Jump to content

How would you improve a 35mm camera?


Karel Bata

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
Then again, what would you be shooting in 8-perf. that's non MOS anyway?

 

Ideally... a whole feature!

 

Trouble are the costs -- double the amount of film being shot. Since 65mm is also about twice as expensive to shoot in terms of stock, it makes more sense to use 65mm for a whole feature, where quiet cameras already exist. But I just like the idea of VistaVision as being the "ultimate Super-35" format since it is a 1.50 negative from which you can pull both a good 2.40 theatrical image but also 16x9 and 4x3 TV versions with less panning and scanning than 65mm 2.20 : 1 (or 35mm anamorphic). Plus it's 35mm and any lab can process it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ideally... a whole feature!

 

Trouble are the costs -- double the amount of film being shot. Since 65mm is also about twice as expensive to shoot in terms of stock, it makes more sense to use 65mm for a whole feature, where quiet cameras already exist. But I just like the idea of VistaVision as being the "ultimate Super-35" format since it is a 1.50 negative from which you can pull both a good 2.40 theatrical image but also 16x9 and 4x3 TV versions with less panning and scanning than 65mm 2.20 : 1 (or 35mm anamorphic). Plus it's 35mm and any lab can process it.

 

Ah, I see. Why not just find a good blimp for a MOS camera then? IDK. I've never worked with Vistavision, but it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

 

Problem would be that a 400 foot mag is effectively reduced to 2 minutes of run time with VV.

 

Plus, how are you going to show it with practically no vistavision projectors? You are right that it would work out better for 4:3. I guess, too, for IMAX, which is, what, 1.25, it would also be a much better fit.

 

You know, it's funny. Given another couple of years improvement, there probably would have been high-end SLRs that could have shot at 24fps. I think they maxed out at 8 or 12.

 

But let me see if I can find a photo of the VV camera I am thinking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.geofilmgroup.com/shopexd.asp?id=34

 

AT 24"x20" (2 feet x 1-1/2 feet / 60.96x45.72cm) with the 400-foot (120m) mag., surely it wouldn't be that hard to rig up a smalll, lightweight, yet effective sound blimp.

 

And it can go up to 72 fps (which is 9 feet of film per second, or 6MPH/almost 10kph).

 

Of course, I don't think any amount of blimping will help at 72fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally... a whole feature!

 

Trouble are the costs -- double the amount of film being shot. Since 65mm is also about twice as expensive to shoot in terms of stock, it makes more sense to use 65mm for a whole feature, where quiet cameras already exist.

 

In terms of cost and image quality, isn't 65mm (not IMAX, 5-perf.) a bigger image area than VV too?

 

I would also be interested in seeing the price comparisons between 65mm and 35mm VV. Obviously, VV would be exactly twice the cost of anamorphic to shoot, and process, but what about scanning and printing?

 

Then with 65mm, you have also, I seem to remember, twice the cost per foot, but then it's an extra 25% on top of that too because it's 5-perf.'s/frame instead of four.

 

And what about post costs there?

 

So I'd imagine the actual costs would vary far more when it comes to telecine/grading/DI than with the processing.

 

Of course, there's, what, one, two, labs in the entire United States that still do 65mm, right?

 

I remember in the "Dark Knight" article they had to fly 65mm film to the the U.S. and 70mm prints back because facilities were totally nonexistent in the U.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest request for years was sort of in the other direction -- an 8-perf VistaVision version of these cameras. But I don't see that happening now.

 

Well, Aranda Film in Australia has a modern 8/35 camera, not necessarily an Arri or Panavision, but what seems to be a hybrid of their own making . . .

 

http://www.arandafilm.com.au/pages/page2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Look I don't think the modern 35mm camera like the Arricam, Arri 235, or Millenium has much room for improvement except around the margins -- I think most of us would rather the darn things were cheaper more than anything else.

Well, what if you could have a 435 in a 235/Penelope form factor that ran as quiet as an Arricam at 24fps? Then you'd only need to rent one body for a whole show (not including the backup body, of course). That'd be pretty sweet!

 

My biggest request for years was sort of in the other direction -- an 8-perf VistaVision version of these cameras. But I don't see that happening now.

Yeah, I think that ship has sailed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the only one.

 

 

jb

 

I'm surprised. You'd think it'd be fairly easy to get a quick, silent, red viewfinder cover that you could easily flick closed.

 

Then again, they are easy enough to improvise.

 

 

What else'd be nice on a 35mm movie camera?

 

Antigrav unit? ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'm surprised. You'd think it'd be fairly easy to get a quick, silent, red viewfinder cover that you could easily flick closed.

 

Then again, they are easy enough to improvise.

 

 

To be clear, Im not talking about a viewfinder dowser that can be flicked closed, but a viewfinder that you can take your eye away from while the camera is rolling that won't fog. The a minima does this by having a second shutter out of phase with the main shutter to close the viewfinder off during exposure.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, Im not talking about a viewfinder dowser that can be flicked closed, but a viewfinder that you can take your eye away from while the camera is rolling that won't fog. The a minima does this by having a second shutter out of phase with the main shutter to close the viewfinder off during exposure.

 

jb

 

Ah, I see. Yes, having never shot with the A-Minima, I guess I just incorrectly assumed it was a flip-close.

 

That is a nice trick, having a second shutter.

 

So there ARE cameras, 16s and 35s with flip closes.

 

Honestly, I think the whole viewfinder fog thing is overblown, unless you're shooting with a sunset behind you and move your head out of the way, or shine a flashlight through there during shooting, it seems like, even with 500T film, it's quite hard to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
To be clear, Im not talking about a viewfinder dowser that can be flicked closed, but a viewfinder that you can take your eye away from while the camera is rolling that won't fog.

 

The Mitchell BNC parallax finder works like that. You could use the mirror shutter finder to line it up, then close that eyepiece and operate with both eyes open. Much more comfortable at the end of a long day.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Switch selectable 2, 3, or 4 perf operation with easy, no tool required, gate changes.

 

It might be possible to get close to this. How about a stepper motor intermittent sprocket to pull the film down, with a continuation type registration pin. You'd have to pull and insert the aperture plate for the number of perfs you want, but the plate would plug into the electronics and set the distance the stepper would pull. You might even be able to go to wider shutter angles, like about 270 - 300 degrees. Making it quiet would be a challenge. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So there ARE cameras, 16s and 35s with flip closes.

Most Arri viewfinders have a little switch that slides a metal iris over the glass. Don't know about Panavision, I don't have much experience with their cameras.

 

Honestly, I think the whole viewfinder fog thing is overblown...

It's more of a problem that you would think. It really does need to be closed unless you're in a dark studio. Outdoors I often put a piece of 2" paper tape over the chamois in addition to closing the iris if the operator is not using the finder for the shot. It makes the DP feel better too, since he can see from a distance that there is no light getting in there.

 

Someone told me that the little Panavision hook on the back of their cameras is meant for the operator's glasses. That's pretty sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more of a problem that you would think. It really does need to be closed unless you're in a dark studio. Outdoors I often put a piece of 2" paper tape over the chamois in addition to closing the iris if the operator is not using the finder for the shot. It makes the DP feel better too, since he can see from a distance that there is no light getting in there.

 

 

I agree, you only have to look at the video assist image to see what happens when the eye is taken away. I was always told to put gaffer tape over the eyepiece when the eyepiece is not in use also. I think Karl may be getting confused with the problem of back fogging of the entire roll in strong direct light rather than the individual frame where the eyepiece is not covered. I've seen plenty of rushes where you see when the operator has taken their eye away.

 

I too like the idea of an all purpose camera. The lt is quite close - you can fit the st speedbox to it, it just needs faster (and slower) frame rates. And also a quicker way to put it into steadicam mode (although it's not too difficult at the moment).

 

I like the idea of lighter and smaller mags. THe 235's 200' mags with 3-perf and thinner film. And smaller lenses (something like cooke s4 quality but the older cooke size) - especially for zooms. A 20:1 on a st with a 1000' mag is quite heavy. Something that can give the same image quality but with the size/weight and versatility of the 235. It seems more of an issue with what attaches to the camera rather than the camera itself.

 

Rather than bigger format film (don't like the idea of a blimp on any camera - too fiddly, although it would not be needed for any non sound sync speeds) it would be great to have the comparable quality on a smaller format. Something like 16mm 50d quality with a 500t (or greater) speed. Not very likely considering the expense, time taken and what is available when v3 came out.

 

If kodak re-perfed their 16mm film so that we could get, what in effect would be a 16mm version of 3-perf with an altered movement I'm sure it would help it's decline. A 416 with an effective 3-perf movement would be great.

 

My feeling is that the cameras are not the problem. It's the lenses and film that are. I can't see anything changing majorly there. Although there have been massive and great increases in film/lens quality over the last 100 years, it is at a relatively slow rate (compared to electronics). The cameras themselves have not really changed in the majority of that time. Unfortunately, due to their nature many things can't increase in development and speed in the same way electronics/computers do. If they did we might have 60 minute rolls of 8mm film of the same quality as 35mm and nice, light ans small lenses to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you only have to look at the video assist image to see what happens when the eye is taken away.

That can be deceptive. In an arrangement where the video assist is sharing the same optical path as the viewfinder you would expect to see that, but it's not necessarily an indication of how severely the film itself is being affected.

 

 

So no one like my idea then of the infra-red follow focus that can be aimed via the video assist? You have a pencil thin beam (IR laser?) that would be invisible to the naked eye, but would be highly visible as a red dot on the video assist (video being sensitive to IR). A sensor on the the camera would use that dot to focus. The focus puller would watch a monitor and use a joystick to steer the dot around the frame. He could have a damping control to stop the focus changing every time an actor moved slightly or to ease pulling focus from one subject to another. Naturally he'd have a distance read-out and a manual override. To make it invisible to the film, it would switch on/off with the shutter. Hell, with a wireless tap he could go down the pub and pull focus from there! :D Would work well on a crane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can be deceptive. In an arrangement where the video assist is sharing the same optical path as the viewfinder you would expect to see that, but it's not necessarily an indication of how severely the film itself is being affected.

 

 

So no one like my idea then of the infra-red follow focus that can be aimed via the video assist? You have a pencil thin beam (IR laser?) that would be invisible to the naked eye, but would be highly visible as a red dot on the video assist (video being sensitive to IR). A sensor on the the camera would use that dot to focus. The focus puller would watch a monitor and use a joystick to steer the dot around the frame. He could have a damping control to stop the focus changing every time an actor moved slightly or to ease pulling focus from one subject to another. Naturally he'd have a distance read-out and a manual override. To make it invisible to the film, it would switch on/off with the shutter. Hell, with a wireless tap he could go down the pub and pull focus from there! :D Would work well on a crane.

 

Well, yeah, now hat you've explained that it is visible on the assist, that is a great tool. Problem still is though getting the aim just right. It is oh so easy with a laser to miss your mark, probably even easier than if you're just pulling by eye.

 

IDK. Such trigger-hair sensitivity might be noticeable on the big screen, maybe even on the small screen. You'd probably need to engineer expensive lens software to smooth out the electronic "pulls" on the lens.

 

Otherwie it might resembe the same helter-skelter look of early AF video cameras in the '80s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can be deceptive. In an arrangement where the video assist is sharing the same optical path as the viewfinder you would expect to see that, but it's not necessarily an indication of how severely the film itself is being affected.

 

agreed, as what you see on the video assist/viewfinder is the opposite of what the film see's. But it gives an indication that there is light falling on it when you see a monitor picture with a big reflection on it. As the aminima is marketed as being the only reflex camera which won't fog film when you take you eye away I'd rather be safe when using other cameras.

 

I think there is something like your focus idea available. Not the video part but something like an arri/panatape crossed with a disto which has the laser only visable when the shutter is closed. No idea what it's called, someone mentioned it to me once (maybe in a dream). The problem, apart from expense would be that there is a danger of it looking like it is being focussed from a monitor- a really horrible look. There's nothing wrong with using a pair of eyes and a follow focus, or a wlcs. Could be useful for very complicated shots though. Just seems like it would be an added hassle - I'd imagine it would need calibrated at really inappropriate times. And of course you would be relying on it being correctly calibrated. Learn to do it the proper way and then you won't be stiched up when it breaks.

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

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...