Jump to content


Photo

35mm 2-perf viable altrnative to Super 16?

film camera film format. 35mm 2-perf

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#21 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 25 December 2017 - 02:57 PM

Robin,

 

No need to apologize. I mean it. Got all the information I need from the thread. Thanks for that. 

 

Will look around for a really nice, reliable S 16 camera and good glass. Knowing how to work with it and digital post done just right will deliver all I'll ever need. 

 

Merry Christmas to all!

 

Christian


  • 0

#22 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4166 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 December 2017 - 06:13 PM

but since we're off topic, gotta know, anyone know what AG let their arricam LT's 2perf movement go for?


I heard $32k each, but the truth isn't gonna be easy to find.
  • 0

#23 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 25 December 2017 - 06:45 PM

If you ever wanna sell that 25-250 "wink wink, nudge nudge"

 

Nah, that's the one you said you didn't like, the vintage one.


  • 0

#24 victor huey

victor huey
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 118 posts
  • Producer

Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:47 PM

i am downsizing my 2perf 35mm KINOR 35h sync cameras. with oct.19 russian mount! totally rebuilt by  solid entertainment with new paint and electronics, 2 perf conversion by aranda., over 12k invested. asking 5k.

Attached Images

  • kiinor35h2prear.jpg
  • kinor35h2pfront.jpg

Edited by victor huey, 12 January 2018 - 09:49 PM.

  • 0

#25 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 13 January 2018 - 01:56 PM

Still even if your cropping 2 perf to 16:9, its still a 1.6X larger negative area then a 16:9 frame on super 16. So that would be a notable bump in quality. During the BBC's HD super 16 ban period - 2 perf 35mm cropped to 16:9 was considered good enough for HD.

 

So if the cost of 2-perf works out as only marginally more expensive then super16 and less then 3 perf its possibly worthwhile, if 3 perf is unaffordable. The question of if the extra quality is worth the bump in cost would have to be decided with testing etc... but it is something you could consider - 16:9 2 perf isn't a completely stupid idea. You also get the benefit of 20min loads which you can't with super 16. Some times 35mm short ends are better priced then 16mm - so you might be able to shoot 2 perf cheaper then 16mm and benefit from a notable bump in quality... win win

 

Of course a  2.40:1 - 2 perf 2.40:1 image is 3X larger then a 2.40:1 super 16 extraction so in that case 2 perf is a lot better. So for scope 2 perf is going to look vastly better then super 16.


  • 0

#26 Christian Schonberger

Christian Schonberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Lisbon

Posted 13 January 2018 - 02:12 PM

Phil,

 

My basic idea is that Super 16mm, even with modern Kodak Vision 3 neg stock, is not 


  • 0



Gamma Ray Digital Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio