Jump to content

Aaton Penelope-2


Nathan Milford

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

Finally, a true film and/or digital camera system for professionals- from a company that knows the needs of pros.

 

Nathan, any insider info on the digi mags availability or development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, a true film and/or digital camera system for professionals- from a company that knows the needs of pros.

 

Nathan, any insider info on the digi mags availability or development?

 

Looking at the stills on their publicity the 2.35:1 2 perf frame sits evenly between the sprockets with a small amount of matting either side, is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Looking at the stills on their publicity the 2.35:1 2 perf frame sits evenly between the sprockets with a small amount of matting either side, is that correct?

 

That's what it looks like.

 

 

I'm impressed. The whole deal seems very well thought out in this age of "make it now and figure out how to use it well in the next year."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Looking at the stills on their publicity the 2.35:1 2 perf frame sits evenly between the sprockets with a small amount of matting either side, is that correct?

 

Hi Andy,

 

Then the lens is centered for S35.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah, it's centered on the negative, not for academy.

 

In a camera that only shoots 2-perf and 3-perf (despite what I claimed otherwise about its capabilities, 4-perf would have made it more expensive of a design than they wanted it to be) there is no need to have anything academy 'centered,' though every other iteration of Techniscope I've encountered has it academy centered.

 

- nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I know people who have shot 2-perf for 1.85 extraction.

 

There is more negative for 1.85 in 2-perf than in 16mm, but its a bit daft, as you're wasting a lot of film and paying more.

 

2-perf is pretty much a widescreen format. Want to shoot something else? Then use a different format.

 

- nathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the stills on their publicity the 2.35:1 2 perf frame sits evenly between the sprockets with a small amount of matting either side, is that correct?

 

Which makes it incompatible with previous Techniscope cameras such as ArriIIC. CM3 with the old style Scope aperture 23.8mm ought to be easily modified, since the centered frame still falls inside the scope aperture. Open up the Techniscope matte.

 

Do the arri Techniscope cameras use the same configuration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you have an Aaton A-body and Cameflex, Kinor or ARRI-IIc B-body on the same shoot, you will have an offset between the A-Body and B-Body on the negative.

 

I doubt if 'compatibility' is a major concern if you're going to a DI. It will not matter all that much what the centering is to anyone but the dailies/scanner guy.

 

That is, unless, you're foolish enough to try to do everything optically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Do the arri Techniscope cameras use the same configuration?

No. (One of my camera bodies is a 2C/T Techniscope.) The actual gate dimensions are different from the one Aaton is proposing, which appears to be designed to harbor a 2-perf image within a super 35 width gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Once you leave the world of 4-perf regular 35mm you leave the world of strictly established gate dimensions.

 

With S35, 3-perf, S16 exact dimensions differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. For S16 there is a reasonable discrepency for the size of the S16 gate due to the placement of Aaton's TC printer and ARRI's registration pin. They couldn't come together on a spec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. (One of my camera bodies is a 2C/T Techniscope.) The actual gate dimensions are different from the one Aaton is proposing, which appears to be designed to harbor a 2-perf image within a super 35 width gate.

 

I was referring to the new ones, which are rental only. Arricams and 235s.

 

You'll find an ArriMedia ad for them at he bottom of this page:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...60&start=60

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard from someone here that their ARRISCAN can do 2-perf since it was developed in New Zealand. I'm guessing that means WETA. Anyways she said that ARRI however had disabled the 2-perf function in their scanner. How hard would it be for them to enable this function again? Surely ARRI would want to do this now that they are offering 2-perf movements for the 235 and the ARRICAM's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I heard from someone here that their ARRISCAN can do 2-perf since it was developed in New Zealand. I'm guessing that means WETA. Anyways she said that ARRI however had disabled the 2-perf function in their scanner. How hard would it be for them to enable this function again? Surely ARRI would want to do this now that they are offering 2-perf movements for the 235 and the ARRICAM's.

 

The arriscan brochure still lists 2-perf as a scanning option.

 

http://www.arri.com/prod/digital/arriscan/...AN_Brochure.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know people who have shot 2-perf for 1.85 extraction.

 

There is more negative for 1.85 in 2-perf than in 16mm, but its a bit daft, as you're wasting a lot of film and paying more.

 

2-perf is pretty much a widescreen format. Want to shoot something else? Then use a different format.

It sounds a bit like a fixed idea, don't you think ?

 

With 1.85 35mm/2perf, the wast of negative area is obvious, but, compared to 1.85 super 16 mm, the ratio 'gain of image quality / raise of cost' can largly be discussed.

 

An AFC cinematographer has just published (in french) a technical/cost study about shooting in 2perf for HDTV (so an even smaller frame : 1.77).

Briefly, he says the gain of 35/2p negative area (comprared to 1.78 s16 one) and the increase of the 'native' dynamic range of the scans' sensor magnify the 4.4.4 RVB 10 bit quantification of the image signal...

For the money part (technical cost only, as camera rent, lab and complete post workflow ?editing and sound part included) , an french HDTV show of 90 minutes cost 133,000 ? in S16, 154,000 ? in 35/2p and 172,000 ? in 35/3p. The gap is not that wide, isn't it ?

 

If you have an Aaton A-body and Cameflex, Kinor or ARRI-IIc B-body on the same shoot, you will have an offset between the A-Body and B-Body on the negative.

 

I doubt if 'compatibility' is a major concern if you're going to a DI. It will not matter all that much what the centering is to anyone but the dailies/scanner guy.

 

That is, unless, you're foolish enough to try to do everything optically.

Well, a DI is still a lot of money and an non essential step workflow for many films. I was glad to hear that Arane (french lab in Paris) was studying a complete optical 2 perf chaine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
How much cheese to buy this little wonder of the digital age?

 

 

 

Yes, how much? Will or are 1000' mags available for the penelope? And is there even a "guessimate" as to a release and/or beta release date?

When someone shoots S35 3P for a 2.35 DI finish, are they not using roughly the same image area as 2 perf will? If so, we can already see how good it can look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Yes, how much? Will or are 1000' mags available for the penelope? And is there even a "guessimate" as to a release and/or beta release date?

When someone shoots S35 3P for a 2.35 DI finish, are they not using roughly the same image area as 2 perf will? If so, we can already see how good it can look.

 

One of Aaton's design goals it to make it cheaper than the current 35-III. So, more than an Xtera, less than a 35-III... which gives them a nice tidy range of between $50K and $100K.

 

I believe we'll see a product in the first quarter of next year. But don;t make solid plans on it, you can see what happened when Jannard an Co finished their prototype than tried to get it manufactured to their standards.

 

You're absolutly correct about image quality. There is only a marginal difference between negative area on 2P-2.35 and 3P-2.35.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...