All Activity

Ultra 16s, Cooke SK4s and the odd wide angle by Optex and Century were about as good as it got with S16 primes. But the enduring appeal of Zeiss Super Speeds (S16 ones) is not to be dismissed. Optar Illuminates and Elites were also not bad, approaching Super Speed quality. Many S16 lens sets were intended to be filled out with 35mm lenses for longer focal lengths. Lots of good zooms were made for S16 too. The Canons (8-64, 7-63, 6-66 etc), or Cookes (10.4-52 or 10-30) or Zeiss 11-110 or Angenieux 7-81, 11.5-138 were all good in various ways.

Yes might be worth having experienced cine lens techs appraise it. Maybe email TLS or Optical Support or CVP, all in London. No idea what you have in Ireland sorry. I’m all the way down under!

Posted 1 minute ago (edited) I saw a promising ACL 2 kit on eBay. Might be a deceased relative or friend. I'm trying to help the seller get it basically tested. USD6K buy now. eBay link.. https://www.ebay.com/itm/257001653238?_skw=eclair+acl&itmmeta=01JZBRQT3GBGZZMMJ75G0EA9FY&hash=item3bd67e03f6:g:cFIAAeSwn6doZzBH&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1cd8G86BOp38L9y2kOLnA9JEzaLY%2FNyPJ56daSF0wr8kfbm5YqylzGiqQQ7MfSCaxXDNckbFe3iWhCkQckqW3e9%2FsIphp9BKEvjTSlAevHKPOQDQJuCEcGHNXCvsbR49A08CtA448z2NS8FdiB91vJnrY5Fr8VXG8A5vJ02HEp9KFnsGkegnSEdCrWS7F5ZAboqZdnaH0UwhVPQbje6ffJwaNKS4I2EAxBVICqpMsl%2FDknJUqPFmoel0wM9LkSVOoU%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-yh3_j6ZQ

I saw a promising ACL 2 kit on eBay. Might be a deceased relative or friend. I'm trying to help the seller get it basically tested. USD6K buy now. eBay link.. https://www.ebay.com/itm/257001653238?_skw=eclair+acl&itmmeta=01JZBRQT3GBGZZMMJ75G0EA9FY&hash=item3bd67e03f6:g:cFIAAeSwn6doZzBH&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1cd8G86BOp38L9y2kOLnA9JEzaLY%2FNyPJ56daSF0wr8kfbm5YqylzGiqQQ7MfSCaxXDNckbFe3iWhCkQckqW3e9%2FsIphp9BKEvjTSlAevHKPOQDQJuCEcGHNXCvsbR49A08CtA448z2NS8FdiB91vJnrY5Fr8VXG8A5vJ02HEp9KFnsGkegnSEdCrWS7F5ZAboqZdnaH0UwhVPQbje6ffJwaNKS4I2EAxBVICqpMsl%2FDknJUqPFmoel0wM9LkSVOoU%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR-yh3_j6ZQ

Hey, I’ll be shooting a short film/POC for what we hope is eventually a series. There's a million logistical things with this production, most out of my control but was wondering if the community could help me with some “no wrong answers” white board brainstorming. Can’t post the script obviously but this is a period piece set in Canada during the war of 1812 AND it’s a comedy. A bit of a comedy of manners, pretty irreverent, bit of slapstick. How would you lovely people shoot this. Not too concerned with specifics re gear but in broader terms. I’m thinking S35, vintage glass, some sort of filtration (maybe something special/unique for close ups), mostly sticks and dolly, back and forth between 1.66:1 and 2:1. Lots of wides. I’m kinda picturing Barry Lyndon, Last of the Mohicans but I’m struggling to find the comedy reference points. I know it’s a broad ask but I’d appreciate any references, movie recommendations, any ideas about camera movement, look, style choices that would keep us in the world of a prestige period piece but allows the comedy to really hit when it needs to.

Hello, I have a cable for my Arriflex 35 but it is unfortunately not the correct model for my project, The correct model is the cable here: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/6ft-arri-arriflex-35mm-banana-power-1816991859 The project I need this for is not about the material produced by the camera but the camera and its accessories itself. I just need a vintage on similar to this, If you know anything that could help me, please tell me! Thanks.

Hi guys, I recently purchased a Beaulieu 6008 Pro on eBay. Upon inspecting it I noticed that the right side portion of the viewfinder has a dark area running vertically across it next to where the footage counter is. Is this normal or is there an issue with the camera? It seems strange that a portion of the viewfinder wouldn’t be visible. Also is there supposed to be a rubber ring piece on the c mount of the camera body. It seems like something should go there. Is that an issue as well? Thanks!

At that point I couldn't think of any explanation apart from operator error. It seems that the no-notch system rules that out. But it wasn't until your comment that I checked to be certain. It was hot for sure (low thirties) but not ridiculously so. It's something of a puzzle currently...

the arri / zeiss Ultra 16s are going to be the sharpest hands down, followed by master primes. weirdly, the zeiss LWZ.2 is nearly as sharp as the Ultra 16s, and will clear the viewfinder on the SR3. Ultra 16s will fit an SR3, Master Primes wont (I think they technically will if you put the viewfinder in a vertical position that makes it unusable). Regular Ultra Primes work fine, but they're not as sharp as the Ultra 16s. That being said I have no issue using a 40mm UP in leu of the U16 35mm if I really want that smidge narrower field of view. Originally they only released the U16s from 6mm to 14mm, assuming that users would simply use the regular ultra primes to round out their lens set. Not long after they rounded out the U16 set with longer focal lengths.

I only used the 16mm set of Ultra Primes, I haven't used the 35mm set. The main reason is simply wider angle shots. It's nice to have a fast S16mm designed 8mm lens for instance.

Hmm. What made you think that the filter was definitely in? Because if it wasn't, that only leaves the stock being affected by the heat.

Thanks again Mark - I found the filter pin and can confirm that pushing it does indeed disengage the 85 filter. The manual switch on the side of the camera also works. I then checked by inserting another 100D cart (from the same batch as the one in the clips) and can also confirm that loading it removes the 85 filter - because there is no notch.

I think one of them was Stanley Kubrick!

I think some people noticed optical effects but in general there was less expectation for cinema to be seamless and technically flawless. But I'm sure there were critics back then just as today who didn't "buy" certain effects, did not find them convincing. Also keep in mind that print projection back then hid a certain amount of flaws. Some cinematographers were better at others at blending levels of diffusion -- I think Harry Stadling was excellent at that, whereas when Russell Metty put on a diffusion filter, it tended to really stick out. Some of it was the attitude at the time towards glamorization of close-ups; it was accepted as a convention, at least in the late 1920s, 1930s through mid-1950s. The widescreen and large format craze of the 1950s started to work against that. The desire to soften close-ups for the purpose of glamorizing the lead actress hasn't gone away, it's just that today you have more subtle digital tools to blur hairpiece/wig glue lines, reduce bags under eyes, erase blemishes, etc. And in the early days of DI's, it wasn't always subtle either -- I remember "The Island" (2005), where director Michael Bay seemed to have an issue with Scarlett Johansson's mole on her cheek and decided to blur it throughout the movie. On my show "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel", we did not shoot close-ups, but in general there was a level of diffusion, usually from a 1/4 Schneider Hollywood Blackmagic. But I had to modulate that -- if we were shooting in hazed sets, the smoke would soften the image so I usually dropped back to a 1/8 strength. And for extreme long shots, I'd go even lighter to a 1/8 Black Frost or no filter at all. The thing is that today we have a lot more diffusion filter options and we can see the effect on an HD monitor on set, so it is easier to be more subtle when changing strengths of filters. In the 1970s, I think William Fraker was the closest in the U.S. to doing what Geoffrey Unsworth was doing with filters, though Fraker mixed his approach film to film based on the subject matter.

The filter pin is below the gate- push it in by hand while looking into the lens and you should see the filter swing out. A tungsten-balanced cartridge has a notch in that position so the filter stays in. A 100D cartridge should be un-notched, so removing the filter. I've never seen a 100D cartridge, but all the photographs I can find show no notch. If you still have a cartridge you could check. It's possible that your camera has a broken linkage so the filter stays in; if you've always used negative film before, the cast can be graded out so you may not have noticed. But you now know that it can't be corrected on 100D.

Thanks Mark - to be clear does the current Ektachrome 100D cartridge disengage the 85 filter on every Super 8 camera which has a filter? If so it's a mystery why this did not happen. I didn't alter the cartridge in any way. But the film looks exactly as you'd expect from shooting daylight film with an 85 filter - complete shift to orange (and Marrakech already has a colour palette skewed in that direction). As to your second question: yes, shot at 18fps and scanned at 25fps. I didn't apply the usual 70% speed reduction before I quickly cut these sample clips together and exported them.

Have you worked out how it happened? As I said the cartridge should have disengaged the filter automatically. What about the apparent undercranking?

Thanks for your comments everyone: I can now confirm that the problem was definitely not the lab or processing. The 85 filter was engaged by mistake.

Yes I'm in Dublin, I made an error when filling out my profile

IMG_3092.HEICIMG_3088.HEIC Went ahead and tried it out, atleast all the way to the 16mm the UPs fit.

I had the lens looked at locally here. They managed to remove the front glass but said the focus ring is still completely seized, even with a lot of force. They mentioned that cutting off the multi-start thread might be possible, but re-machining it would be expensive and there’s no guarantee the internals aren’t damaged from the impact. That shop seemed more commercially focused, so I figured they might not have the time (or interest) to go deeper with it. I’m considering sending it to a more specialised repair centre for a second opinion — just to be sure it's beyond saving before writing it off.

Yes, I been looking at the Duclos re-housed Tokina 11-16 PL mount lens. I'll be very interested in seeing some footage. Please keep me informed.

Thanks for the replies. From my understanding it was the Master Primes that may not fit but the Ultra Primes should be ok. The SR3 has the same type of VF as the SR2.

I don't know whether you're looking for top cine or more humble lenses but I can tell you a Tokina 11-16 with PL mount will fit on an Arri SR without bumping into the viewfinder just above the lens mount. At least, the one I have fits. No footage to show yet but soon hopefully I will post some. Getting there. I'm told it's a sharp lens. The Canon 8-64 isn't a modern lens but it works well with an SR and it's pretty sharp.