Tom Norris Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 When viewing clips (on youtube or vimeo) that were filmed with Russian cameras, or older Arri cameras (or even with the Aaton A-minima), I find they have a poorer quality than videos I've found that claim to be shot with a Arriflex 416 or an SR-3. As such, I am curious as to whether or not an older camera (or cheaper camera, in the case of an A-minima) would affect the image quality in any way. As well I am curious if simply better operation or if a better lens was used, that the DP could attain just as good an image with a 416 as with a Krasnogorsk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 In general the better the camera the better the image steadiness ... But its really the fact that these cameras are usually a part of a much larger package of a professional production, if you are using an SR3 you'll likely have a good collection of prime lenses and a project with a budget to work with - equating to a better transfer, grade, selection of lighting, um, wotnot and so on - but also that this budget is being spent on and by a professional DP who brings a wealth of experience in lighting and the subtleties of composition etc... In comparison your average K3 user may still be learning exposure. A professional will very likely get some beautiful results from a K3, whereas a beginner might simply break a better camera and get well, nothing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted July 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2009 When viewing clips (on youtube or vimeo) that were filmed with Russian cameras, or older Arri cameras (or even with the Aaton A-minima), I find they have a poorer quality than videos I've found that claim to be shot with a Arriflex 416 or an SR-3. There is so much compression typically applied to a video that will be seen on a 4 by 5 inch window on a screen, that the quality of any of them will not be well represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted July 31, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2009 or older Arri cameras Shot with a 52 year old Arriflex 16S: Arriflex 16S footage Best, -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Hughes Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Yes, even non pin-registered cameras like Bolex or Filmo can make beautiful shots with acceptable steadiness (as long as you're not requiring rock-solid, video-like registration). Of greater importance to me is the caliber and condition of the lens. Does it focus sharply? Must you have a zoom, or can you get your shot with a fixed lens? Is the lens clear and are the coatings undamaged? Is a bit of "vintage" look appropriate to your production (lens flare, bokeh, vignetting on short lenses, etc)? I'm watching an old Hitchcock film on Hulu (Blackmail) with lots of vintage look due to the 1920's era Cooke lenses they used - and it looks, well, old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Hinkle RIP Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 ...I am curious if simply better operation or if a better lens was used, that the DP could attain just as good an image with a 416 as with a Krasnogorsk. As Chris said, the $50,000 camera most likely has a great lens and an experienced DP operating it. Also new cameras have generally better accessories that make it easier - video assist, brighter viewfinder, accurate light meters, etc. But, I do think a skilled DP will know how to get the best from whatever gear they have. Here's a nice piece on YouTube that looks great despite the terrible compression - - according to the info this was shot on a spring-wound bolex with standard c-mount kern lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted August 23, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted August 23, 2009 Neither youtube nor vimeo can properly represent any of the formats or cameras in question. They are much too highly compressed and you're generally viewing them on a small screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Vogt Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) A camera is just a holder for film. The only way it affects the image is A: if there is something mechanically wrong B: The type of lens mount C: The shutter angle and D: The motor allowing for adjustable speeds. Edited August 24, 2009 by Rob Vogt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Charles MacDonald Posted August 25, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted August 25, 2009 A camera is just a holder for film. : if there is something mechanically wrong Of course, that could be a weakness in the design, such as a mechanism that is not capable of placing consetutive frames in the right spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now