Raymond Zrike

17 minutes ago, Brian Drysdale said:

You may find that you can only use the music for a limited time.

That's true. I should have clarified that in-perpetuity is pretty uncommon. Besides the online rights, the two licenses I got included a year for festivals. Most will limit online use to a few years also.

Also keep in mind that there is a in-between option: getting someone to cover a piece of music. Often times that is a much cheaper option. You then only have to pay the rights holders for the written music rather than the recording itself (and then you obviously have to pay the cover artist). This is why a lot of ads have covers instead of originals.  

Lights are big and heavy. I feel like it's simply much more convenient to pick them up from a rental house along with everything else than to have them moved to set from a separate location (presumably your home). 

But yes, buy glass! 

Typically there are two parties you have to contact to be able to use a song in a film (occasionally it is only one if the song was released independently). Look up what label holds the rights to the music. Look up their licensing info online and contact them. They will likely give you a quote after you give them more information about the film. Then you can also ask them who they believe to be the other rights holders.

Zappa might not fit within a micro budget, but there's no harm in asking. For reference, I've licensed music for two shorts that I directed. The label was called The Flenser, and I was able to get online right in-perpetuity for $850 each (they were the only rights holders as I believe the musicians themselves run the label).

21 hours ago, M Joel W said:

Night for night (no grade beyond a LUT):

https://vimeo.com/749452544

Looks incredible. Agree with David though that planning around those specific conditions would be a nightmare.

Photos: https://imgur.com/a/OSo6KzJ

I’m also putting up for sale my Optar Illumina 16mm T1.3 for Super 16. I’m looking for $2000.

This lens was completely overhauled by AbelCine earlier this year (and it wasn’t cheap). Incredibly smooth aperture and focus. Glass is fantastic. No issues at all. This is the best condition Optar Illumina I’ve encountered in recent years.

Includes an adapter for PL mount. AbelCine collimated the lens for PL with this exact mount. I’ve tested the lens extensively.

Includes front and back caps.

Listing this for $2000. I will cover PayPal fees. Free shipping in the US.

Photos: https://imgur.com/a/kK2nZp3

I’m putting up for sale my Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 ZF.2 Cine-Mod with EF mount for $2400.

It’s been completely cine-modded by Duclos. That means it has every mod that they provide: a 95mm front with cap (86mm filter thread), focus gear, iris gear, aperture de-click (damped movement), and a semi-permanent mount conversion to EF. Most of the time, the cine-modded Otus lenses that come up for sale don’t have manual aperture nor the iris gear—this one has both.

Keep in mind: this is a ZF.2 (Nikon) lens that has been converted to EF. That means that auto aperture control won’t be possible, but that’s the trade off for the fully manual aperture (which is much preferable IMO).

Duclos took a look at the condition of the lens when they modded it. They noted a small, minor coating scratch on the front element. I have looked at the image this lens projects, and it has no issues nor loss of contrast. Otherwise, it is in excellent to like new condition.

Reason for sale is that I’m unfortunately bound to PL mount now. Not particularly happy that I won’t be able to keep the highest quality lens I’ve ever owned, but it is what it is!

Front and back cap included.

Looking for $2400. I will cover PayPal fees. Shipped free in the US. Cheaper if you buy it here instead of my eBay listing!

PM’d

17 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

That makes no sense - the moon casts the same shadows as the sun does, just much dimmer.

 

Alright, alright… I’m completely wrong, I admit haha. Was thinking that the moon was a softer source than it is. Looked up some info on moonlight shadows and the first article that popped up had your nighttime photos in it!

I’m still left feeling like the day for night in Nope looked a little off… but now I can’t ascribe a reason to it. Maybe a subconscious thing since I had seen BTS photos before the film (and knew they shot all those scenes during the day). I still loved the movie—the night scenes feeling a bit wonky fits the tone of the rest of the film anyway. Plus great tech of course.

7 minutes ago, Mark Dunn said:

No problems here buying a splicer.

I've also had an item on offer there for a decade or more- it is a bit specialised though- 6x6 filters that actually are 6x6. 

I suspect it works rather better in Europe, but it's always had international listings,, so who knows.

Good to hear. It’s an odd site that’s seemingly not remotely been modernized over the years, but as long as it’s not a long-standing scam, it seems like I’m probably good to go ahead with the purchase.

1 hour ago, David Sekanina said:

It's an escrow. The buyer will be paid automatically after 48 hours of you receiving the goods unless you complain. You only have 24 hours to examine the goods, and cancel the transaction if there is a discrepancy in the description of the goods by the seller, and what you actually received. This is very short for film cameras, if you want to do a steadiness test, have it developed and scanned within 24 hours. They have a youtube video explaining it:

 

Holding the money in escrow works for me, but it’s still got to be a trusted service since they seem to be the ones managing the escrow, not an outside company. I just wanted to see if people had had any successful or unsuccessful transactions on the site.

24 hours is definitely not very long. I don’t intend to buy a film camera with them—I agree, that isn’t long enough to do any reals test. I’m looking at purchasing a lens. I think I should be able to make sure the lens is up to the seller’s stated condition standard within 24 hours I think. At this point I’ve seen enough busted lenses to recognize fungus, haze, etc haha. Though typically I drop off lenses I’ve just purchased at AbelCine for a thorough look over (they unfortunately take about 3-4 days).

Talking about this site: https://www.bblist.co.uk . I don't have much experience with it besides making a few offers, but it looks like I might be making a purchase from someone on there soon. Anyone have any good/bad experience with the site? I'm in the US and had only heard about it last year--don't know how common the site is in Europe. The payment system confuses me a bit, so I'll have to look into that, but if it's got similar buyer protection to eBay (which I am a fan of unlike a lot of people), then all's good.

It was mostly convincing, but you could see the seams a bit when the main character wore a hat. The hat would occasionally cast a hard downward shadow on his face which obviously shouldn’t be happening if it were actually night. Not distracting however.

Thank you for all your input regarding the clearance of these lenses. Seems like it'll work! Looking forward to trying them out as an incredibly compact anamorphic 16mm rig. 1.5x stretch seems much more useful than the 1.3x stretch that has been often used for super-16 anamorphic shoots. Hopefully the lenses resolve well enough, especially the widest of the bunch, to look alright on the smaller format given they were designed for super-35. Hopefully will rent at least the 27mm by the end of the year and posts some tests.

Does anybody recommend other places besides AbelCine and Duclos that'll CLA and repair vintage cine lenses in the US? Those are the only two I've tried-they're pretty good, not perfect, and I'd like to see if there's anybody else with better pricing. Specifically Ultra16 (which I guess are vintage now?) and Super Speed S16 lenses. Anywhere in the US, but on the east coast would be even better!

Loawa did say they cleared the Alexa cameras, though they didn’t specify if that meant all of them. Maybe the lenses would hit the mirror in something like an Arricam? Or maybe they were just being cautious considering they couldn’t test every camera.

At the very least, the two Nanomorph lenses that have back elements that are shorter than a 20mm Elite S16, as shown in your diagram, will fit in an SR3. I’d presume the one that is moderately longer would also fit given it fits on the Alexa Studio.

I think I’ve heard of some lenses that don’t hit the mirror on Aaton bodies but do on the SRs, so hopefully somebody knows the SR3 dimensions. But this is helpful information, thanks! Seems like the Nanomorphs could be a great match for a diminutively sized camera like the A-Minima.

When I saw the announcement, I just realized how perfect a 1.5x stretch would be for super-16. 1.66 * 1.5 = 2.49. Would be super interesting to shoot with, though I’d have to probably supplement with a spherical lens on the wide end.

Does anyone have the measurements for the mirror clearance of an Arriflex SR3? I’m trying to figure out if the new Laowa Nanomorphs would hit the mirror. Laowa said they won’t work with S35 cameras with mirrors, but I know that typically S16 lenses’ back elements went deeper into the body.

Here are the lens measurements that they sent me: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xn20mL1gq7JEy3LOjYaYPF8miEijk8kd/view. Are they safe to use?

26 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Try it with film, should be quieter.

Oh interesting. My ACL is definitely louder with film loaded than without, so I just assumed that was the case across the board. Will try with film ASAP. Thanks!

Does anyone have a video or audio clip of an SR3 (non-highspeed) running? The SR3 Advanced I just got sounds a bit odd, running at 24fps without film. I’ve only ever been around SR3s while shooting MOS, so I never really paid attention to the noise. Does it sound like this camera needs a service? Is it typically the body or the mags that need servicing when the noise is too much?

Video of it running at 24fps without film: https://imgur.com/a/R8Gdkbn I’m going to test with film soon—don’t have any short ends at the moment. It sounds about the same with any of the three mags I have.

3 hours ago, Eddie Rio Jr said:

How do you find a Eclair Facebook Group ?

I think this link will take you there. Pretty sure you have to join to post anything though. https://facebook.com/groups/242957697717555/

I’m planning on upgrading my SR3 Advanced with an HD video tap. It’s got an IVS currently, but I got lucky and found a video optic elbow (just received it from Brazil). Is AM Camera’s 2K HD Assist the best option? It seems to be about $1k more than the other elbow HD tap options from AZ Spectrum and Visual Products, but I’ve heard it might be a superior tap. Plus AZ Spectrum said it would be a six month turnaround.

Is AM Camera’s tap legitimately flicker free at 24fps (rather than “nearly” like the other ones)? Anyone have any footage of it running? How’s pulling focus off of it and the low light performance? Just want to hear some thoughts before putting down so much cash.

I know this has been asked a bunch of times, but the HD tap options out there keep shifting.

10 minutes ago, Eddie Rio Jr said:

Have you found a Eclair NPR yet ? If not I have one For Sale

I recommend you post your sale on the Eclair Facebook group. It’s pretty active.

This was listed back during the Obama administration—I have a feeling it’s sold by now.

2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I do notice a trend for one side to seem to want to kill off the other. Film 'purists' don't want to kill off digital. But a lot of digital people seem to have an angry bee in their bonnet and want to do film in totally.

Exactly. I’m as big a film fanatic as they come, and yet I pick digital for half my projects! They both can be beautiful—why dismiss either? Now I’m starting to sound like one of those tacky coexist bumper stickers.

4 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The ideal look for me for a feature movie is to shoot on film and project as a DCP. I think the digital revolution is a good thing in many ways. But is it the death of film? I don't think so!!

Amen to that. I go to 35mm screenings all the time because for a lot of pre-2000s movies it’s the best way to see them, but for my own work, the digital intermediate is a godsend. Yes shooting film costs money, but many people don’t realize just how much we’re saving, and how much more control we’re afforded, with a modern day post workflow. In addition to that, the HD video tap is a wonderful invention that bridges the reliability gap between digital and film production. I have a feeling many of the older members of this forum who blindly dismiss modern-day 16/35 production have not shot with an HD tap!