[FS: GEAR] Arriflex 416 Plus Package, mags, cases.

[Kenny Suleimanagich]

SOLD SOLD SOLD

 

[Marc Wielage]

Doh, this was about $100,000 15 years ago, am I right? Beautiful camera.

 

[Kenny Suleimanagich]

Not even...they came out less than 10 years ago!

Incredible cameras. Really the best you can get in 16mm production.

 

[NateWeaver]

Doh, this was about $100,000 15 years ago, am I right? Beautiful camera.

15?

More like 2006! And even then 16 was on it's way out, so I'm betting this thing only saw 1-2 maybe 3 years of real work.

 

[Vince Sweeney]

15?

And even then 16 was on it's way out..

An uninformed statement; it became even more popular for many serious filmmakers and still is quite viable. 16mm still records better color than any digital camera to this day.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Real work?

The BBC has re-approved 16mm origination.

"On it's way out?"

I shot with a 416 last weekend. Anything but 16mm would've been an unfortunate choice for the project.

"1-2, maybe 3?"

This is the camera that recorded Black Swan, The Wrestler, likely 100 or so other features that aren't as well known.

You can replace film, but I'm not sure if you can replace the discipline. Exposing with a meter alone--mixed skintones for 5 days, mostly at dusk and dawn... I can't imagine leaving set with the same feeling if the footage was all on a hard drive, instead of a box full of cans.

Back at CSC we were told they're seeing a surge of interest in 16mm. There might be a day where no one shoots it, but folks please don't present that day is now. It isn't.

 

[Kenny Suleimanagich]

That is true - BBC did re-approve it. I think we are seeing a proliferation of choices, no doubt. The fact that a rental-only camera can be purchased for 1/10 of the MSRP less than a decade later means these tools are going to be put in the hands of some more great filmmakers.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

That is true - BBC did re-approve it. I think we are seeing a proliferation of choices, no doubt. The fact that a rental-only camera can be purchased for 1/10 of the MSRP less than a decade later means these tools are going to be put in the hands of some more great filmmakers.

I think many DPs would love a world where camera choice was based on best tool for them to achieve their vision for a project. Economics will prevent that from happening but it won't stop DPs from wanting that freedom.

 

[mikeburton]

So Swartzman just said, 35mm anamorphic and photochemical finish is the best after comparing all digital alternatives. He shot the last Spider-Man on Epic if you recall. Now granted, this is a marketing piece for Kodak but those are his words and many tend to agree and choose film subcontiously when the images hit the screen.
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Saving_Mr_Banks_Recalls_Disney_s_Golden_Age.htm

 

[Marc Wielage]

You can replace film, but I'm not sure if you can replace the discipline. Exposing with a meter alone--mixed skintones for 5 days, mostly at dusk and dawn... I can't imagine leaving set with the same feeling if the footage was all on a hard drive, instead of a box full of cans.

Eh, you get used to it. I never liked the look of 16mm, mainly because of the relative lack of pin registration. What I do like about it is, if you screw up, there's a chance for the lab to fix it. In the case of digital, at least you have the chance of making an immediate backup after shooting it. With film... there is no backup. If anything happens to the negative, you're dead. (I saw some sad cases in my many years at Technicolor.)

I'm a much bigger fan of 3-perf 35mm negative, and think that's a totally viable way to shoot a movie. But I also have no problem with well-shot digital images on great cameras and lenses. I honestly think we've gotten to the point where there isn't a whole lot of difference anymore between film and digital, and the DP makes the greatest difference.

Didn't somebody say that Walking Dead had changed to digital this season, after shooting the first 3-4 years on 16mm? Whatever they're doing, the show has gotten sharper this year.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Didn't somebody say that Walking Dead had changed to digital this season, after shooting the first 3-4 years on 16mm? Whatever they're doing, the show has gotten sharper this year.

Arriflex 416 & Super Speeds MK I

 

[Steve Sherrick]

So Swartzman just said, 35mm anamorphic and photochemical finish is the best after comparing all digital alternatives. He shot the last Spider-Man on Epic if you recall. Now granted, this is a marketing piece for Kodak but those are his words and many tend to agree and choose film subcontiously when the images hit the screen.
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Saving_Mr_Banks_Recalls_Disney_s_Golden_Age.htm

I love this line from Schwartzman in the recent ICG mag.
"Anytime you light someone at night outside, it's a movie cheat. I did that on Seabisquit once, and Gary Ross asked me 'Where is the light coming from?' I told him 'The same place the music comes from.'"

 

[Marc Wielage]

Arriflex 416 & Super Speeds MK I

It looks great. But I think they're doing something different this season.

The wide shots still look soft to me, but not as soft as in years past. I wonder what (if anything) has changed in the Walking Dead ​workflow?

 

[Drew Dawson]

Still for sale??

 

[Daniel Soderberg]

Still for sale??

Says sold in the first post.