Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


M Joel W last won the day on August 3 2019

M Joel W had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

15 Good

About M Joel W

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

6522 profile views
  1. That's fair, but it's difficult to show what I mean unless I look for extreme examples. I wouldn't want everything to look like this either, but how else can I showcase what I mean? Cooke S2s still look like Cooke S2s at t4 or t5.6, they just don't have as much "character" as they do wide open so if I'm to pick a thumbnail that illustrates their look it would be when they're worse-behaved. Perhaps I should have searched a bit harder, but I think you know what I mean. Regardless, I think rather than "detuning" an anamorphic system, the easier approach is complementing it with the appropriate taking lens. Which is what the Panavision article alludes to. But I don't know what Dominik is working with so, again, I might be coopting this into my own little thing where I'm looking for taking lenses with nisen bokeh.
  2. No, I know. I might have been unclear. Or I might be confused about what Dominik is after, I'm not sure what he's working with in the first place. Perhaps I'm just turning this question into one I have myself. There's a discussion elsewhere about Iscoramas and taking lenses. Contemporaneous (or older) taking lenses seem to enhance the anamorphic look as their harsher bokeh and oval edges and fall off already look kind of anamor-fake. Here's some Iscorama footage that I find to have a stronger (imo better) look than most, not that it looks anything like Panavision. It just looks good for what it is imo: That's using an old 50mm f2. So I guess what I'm getting at is the bubble bokeh complements an anamorphic system by enhancing the oval look where otherwise it might be less apparent... Elsewhere, Panavision discusses the importance of the spherical system in defining the C-series look: https://filmmakermagazine.com/107908-panavision-dan-sasaki-customizing-lenses-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/#.XhIyAC2ZN24 So I guess what I'm getting at is–if Dominik is using an anamorphic set up, the taking lens is probably what to focus on. And it's the less expensive part of the system. If he's using a spherical one, rather than detuning what you have, just buy (or rent) bubble bokeh lenses. They're cheap enough. Am I the only one that finds certain Cooke Panchros (32, 50m 75) to have a bit of bubble bokeh? However they are not "cheap enough" I checked eBay. 😞 Edit: maybe not "bubble bokeh" outright, but something close to it: The combination of sharper edges (nisen bokeh? bubble bokeh?) and the sort of swirly look is what I think would complement an older anamorphic adapter well.
  3. Is this what Canon is doing with the Sumires? I think the "bubble bokeh" helps sell the anamorphic look. But there are cheap options to get it imo.
  4. I believe the 10-100mm t2 Zeiss, while highly regarded, is known to breathe worse than many still lenses. It's an interesting question. K35s and FDs are purported to share optical similarities, and my older cinema lenses appear to be unit-focusing. I've heard the Master Primes and other modern designs are designed to avoid breathing–but are older cinema lenses just as bad as old still lenses?
  5. This thread is old enough that you likely have your answer by now, but I own this combination and figured I would chime in. The above photos don't reflect what I own. The photos seem to have the base of the Arri standard mount removed from a zoom (at the "universal mount" Dom mentions, I suppose) and the universal mount to Arri mount component is attached to the extender instead. My adapter and lens both have Arri standard mounts, nothing unusual. So that one looks like it's been taken apart differently, at the universal mount rather than the standard mount, I'd guess? For me, the adapter and lens attach together just fine and rather surprisingly seem to cover S35. The lens is incredibly slow but appears to have infinity calibrated correctly and it's pretty fun how relatively small it is. I just bought a zoom crank for it, too... I have also used a second 12-240mm that had been converted to Arri Bayonet mount and the metal ring around the rear element was removed, allowing it to fit in a generic Bayonet mount extender (I think I was using a Colcine/Optex). The Bayonet adapter I was using had a much larger rear element but performance and coverage seem worse here. Edges are very soft and I saw a hint of vignetting on S35. But the above combination works fine. The Birns and Sawyer Angenieux AR 2x telezoom (co-branded French and American and made in Japan, it seems) works with the 12-240mm just fine from what I can tell, at least if you like really slow, really soft lenses. I think Larry bought one that had a universal mount adapter already attached to it. With that removed, it should work. Which seems weird, but then again my 12-240mm had a macro tube attached to it when it arrived and seemed to be focusing inside itself. 😕
  6. Thanks, Simon. Of course, as regards ratio of what spectra are transmitted, improving transmission selectively is effectively cutting back whatever isn't improved, but point taken. This is way over my head, though what you've written makes sense. I appreciate the detailed response and will continue to trust my own eyes rather than my weird theories. Zeiss does state that the additional warmth of the blue t* coating is trivial, whereas the blueness of the flares is not. And it makes sense that lens design is a bigger factor... How different is a Baltar from a Gauss-Tachar from a Schneider Xenon from a Biotar from a Primoplan? (Or those may not be equivalent designs, but of similar vintage designs from different manufacturers.) I notice the Xenons going for $300 on eBay and some of the others going for twenty times that. Curious what justifies that big a difference in price. Is a 50mm Cine-Xenon that different from a Cooke S2 or Baltar?
  7. My old Zeiss (pre-T*) seem to reflect gold and purple. Newer Zeiss (T*) blue, teal, cyan, and yellow. (Haven't compared color cast as they are for different formats.) Other multicoated lenses appear somewhere in-between. Old lenses flare rainbow so I have no idea how that works. I just read that Zeiss's new T* blue coating flares blue but slightly warms the image. So maybe that's where I got the original idea.
  8. Thanks, good point about different reflections for different surfaces. I hadn't considered that. Or I'd assumed it was due to different coatings on different elements but that doesn't make much sense... I did get a 2x extender attached to the 12-240mm Angeniuex btw and it almost covers S35. In the middle of the range there's a bit of vignetting but very minor. But literally this has the worst optical performance I've ever seen. I still don't have any idea how Kubrick got his to look as good as it did.
  9. Does a coating that looks blue mean a lens is warmer and vice versa? It's counterintuitive because a blue filter makes the image more blue. Do blue flares correlate with a warm image? Do warm flares correlate with a cool image?
  10. Thanks, this is all very helpful.
  11. Thanks, I think it's counterbalanced properly now. Or close to it. Stays put no matter where I tilt even with lowest drag setting setting. Doesn't feel as well-balanced or consistently smooth as when my friend demonstrated counterbalancing on an O'Connor 2060, but that was a much larger camera set up and had the benefit of inertia. Maybe I'm still missing something but it seems fine now. This is the potential issue. I am shooting with an EVA1 and very tiny lenses. I have some cheap off-brand baseplate that, as well as being cheap, is very light, which I like. But its options for mounting screws are severely limited and poorly thought-out imo. I do worry about balancing larger lenses but will cross that bridge when I get there....
  12. Thanks, makes sense. Oddly, if I swap the screws in the plate and mount the plate backwards, I can line the small screw up with a hole at the back of my baseplate. And then I need to slide the camera on from the front of the tripod rather than the rear. But it balances okay. But this feels like a strange solution and looks odd. I have no metal work skills. Is there any reason not to do this? Seems odd, but also seems to be working.
  13. I feel really dumb. I'm using a Miller Compass 20 with a camera that's probably a bit small for it, 5-6 pounds at its lightest (haven't weighed it, but that's my guess). But the camera is back-heavy and I cannot get the mini euro sliding plate assembly far enough forward to balance on the tripod. So I removed the camera plate assembly and bought a standard Bogen-style tripod plate. Same thing. Should I buy the extra long tripod plate? There are no returns on it. Also, what counterbalance settings would be best for this set up? Thanks. Sorry for the newbie question. Getting back into shooting.
  14. I believe many Nikkors cover 5k on the LF and the longer ones cover 6k.
  • Create New...