Guest santo Posted November 24, 2005 Share Posted November 24, 2005 No thanks. I'm busy at the Creationist Museum of World History webboard, trying to argue that there is such a thing as evolution, and that the world is a lot older than 6000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Paul Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 What's lecina special's focal flange distance by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 If you're using an old giant Japanese home movie camera zoom from the 70's, you'll be really lucky to see 50 to 60 line pairs of resolving power. Excellent prime lenses often hit 90 line pairs and, in the case of Leicas, test out up to 110 in some magazine tests. Zeiss claims their Zeiss Ikon M mounts can hit the very limits of optical physics pretty much. :lol: They use the same tech as their cine lenses do so that they can compete with Leica, which are the current best in the world in any objective test. Until now? One thing I do know is that it is pretty much a waste of time to argue such points of fact with Japanese home movie camera buffs. It doesn't matter how overwhelming the evidence in front of them, the examples, the logic ... it's like a strange branch of religious fundamentalists :) santo you're fighting windmills. we (i love my canons) know they are not very sharp especially not wide open but we don't care and we love the look. who's shooting super 8 for sharp images anyway? there's always 35mm and hd for that. ;-) you've been trying to pick fights over this issue for years but the only resistance you'll ever get is defensiveness from people who feel attacked because of their choce of camera. very understandable of course and before your crusade (who's the fundamentalist again btw?) i'm sure all of them knew that there were sharper lens option but they just didn't care. so just to avoid any confusion in the future: santo is right, but i'll shoot my next film on a canon anyway. anybody got a problem with that? :-) /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted November 25, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 25, 2005 santo you're fighting windmills. we (i love my canons) know they are not very sharp especially not wide open but we don't care and we love the look. who's shooting super 8 for sharp images anyway? there's always 35mm and hd for that. ;-) you've been trying to pick fights over this issue for years but the only resistance you'll ever get is defensiveness from people who feel attacked because of their choce of camera. very understandable of course and before your crusade (who's the fundamentalist again btw?) i'm sure all of them knew that there were sharper lens option but they just didn't care. so just to avoid any confusion in the future: santo is right, but i'll shoot my next film on a canon anyway. anybody got a problem with that? :-) /matt So from 1970 to 1979 Canon didn't make any strides in the quality of their lenses for the 814-XLS? The 814XLS hit it's main production stream some time around 1978-1980, The camera just looks to be an optimized version of what came before, including the lens. I remember when I was a college TA film in one class the film that was far and away the sharpest, shot after shot after shot, was the film shot with a Canon 814-XLS. OK, the Elmo 1012-XLS was pretty decent as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8 Booster Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 whatever your visual impressions may be like - the xls canon zooms easily eclipses the resolution figures santo gives for the schneider be it primes or zooms - even wide - wide open. will be fine the day you guys know the differences between hard contrast and high resolution. in terms of "seeing" sharpness kodaks new neg film is more suitable as they are far sharper than k40 and much less grainy than the kodak bws. and santo, your samples sucks but worse - you are light years away from proving anything with those images - you hav eno ideea of how to set up reference shots. youre nothing more than a spindoctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Sandstrom Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 will be fine the day you guys know the differences between hard contrast and high resolution. i know what you're saying but do you realize who you're talking to right now? ;-) anyway, i've never compared the canon to a prime, but i've compared it to itself and if you don't see that it's not sharp wide open you're *blind*. so i was gonna post a disclaimer in my last post that there's in fact one more guy who is a religious fundamentalist in addition to santo, but i guess i was just secretly hoping that you wouldn't show up. i see now that you were already here, so it was a huge mistake on my part. sorry. :-) you hav eno ideea of how to set up reference shots. how do you know? if you think the shots he's posted here were meant to be reference shots you're even more blind than if you think the canon is sharp wide open. he even put tape on the lens to make it flare, go figure... /matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Salzmann Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I've had amazing results with the Leicina Special and the 6-66 Optivaron zoom. Very good results were also obtained with a Canon 1014XLS. It seems an odd time to source super8 primes because unfortunately the lifespan of super8 is not so certain.almost all super8 work that I've done recently was for TC transfer and the results were very good with a good TC operator. Make sure the lens is clean and protected from flare (unless you want it) and you can achieve results that are good for music videos and certain other applications that justify this look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 I shot a bunch of S8 - in the late 80's I shot with a borrowed Sanyo on K40 and it looked (and still does) f*** great. PS Kodachrome is no slouch in the sharpness dept. (if there are "issues" now, maybe it's the processing ?? I think it was still Kodak Fairlawn when I did this) OTOH I've seen very nice work in 16mm processed by Dwayne's so I don't know... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Davidson Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Do you have $3700 to spend on a Zeiss Ikon 15mm M mount for your super 8 "long" lens? And even if you do, do you want to? If you're looking to use a wide variety of practical normal and wide lenses in super 8, it's pretty hard to argue against a C mount. You can get them in everything from a 3mm to 100mm plus in a wide variety of quality levels. It's too bad there is not a C mount book out there with some reasonably objective testing and practical application advice. One is really needed. ******** Hi, My question is, where can I get an adapter to go between a C-mount lens and a Leicina Special? I can't find one anywhere. Thanks, Lisa ******** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfredoparra Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 what brand super 8 are you using? collimate your lens and you will have it as sharp as a new one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adolfi Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 Really enjoyed this thread, learned alot. Long live the misunderstood Phantom of the "8"...santo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Lovell Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 see attached images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now