Jump to content
Jon O'Brien

Feature movie with 2C as main camera

Recommended Posts

 

I think what James was saying is that the film was not shot on a 2 perf Techniscope 2C as someone claimed earlier in the thread, but on a 4 perf 2C using anamorphic lenses. The article mentions that the film was shot anamorphically, and the fact that a C series Panavision anamorphic is mounted on the camera makes it clear that it's 4 perf, a 2 perf Techniscope camera would use spherical lenses.

 

MOS just means there was no sync soundtrack (because of the camera noise), nothing to do with whether the lenses (and camera mount) were Panavision.

 

 

Yes I know what MOS means its German.. Mit out sound :).. my point was, it says it was a budget shoot .. so why have the expense of a Panavsion camera for a totally MOS shoot... I,d still say it was a film shot on on Arri .. 2 perf or 4.. rather than shot Panavsion just because of the lens.. ?

 

Side note.. I worked as a loader on an Aussie film "Far East" 1982.. with Panavsion cameras from Salon films and Golden Harvest producing locally.. in HK and Macau .. still one of the best wrap parties in history.. at a night club in HK ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so why have the expense of a Panavsion camera for a totally MOS shoot... I,d still say it was a film shot on on Arri .. 2 perf or 4.. rather than shot Panavsion just because of the lens.. ?

 

 

Thanks for the clarification Dom.

 

Man, Robin..you are really hard-headed. I figured you'd learn a thing or two hanging with Batman all those years. :P Check out this quote from the article. "Joining the Hong Kong-based production late in prep, Hubbs was asked to shoot the picture in anamorphic widescreen. Unimpressed with the optics available from the studio camera department, he tracked down a set of Panavision lenses at a local HK rental house."

 

It makes sense that he used a lightweight camera to photograph one of the most physically gifted martial artists that ever lived. In a sense, it's a Jeet Kun Do style that fits a movie starring the man that spear headed that actual martial arts concept. Throw out all that weighs you down. All that is not necessary. Flow with the moment. Just like you can with an ARRI 2C. Just sayin'. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification Dom.

 

Man, Robin..you are really hard-headed. I figured you'd learn a thing or two hanging with Batman all those years. :P Check out this quote from the article. "Joining the Hong Kong-based production late in prep, Hubbs was asked to shoot the picture in anamorphic widescreen. Unimpressed with the optics available from the studio camera department, he tracked down a set of Panavision lenses at a local HK rental house."

 

It makes sense that he used a lightweight camera to photograph one of the most physically gifted martial artists that ever lived. In a sense, it's a Jeet Kun Do style that fits a movie starring the man that spear headed that actual martial arts concept. Throw out all that weighs you down. All that is not necessary. Flow with the moment. Just like you can with an ARRI 2C. Just sayin'. :ph34r:

 

 

All that time the cave had a bad effect on me .. :).. yeah we can see the lens is Panavision .. even I can see that..but to my mind if you say a film was shot on Panavision.. it would mean the camera was Panavision .. in this case the camera was an Arri.. my camera is a Sony.. but I have a canon lens .. but I would say anything I shoot is shot on a Sony.. " was shot on.." usually refers to the camera not the lens .. especially as the thread is about films shot with Arri,s.. not films shot with Panavsion lenses.. does that not make sense ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arriflex 35 II-Series has no registion pin, but it is one of the camera with the most stable Image. That is why it is still used as a second unit camera for action scenes or time lapes. For this I use still my own 35IIA. It is more stable than every new camera from Arri.

 

 

Thank you so much Wilfried for your information. Are you saying that, in your opinion, the IIA was more stable image-wise than the IIC? I know that there was a slight design change - I think the cam mechanism that worked the pull-down claw in the later II-series cameras was altered. Or do you mean that the 35-II-series Arri cameras, A, B and C, were all in your opinion more stable for registration than later designs eg. the 35-III and the 435 for instance? I'm genuinely interested to hear your views. I've heard it said that some have called the II the best design ever (for a lightweight MOS camera).

Edited by Jon O'Brien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All that time the cave had a bad effect on me .. :).. yeah we can see the lens is Panavision .. even I can see that..but to my mind if you say a film was shot on Panavision.. it would mean the camera was Panavision .. in this case the camera was an Arri.. my camera is a Sony.. but I have a canon lens .. but I would say anything I shoot is shot on a Sony.. " was shot on.." usually refers to the camera not the lens .. especially as the thread is about films shot with Arri,s.. not films shot with Panavsion lenses.. does that not make sense ?

 

I'd say Panavision is primarily a lens company.. many Panavision cameras are Arris with PV mounts. Most of Panavision's rental cameras now are Alexa Minis for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All that time the cave had a bad effect on me .. :).. yeah we can see the lens is Panavision .. even I can see that..but to my mind if you say a film was shot on Panavision.. it would mean the camera was Panavision .. in this case the camera was an Arri.. my camera is a Sony.. but I have a canon lens .. but I would say anything I shoot is shot on a Sony.. " was shot on.." usually refers to the camera not the lens .. especially as the thread is about films shot with Arri,s.. not films shot with Panavsion lenses.. does that not make sense ?

Yes, that makes sense. My original point was about Hong Kong martial arts movies being shot with anamorphic lenses, and not Techniscope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah ok got it.. just the way you put it as a Panavision shot film.. which would normally refer to the camera that was used not the lens .. maybe clearer to have said it was shot Anamorphic not Techniscope..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd say Panavision is primarily a lens company.. many Panavision cameras are Arris with PV mounts. Most of Panavision's rental cameras now are Alexa Minis for example.

 

Funny I always thought as them as a camera company :) maybe my age.. and the lenses came with the camera.. my point only is the term "a film shot on Panavision".. usually would refer to the camera.. "shot on a RED" "Shot on a Venice" etc ..and then "with" XXXX lenses..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks James for the correction. You are absolutely right "Enter the Dragon" was not shot in Techniscope 2 perf. I was wrong for this film.

It was shot on an Arri 35 II C. At the end of the article you linked, you can see in the first photo that it is an Arriflex 35 II C. It has a moveable viewfinder. And Panavision normally modified them for their lenses. Also in the first picture one can see an anamorphotic lens. And on the fourth picture you can see it

Maybe you are right that all Shaw Bros production were shot 4 perf anamorphotic, but not all martial arts films in Hongkong.

In Hongkong they still hat in the mid eighties a laboratory, which could make optical 4 prtf anamorphotic prints from 2perf. They used it for martial arts films. In Europe in this time it was only possible in Rome. All others gave it up in this time to make optical print from 2 perf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the stable image of the 35II-series:

I mean not the first one of the series, the Arriflex 35II, which was introduced in 1946 and which was the following model of the Arriflex 35.

I mean the later models, 35IIA, B and C. The Arriflex 35IIA was introduced in 1953. The difference to a B (introduced 1960) is not very much: better viewfinder, changeable, ground glass and a better gate. The IIC, which was introduced in 1964 has a few new modifications like a turnable viewfinder and other things. So you cannot see on a photo if it is a 35IIA or B, but if it is a C. (We cannot be sure what Ken Loach used in the nice picture someone posted before. We cannot see the parts we Need to identify if it is a C. It also could be a A or B, but not a 35II.)

Yes, for single frame works the 35IIA, B or C is better than a 35III or a 435. The steadiness is more stable than newer cameras.

Also the old 16mm cameras have very often a more stable picture. That is a reason why some are prefer an Arriflex SR II instead ot an SR III.

In the former time the mechanical works were much better! Simpley they had enough time to make a good quality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Wilfried, good to know. Though I suppose older mechanism in some of the more heavily-used examples might result in less stable image. I know, the only way is to do a test, but in general do older, very well made cameras age well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for single frame works the 35IIA, B or C is better than a 35III or a 435. The steadiness is more stable than newer cameras.

Also the old 16mm cameras have very often a more stable picture. That is a reason why some are prefer an Arriflex SR II instead ot an SR III.

In the former time the mechanical works were much better! Simpley they had enough time to make a good quality.

I'm sorry Wilfried, but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I love the 35-IIC design but there is no way it is steadier than a 435, or an Arricam. It's well known that 2Cs are pretty stable, but not steady enough for background plates for example, whereas 435s and before them 35-3s were the Arriflex cameras of choice for this task. I've watched many steady tests of 435s and they were always rock steady even at high speeds, assisted by having both dual pull-down claws and registration pins. A 2C is amazing for the steadiness it can achieve with such a simple movement, but it is really no match for the later registration pin cameras, especially a 435 - in my opinion the pinnacle of Arri camera design.

 

I've also never heard of anyone wanting to use an SR2 over an SR3, the later camera gate is much less prone to wear and introduce unsteadiness, among other improvements.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the 35-IIC design but there is no way it is steadier than a 435, or an Arricam

Every tech I've talked to about the 2C vs. later Arri cameras has agreed with Dom. It's fine for quite a few applications, especially when you're moving the camera quite a bit, but the registration on the later generations of Arri III's and the 435's are noticeably better.

 

On SR2's vs. SR3's...I've used both quite a few times and honestly haven't noticed a difference in registration but these cameras were well maintained and I wouldn't have expected to see a difference. SR3's feel a little more solid but just that is completely a subjective experience. I suspect it would be easy to find SR2's that are more beaten up due to age however.

 

I had an SR1 that was adjusted by an Arri tech in NY that was just great so for me it really comes down to maintenance and wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears the 2C has quite a steady picture, to the extent that it's been successfully used many times to film some major pictures, and some extensive scenes from big pictures right up to SW original trilogy too. Perhaps these days where some filmmakers are seeking a slight affirmation that their picture was indeed shot on film, an infinitesimal bit of vertical jitter and gate weave might not be such a bad thing, after all, as long as it was hardly noticeable. For the right movie/filmmaker I'm sure it remains an absolutely viable option even these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one potential issue that could possibly crop up and that is the PL mount, with the angled mirror housing being too close to the lens barrel. It's a tight squeeze to fit the PL lens mount up against the mirror housing and aluminium has to be milled off the camera to fit it all together as it was designed to be used with physically smaller-bodied lenses. So for benefit of anyone interested in shooting with the 2C in PL mount, might be best to make sure that the PL mount lenses you are thinking of using will fit. Some large-barreled Panavision lenses fit onto a 2C but that is with the PV mount that has a slightly longer FFD, which no doubt helps as the base of the lens sits further out. Anyway, check your lenses will fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tai Audio



    CineLab



    Serious Gear



    Visual Products



    Metropolis Post



    Just Cinema Gear



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Paralinx LLC



    Glidecam



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Abel Cine



    Ritter Battery



    FJS International



    Wooden Camera



    G-Force Grips


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...