Jump to content

Arriscope Lenses


Landon D. Parks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

NO they were not made for it, but it´s the use they get today

 

david said:

 

Trouble with 3-perf is that it is less common, 4-perf being the standard since 35mm was invented over 100 years ago. So it gets harder to find certain specialty cameras like Arri-2C's and Eyemos in 3-perf for, let's say, a crash camera.

 

I agree it is hard to find a 3perf crash camera like an arri 2c.

 

A crash camera is a camera you put in places where you wouldn´t place a new Panavision.(outside a running car, motorbike, near an explosion...)

It doesn´t mean you have to break it, but if a car smashing brakes it, you don´t have to cry like a little girl.

 

Does this make your day?

why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well anyway, I think I'll pay a lil more for DI and get better quality than Optical. After all, indies being low budget should try to acheave the best look possible.

 

Who says that DI gives you better quality than Optical? There are advantages and disadvantages to each process.

 

I do quite enjoy this exchange between Landon and Daniel, I must say. Kind of like 2 aliens observing human behaviour and trying to make sense of it all. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn´t mean you have to break it, but if a car smashing brakes it, you don´t have to cry like a little girl.

It's called Insurance. Most rental places require you have it before you rent there equipment. that way if it gets caught up in an explosion and gets blown to bits, it's paid for (Usually).

 

Does this make your day?

why?

Yep, and Don't know why. It just does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I agree it is hard to find a 3perf crash camera like an arri 2c.

 

Of course if people are not careful, any regular camera can get turned into a crash camera...

 

The one thing I hate shooting are car stunts. They can be very dangerous if people disregard safety rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
P.S) I don't see using anything other than new or like-new equipment on my film set. as they say, you get what you pay for. and I'm one who likes to get the most out of everything.

 

Then you will have to pay a hefty price.

 

Most shoots actually do not need to be shot on Arricams or Milleniums. It is not like with video cameras that become obsolete 2 years after they come out. One can still shoot on a 10 or 20 year old film camera and no one will be able to tell the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do quite enjoy this exchange between Landon and Daniel, I must say. Kind of like 2 aliens observing human behaviour and trying to make sense of it all.

Max, Max, Max.... how are we like aliens observing human life? He asked a question, and I asnwerd (A lot) lol.

 

thats what forums are for.

 

Then you will have to pay a hefty price.

 

Most shoots actually do not need to be shot on Arricams or Milleniums. It is not like with video cameras that become obsolete 2 years after they come out. One can still shoot on a 10 or 20 year old film camera and no one will be able to tell the difference.

I repeast what I said above. You get what you pay for.

 

Personally I cant see how a 10 year old arri is a good as a brand new Arricam Studio. Maybee Im wrong, but reguardless, you get what you pay for.

 

Who says that DI gives you better quality than Optical?

By the time you transfer your film from stock to stock to stock it looses resolution every time you do that. I think hollywood is who sais it gives better image quality than Optical. I don't see a lot of high end Hollywood productions using optical? And if it is both BETTER and CHEAPER, why don't they use it? I wonder.... From what they say on the "Digital age of film" clip on arri's website, it appears some DP's think it is better. Why dont you pop over and download it? I think you'll find out what I mean.

 

I Quote from an interview from that clip:

 

the normal motion picture labratory process is you start with your origion negative, you make a contact IP, make a contact internegative make a contact release print. Every single time you make that cntact print, the film is "Slip' Sliding" around, and you loose resolution with each step of that process.

 

And then when it goes to the projector, the heat of the lamp house expands the film, it  never sits adle in the gate. It's actually blistering out, so your loosing focus.... It's amazing it looks as good as it does. But the bottom line is, theres all this information sitting back here on this origional negative, that never makes it up to the screen.

 

So, the opinion of most of the studios is: Lets scan it and now get all of the information on the negative up to the screen.

 

It will start looking like IMAX!

 

sorry for the mis spelling and stuff, but I was typing this while listening to this guy talk super fast.

 

Im not trying to make you change your mind about it, only to make you think that maybee other people have different opinions about if it looks better or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
Personally I cant see how a 10 year old arri is a good as a brand new Arricam Studio. Maybee Im wrong, but reguardless, you get what you pay for.
The image quality would be identical on a standard shoot. Aslong as the camera wasn't dodgy in any way. A modern day lens mught be worth having though.
I do quite enjoy this exchange between Landon and Daniel, I must say. Kind of like 2 aliens observing human behaviour and trying to make sense of it all.
Ha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I cant see how a 10 year old arri is a good as a brand new Arricam Studio. Maybee Im wrong, but reguardless, you get what you pay for.

 

If you want to shoot 24fps 35mm nice and steady, a well conditioned 2c will do you just fine and rent for a fraction of the price of an arricam. For sync, a BL4, Aaton 35-3, or a moviecam, and for high speed an arri 3. (With decent glass of course.)

 

No matter how much money you have, it's about spending it wisely. A shiny, lightweight beauty with digital readouts and heated eyepiece is always nice but for the money you could have another few days shooting, a better lighting or grip package, or a better location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Heated eye piece? To make sure your eye doesn't stick when it's freezing cold?? Eye strain?

Why the hell do they have them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or a moviecam

Why should I pay $1,200.00/day for a moviecam when I can pay $1,350.00 for a Arricam Studio?

 

and yes, I can understand that using an older camera will not "Hurt" the image quality. However, things like Video assist, Camera controls, ect are much easier on the newer cameras.

 

And the concern I have with the older cameras is this: There video assist's are not great. I am one who has to have a GREAT video assist, I doubt a 2c even has a video assist, more less a good one?

 

Really what attracts me to arricam is the video assist, it seems to be very bright, High Quality color, Flicker free, and very controlable. Which I like!

 

But, to each his own. If you want to use an older camera great, I just like to have the newest technology.

 

I am willing to pay a few more dollars a day for the extras the newer camera provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Yeh, it depends what budget your on. That was my problem when I wanted to buy a 16mm camera. They all look old, manual and, well, crap to say the least.

I was actually considering buying an Arri 235. They work out at about 20 grand in my money, and they have some pretty cool features, 60fps shooting e.t.c. AND it's 3 perf.

 

Thing is, aren't you a director Landon? You wouldn't really benefit a great deal from a camera with all the goodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, aren't you a director Landon? You wouldn't really benefit a great deal from a camera with all the goodies.

Exactly. My main concern is that it has a great video assist. It's really up to the DP to choose what he wants for Camera's and accessories, ect As long as the camera has a great video assist. And really, the only video assist I'v seen, and liked are the Arricam's.

 

Although, I am also concerned with what the camera has to offer also. I feel that I can only benefit from having only the best equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Yeh, why an Arri Studio though? An Arri 235 will take a video assist and cost half the rent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, why an Arri Studio though? An Arri 235 will take a video assist and cost half the rent.

Well, an Arri 235 is more of a MOS camera, and seeing as how it only takes 400' mags maximum, it don't offer a lot of run-time. I like the studio for the fact that is will run nearly 15 minutes on a single 1,000' mag in 3-perf, ect.

 

I guess I also just like the looks of the bigger camera's compared to the smaller one too.

 

I can't really say 100% for sure why I like Arricam Studio, I guess I just like its run-time, video assist, looks, built-in techbologies, ect. It just seems to be worth 1,350.00/day I guess... Which don't seem like a lot of money to me.

 

Someone told me I should choose Panavision over Arri once, saying that they where cheaper. But a little adding brought me to the conclusion that a Panavision Millennium Panaflex will cost $3,400.00/day... And I don't see it as any better than the arricam studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Well, fair nuff. If you can afford it, then go for it. Thing is a budgets a delicate thing, use it wisely or you'l be out of it. I'd just buy what I needed, within reason. And yes, I would include a video assist.

 

A 235 might only have the capacity for a 400' mag, but, on the other hand, 15 minutes is a long time when shooting film, would you even use that amount? Why not just half the cost of the rental, and reload the camera?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compatible Magazines: 235 60m/200' Shoulder magazine235 120m/400' Shoulder magazine235 120m/400' Steadicam magazine35-3/2C 60m/200' Single compartment magazine35-3/2C 120m/400' Single compartment magazine435 120m/400' Single compartment magazine435 120m/400' Steadicam magazineNot compatible with 35-3 and 435 300m/1000' magazines

Here are all the mags that the 235 will take.

 

You would think they would have a 1000-footer.

 

I don?t know what the db/A is like but you could probably throw a coat over it and call it good for some sync shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes is a long time when shooting film, would you even use that amount?

Yes, Im sure even with just a single camera running, we would shoot 45 min of film on average a day. Seeing as how I am looking at a 30 day shooting calendar, 45 minutes a day seems about right. Although that figure will very depending on the type of shoot on that certain day. But that is just to give an idea.

 

Why not just half the cost of the rental, and reload the camera?

Well, in the first place. I doubt the 235 is Half the rental price of the Arricam. Look at it this way, to rent an arriflex 435, it is $1,150.00/day. and Arri claims the 235 is half the cost to buy, so its fair to say the camera is $575.00/day to rent. But usually with these cameras you have to rent the video assist extra, which will run another $300.00.... Now your up to $875.00.... Still not as much as $1,350.00... But by the time you take less time in re-loading the mags and all that, I see the 235 and Studio being about equal in the long run, And I would much rather have the studio than the 235 :-)

 

Damn, I'm talking to much today!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of now, My figures come to needing $1,900,000.00.... that is not much money for this film I would like to make, but Im sure it would get it done.

 

Of course, Im just figuring this off the top of my head, I dont have my actual budget breakdown on me. Sorry if I left something out, but my actual breakdown is complete as fare as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh right.. So it looks like this is your big break in the film industry then.

 

:lol: :lol: No, I doubt that. 1.9 Million is not much at all for an idie feature film. I have already done my share of "Shorts" and stuff, im ready for somthing bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Big enough to make a huge step in the industry though. 1.9 mill might not seem much, but if you get the best use out of it, it COULD set you off, where you will actually be hired for TV broadcast applications.

 

I have a film I worked out the final cost to be something like 4.3 mill, a tiny amount compared to some big feature films, but it's got the mother of all scripts. And I'm almost certain it will hit TV atleast.

 

Get one big film sorted, then hit it head on, give it all you've got. If it turns out good then that's your first foothold in the industry. Once you have one peice of work that's of a professional standard, it's only up hill from then on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this book about short films called short films 101 that said it is better to shoot great quality shorts than to shoot barely get by features.

 

Everyone wants to shoot a feature but that?s a lot of money for something that may or may not work out.

 

I say spend 30,000 on a short and make something that looks beautiful and very professional.

 

If your film does not hit it big than no one BIG will see it

Then it will just end up as a small peace of your reel anyway.

 

That?s what I am going to do.

 

Spend less money

Get higher quality

 

Always go for quality over quantity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...