Margaret Salmon

Just a wee update... I decided not to push the 5222 and it was fine (for my purposes).

Here are some screen grabs with a rough grade. Overall it performed so well in a variety of situations - some quite dark - I've love to work with it again. The refined but still present grain matched well with the set of Xenons I used on the Arri 2C. Final grade is next week, I'm hopeful my colourist will pull out more then I have... or he might be in tears ?  Thanks everyone for your advice & help. Best M

On 11/12/2021 at 7:29 PM, Ludwig Hagelstein said:

Hi Margaret,

 

First of all, I'd ask Ruhan or Antonio at Kodak London directly. They know their own process best and can help you make the best decision for your project. The better you communicate with your lab, the better they will be able to help you and advise you. These guys are crucially important in any analog project, even if they only come after the catering in the credits. 

 

In general though: Pushing increases contrast, graininess, and decreases sharpness a bit. You get a more visceral look. If your project is intended for big screen viewing, I would be careful as cinema audiences aren't used to grain any more and on the big screen you will have lots of it. If you plan for a small screen release pushing may be perfect to communicate a more film-ish look. 

Pushing only minimally increase actual photographic speed. For every stop you push, you get about one third of a stop in speed. If you underexpose one stop and push one stop to compensate it, you will effectively lose 2/3 of a stop in film speed. 

If you want to have a look at really pushed 5222 in motion picture use, view the bw intro sequence of the first Craig Bond, Casino Royale. That has several scenic layers which use different levels of push to tell the story. 

 

Cheers, Ludwig

 

 

 

 

Ludwig thanks! This is very useful - I'd not seen the Casino Royal work - I'll look into the technical details (for instance the toilet scene, how many stops...) I suppose Kodak London processed this as well; I'll ask! 

Your answer confirms my hesitancy about pushing... it's more of an aesthetic tool then really a magic 'lets make ISO 200/250 into a high speed film' get out of jail card. I'll do some readings & tests in the main location and see what I can get away with. 

I'm not too worried about grain but the contrast is a bigger concern and loss of detail in shadow/highlight. 

Thanks again & sending best from Glasgow

On 11/12/2021 at 2:45 PM, Philip Forrest said:

There is a long-running thread at Rangefinderforum.com showing results from 5222 shot as still film stock. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forum/cameras-gear-photography/rangefinder-forum/image-processing-darkroom-lightroom-film/film-developing-chemistry/53844-shooting-eastman-double-x-5222-in-the-leica

There's a lot of different developers used and quite a few folks have pushed and pulled the film. It's not motion, but it may help with finding out the look of the tonal curve when pushed.

Phil Forrest

Thanks Phil, that's very useful!

Hi!

I'm in pre-production on my first 35mm B&W project, making use of the new processing facilities at Kodak London. 

The work is all on location and with mostly available light - interiors and exteriors. I'm using the 5222 stock and filming in wintry Glasgow with a set of Xenon's, which have performed well wide open, in the past...

Anyone have experience pushing the 5222 or know films where I can see the results of pushing the 5222?

Any advice or experience shared is very welcome. Thanks!

All best 

Margaret

On 4/25/2021 at 1:37 AM, Jim Perry said:

Had the camera out today so thought I’d add an image of the 2 battery solutions I use. The Milwaukee is 12v and I’ve shot several hundred feet with no issues at 24p. The v-mount I haven’t tried but at full charge it’s 16.3v. 

Thanks Jim for your reply & the photos.

As a temporary solution I found an electrician who made a 12V to 4 pin XLR set up for me, but it was very basic and not all weather (which is a problem in Scotland). It worked fine and it's a useful back up.

But... I ended up buying a (admittedly luxurious) battery belt that can work with my Arri 435 and 2c from Hawk Woods here in the UK. Here's what I got - in particular it was really amazing to find a belt which would power BOTH 12V and 26V so I can use the same system with different cameras.

Hawk-Woods ( RP-B1 ) Reel-Power 26.0V Battery Belt — 26V 3-pin XLR & 12V Power-Con 

Hawk-Woods ( RP-M90 ) Reel-Power mini 26v 90Wh Battery 

Hawk-Woods ( PC-5R ) Power-Con 2-pin Plug (male) — XLR 4-pin right-angeld (female), 50cm length

I already have a 3 pin XLR cord for my 435, This was exciting to find as it accommodates both systems, I bought it from CVP.com

I've not used it with the 435 yet but am working on a project with the 2c now and the cord is a bit longer because of the adaptor but otherwise I love it. I still needed extra holes in the belt but it wasn't as loose as usual! (no, I'm not getting wider...). 

It was expensive, but I reasoned I'd not need a new system for quite a while. Here are some photos, thanks for yours

In filming I've been setting the variable speed motor near to 9, checking it's speed is 24 fps and shooting. But listening whilst filming handheld I do think the speed might be slightly inconsistent. Do you find that your motor fluctuates at all?  

Hi!

This is just a general plea for advice from anyone who's shot on 35mm from a small aircraft.

I'm set to film clouds and an urban landscape (Glasgow from above) also take-off and landing later this week (weather permitting). 

I'll be shooting on an Arri 2c and Kodak 5203 stock with Schneider Xenon primes, as well as a Cooke Speed Panchro Series III 18mm lens. And 1600 ft of stock for 1 hour flight. 

Anything to look out for? It's a Piper 3 seater aircraft - I can sit in the front or back... Will have an assistant to help with changing mags and possibly film if better positioned. 

Thanks ,

Margaret

19 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Hi Margaret,

I have an Arriflex 3C, very similar to your 2c. I haven't tried using a monopod with the flat base motor yet, but it seems like it should work just fine. I've put fully rigged Sony F5 and Red cameras on my Manfrotto monopod with no issue. Also have done it with my 16mm Canon Scoopic, though that is much lighter. You'd want a beefy monopod, and I'd go directly from the 3/8-16 screw into the base, rather than using a ball head in-between. It seems like the Gitzo you specified has a max payload of 66lbs, so you should be ok.

One thing that I've noticed when using the monopod this way - it can be very difficult to get shots with a stable horizon if you have a long camera build. My Sony F5 with 30-105mm Canon Cine Zoom and a battery on the back gets pretty long, and it's easy for the weight to pull the camera one way, and then the other. It can feel like you're on a boat at times, trying to keep the shot stable. So the lighter you can keep the load, and the more centered over the monopod, the more stable your footage will be. Use 200' mags and small prime lenses if possible!

Many thanks Satsuki! I was given a flat base for the 2c but haven't attempted it yet - the filmmaker who passed it on to me had forgotten how it worked and I've yet to find a guide video or manual (or had much time to search..).

I was hesitant to use the flat base for the work with the monopod as I was hoping for a quick change-over from pure handheld. I'm filming in people's homes with one assistant, multiple locations in a day and schlepping all the kit is also, well, you know. But the base could be the solution and will force me to engage with it!  I'm using a set of Schneider Xenon primes, a light battery belt, but with 400ft mag's - it should be ok with the Gitzo's payload, as you say, and should be more balanced. I'll report back on how it goes...

I have a Scoopic too - great camera ?

7 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

If you were in the USA I'd  say buy one at BH to try. You can always send it back for a refund. If you can do that where you are at...do it. You just have to test things. 

I used a monopod for a parade. But generally don't like them. But for the parade it was ok. 

Good luck!

Thanks Daniel!

I tried one borrowed from a friend since posting and it would be ideal for just that extra bit of stability... except the power cable blocks the base. I can probably source something to adapt it, I'll post if I do. I used a monopod with a Bolex for a shoot in a remote forrest a couple years ago and it was very useful - though a tripod is a better option. 

Hi,

I'm considering buying a monopod for working with the 2c... is this nuts?

It seems there's a Gitzo, the GM4562 Series 4, which may be able to cope with the weight.  I've been working with the original shoulder mount (more like a brace...) and finding it's not enough for long days of handheld.

I'm aware of options for tripods, I have a flat base (which might be working...), but need to be light and fast for this production. Has anyone tried working with a monopod with this model? 

Thanks!

Margaret

16 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh yea, they 100% make an HD IVS. But its more money than the camera is worth! They also didn't make very many and finding one for an Arricam is like finding a 3 perf movement, very tricky and extremely costly. It was $22,000 USD when released according to a price sheet I found. 

http://www.aoassocies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/arri_HD-IVS_brochure_en.pdf

Indie assist is another system and they were in development of an HD IVS for the 435 years ago, but according to their website, no further news on that front: 

https://www.indiecam.com/products/indieASSIST/

I don't know of anyone simply modifying the IVS. It's an integral part of the film camera on the 435. I've been looking around and talking to people about it for years and everyone kinda shrugs and says it's possible, but demand is just too low to warrant it. Sounds like a fun project tho! haha 

Thanks for this too - I know some rental houses in London have been modifying their systems to HD now that 35mm is back in fashion.  I can't image it's cheap, certainly not from what you report! Then again, I rarely shoot with a monitor when working on my own projects, so the thought of lightening the camera for handheld work and removing the IVS entirely is very tempting (and slightly nuts, I know!).

16 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ok so I talked to Andree. 

Looks like I was confused about the 2 perf mod vs 3 perf mod in my earlier comments. Andree was the one who developed the 2 perf movement for the 435. The 3 perf movement was something developed by Arri directly for the following reasons: 

Because you shorten the stroke by half a perf on the top and bottom of the stroke, you have now thrown the film into a different part of the frame range. This is easy to deal with gate wise, but and here is the problem, the registration pins would be half a perf in the wrong place. So basically it has the same problem as the arricam's. This is why Arri developed an entirely different movement for the 3 perf 435, which changes the location of the registration pins in relationship to the pulldown. 

Sadly, 3 perf is actually impossible without an original 3 perf movement from Arri. It's the same problem with the Arricam's and pretty much anything with that multi-link style movement. I'm not even sure Arri offered an upgrade either, reading through all the sales literature with accessories, there is nothing mentioned about 3 perf kits, like there are for the 235 and Arricam's. I believe the 3 perf's have to be made from the factory. 2 perf however, Andree said is possible, though I'm not certain if he'd want to attempt it. He didn't seem excited with the idea lol. 

So sorry for the confusion, I stand corrected by the master himself. Sorry I don't have better news, but it sounds like you're stuck with what ya got. 

 

Thanks Tyler, I really appreciate your effort, though I'm sorry to hear the bad news! But it could explain why there are quite a few 4 perf 435's coming up (and not the 3 perf!). The price was really decent, so I'll survive, just need to find a 1000 ft magazine now and be more discerning when I film ?  

On the other hand... it's Interesting to hear that there was a 2 perf modification for the 435. I was speaking with a technician yesterday who said that the 2C had Arri conversion kits from 4 to 2 perf. I suppose this is not so far off from Super 16mm, kind of defeats the point of 35mm, but I have a 2C and am tempted to investigate. 

Thanks again from Scotland!

9 hours ago, Heikki Repo said:

Quick googling brought up this service provider in the Netherlands:

https://www.cinefacilities.com/

Thanks for the contact - I'll get in touch. They might have more info on the conversion too.

11 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Andree Martin here in CA should be able to do the mod. I'm not sure if he has the parts in stock to do it, but it's not as hard as some of the later cameras. Due to the fact the magazine does the sprocket drive and that it has the older style single cam movement, its really just down to machining the cam and getting the reduction gear pack for the magazine sprocket drive. The gate is pretty easy to modify to 3 perf. Not saying the whole thing is easy by any means, but it's FAR more doable than the double cam movements. 

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

From my understanding it was a team effort on the part of Clairmont and Arri, there were no "public" kits like the 235 and Arricam's. 

Arri did have a 3 perf body towards the tail end of production, but no kits mentioned in any price guides I've been able to find. If you find one, I'd like to know, for educational value alone. 
 

You make the assumption you can still get Arricam and 235 kits, from my understanding you can't anymore. Which would make those cameras far more tricky to "modify", not simply install pre-made parts with instructions. I've been a witness to the 235 and Arricam conversion before. It's not difficult at all, just time consuming. But again, imagine if you didn't have the parts, imagine if there was no kit and you were making it from scratch. That's what I mean by "converting an Arricam is more difficult", with the assumption there are NO kits available for ANY camera and you were starting from scratch. Andree doesn't need to start from scratch, he already knows what needs to be done. 

Yes, the Arricam is a much easier system to get apart and modify, zero doubt or argument about that. But again, my point is in a world with NO kits, where you're making the parts and installing them, similar to a BL or Arri III conversion. This is what AM was known for, designing and developing alternative cam's and gear sets, which change the pull down distance and the speed at which the sprockets run at. 

Also, I believe the 435 gates had 3p masks in them, not complete gate replacements. 

I got 2 e-mails out about it for curiosity sake, hopefully I'll have more answers tomorrow. 

Thanks Tyler, I'll get in touch with AM to find out, I'm glad to know of them now. The camera just arrived from LA... sigh.

From what's been written, it seems not easy, but not impossible; the analog way? I'm still hopeful. Any additional info you find is much appreciated.  

9 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Once again, Tyler proves that not knowing the first thing about something is no impediment to offering advice on the subject.

Here's Andree Martin's quote when Uli contacted him about a 435 conversion a couple of years ago:

"There isn't much information out there when it comes to the 435. Unlike the 235 and Arricams, the installation of a 3 perf kit into a 435 is quite difficult and it requires special tools and a highly experienced technician."

So basically the opposite of what Tyler said. Arricams are fairly simple to convert if you have the conversion kit, I actually did an Arricam conversion just a few weeks back. You can convert between 3 and 4 perf in a day.  But a 435 is much more difficult, just removing the movement is a major disassembly, compared to a few screws on Arricams. The 435 movement is a 5 link dual pulldown mechanism, not "single cam", and the gate is swapped over, not modified. I don't think finding a 435 conversion kit would be easy. 

 

Probably the most experienced film camera techs in the UK these days would be at Panavision London, where film cameras are still being rented quite often, but I don't know if they would take external service work. Otherwise perhaps contact London Arri Rental to find out who services their analog cameras. There may still be Arri techs in Munich who haven't retired. We used to use Gecko-Cam for many years but they have pretty much transitioned to digital only.

Thanks Dom, disappointing to hear but I'll keep looking - will try Arri and rental house contacts to see if anyone emerges up to the task. I'd assumed the 3 perf I shot on before was a conversion, should have investigated!

Out of interest - and forgive my complete ignorance here - can the IVS be converted to HD?

On the other hand... could I remove the IVS entirely and lighten the camera? How difficult is this to do?

11 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

I own a 435 3perf, they were made both as 3 and 4perf by Arri. 

Oh that's painful news... I bought this basic set up at a very good price, was hoping to convert it for obvious reasons! I have a 2C 4 perf.

I'm looking to find some accessories for it - in particular I need a bridge plate. Is there any source that you know of besides eBay and BB List for Arri gear?

Thanks Uli, I did find a post saying it is very difficult if not impossible to do (today) but already have the camera! I swear I shot on a 435 that was 3 perf from Movietech a while back. Any thoughts on someone to service it?

Hi, can any one in the UK recommend a good engineer to convert my Arri 435 from 4 to 3 perf?

I'm in Scotland but can ship South ? Thanks 

Hi I'm looking to buy/source a portable battery for use with an Arri 2C Variable Speed motor.

I've got a power cable to 4 pin XLR.

Anyone know someplace in the UK I can find the right battery (quickly!) and possibly get it placed into something workable for filming handheld? (battery belt)

Thanks!