Intro 00:06 Dovetail/bridge plate/rods 1:57 PL/ inching knob/shutter angles 6:15 Eyepiece and viewfinder 11:39 Basic operator side controls 13:11 Basic AC side controls and IO 15:06 Getting started with setup 19:56 Seating/removing a magazine 21:20 Loading the magazine 23:01 Seating a loaded magazine 31:51 Startup/FPS & footage counter 33:03 Arriglow 36:35 Seating the mag pt2/ Phase 38:06 Mounting a lens 39:31 IVS Video tap 41:02 Shoot film ✌🏼😎
Not sure what you mean. The segment on Video assist starts at 41:00. The camera has BNC out which I am converting from SD to HD using an Athomos converter and from there I can connect it to any SDI or HDMI equipped monitor. It's all in the video.
@ 24 frames/sec or 90 feet/ min, thats only 4.4min per 400 foot roll. Even with a 1000' magazine, thats only 11 min. No wonder people switched to a video format! Video allows unlimited time to shoot and has been since videotape was invented over 60 yrs ago Video has also reached film quality of 14 stop latitude and very portable/lightweight cameras.
The concept of video is almost as old as that of photochemical film. However, it took video many more years to reach an acceptable quality. Lot's of shows for TV were shot on film so they could be transferred later to a better video format and re-broadcast. It's only roughly about a decade since video technology can visually compete with the quality of 35mm film, and even less time since cameras with that capability are reasonably affordable. Some filmmakers do stick with with film for the aesthetic. Spielberg, Nolan, Anderson, etc. No doubt video is cheaper and faster but it's a creative choice. I'd compare it to computer animation. It's faster and cheaper than stop motion but then there is an aesthetic to stop motion animation that's just different.
@@cinemyscope6630 film absolutely has its own quality and some prefer that. As for filmed TV shows, film was the ONLY way to record a program for time delay broadcast, syndication & distribution. But it did not come without problems. The reason mostly was cost. TV stations exist for profit. And time is money. BIG money. A lot of bigger TV stations has their own film labs. Even mews segments were on 16mm film so they HAD to have in in-house lab. When Video tape came out, things could get to air MUCH easier, faster and way less expensive. Also there was o storage issues as the tape could be erased & re-used. That's why hardly any shows that were taped in the 60s are gone forever. Thru were erased. Tape has a MAJOR advantage over film, mostly cost, but they are DIFFERENT mediums. Cost is what drives new medium. This is why film has all but died. I restore 2" quad video tape machines which were the king of the golden age of television. It took a lot of knowledge to get a video tape to playback in high quality. The machines weighed 2,000 lbs, required and air compressor and lots of electric to run. It was expensive to own one of these machines, but one of those machines made you a ton of money. Because of the Costner there was a need to make it way less expensive and because of technology changes we are now able to do all of this on a laptop! Video tape has a charm to it as well, but even that is mostly gone away. Only a few people even know how to operate on of those behemoths let alone repair them.
@@cinemyscope6630 One of the big advantages of film is that whilst it's not as accurate as modern digital sensors, it is incredibly pleasing by the way it applies a subtle blur due to the grain whilst digital usually requires a good amount of post production to make it less sharp and exact. Whilst the distortions from tape have a look but it is mostly a compromise rather than something naturally good looking. Also film can have a fantastic resolution. Of course, the price of film has always been a negative point, even more now where the demand is relatively low and thus prices are massively high. That isn't entirely bad though. The cost forces productions to shoot with purpose and not make a thousand takes of each scene (unless you're Kubrick). Which can make editing easier since you're not having to pick between each take. It can also make the actors focus more on the scene since they know they can only do so many takes, and so need to nail it right away.
Intro 00:06
Dovetail/bridge plate/rods 1:57
PL/ inching knob/shutter angles 6:15
Eyepiece and viewfinder 11:39
Basic operator side controls 13:11
Basic AC side controls and IO 15:06
Getting started with setup 19:56
Seating/removing a magazine 21:20
Loading the magazine 23:01
Seating a loaded magazine 31:51
Startup/FPS & footage counter 33:03
Arriglow 36:35
Seating the mag pt2/ Phase 38:06
Mounting a lens 39:31
IVS Video tap 41:02
Shoot film ✌🏼😎
getting a tutorial of 416 from Guillermo Del Toro is next level 😏
lol
Thanks for this video! Would love an in depth video of the ARRICAM LT / ST!
awesome video, very detailed!
thank you for the thoroughness!
Thank you for sharing! One day I’ll use one of these cameras and I’ll be sure to visit this video again.
Very nice tutorial, thank you!
Thank you very much. I am sure this will come in handy in the future.
Love that camera! Thanks for uploading!
Very helpful! Thank you so much!
Thank you for this Video!
My dream camera
0:06 love how he dropped that 416 on the table like a boss. It's probably the last one in existence. :)
Good job Joerg!!
Thank you for your tutorial !!
Thanks!
Круто! мечта моя
thank you
Please we want you to talk about Arri 2c film camera
is the 416 able to take 100ft daylight spools?
Yes, you should be able to pull out the core holder and put the daylight spool onto the spindle.
@@cinemyscope6630 thanks for the reply! Cheers
there is no hdmi cable or a monitore screen in this kind of cinematic camera ..
Not sure what you mean. The segment on Video assist starts at 41:00. The camera has BNC out which I am converting from SD to HD using an Athomos converter and from there I can connect it to any SDI or HDMI equipped monitor. It's all in the video.
yes sir i didn't finish the video thank you @@cinemyscope6630
@ 24 frames/sec or 90 feet/ min, thats only 4.4min per 400 foot roll. Even with a 1000' magazine, thats only 11 min. No wonder people switched to a video format! Video allows unlimited time to shoot and has been since videotape was invented over 60 yrs ago
Video has also reached film quality of 14 stop latitude and very portable/lightweight cameras.
The concept of video is almost as old as that of photochemical film. However, it took video many more years to reach an acceptable quality. Lot's of shows for TV were shot on film so they could be transferred later to a better video format and re-broadcast. It's only roughly about a decade since video technology can visually compete with the quality of 35mm film, and even less time since cameras with that capability are reasonably affordable. Some filmmakers do stick with with film for the aesthetic. Spielberg, Nolan, Anderson, etc. No doubt video is cheaper and faster but it's a creative choice. I'd compare it to computer animation. It's faster and cheaper than stop motion but then there is an aesthetic to stop motion animation that's just different.
@@cinemyscope6630 film absolutely has its own quality and some prefer that.
As for filmed TV shows, film was the ONLY way to record a program for time delay broadcast, syndication & distribution. But it did not come without problems. The reason mostly was cost. TV stations exist for profit. And time is money. BIG money. A lot of bigger TV stations has their own film labs. Even mews segments were on 16mm film so they HAD to have in in-house lab.
When Video tape came out, things could get to air MUCH easier, faster and way less expensive. Also there was o storage issues as the tape could be erased & re-used. That's why hardly any shows that were taped in the 60s are gone forever. Thru were erased. Tape has a MAJOR advantage over film, mostly cost, but they are DIFFERENT mediums. Cost is what drives new medium. This is why film has all but died. I restore 2" quad video tape machines which were the king of the golden age of television. It took a lot of knowledge to get a video tape to playback in high quality. The machines weighed 2,000 lbs, required and air compressor and lots of electric to run. It was expensive to own one of these machines, but one of those machines made you a ton of money. Because of the Costner there was a need to make it way less expensive and because of technology changes we are now able to do all of this on a laptop! Video tape has a charm to it as well, but even that is mostly gone away. Only a few people even know how to operate on of those behemoths let alone repair them.
@@cinemyscope6630 One of the big advantages of film is that whilst it's not as accurate as modern digital sensors, it is incredibly pleasing by the way it applies a subtle blur due to the grain whilst digital usually requires a good amount of post production to make it less sharp and exact. Whilst the distortions from tape have a look but it is mostly a compromise rather than something naturally good looking. Also film can have a fantastic resolution.
Of course, the price of film has always been a negative point, even more now where the demand is relatively low and thus prices are massively high. That isn't entirely bad though. The cost forces productions to shoot with purpose and not make a thousand takes of each scene (unless you're Kubrick). Which can make editing easier since you're not having to pick between each take. It can also make the actors focus more on the scene since they know they can only do so many takes, and so need to nail it right away.
Ahh yes! Finally! Digital has allowed us to shoot as long as we want!
:AD informs us we only have 13 minutes to shoot the next 5 setups: 😬😬😬
@@drewbienemann61 it was not digital, you could have shot for as long as you wanted with video since its invention
Out of synch. Can’t watch that.