Jump to content


Photo

What camera should i rent?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:33 PM

Hi all. In two weeks we will start filming a shortfilm for which i need a camera:

- capable of 3 perf (2 perf would be wonderfull)
- super 35mm
- as lighter as possible since the director wants as many hand held shots as possible (last time i almost died with a 435 in my shoulder for only 10 minutes)
- we need to record sound, so a quiet camera is a must (unless there is no other option than dubbing later)
- capable of slow motion (60 fps)
- variable shutter settings with easy access or electronic control.
- cheap to rent :D

So the arri lite would be perfect, but it only gets up to 40fps if i remember well.
A BL4 is not too bad for shoulder mount, but i think it is not easy/fast to change shutter angle.
A 535 is far to heavy.
Arri 2C is too old and too much window movement, besides nooooise.

I have never used aaton/moviecam, so i dont know if there is something to choose from.

What do you think?

Edited by Mr. Macgregor, 17 September 2006 - 01:36 PM.

  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:02 PM

There aren't a lot of cheap options. I'm afraid that indie folks shooting sync-sound 35mm generally have to live with hefting a heavier camera rather than use all the new lightweight sync-sound camera options.

The Moviecam Compact would be good all-around compromise if you can live with 50 fps as a top frame rate. And if you can find a 3-perf version to rent.

Otherwise, if you really need 60 fps from a sync-sound 35mm camera, you're talking about the Arri 535B, or an Arricam.

If you can live with 40 fps as a top rate, the Moviecam SL and Aaton 35-III are lightweight sync-sound cameras designed for handheld / Steadicam, just a bit noisier than the typical sync-sound camera:

http://www.aaton.com.../35/35specs.php
http://www.moviecam....ameras/sl.html#

There is also the Panavision Panaflex Millenium XL2, which goes up to 50 fps, but is not cheap -- more in the same rental price category as a Arricam Lite.
  • 0

#3 Chayse Irvin

Chayse Irvin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:38 PM

There aren't a lot of cheap options. I'm afraid that indie folks shooting sync-sound 35mm generally have to live with hefting a heavier camera rather than use all the new lightweight sync-sound camera options.

The Moviecam Compact would be good all-around compromise if you can live with 50 fps as a top frame rate. And if you can find a 3-perf version to rent.

Otherwise, if you really need 60 fps from a sync-sound 35mm camera, you're talking about the Arri 535B, or an Arricam.

If you can live with 40 fps as a top rate, the Moviecam SL and Aaton 35-III are lightweight sync-sound cameras designed for handheld / Steadicam, just a bit noisier than the typical sync-sound camera:

http://www.aaton.com.../35/35specs.php
http://www.moviecam....ameras/sl.html#

There is also the Panavision Panaflex Millenium XL2, which goes up to 50 fps, but is not cheap -- more in the same rental price category as a Arricam Lite.


I believe Aaton 35-III is the cheapest. But make sure they have it 3 perf because not everyone will and they do get loud... Clairmont Vancouver's one isn't even listed as a sync camera because its so noisy.

Edited by Chayse Irvin, 17 September 2006 - 08:41 PM.

  • 0

#4 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 September 2006 - 07:04 AM

PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS.

There are no 3perf cameras available at the rental house. So I am totally confused now in what to do. This is a shortfilm so the budget is very limited. These are the 2 budgets that the producer forwared to me:

Budget 1: 3.650 euro (more or less the same in USD)

CAMARA ARRIFLEX 535B (or MOVIECAM COMPACT MK II)
ZEISS T2.1 (16-20-24-32-40-50-85mm.)
O'CONNOR ULTIMATE head

Budget 2: 2.200 euro

CAMARA ARRIFLEX BL IV
ZEISS T2.1 (16-20-24-32-40-50-85mm.)
O'CONNOR ULTIMATE head


The final prints will be 2.35 scope.
I prefer to use the Cooke ultra prime S4 instead of these zeiss T2.1. Even i think i would like more the superspeeds if i dont have the chance of using the S4.

But still we would be filming 4 perf spherical super 35mm when the goal is to go to scope. A pity and waste of film.

The rental house gave me the possibility of renting a ULTRASCOPE T2.2 lense set (35, 40, 50, 75 and 100mm) which i have no idea how they will perform. Probably and old and not a very high quality glass. Still, does it make sense to with the higher definition anamorphic workflow with the ultrascope or to shoot s35mm with the S4?

Thanks

Edited by Mr. Macgregor, 18 September 2006 - 07:06 AM.

  • 0

#5 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 18 September 2006 - 04:19 PM

One of the best lightweight options is the Moviecam SL - it's still one of the lightest 35mm cameras ever made and a pleasure to handhold.

As for choices; The BL4's are good, solid cameras and can do most things a 535 can do - save the money and spend it on something else instead. The Zeiss T2.1's are also not to be knocked - they're one of my favourite lenses to shoot. Sharp, small, lightweight (the S4's are huge and weigh a ton without really being any sharper) and come in a nice range.

Never heard of the Ultrascope. But scope is of course always nice.
  • 0

#6 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 September 2006 - 04:33 PM

(last time i almost died with a 435 in my shoulder for only 10 minutes)

A BL4 is not too bad for shoulder mount, but i think it is not easy/fast to change shutter angle.
A 535 is far to heavy.

I have never used aaton/moviecam, so i dont know if there is something to choose from.

What do you think?

First off, a BL4 is heavier than a 535B. And if you almost died from handholding a 435 for ten minutes then you shouldn't even consider a BL4 or 535. They are both much heavier than a 435. The Moviecam SL is my favorite camera to handhold because of it's weight and ergonomics. I'd push for the SL if you can. I don't mind handholding a BL4 or 535, but they may not be good options for you considering your last experience with the 435.
Good luck.
  • 0

#7 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 18 September 2006 - 05:43 PM

Just finished a TV commercial with the aaton 3. Very hand holdable. With super speeds/ or standard primes and a improvised barney a capable sync sound camera. Especially with very directional mics and a tweek in post with audio software like Soundsoap. Like the MoviecamSL also but the ergonomics of the aaton 3 "the cat on the shoulder" feel is superior.

3 perf is tough not a lot of cameras available yet, two perf impossible
  • 0

#8 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 September 2006 - 01:29 PM

UltraScope are lenses made in the 50s and not compareable to modern anamorphic lenses.
  • 0

#9 Chayse Irvin

Chayse Irvin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 20 September 2006 - 04:53 PM

PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS.

There are no 3perf cameras available at the rental house. So I am totally confused now in what to do. This is a shortfilm so the budget is very limited. These are the 2 budgets that the producer forwared to me:

Budget 1: 3.650 euro (more or less the same in USD)

CAMARA ARRIFLEX 535B (or MOVIECAM COMPACT MK II)
ZEISS T2.1 (16-20-24-32-40-50-85mm.)
O'CONNOR ULTIMATE head

Budget 2: 2.200 euro

CAMARA ARRIFLEX BL IV
ZEISS T2.1 (16-20-24-32-40-50-85mm.)
O'CONNOR ULTIMATE head
The final prints will be 2.35 scope.
I prefer to use the Cooke ultra prime S4 instead of these zeiss T2.1. Even i think i would like more the superspeeds if i dont have the chance of using the S4.

But still we would be filming 4 perf spherical super 35mm when the goal is to go to scope. A pity and waste of film.

The rental house gave me the possibility of renting a ULTRASCOPE T2.2 lense set (35, 40, 50, 75 and 100mm) which i have no idea how they will perform. Probably and old and not a very high quality glass. Still, does it make sense to with the higher definition anamorphic workflow with the ultrascope or to shoot s35mm with the S4?

Thanks



You should find out how much not going 3perf is going to end up costing you... because on my last film it translated into lots! We ended up having to shoot S16mm with a SR3.
  • 0

#10 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 September 2006 - 05:47 PM

Thanks to all. Finally the decission is to go with the Arri 435 super35 4 perf (yes, a waste of film) and the zeiss T2.1. Price: 2,500.
  • 0

#11 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 September 2006 - 03:54 PM

You're using the 435 for sync sound?
  • 0

#12 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 September 2006 - 04:43 PM

You're using the 435 for sync sound?

That was my first thought too.
  • 0

#13 Jonathan Benny

Jonathan Benny
  • Sustaining Members
  • 166 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver, Canada / Paris, France

Posted 21 September 2006 - 05:34 PM

Thanks to all. Finally the decission is to go with the Arri 435


How did you come to such a decision? Are you sure you didn't mean "535"?

AJB
  • 0

#14 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 September 2006 - 06:09 AM

How did you come to such a decision? Are you sure you didn't mean "535"?

AJB



Yes, no sync sound during the filming.
  • 0

#15 Mark Henderson

Mark Henderson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 January 2007 - 02:05 PM

Yes, no sync sound during the filming.



2-perf is 1:2.35
3-perf, Super 35 is 1:1.80

Mark
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 January 2007 - 02:23 PM

2-perf Full Aperture (Super) should be approx. .980" x .368" = 2.66 : 1
3-perf Full Aperture (Super) should be approx. .980" x .551" = 1.78 : 1
  • 0

#17 Jon Kukla

Jon Kukla
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 399 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:46 AM

Yup, 3p-S35 is 1.78. (Silent gate 4/3 divided by 3/4 perfs = 16/9)
  • 0


The Slider

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Opal

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio