Raymond Zrike

I think the light is actually green based on this quick correction I attempted.

Here is the original:

Here is the correction:

While everything in the shot looks fine, you can see that the green marker on the slate has completed shifted along with the HMI light.

5 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

I wonder if it's an effect of the mixed daylight/gelled HMI.

I had that thought too, though the daylight was gelled just the same as the HMI since the window was gelled rather than the HMI itself.

5 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

it reads as not so much green as very deficient in blue- something like R66, G67, B42%

I'll try adding blue.

We might end up leaning into the green daylight for these shots anyway. It's a fantastical film where the outside world is supposed to be hazardous. But it'd still be nice to know what is going on exactly.

We shot a 1.2k HMI (fresnel) through a window during the day. We gelled the window with full CTO (LEE Filters I believe) and shot on 200T s16. Why does the light through the window appear green? It’s not what I expected, but I also don’t have very much experience with HMIs. The other lights in the scene are LiteMat 4s set to 3200k.

Above is a scan from Kodak NY with a ScanStation. I threw on a very basic grade.

Price decrease to $950.

I am selling a Cartoni Focus 12 fluid head in excellent condition. 100mm ball base with 0 to 26lb load capacity. I bought it new from B&H in 2022.

There are some dings here and there, but it is fully functional. New, the fluid head sells for $1450, so I am listing this for $1000. Plus $25 to ship in the US. Local pick up in NYC. I can take PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, cash. Open to offers.

In my opinion, this is the best proper fluid head you can get under $3k. Only reason I'm selling is because I needed just a bit more weight capacity for my very heaviest rig.

Images

I am selling an Abakus 132 B4 to Super-16 PL expander. It expands the image circle of B4 lenses to cover super-16 with a magnification factor of 1.32x (so multiply the focal length of your B4 lens by that amount).

There have been B4 to S16 PL adapters from a variety of different manufacturers—having owned a number of them, I can tell you that this is the best. MTF’s adapter is of lower optical quality while IB/E’s adapter lets in less light (it loses a stop of light while the Abakus 132 loses about 0.8 stops; additionally, IB/E’s adapter is limited to a max T-stop input of T1.9 while the Abakus 132 does not have that limitation). The Abakus 132 fully optically corrects the 3-chip image format for use on a single sensor/film.

It is in great condition with clear glass. Includes caps.

My price is $1100. Plus $10 to ship in the US. I can take PayPal, Venmo, Zelle.

Images

I assume no sync sound? Because if it’s MOS, you could just slow the footage down to 15fps (a minor slowdown) and then double it to make 30fps. If there is sync sound, you might have to use software to create frames to bring it to 24fps, or else there will be skipping during pans/tilts and movement.

I’m looking for some sort of option for super-16 dailies in NYC. Is there anything slightly affordable? Kodak NY has great processing rates, but I asked them about what the pricing would be for dailies, and they just quoted me their regular HD scan price.

Is there anybody in NY, NJ, or CT that’s got a not-so-great scanner like a Blackmagic Cintel? I assume they’d be able to run the scanner at a fast speed cheaply. The scans can look bad as long as the film is handled properly.

I don’t need the dailies actually daily, maybe every four or so days—I’ve just got a month-long shoot and don’t want to fly blind the whole time.

1 minute ago, aapo lettinen said:

another matter is that if the camera kit is lacking in some way and is too expensive for the filmmaker, then it is pretty challenging to plan and execute any actual projects with it and one may end up making just some single roll "camera test short films" which are not actually even movies, just something one scrapes together to get an excuse to shoot at least SOMETHING with the camera.

but yes, if a poor-ish indie filmmaker can manage get hands on a working 16mm sync sound camera after saving and hunting one down for years, it is likely still lacking in some way (bad ergonomics / unreliable / poor viewfinder / noisy / missing important accessories / weird lens mount so one cannot use the lenses one wants / etc) and that limits its usability so much that the said filmmaker will still not have much use for it even when using so much time and money and effort to get that camera kit.

Best to rent or borrow a known-working camera in that situation.

3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Fotokem is the number one lab in the US. I spend a great deal of time there and honestly this year outside of Oppenheimer, they've been pretty quiet, according to them.

Things are slow right now in general. Rental houses I've talked to have said so, across the board (film and digital). There's a strike going on after all. And a quasi-recession.

Regarding Kodak stock, they definitely don't seem to have the shortages like they used to, but 7213 400' has been out of stock at B&H for a while. Kodak hasn't been responding to my emails about the stock either. Will be calling them this week.

1 hour ago, James Compton said:

Then you have TV shows that are shot film. Season 1 of 'WINNING TIME' was epic, and here is the trailer for Season 2, as well as the behind the scenes footage of 'ASTEROID CITY'.

And the best show of the last ten years (in my opinion, since Breaking Bad): Succession. 

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.

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:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1332909-REG/angenieux_optimo_15_40mm_lightweight_wide_angle.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1332910-REG/angenieux_optimo_style_16_40_with_asu_optimo_style_16_40mm_wide_angle.html

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.