Jump to content

framegrabs from super16 Cooke 10.4-52 T2.8


adam berk

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I recently helped a buddy of mine (joseph seif) acquire some extra material for his reel submission to AFI. We got our hands on a Cooke 10.4-52 T2.8 and I must say that I am totally impressed. I am in love with this lens!

 

The transfer was done on an early model FDL-90 which I feel does not do this lens or vision2 any justice at all. Hopefully he'll opt for an HD transfer on a decent machine. I'd love to see this stuff in hidef.

 

The stocks were 7212 and 7201. The 7201 is the tobacco flavored stuff ;)

 

Camera was an Aaton LTR-7.

 

enjoy!

 

post-17218-1196339419.jpg

 

 

post-17218-1196339433.jpg

 

 

post-17218-1196339441.jpg

 

 

post-17218-1196339448.jpg

 

 

post-17218-1196339456.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Camera-gear-wise, that sounds like dream set-up. A shame about the FDL-90 (I assume a budget-based rather than tech-based decision).

 

Was it a rental or privately-owned lens?

 

I particularly like the 3 final framegrabs re. coloration and composition. Beautiful stuff. A great shame that 7201 is not available for Super 8 (this is just a lobbying sentence, don't get too hung up on it). The last one is 7212, again, right?

 

I cannot fully comprehend why Cooke is always second-placed in respect to Zeiss. The color reproduction that Zeiss primes and vario sonnars offer has something too clean, too clinical, emphasising the "blue aspects" of light which irradiates the mood when not specifically wanted. German 1970s films are drowning in that mood, particularly Schlöndorff's films. But then again, he mostly filmed men urinating in pissoirs, so maybe that fits after all.

 

Anyway, I think Cooke transcends more what is filmed into the artistic realm in which cinematography is located in, after all. It is beautifully inspired by the oddly warm light here in the UK, filled with that degree of moisture that defines the atmospheric humidity here even in hot summers and which gives the light that specific glow in the air as the rays and particles get constantly broken.

 

I'm a huge fan of those older Cooke lenses. I love the warming they add, and the way the capture women's faces is unlike any motion picture lens I've ever used.

 

Tim, I would like to hear more about that. Please feel free to elaborate if you find a couple of minutes spare time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Tim, I would like to hear more about that. Please feel free to elaborate if you find a couple of minutes spare time...

 

DISCLAIMER: BEFORE ANYONE GETS ALL WORKED UP, WHAT'S WRITTEN BELOW IS SIMPLY MY OPINION, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, OF WHAT I LIKE. IT IS NOT SOME STATEMENT OF "WHICH IS BETTER, COOKE OR ZEISS?"

 

Michael,

 

I couldn't agree with you more about the difference between the older Zeiss (Mk1 and older) and older Cooke (Kinetals and Speed Panchros) lenses. The Zeiss lenses just have no warmth in my opinion. And much of that has to do with what I like the look of. I come to all this from thirty plus years as a still photographer, where ninety percent of my work was photographing people in either a fashion context or photo documentary work. So for me, personally, it is all about faces. And the Cooke lenses add just this warmth and "human-ness" to faces. They are not as cold and clinical as I find the Zeiss glass.

 

So I just love the look of the Cooke glass. Below is a frame grab from one of the test clips on the web site. It was shot with a Cooke Kinetal 25mm. And I think it's beautiful.

 

ClipOld.jpg

 

-Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The last one is 7212, again, right?

 

 

The last one is in fact 7212 again. Keep in mind that these images have all been graded during the supervised scene-to-scene telecine transfer. I had our colorist turn the DVNR down as far as it would go because I really do not feel that the FDL-90 has sufficient definition or sharpness to sustain acceptable picture integrity through that process. This is why you may see some extra noise/grain. If we were to have done the transfer on a shadow or spirit with a more modern DVNR, the pictures would be even cleaner, and have much more perceived resolution.

 

Thanks for everyone's comments and questions!

 

 

 

 

-adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...