Dalsa discontinued?

[Lars Zemskih]

I've just talked to someone who told me he has learned from a "reliable source" by which he probably means an industry rep that they've pulled the plug on the production of Dalsa cameras including Origin II. Anyone else heard about it? I doubt it myself.

[David Mullen ASC]

I've just talked to someone who told me he has learned from a "reliable source" by which he probably means an industry rep that they've pulled the plug on the production of Dalsa cameras including Origin II. Anyone else heard about it? I doubt it myself.

 

Dalsa closed their digital cinema division about six months ago and sold off their equipment. I think the Origin is sitting on the "For Sale" shelf at Alan Gordon Enterprises.

[Lars Zemskih]

I'm so out of touch. Why did it happen?

[John Sprung]

Why did it happen?

 

They wanted to cut their losses. It was announced at the end of last october:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=34454

 

These cameras were a small part of a big company that makes imaging chips. They probably wanted to concentrate on their core business. It's a shame, they were excellent cameras.

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

I particularly loved the Dalsa guy's footage of U.S. troops shooting Iraqi soldiers/insurgents. Shooting enemies in a war isn't a problem, even if they *are* torn limb from limb; war is terrible. I know he was trying to show how even the U.S. government relies on Dalsa HD cameras, but that particular clip has left a bad taste in my mouth three years later.

 

Seeing that footage, even in night vision HD of these, probably 20-something troops blow apart this wounded Iraqi trying to crawl out of a burning vehicle gave me nightmares.

 

Some things are best not seen in HD. . .

 

 

That is off-topic, though. It always seemed to me, judging by their representation on this site, that they were always primarily a tech company. They didn't seem to really get cinematography and it's artistic bent. They were concerned with specs first, not actual real-world performance in a controlled lighting dramatic production.

 

It seems like a lot of HD, though is spun off from other applications. Cinematography is, after all, a small market. Even the F900 was designed, initially, as a means of gathering high-resolution news footage.

[John Sprung]

It always seemed to me, judging by their representation on this site, that they were always primarily a tech company. They didn't seem to really get cinematography and it's artistic bent.

 

They figured that out after a while, which is why they hired Rob Hummel to run the place. He was certainly the right guy to dig them out of the hole they'd dug for themselves. I think he could have done it, if they had let him finish the job.

 

Speaking of digging a hole for themselves, I never saw the Iraq war stuff you describe. Do you ever use Arriflex cameras?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

Speaking of digging a hole for themselves, I never saw the Iraq war stuff you describe. Do you ever use Arriflex cameras?

 

Well, the only reason I brought it up is that I saw the same footage the other day in a particularly disturbing piece on execution and torture. It almost used acts of brutality (beheadings, throat cutting, surgical hand removal, finger hacking, stonings, firing squads, suicide bombings, and tongue hacking to justify this night vision footage of U.S. troops not shooting, but literally obliterating troops with large-calibre weapons fire.

 

These Iraqi guys were there one moment, literally a pile of dismembered parts the next. It was in the green night vision, but you could still tell what was going on and it was disturbing, especially at the end where this guy is wounded, crawling on the ground and they go in and shoot him up mercilessly anyway.

 

Anyway, I saw the same footage, apparently captured in Dalsa HD, being used by one of their reps here to somehow play the company up as a high-end entity. It was cool to a techie, I guess, but that is NOT what most cinematographers want to be photographing, unless it is a war doc. It just kind of poignantly illustrated how Dalsa was, at least at that time, totally out of touch with the needs of cinematographers.

 

 

Anyway, you lost me on the Arriflex part. If you're saying that the Vietnam war was also captured in HD, you're right, but thankfully I haven't seen the more graphic footage, and I've never seen camera original footage either.

 

I am not as disturbed by footage of dead bodies and people getting shot as I am by the casual casual attitudes, even enjoyment that I've seen displayed by troops and by executioners in their work.

 

Death is disturbing, but enjoying taking a part in killing maiming, or permanently dismembering someone is utterly disgusting, inhuman, animal. Footage of troops casually shooting a wounded man crawling along the ground, rejoicing "Got him!" is NOT a good way to sell me on the abilities of an HD camera, or a camera company.

[K Borowski]

Sorry John: I looked on both YouTube and on search engines and back through this site, but cannot find a link to the Dalsa footage I refer to.

 

Anyone else know what I am talking about? It is, basically, U.S. troops shooting two Iraqis (or one?) a third dives under the truck. They obliterate the truck, I think it catches on fire or explodes or something. Then the guy under it crawls out and they shoot him too.

 

This is all in green night vision. The version on here was worse than the one I just saw because they had a bunch of profanity in it too, and more celebration.

[Freya Black]

Anyway, you lost me on the Arriflex part. If you're saying that the Vietnam war was also captured in HD, you're right, but thankfully I haven't seen the more graphic footage, and I've never seen camera original footage either.

 

Arriflex = The Nazi camera:

 

"The introduction of the Arriflex 35 took place in 1937 at the Leipzig Trade Fair in Germany. It was originally designed as a hand-held newsreel camera. It had the sad task of recording the rise and fall of Hitler’s regime: the Axis pacts, the invasion of France, the Russian disaster, Musolini’s death and the Nuremberg trials. Many World War II documentaries include much German material shot with Arriflexes.

 

American soldiers brought back captured cameras introducing the Arriflex to the US. The camera was “knocked off” and the nearly identical Cineflex PH-330 was made for the US military.

 

The original ARRI factory on Turkenstrasse street in Munich was bombed during WWII. The factory was rebuilt after the war and production on a new version of the camera, the 35 II, began in 1946."

 

I actually like the idea of taking something associated with evil and putting it to a more positive use as the opposite. :)

 

I am not as disturbed by footage of dead bodies and people getting shot as I am by the casual casual attitudes, even enjoyment that I've seen displayed by troops and by executioners in their work.

 

I think it's important to understand that many people have no conscience whatsoever. It's something I have to confess that I never understood until more recently. Maybe such footage could help people understand that. Having said that when I first saw the third man I thought it was a great film but didn't understand it at all. It was only more recently when I watched it again, that I was like O.M.G. and was freaking out about what I was watching.

 

Maybe footage like this is important to show the realities of things to people. Maybe it is good for people to see such things and understand them in whatever way that they are personally capable of. I'm not sure how healthy it is to hide the reality of things.

 

OTOH, it's kind of horrible if someone is showing you some of this stuff and saying "look at this, it's so kewl"!

 

love

 

Freya

[John Sprung]

Arriflex = The Nazi camera: ....

 

American soldiers brought back captured cameras introducing the Arriflex to the US. ....

The original ARRI factory on Turkenstrasse street in Munich was bombed during WWII. The factory was rebuilt after the war and production on a new version of the camera, the 35 II, began in 1946 ....

 

. Having said that when I first saw the third man I thought it was a great film but didn't understand it at all. It was only more recently when I watched it again, that I was like O.M.G. and was freaking out about what I was watching. ....

 

. I'm not sure how healthy it is to hide the reality of things. ....

 

Thanks, Freya --

 

Yes, many people have no conscience whatsoever. But there are others who suffer deeply over things that aren't their fault. Not only is it not healthy to hide the reality of things, I think it's good to preserve and dispassionately study that reality, however severe it may be. I've started collecting those Arriflex model I cameras, I have three of them now. I'd sure like to trace the serial numbers, so I asked the local Arri guys here. They're reluctant to ask the people who might have access to surviving records, because the subject is still so painful. Barenboim played Wagner in Israel. Mel Brooks wrote and directed "The Producers". Go figure -- conscience and healing are very strange things.....

 

The Arri camera was known here before any were captured in the war. The very first, #500, was owned by Samuelson's in London until just recently. There were a few in the U.S. before the war. The Turkenstrasse bombing of July 14, 1944 didn't stop production. They were still able to assemble a few more cameras at their safe location, schloss something or other, I'd have to look for my notes. The highest surviving model I I'm aware of is #1971. The Model II started at #2000.

 

The Third Man is my all time favorite film. I was fifteen when I saw it, it's what got me interested in this career. There's a chance that the famous long last shot in which Anna walks past Martins, and then past camera, may have been done on an Arriflex. It was a pickup shot by Hans Schneeberger, who may have kept his Arri from when he was shooting for Die Deutsche Wochenschau. At least I'm not the only one here who still remembers The Third Man.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Auner aac]

The Arri camera was known here before any were captured in the war. The very first, #500, was owned by Samuelson's in London until just recently. There were a few in the U.S. before the war. The Turkenstrasse bombing of July 14, 1944 didn't stop production. They were still able to assemble a few more cameras at their safe location, schloss something or other, I'd have to look for my notes. The highest surviving model I I'm aware of is #1971. The Model II started at #2000.

 

Hi John,

 

My camera tech (the one who still has my NPR for S16 conversion...argh... I need to get on with that) has a Model I, I think serial 37! Must have been made in 37 or 38 I guess. It's by far the oldest one I have seen yet. The other Model one was somewhere in the 300s IIRC.

 

At least I'm not the only one here who still remembers The Third Man.

 

Hehe, remember three phase power in Austria? Well, it seems you have another reason to move to Vienna for retirement. The Third Man is screened here almost daily! I think it is the Burgkino that runs it.

 

Cheers, Dave

 

PS: What about asking Arri directly for the serials? If need be I could help with any German you might need.

[K Borowski]

Thanks, Freya --

 

Yes, many people have no conscience whatsoever. But there are others who suffer deeply over things that aren't their fault. Not only is it not healthy to hide the reality of things, I think it's good to preserve and dispassionately study that reality, however severe it may be. I've started collecting those Arriflex model I cameras, I have three of them now. I'd sure like to trace the serial numbers, so I asked the local Arri guys here. They're reluctant to ask the people who might have access to surviving records, because the subject is still so painful. Barenboim played Wagner in Israel. Mel Brooks wrote and directed "The Producers". Go figure -- conscience and healing are very strange things.....

 

While, in hindsight, it is easy to criticize people and companies that end up on the losing side of history (not that Hitler or the Hussein regime are portrayed as bad, evil people merely because they are on the wrong side of history), you are picking on one company for its, perhaps completely benign involvement with the wrong people at the wrong time.

 

You cannot criticize Arri for helping the Germans in the war without criticizing every other German company, which you shouldn't. The Nazi regime used punchcards made by the IBM company. BMW made German tanks. Agfa made the film that Eva Braun shot. That doesn't make any of these companies bad companies, or give them anything to feel bad about. They got caught up with the wrong people; they have nothing to apologize about unless they were knowledgeably collaborating.

 

I'm sure Kodak cameras, Mitchell camers, Nikon, Canon, and Bolex cameras have all been used to filim or photograph terrible things. That doesn't make the companies that built them terrible companies, at least for that reason. It isn't the responsibility of manufacturers to police the people they sell their products to, unless, in my opinion, they are selling products that can be used for acts of destruction. So unless a company is making fertilizer, bombs, ammunition, war planes, or nuclear explosives, I don't see any moral connection.

 

To quote the T-shirt from "Happy Gilmore," "Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

[Freya Black]

While, in hindsight, it is easy to criticize people and companies that end up on the losing side of history (not that Hitler or the Hussein regime are portrayed as bad, evil people merely because they are on the wrong side of history), you are

 

Actually a lot of people would say it is because they are on the losing side of history. Would we even know about the holocaust for example if the third reich had been on the winning side? To what extent do people know the truth about the nuclear weapons that were dropped on Japan by the American government for example? Or an even more extreme example that I only discovered by accident from some old newsreel footage, that America rounded up huge numbers of people of Japanese ethnic origin, stripped them of their possesions and put them in concentration camps? How many people even know the latter event happened at all??!! How many people if they did know about these things would be in denial about them or try and rationalise them away. What about the native american people? Or closer to home for example, how many people know that many of the ideas behined the final solution originated right here with psychologists in England? How much is anyone really bothered about the Irish potato famine at this point?

 

Phillip K Dick wrote an amazing book caled "The man in the high castle", in it he writes about an alternative universe where the nazis won the second world war. There is a character in the book, he is the man in the high tower and he is a writer. He has written a somewhat controversial book about an alternative universe in which the nazis lost the second world war. I think you should check it out Karl! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

picking on one company for its, perhaps completely benign involvement with the wrong people at the wrong time.

 

To be fair he wasn't neccesarily criticizing Arri in that way. He was asking the question to try and get you to elaborate more on what you meant. He was trying to get you to clarify the expression of your ideas by giving you another example.

Just trying to help you communicate your ideas more clearly basically. :)

 

The idea being that you might say "yes I hate those Nazi cameras, I prefer Aaton. ;)

Alternatively you might try and explain how the situation with Arri cameras is different to your own feelings about the Dalsa camera. Either way we might understand better what you were trying to say.

 

It's a way of getting people to express what they really mean or perhaps to understand themselves what they really mean and why they feel the way they do.

 

You cannot criticize Arri for helping the Germans in the war without criticizing every other German company, which you shouldn't. The Nazi regime used punchcards made by the IBM company. BMW made German tanks. Agfa made the film that Eva Braun shot. That doesn't make any of these companies bad companies, or give them anything to feel bad about. They got caught up with the wrong people; they have nothing to apologize about unless they were knowledgeably collaborating.

 

Well IBM were very much knowledgably collaborating. They were actually boasting about their status as a supplier to the third reich to begin with. They also obviously were aware of what the hollarith machines were going to be used for, tho perhaps not the full extent of where that would go, however they knew enough. They have gone to an extreme amount of trouble to try and hide this history.

 

If you take this to its logical conclusion of course then, you have to say that the german people have even less to feel bad about. They were very much caught up with the wrong people. In fact I would argue the case that it applies more to the people than the companies because I feel it is very questionable to suggest that companies have feelings. If we follow all this to it's logical conclusion, theres actually nothing to feel bad about at all. It was just something that came about due to a set of unfortunate circumstances. In fact you could then even argue that it was just the natural "evolution" of events, and from there, well you could go all kinds of places from there I'm sure! ;)

 

I've certainly been in many situations in my life where people were caught up with "the wrong people". In my opinion that doesn't really excuse their actions. They should have asked more questions. They should have done more. Instead they chose to listen to what was convienient for them at the time. No doubt they told themselves they had no choice but to be a part of it. No doubt people tell themselves all kinds of things to try and justify things to themselves.

 

I actually see it as a very positive thing for people to feel bad about things and in fact I would go further and suggest that those people are lucky to have those feelings.

 

 

 

I'm sure Kodak cameras, Mitchell camers, Nikon, Canon, and Bolex cameras have all been used to filim or photograph terrible things. That doesn't make the companies that built them terrible companies, at least for that reason. It isn't the responsibility of manufacturers to police the people they sell their products to, unless, in my opinion, they are selling products that can be used for acts of destruction. So unless a company is making fertilizer, bombs, ammunition, war planes, or nuclear explosives, I don't see any moral connection.

 

Well those Holarith counting machines were used in acts of extreme destruction. The cameras can and were used for propaganda purposes which aided in the control of the people and which allowed the third reich to carry out the things they did effeciently and more easily. They helped in recruiting real people to the war machine and in making people think more like the prevailing agenda.

 

To quote the T-shirt from "Happy Gilmore," "Guns don't kill people, I kill people."

 

Which might be in contradiction with what you were saying about arms manufacturers above, depending on what you meant by that? :)

 

Well you are making me ask some interesting questions, so that is good, I guess the distinction you could make here is that guns can largely only be used for somewhat evil purposes, whereas a holarith machine has more obvious non-destructive purpses.

 

This puts movie cameras in a difficult situation. It can be argued that cinema is inherantly evil, as Kenneth Anger has done. This is an idea I am certainly sympathetic with. However that discussion seems rather moot, because as is the case with nuclear weapons, we can't really put the genie back in the bottle. From a pragmatic point of view, we thus have to embrace the evil that is cinema and try and use it for more positive purposes. It comes down to what is relative in the situation I guess.

 

love

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

My camera tech (the one who still has my NPR for S16 conversion...argh... I need to get on with that) has a Model I, I think serial 37! Must have been made in 37 or 38 I guess. It's by far the oldest one I have seen yet. The other Model one was somewhere in the 300s IIRC.

 

Yes you should drop a message to ask "hows it going?", to make sure they havn't forgotten you!

Getting camera work is such a difficult situation. :(

 

Hehe, remember three phase power in Austria? Well, it seems you have another reason to move to Vienna for retirement. The Third Man is screened here almost daily! I think it is the Burgkino that runs it.

 

I think I've said it before, but I love this fact! Obviously it's to appeal to tourists, but it still seems like a wonderful thing.

I think it's been suggested that it is the most important work of the British cinema and I'f personally be inclined to agree! (Apologies to the Jack Cardiff fans out there!)

 

I hear they are releasing a blue ray version of this, and I hope that doesn't put anyone off from seeing the real thing in a cinema in vienna of all places! Perfect! :)

 

love

 

Freya

[K Borowski]

I think you and John misunderstand me, Freya.

 

I am not saying that Dalsa is in any way to blame about what their cameras are used for, just as Arri was/is not to blame.

 

What I was trying to say is that night vision footage of Iraqis getting torn limb from limb wasn't a good way to sell their cameras' cinematographic capabilities to capture beautiful imagery.

 

What I was trying to say is as simple as that; so I don't see the need to elaborate further.

 

 

As for Japanese Internment camps, they are common knowledge here in the U.S. And, while they were terrible, they certainly weren't anywhere near as horrible as those in Germany, Russia, or Japan.

 

Star Trek's George Takei (Sulu) spent part of his childhood in one. . .

 

Anyway, I think a fairer comparison would be the terrible things done by whites to the American Indians, or, even better, the as-bad-as or possibly worse concentration camps in the Soviet Union during WWII, that they completely got away with. The Japanese were also never punished for their human testing of pathogens and germ warfare agents during WWII as well.

 

And, not that I am defending the use of the atomic bomb on civilian targets, I think taht was wrong, but estimated casualties to U.S. troops alone would have been higher, IIRC, than all of the Japanese killed in the atomic bombings.

 

The second one was their fault; they were given an opportunity to surrender after the first was dropped.

[Freya Black]

I think you and John misunderstand me, Freya.

 

I am not saying that Dalsa is in any way to blame about what their cameras are used for, just as Arri was/is not to blame.

 

What I was trying to say is that night vision footage of Iraqis getting torn limb from limb wasn't a good way to sell their cameras' cinematographic capabilities to capture beautiful imagery.

 

What I was trying to say is as simple as that; so I don't see the need to elaborate further.

 

I'm not sure people were misunderstanding you, they just maybe weren't understanding exactly what you were saying.

Thats why they were trying to help you to elaborate further.

I did wonder if that is what you meant as was suggested in an earlier posting.

 

I guess a simpler way of explaining what you are saying might be that you were offended by the way that they were advertising themselves?

 

It seems straightforward and understandable.

 

As for Japanese Internment camps, they are common knowledge here in the U.S. And, while they were terrible, they certainly weren't anywhere near as horrible as those in Germany, Russia, or Japan.

 

I certainly didn't know about them and was very shocked when I stumbled across information about it.

 

I'm sure the concentration camps that the Americans had were lovely places, especially as you suggest, relative to Germany, Russia or Japan. I wonder if they would have continued to be so lovely if the Americans weren't doing as well in the war with Japan? It's an interesting question in a lot of ways.

 

Anyway, I think a fairer comparison would be the terrible things done by whites to the American Indians, or, even better, the as-bad-as or possibly worse concentration camps in the Soviet Union during WWII, that they completely got away with. The Japanese were also never punished for their human testing of pathogens and germ warfare agents during WWII as well.

 

I wasn't talking about punishments or exactly making any comparisons. I just gave a number of examples from history (the things that happened to native americans being one of the ones I listed in fact). The point was that a lot of terrible things happen that are seen differently in the light of who wins and who is in power. I find this is an important thing to understand, not just in history but in a lot of things that humans do. Whats right and wrong is often related in terms of who is in power. The bombing of Dresden would be another such example.

 

And, not that I am defending the use of the atomic bomb on civilian targets, I think taht was wrong, but estimated casualties to U.S. troops alone would have been higher, IIRC, than all of the Japanese killed in the atomic bombings.

 

The second one was their fault; they were given an opportunity to surrender after the first was dropped.

 

True enough, and they were in fact in negotiations to surrender but of course they needed to protect their own skins.

So they kept coming up with the conditions such as japanese war criminals being judged by the japanese and the preservation of the royal house. Thankfully after the second bomb they surrendered unconditionally and Emperor Hirohito continued to reign happily until 1989 when he died. Alls well that ends well.

 

I wasn't really looking at fault or blame tho but about the way that history etc is perceived. If we want to look for blame, well personally I blame the weather.

 

Well we have veered very far from cinematography now, tho it's certainly been an intresting discussion. I think it's time to wrap it up here tho. I wanted to say that I was dead impressed that you managed to get gun control in there so quickly! I have to confess that I did consider bringing up the pope but it would have been too easy. Anyway it's definitely time to shout "Mornington Crescent!" :)

 

love

 

Freya

Edited July 13, 2009 by Freya Black

[Leo Anthony Vale]

You cannot criticize Arri for helping the Germans in the war without criticizing every other German company, which you shouldn't. The Nazi regime used punchcards made by the IBM company. BMW made German tanks. Agfa made the film that Eva Braun shot. That doesn't make any of these companies bad companies, or give them anything to feel bad about. They got caught up with the wrong people; they have nothing to apologize about unless they were knowledgeably collaborating.

 

& the German divisions of Ford and Chevy made trucks for the Wehrmacht.

Of course they had no real choice. If they didn't do it volunteerly, they would have been nationalized,

which would have caused stock prices to drop.

 

Standard Oil had the world monopoly on aviation gasoline, so the luftwaffe had to buy it from them.

As a happy consequence, no Standard oil tanker was ever sunk by a U-boat.

 

In a communist state the state owns the corporations,

in a fascist country the corporations rent the government.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

And, not that I am defending the use of the atomic bomb on civilian targets, I think taht was wrong, but estimated casualties to U.S. troops alone would have been higher, IIRC, than all of the Japanese killed in the atomic bombings.

 

If not for the A-bombs, tens of thousands of back engineered US built V-1 cruise missles would have rained down on Japanese cities killing more Japanese civilians than the Bombs did.

 

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Loon/Loon.htm

 

Air frames by Republic Aviation, engines by Ford. Where have I heard that last name before.

[John Sprung]

Wow -- I got busy for a few days, and couldn't check in. Sorry.....

 

To be fair he wasn't neccesarily criticizing Arri in that way.

 

Thanks, Freya -- Your interpretation is spot on. Of course I don't blame Arri or Dalsa. I'll have to be careful to try not to write things that require interpretation.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Sprung]

My camera tech (the one who still has my NPR for S16 conversion...argh... I need to get on with that) has a Model I, I think serial 37! Must have been made in 37 or 38 I guess. It's by far the oldest one I have seen yet. The other Model one was somewhere in the 300s IIRC.

 

That's interesting -- When Christie's in London auctioned camera #500, their brochure said that it was the first production unit. Numbers under 500 were prototypes, not sold. Of course, that could be wrong. That's the hard part of this, sorting out the errors.

 

As I find out about Model I cameras, I've been keeping notes on the serial numbers, when, where, and in what condition they appear to be. I should put all this into a spreadsheet, and maybe put it on a website. The most completely documented camera so far is # 1052, which was issued to Horst Grund during the war. He appears to have kept it the rest of his life, and used it to shoot the Olympic Games in 1952 and again in 1972. It's in a museum now.

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category..._by_Horst_Grund

 

PS: What about asking Arri directly for the serials? If need be I could help with any German you might need.

 

Thanks very much, David. For me, the problem remains the same: How to ask with sufficient tact as not to cause them pain. If we can get past that one, the next things to think about are how much material is there, and what is it. Is it just a few file folders, or is it several cubic meters of paperwork in cardboard boxes? Are there any blueprints, parts or special tools? Rather than bugging them for each serial number as I find them, if the amount is small enough, maybe I could get copies of it all? Another thought -- would the Bundesarchiv want to take custody of it?

 

 

 

Thanks again --

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[David Auner aac]

That's interesting -- When Christie's in London auctioned camera #500, their brochure said that it was the first production unit. Numbers under 500 were prototypes, not sold. Of course, that could be wrong. That's the hard part of this, sorting out the errors.

 

Hm. My tech is Paul Dresel, who must now be way over 70. He started as a film camera tech apprentice with German TV in 1951! (It's funny, that he told me that people would advise him against that back then. They said video was around the corner and would kill film quickly!)

 

He has a huge collection of stuff at his place. It might be quite likely that he indeed has prototype camera, but what ever means he got it. I would be hard pressed if I got that fact wrong. It was a couple of years ago that I saw it, but was very impressed by the 2-digit serial. But if all goes well I'll be there again in the next couple of weeks. I can ask him, if you like and bring pictures, if possible!

 

Thanks very much, David. For me, the problem remains the same: How to ask with sufficient tact as not to cause them pain.

 

Hm. Does Arri have some kind of internal museum? Have you contacted them at all, yet? I mean, the ideal person to do this would be a former Arri employee who loves camera and is in retirement.

 

Cheers, Dave

[John Sprung]

It might be quite likely that he indeed has prototype camera, but what ever means he got it. I would be hard pressed if I got that fact wrong. It was a couple of years ago that I saw it, but was very impressed by the 2-digit serial. But if all goes well I'll be there again in the next couple of weeks. I can ask him, if you like and bring pictures, if possible!

 

Hm. Does Arri have some kind of internal museum? Have you contacted them at all, yet? I mean, the ideal person to do this would be a former Arri employee who loves camera and is in retirement.

 

It's very possible that he has a prototype. Prototypes are generally kept by the company and used for reference early in the production run. The longer a model is in production, the less they need the prototypes, so they tend to get put in storage and forgotten. Eventually the company runs out of storage space, so management tells the engineers to go through it and decide what to discard. At that point, prototypes of old products often become souveniers, taken home by the guys who worked on them. So, prototypes are often legitimately owned by individuals -- they're just never sold to customers as production units.

 

It would be great to have pictures of a prototype, and a confirmed serial number, thanks!

 

There's another possibility on the number. If it's somewhere other than the usual serial number positions on the front of the camera, it might be an assembly number. Parts that have to be hand-fitted to work together were given a number, to match the right ones up again if they took several cameras apart at the same time. For instance, my camera #1579 has the number 127 on most of the internal assemblies.

 

I'm not sure if Arri has an internal museum. They did make a 90th anniversary glossy brochure with some historic photos, including the results of the 1944 bombing.

 

I have contacted Arri here, but since this is an open internet forum, let's take this over to e-mail. I'll write and tell you who I talked to.

 

Thanks again --

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

Despite the fact that my weekend was effectively shot with work, where I wanted to research this further, I was asked by a representative of the company to provide proof of the bad marketing I saw earlier.

 

I've been unable to find that clip, though I am 95% certain it was a Dalsa clip (not on the origin, on another of their products for the military), I can't be 100% certain.

 

So I *may* have been mistaken.

 

I'll find out for sure when I am, hopefully, free this coming weekend.

 

 

Let me clarify something else: I don't know how I stirred up all of this European Apologist, for lack of a better phrase sentiment, but I don't fault companies for their collaborations with the military, except maybe building atomic bombs or germ warfare research.

 

Dalsa, Arri, Agfa, Kodak, & Fuji have nothing to do, nor should they with how their products are used.

 

It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. You can't read your clients minds or mandate the use of products; that is a case of a cure that is worse than the disease!

 

 

My only original comment, as the footage I saw again so it was fresh in my mind when I posted, was that the (I may have been mistaken it was Dalsa) rep for this HD camera showed footage, not from an Origin, but another camera company product that I mentioned earlier.

 

It was poor marketing, not very serving to the needs of cinematographers. I couldn't care less what is used to video tape night-vision war footage, any less than I care what is used to film surveilance footage of warehouses, or on the Hubble Space Telescope; I care, about what is used to take creative imagery or some worthy documentary work at the very least in a non-dramatic context.

[Dalibor Fencl]

You cannot criticize Arri for helping the Germans in the war without criticizing every other German company, which you shouldn't. The Nazi regime used punchcards made by the IBM company. BMW made German tanks. Agfa made the film that Eva Braun shot. That doesn't make any of these companies bad companies, or give them anything to feel bad about. They got caught up with the wrong people; they have nothing to apologize about unless they were knowledgeably collaborating.

 

Hey guys,

 

love this discussion, I'd specially mention the BASF company (aka IG FARBEN) for their well-known product Zyklon-B.

 

Don't you thing it's bit away from the HD cameras topic?