Aaton XTR

I'm guessing that body is still worth $12-15k.

LTRs, last I knew, fetch much less, even for a package with an older lens. Somewhere around $7k for something like that.
 
That makes sense, he said he got it with a lens for 8k.

I heard SR-I modded for s-16 are a little less.

I wonder what this XTR is going to go for. I really like that it has the aaton code. :undecided

PS: I checked your site, wow. I'm guessing those are film. How did you swing those gigs? What kind of cams/budgets were you working with? If you don't mind me asking.
 
escozooz said:
PS: I checked your site, wow. I'm guessing those are film.
Click to expand...

Nope. Most are DVX. One is FX-1, and the latest is HD100

escozooz said:
How did you swing those gigs?
Click to expand...

It's been a long road. I've been working my way up directing/shooting for 5 years now. Before that I was an assistant cameraman for 8 years.
 
Yeah, I gotta say nate, your stuff looks good. If you had said it was film I wouldn't have argued. It comes down to the whole package I guess, ie; lighting, movement, wardrobe.
 
Dont buy a film camera right now, wait for the crash that will happen. they should drop another couple thousand at least when red camera comes out. What with all the HD cameras coming out the whole industry is shifting. As for the footage, Nate is killing.
 
1st Nates work is very good ..

2nd i just don't see how you can make a call like that viewing streaming media

and last i really doublt if Nate or any experienced cameraman would even consider dvx, f1, jvc, HXV as a argument against film.

they are all tools , they all have different looks, they fit different budgets ... they all have a place in the market ... choose the right one for the project ...
 
donatello said:
and last i really doublt if Nate or any experienced cameraman would even consider dvx, f1, jvc, HXV as a argument against film.
Click to expand...

I said his footage was an arguement against using film.

Why? Because it shows that the you can achieve a look as good as film (for 99.9% of the audience) by spending far less money. Then there are the other advantages of shooting video. Seems like a pretty good arguement to me.

donatello said:
they are all tools , they all have different looks, they fit different budgets ... they all have a place in the market ... choose the right one for the project ...
Click to expand...

Sure, but there is no point on spending more when you can achieve the same for less.

BTW, my post was only a casual comment, I'm not going into any sort of film vs video arguement. I still prefer film aesthetics (unless I am aiming for a particular tone), but I would rather shoot video and spend the money hiring a decent DoP.:thumbsup:
 
donatello said:
1st Nates work is very good ..

2nd i just don't see how you can make a call like that viewing streaming media

and last i really doublt if Nate or any experienced cameraman would even consider dvx, f1, jvc, HXV as a argument against film.

they are all tools , they all have different looks, they fit different budgets ... they all have a place in the market ... choose the right one for the project ...
Click to expand...

I call the current crop of cameras an argument against film in certain budget ranges for sure. Prior to the DVX if you wanted a project to look like 16mm, but your budget was say $3k for a small music video, then you'd beg borrow or steal an hours worth of short ends, shoot with a crusty old camera with questionable glass, and then do a rushed transfer on an older telecine. Result? You get a music video that at best looks like it was shot in 1988 because of the quality of the gear you had.

If my budget is $3k now, I shoot with the DVX, and put that money into locations and grip/lighting package. If there's money left over, I get a real gaffer.

These days a budget would have to be around $15k for me to try to squeeze in film, and even then, I'd want 35, not 16.
 
nateweaver said:
These days a budget would have to be around $15k for me to try to squeeze in film, and even then, I'd want 35, not 16.
Click to expand...

Do you think 35 has much of an advantage on the small screen over S16. In the UK a lot of TV uses S16 because the extra resolution just isn't needed. However, I have only ever used SD telecines, is the difference far more noticeable in HD. (I'm guessing it would be). Or is it a DoF consideration?
 
Nate I noticed you got the site from TemplateMonster, if you don't mind me asking, how hard was it to change that template, PM me when you get a chance.
 
I do have a Aaton XTR Body for sale.
I had actually two Aatons, but our XTR Prod was stolen with all the ascessories. This XTR Body was our second, back up body when we were shooting in very remote areas. It is very reliable. As we did not shoot Super 16 for the last 5 years it does not make sense to keep the body. The serial number is C1748 it is in good condition and I just wait to get an estimation on value from Aaton in Grenoble. Feel free to make an offer.
Axel

------------
www.engstfeldfilm.de
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top