>I've never used a 35-III. Do you mean that they eliminated those awful >vertical baffles that were used in the 35-II's finder?
>Brian Heller wrote :
>Early 35-IIIs still had a couple of baffles, but most people had them >removed.
>I also have never used an Arri III. Was there an engineering change that allowed the baffles to be removed from the later IIIâ€™s?
>If not, does their removal cause the same problems (perhaps to a lesser degree) that occurred in the IIC when the baffles were removed by camera owners?
Third Unit Films
Los Angeles & Montreal
>Early 35-IIIâ€™s still had a couple of baffles, but most people had them >removed.
>Not a good idea, there is a risk of light reflecting off the ground
glass and hitting the film.
>Still, they DO look horrible...
Joel Newman writes:
>I also have never used an Arri III. Was there an engineering change >that allowed the baffles to be removed from the later IIIâ€™s?
>Not significantly. The IIC had three baffles, where as the 35 -III has only two baffles. The centre and most objectionable baffle was eliminated.
>If not, does their removal cause the same problems (perhaps to a >lesser degree) that occurred in the IIC when the baffles were removed >by camera owners?
>Yes, it does. However, whether or not the baffles are more objectionable than the occasional kick-back from the ground glass is really up to the judgment of the owner. I know that after repeatedly having to explain to agency people and clients that the vertical black lines they see on the monitor will not appear on the finished product, a number of commercial shooters simply preferred had the baffles removed or did it themselves.
>Rather than saying most people, I should have said that some people have the baffles removed -- or do it themselves.
>FWIW, I personally have only seen a problem with baffle removal on time lapse material. And in that case, it's safest to remove the ground glass entirely.
IA 600 DP
>FWIW, I personally have only seen a problem with baffle removal on >time lapse material.
>I've seen it occur on an Arri lll with the baffles removed. It was explained to me that a highlight either in the frame or outside the frame could cause the offensive flare-like phenomenon. We saw it in dailies and found the problem was caused by a kick off a chrome grip stand off frame.
>Even though there was no apparent flare on the lens we covered the stand with black Duvetyne and the problem was resolved.
>The DP/director subsequently had Duvetyne socks made up for all the grip stands in his studio. Never had the problem again.
I was assisting at the Rockport photo workshops, when one of the students came running to me, as another course assistant had his pliers inside the lens port, and was about to pull the baffles, claiming that five minutes earlier those lines weren't there, and was I sure they belonged.
>I don't know about that -- he might have made a good dental assistant
IA 600 DP
So how come only the old 35 Arris needed baffles? How do other camera designs manage to get around the same problem of ground glass reflection?
Dan Drasin writes:
>So how come only the old 35 Arris needed baffles? How do other >camera designs manage to get around the same problem of ground >glass reflection?
>The IIC's and earlier cameras had three port lens turrets which made for a rather large cavity behind the lens. Hard front conversions to a single lens port diminished the size of the cavity, and the need for baffles, which were often reduced to three, or even two, or even none at the time of the conversion, depending on who did the hard front conversion.
>The 35 III is a single lens port design with a smaller internal cavity and less reflective possibilities due to a different viewfinder system and a somewhat more shielded ground glass and mirror. Therefore the baffles were able to be reduced from five to only two.
>In the 35 BLâ€™s the ground glass location and viewfinder arrangement eliminate the need for baffles, likewise the 435, etc.