Jump to content


Photo

Aaton's hair free gate... gate check not necessary?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Marc Roessler

Marc Roessler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 December 2010 - 05:32 PM

Aaton advertises their cameras as having the "hair free gate". The idea is that there is no horizontal running pressure bar at the top and bottom of the gate and thus any fluff/dust is much less likely to be caught there.

Sounds good. And up to now it worked perfectly with the XTR, whereas I sometimes (very seldom..) did have a small hair at the top of the gate (bottom of picture) with my Arri 16S.

Do you do a gate check with the Aaton? Has anyone ever encountered a hair in the gate with an Aaton?

Thanks,
Marc

Edited by Marc Roessler, 19 December 2010 - 05:35 PM.

  • 0

#2 Vincent Sweeney

Vincent Sweeney
  • Sustaining Members
  • 686 posts
  • Director
  • LA at the moment.

Posted 19 December 2010 - 06:08 PM

It does seem really rare but can happen. It seems like the hairs you do find are more of the type that will stick near the opening via "static". Yes, I would do a gate check after each set-up. Having said that, I did lots of B-roll recently for a film on an Aaton and would go through a whole 400ft roll without checking because the takes were long, and we didn't have one issue. Once for a few scenes there was something (a chip maybe) on the far right of the image that I couldnt see by checking the gate. Zooming in 1% on the image took care of it though.
  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3702 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:51 PM

Yes you need to check. They mightn't be common, but hairs do happen in Aatons.

Speaking of static, we had to do numerous retakes in an airport lounge because of hairs, I assume because of the fast tracking shots on a Doorway dolly over the carpets.
  • 0

#4 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1210 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:55 PM

I have had them in my LTR at times, they do tend to be small and usually crop right out with a 16:9 or 1.85 scan/transfer.

-Rob-
  • 0

#5 Paul Korver

Paul Korver
  • Sustaining Members
  • 154 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 December 2010 - 12:57 PM

Where this really comes in to play is their 2-perf Penelope. I've heard a few DPs shy way from 2-perf due to fears about not being able to resize.
  • 0

#6 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 13 February 2011 - 02:28 PM

I can tell you from first hand experience that there are hairs with Aaton (or with any motion picture film camera for that matter). To claim otherwise is irresponsible. I cannot tell you how many gate hairs we had with the 2 perf Penelope on The Fighter. It was an everyday struggle.

Edited by Gregory Irwin, 13 February 2011 - 02:30 PM.

  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 13 February 2011 - 03:35 PM

Hairs in the gate, like fast film, emulsion scratches, are problems that were there at the beginning, will be there 'til the end.

Like firearms and law enforcement, like stool samples and nursing, like chald/dry erase and teaching, just part of getting your hands dirty with the medium.





Gregory: You're a valuable asset to the board having first-hand experience with 2-perf. I know you're not the editor, colorist for the film, BUT, how did automatic software do with hairs? Digital ice obviously wouldn't work since it's encoded into the emulsion of the film, but I'd think some matting software out there would have an easy time of detecting it, no?


You know, someone really out to look into designing magazines, camera bodies with clean-room (positive pressure, keeps dust from entering) blowers inside. Of course the throat of the magazine, camera would still be a weak point.

I've been to two or three labs now that had clean rooms (wish I had one myself). I've been told they aren't perfect, but they seem like a great time-saver for this sort of thing, if of course this sort of thing can be miniaturized affordably.


I'm not a degree-holding engineer, but someone with HVAC experience and a BA in mechanical engineering should be able to say how difficult this would be to incorporate into a magazine and a camera body. . .



As to irresponsible advertising: Kodak, all the camera manufacturers, Fuji, labs are all guilty of it.

Any company that recommends their 500T (most expensive aka most profitable) stock to 16mm filmmakers is irresponsible. 7219 is the WORST stock for HD transfers, green screens, but it is the most popular, sold because that's what makes Kodak the most money. Same thing with Eterna 500 Fuji. Camera companies, rental houses often pitch their most expensive models. Is it the best choice for a cash-strapped film or a student film? Almost certainly not.

Unfortunately, there's always a conflict of interest when money is involved and a commission, rent has to be paid. . .

Edited by K Borowski, 13 February 2011 - 03:39 PM.

  • 0

#8 Benjamin Rowland

Benjamin Rowland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Producer

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:54 PM

Borowski,

Some of the high end DI software can paint out a hair.

Also, The Pixel Farm makes software that can do the job: http://www.thepixelfarm.co.uk/
  • 0






Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Cool Lights

Cinelicious

Pro 8mm

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

The Slider

Lemo Connectors

K5600 Lighting

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Glidecam

System Associates

Robert Starling

CineTape

Visual Products

Robert Starling

Cool Lights

System Associates

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

Cinelicious

Abel Cine

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Lemo Connectors

Glidecam

CineTape

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

rebotnix Technologies

Zylight

CineLab

Ritter Battery

K5600 Lighting

Visual Products