? The small T-stop difference and a notable difference in optical quality? Or just the T-stop difference?
The change in market positioning and design reminds me of the cheaper Zeiss LWZ-2 replacing the Arri LWZ-1, which don’t have many optical differences between them according to most people I’ve talked to, but correct me if I’m wrong there.
Mainly wondering because I’m wanting to see if a rental house would find value in owning the original Optimo 15-40mm T2.6 and 28-76mm T2.6 if they already own the Optimo Style 16-40mm T2.8 and Optimo Style 30-76mm T2.8.
-
I’m sure this has been asked a bunch of times, but I can’t find a relevant answer from the last few years—could someone explain the differences between the various Angenieux zoom models? The original Optimo vs Optimo DP vs Optimo Style vs EZ? Talking about all their zooms post-HR. I know that the primary difference between the DP lenses and the original Optimos is that the DPs don’t work with film cameras, but other than that, I’m confused by the classifications.
Are the Optimo Style zooms just rebranded Optimo DPs? Are there optical differences between the models other than their usability with film cameras (and a slight change in max T-stop)?
It's at least obvious to me that the EZ lenses are different designs than the others, but how do they compare optically (on super-35)?
-
That focal length doesn’t exist.
-
Probably a good idea. Let me know when it’s on the market again!
-
Interested. I'll DM you.
-
All the 10-30s are likely in the hands of rental houses at this point.
-
What amount of weight do you think is okay for PL mount before you need support? I’m wondering if I should use support for a Canon 7-63mm on an SR3. The lens is about 4.5lbs. I’ve used support for lenses in the 6.5-8lb range before, but I’m curious where it flips over to not being a concern anymore. It’s my own camera, so I’d like to keep the mount in good shape.
-
The newest Lord of the Rings 4K release suffers from a ton of DNR, so I don't think it is a good representation of how it looked in theaters. A bit of revisionism from Peter Jackson. He used the same horrible de-noising on his Beatles doc.
Also, the current available transfer of Pulp Fiction is very old. A 4K release is coming out next month. I presume it will be quite good considering the quality of the recent Reservoir Dogs restoration.
-
If you're renting out, go with whichever you can get cheaper. They'll both be relevant for a while. The regular mini still rents out after all. And I believe Arri has said that they aren't planning to stitch two Alexa 35 sensors together anytime soon, so I don't think we'll be seeing an update on the LF for a bit. Unless someone here has more up-to-date info than me.
-
Sold (camera and lens).
-
4 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:
1937, 1954, 1976 or..........?
They mean the one from 2018 directed by Bradley Cooper, shot by Libatique.
-
I’m planning on selling my Super-16 ACL 1.5 for $4500. I also have an Optar Illumina 16mm T1.3 PL (completely overhauled by AbelCine) that I can bundle together for $5500. This is the most complete ACL package around in my opinion! Prices are all over the place for this camera—I think this is reasonable for a super-16 model.
It was converted to Super-16 by Bernie of Super-16 Inc a few years ago. He also enhanced the ground glass with his LaserBrighten method and did a general service to the camera. His super-16 conversion was the best around. The ground glass has the proper 1.66 lines and is centered. And the super-16 conversion doesn’t scratch the film like some aftermarket conversions do.
Comes with the following:
- two adapters—one for PL and one for bayonet. Both made by Les Bosher specifically for this camera.
- one 400’ French mag in great shape
- two 200’ French mags. As you probably know, the 200’ mags accept 100’ daylight rolls perfectly fine. One of the 200’ mags is slightly broken—the latch that keeps the lid attached broke off. I have included the little piece in a plastic bag. I believe it could be fixed with a bit of hot glue or metal work (or just put tape all the way around to keep it shut). Otherwise the mags are in great shape.
- crystal sync motor, works as it should at both 24p and 25p. 12-75fps. I’m unsure of the name of the motor, but it is definitely crystal sync (I can get you more detailed photos of the motor if you’d like).
- fully articulated viewfinder
- sound barney
- hand grip
- base for 15mm rods
- SmallRig top handle
- two batteries and a charger. They likely should be recelled, but I have used one of the batteries in the last few months and it was fine.
- flight case
I’ve shot a few shorts over the last two years with this camera and I’ve run into no issues.
The Optar Illumina 16mm is in perfect condition.
Pick-up can be arranged in NYC—otherwise, I will ship on your expense. PayPal Goods & Services only. Ask me any questions you may have. Open to offers.
Photos: https://imgur.com/a/rBdNS4w
-
10 hours ago, Ian Rigby said:
Sold thanks!
Wow that went fast. Was about to ask. If you've got any other Ultra16s you are planning to sell, let me know.
-
I can attest that Andres is a good seller ?
-
1
-
-
As I said, there is no way to get Master Primes to fit. See this thread.
Original Panchros fit I believe; I don’t know about the rehoused ones. I will say though, the wide angle Panchros are not going to look great on super-16.
If the barrel size is closer to the Master Primes, they won’t fit. If they are closer to the Ultra Primes, they’ll likely fit.
-
There are certain lenses like the Master Primes that are just impossible to fit on the SR3 (it’s partially why they developed the 416). Use the Ultra16s instead if you can. But many others will fit if you move the viewfinder, like most Ultra Primes and S4s (although I’m not sure if someone has tried S4/is). CP.2s also fit.
I just made a post about Sigma Cine Primes on an SR3. Doesn’t seem like anyone has tried that combo yet, so I might just rent and see. What lenses are you wanting to use on an SR3?
416 prices are insane right now, but I doubt they’ll ever come close to SR3 prices. I’d definitely recommend an SR3 for that reason. Although I stick with Arri, you may want to consider an Aaton XTR Plus/Prod since they can take just about any lenses. The Prods tend to go for more than SR3s right now (even though they’re equivalent) because they don’t go up for sale nearly as often, but they also rent out well like the SR3s if that’s a concern for you.
Where are we at with film??
in General Discussion
Posted
And the best show of the last ten years (in my opinion, since Breaking Bad): Succession.