Jump to content


Photo

Arriflex SR Original


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 09 February 2007 - 08:05 PM

In about a year or so, I will spend about $5000 on a nice 16mm camera, right now I just bought a brand new K3, and everything works great on it, i'm gonna learn on this for now.

I plan to get a nikon coolscan film scanner and scan in my frames in strips, this way all it would cost is $25 to get 100 feet of film developed.

Each frame would be a 4 mega pixle image in size, Raw quality format, for ultra color and clarity. I would be willing to bet I could get 1280x544 out of this no problem.

Just curious about the camera, if the SR Original broke down or needed spare parts etc, could it be fixed by an arri dealer or any other outfit? that's my only concern really.

how often do these things go for sale?? I saw one really nice set up on ebay just the other day and it sold for about $5100.00

I have no idea if these cameras are sold regularly or if they are hard to get..

Can any one offer any advice in my situation?

Basically my plan is to get a nice 16mm camera and film short films and short subjects for the rest of my life, as this is what I love doing. I got my web domain reserved in my name, my company logo designed and ready.
  • 0

#2 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 09 February 2007 - 08:18 PM

>>>>this way all it would cost is $25 to get 100 feet of film developed.<<<<


clarification... it would cost me for the film, and to have it developed. scanning it in I would do myself, so ultimatly that would save a hell of alot of money.
  • 0

#3 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 09 February 2007 - 11:25 PM

>>>>this way all it would cost is $25 to get 100 feet of film developed.<<<<
clarification... it would cost me for the film, and to have it developed. scanning it in I would do myself, so ultimatly that would save a hell of alot of money.


Curtis,

Okay, a few clarifications are in order. When folks say they have their 16mm films scanned, they mean on a machine that scans the film in "real time" at 23.98 FPS and outputs to tape or hard disk. I am very familiar with the Nikon Coolscan you refer to, and it runs about $1900 street price, and the adapter for 16mm film, which will not work on Super 16 film, is about another $350 (if you can find one anywhere, last time I talked to Nikon there were none in the country), and then you need to cut your film up into about six or eight inch strips, and scan it one frame at a time. So for a ten minute short film, you would have to do approximately 14,400 individual scans, and that is if you knew exactly what footage you wanted to use beforehand. This does not include the nightmare of trying to register (align) 14,400 individual scans (frames) in some sort of computer desktop digital editing software. It is simply not practical. The Nikon Coolscan is set up to do one or two frames if someone wants to see how a lighting set up worked or wants to capture a "frame grab" for a publicity still or the like.

As far as whether you can get an Arriflex 16SR motion picture camera serviced, the answer is a definite yes. ARRI INC in New York, the ARRI factory guys, still service the 16SR, as does Axel Broda, the guru of all things ARRI in the United States, and many other places service that camera as well. Some of the older ARRI cameras can be difficult to have serviced, but that is definitely not the case with the 16SR.

Good shape 16SR cameras are sold anywhere from $4500 to $15,000.

Hope that clears some things up,
-Tim
  • 0

#4 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 10 February 2007 - 12:48 AM

Yeah, the Coolscan IS NOT a telecine. You might as well pay for the cost of getting a quality HD telecine that's well timed and directly from your negative.
  • 0

#5 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 11 February 2007 - 07:27 AM

Hi, thanks a million for the info, I just wanted to make sure the arriflex SR was still happening these days service wise.

I know what you meen about the hassle of scanning in my own film haha, it would certainly be a pain in the ass. Having 100 feet scanned in on a Creality scanner would cost me about $125-$150 at my local lab in edmonton. and to have it put on digibeta would cost $75, and on top of that I don't have a tape deck and I hear those are about $12,000.00 from sony....... so the first idea that jumped into my head was nikon coolscan... lol.


now theres one other thing thats been bothering me, I have a very good idea as to how the film cameras work, and with a picture camera, the light hits the film or the image sensor head on, that sensor is not moving.

with a motion picture film camera, the film is moving downword while the light hitting it stays straight, how does that create for a solid picture instead of the picture being, "motion blurred" I guess you would call it.. or skewed up and down?
  • 0

#6 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 11 February 2007 - 09:41 AM

In a cine camera the film is not moving during exposer.

Edited by chuck colburn, 11 February 2007 - 09:42 AM.

  • 0

#7 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2007 - 09:43 AM

with a motion picture film camera, the film is moving downword while the light hitting it stays straight, how does that create for a solid picture instead of the picture being, "motion blurred" I guess you would call it.. or skewed up and down?


Hi,

The film is not moving during exposure.

Stephen
  • 0

#8 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 11 February 2007 - 09:46 AM

Hi,

The film is not moving during exposure.

Stephen


Good morning Stephen,

I use to know how to spell! LOL

Chuck
  • 0

#9 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:05 AM

Good morning Stephen,

I use to know how to spell! LOL

Chuck


Hi Chuck,

You posted while I was reading the thread. I have no idear how to spell being dyslexic!

FWIW I did not realise you had spelt 'pelicule' wrong in another thread untill you pointed it out!

Stephen
  • 0

#10 Curtis Bouvier

Curtis Bouvier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Industry Rep

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:27 AM

In the k3 tho, when you hold down the shoot button, the spools are continuously moving, altho i dont know if this is the type of camera you just mentioned, what what types of differences are we talking here. how do you know if your camera is cine or not.

I'm prety new to the whole motion picture film thing, i'm learning quite quickly tho. I've been dealing with film photography for a good amount of time so most of the motion picture film stuff kicks in pretty quick..
  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2007 - 10:39 AM

In the k3 tho, when you hold down the shoot button, the spools are continuously moving,


Hi Curtis,

That is correct the spools will move continuously, its pulled by the sprockets. The film in the gate stop/starts every frame.

Stephen
  • 0

#12 Troy Warr

Troy Warr
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Other
  • Austin, TX, USA

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:04 AM

In the k3 tho, when you hold down the shoot button, the spools are continuously moving, altho i dont know if this is the type of camera you just mentioned, what what types of differences are we talking here. how do you know if your camera is cine or not.

By "cine," he was just referring to a movie camera as opposed to a still frame camera like an SLR. Basically, all movie cameras, including your K3, use a mechanism designed to hold each frame still while an exposure is being made. The film spools will run continuously, but some slack is kept in the film around the gate so that exposures can be made frame-by-frame without ripping or jerking the continuously moving film spools. It essentially works the same way as a movie projector.
  • 0

#13 Tim Carroll

Tim Carroll
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2165 posts
  • Other
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:04 AM

In the k3 tho, when you hold down the shoot button, the spools are continuously moving, altho i dont know if this is the type of camera you just mentioned, what what types of differences are we talking here. how do you know if your camera is cine or not.

I'm prety new to the whole motion picture film thing, i'm learning quite quickly tho. I've been dealing with film photography for a good amount of time so most of the motion picture film stuff kicks in pretty quick..


The reason good motion picture cameras are so expensive is that the camera must move the film one frame at a time, stop the film, register the film (putting it in the exact same place every time), expose the film, then repeat the process. And it must do this with a great degree of accuracy twenty four times each second. When you look at the film spools, they look like they are continuously moving, but the film itself is stopping, being exposed, and starting up again twenty four times each second.

-Tim
  • 0

#14 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 11 February 2007 - 11:26 AM

The film is not moving during exposure.


Or so one hopes :D

Curtis: google "Latham Loop"

"pellicule" and "pellicle" are both correct I think.

-Sam "getting loopy" Wells
  • 0

#15 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 11 February 2007 - 01:45 PM

This my friends, is the beauty of an intermiddent movement.

;)
  • 0

#16 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:27 PM

"pellicule" and "pellicle" are both correct I think.

-Sam "getting loopy" Wells


Hi Sam,

I think it was another version! I can't find the thread so it may have been another forum!

Stephen
  • 0

#17 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 11 February 2007 - 02:31 PM

...and to have it put on digibeta would cost $75, and on top of that I don't have a tape deck and I hear those are about $12,000.00 from sony....


Find a house that does direct to External Hard Drive telecine. Saves a few steps, and your film's color will thank you for it.
  • 0

#18 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 11 February 2007 - 04:57 PM

Hi Sam,

I think it was another version! I can't find the thread so it may have been another forum!

Stephen


Hi Stephen,

I think we were joking around about Doug Fries's reflex conversions!
And if I remember right, I spelt it pellical. I was grinding some beam splitters on a contract job for Century Optics wayyy backkkk when and we spelt it that way then. Anyhow they were a pain in the ass. If we got ten useable pieces out of a plate of thirty or forty we were doing good! Plano optics are some of the hardest to generate.

Chuck
  • 0

#19 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 11 February 2007 - 05:00 PM

Hi Stephen,

I think we were joking around about Doug Fries's reflex conversions!
And if I remember right, I spelt it pellical. I was grinding some beam splitters on a contract job for Century Optics wayyy backkkk when and we spelt it that way then. Anyhow they were a pain in the ass. If we got ten useable pieces out of a plate of thirty or forty we were doing good! Plano optics are some of the hardest to generate.

Chuck


Hi Chuck,

Now I know why Doug charged $300 for a new one!

Stephen
  • 0

#20 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 11 February 2007 - 05:25 PM

Hi Chuck,

Now I know why Doug charged $300 for a new one!

Stephen


Yeah they are very thin. I seem to recall less than .020". And the ones that were flat and parallel had to then go out for mag flouride coating. Even when they kept the temps down in the vacuum chamber during the coating process a certain amount of the pieces would warp resulting in more rejections. Also with these "cold coatings" you got a not very durable surface. So no cleaning the "pelllical" with your shirt tail!

Chuck
  • 0


Technodolly

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Opal

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Technodolly