M Joel W

There's an interview on YouTube where a lens rental shop owner praises K35s for a number of reasons, but he also praises b speeds, which are like 1/10th the price. He does mention that something about newer lenses renders poorly or harshly on digital cameras, hence the sudden spike in popularity with S2/S3s and K35s. They probably are overpriced relatively to standard speeds and b speeds, for instance, but I guess if you're renting that's less of an issue.

I'm also guessing it's mostly a matter of older coatings. I think with older lenses you can get away with lighting a bit more carelessly or using less fill. On the other hand, if you over-light, they don't look so good imo.

This might be me overthinking things (as usual). But I think, even if you’re grading film, Resolve doesn’t obey the same rules as film and you can end up introducing colors that wouldn’t be there naturally, over-saturated highlights in particular. For instance by shifting lift to blue and gain to orange, the highlights might get too warm in an artificial “digital” way. So even if Arri is clamping down on over-saturated highlights with the Alexa (not that they always are, the brightest areas can clip a little weird imo) Resolve isn’t. So I try to apply lum vs sat last. Anyway that’s my thinking.

Thanks, I didn’t key it. It’s just a lum vs sat curve roughly like the image attached. That’s from Lumetri but Resolve has the same curve.

I agree once the highlights are clipped there's not much you can do to recover them but if the saturation isn't clipping I think a Lum vs saturation adjustment can approve their appearance and make them feel less "digital." I'm not a colorist and the difference is subtle but this is what I had in mind re: desaturating highlights.

I don't think it does either but my only experience with reversal is with Velvia 50 and 100. Saturation roll off is harder to adjust (imo at least) once the color channels clip but even in the example here I think you could address the issue in post pretty well.

This has always confused me. Maybe I'm conflating two separate issues. Arri (and now most other video camera manufacturers it seems) rolls off saturation in the highlights and midtowns (starting around 30 IRE or so I think) so the shadows are more saturated than the highlights are. This is not the case with traditional video cameras. The best comparison I have of this is an A7S clipping a red light source in frame as pure red (or yellow in this case?) before white and an Alexa clipping the same source as a very pale shade of pink before white. Apparently this is kind of highlight rolloff is modeled off of color negative film. But Alexa doesn't look like color negative. Arri's old discontinued film emulation mode was closer and the other is the difference between those shades of red is video (including Alexa) will give you that red color in the link whereas film won't, it will give you a darker color. More saturated areas appear darker in film. And I don't know if this has to do with video vs film or Arri modeling their color more off an additive model rather than a subtractive model, in which case Alexa is closer to reversal film? But doesn't saturation in reversal film behave more like the A7S does? There's a description here about additive vs subtractive but it's a sales page so hard to know: https://www.thebrim.pictures/sucomo.html It doesn't add up. Velvia (which is an additive model, being slide film) is far more saturated than Portra or even Ektar IMO: https://photojottings.com/color-negative-vs-slide-film/ https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/02/25/color-film-choices-for-landscapes Sort of regretting selling my 6X12 back and view camera. ?

I've noticed this, too. My friends over 30 are likely to be film nuts but below that age less so? I think it has to do with when film was transitioned out at schools and with the initial digital to film transition. That was around 2006-2008 as I mentioned and anyone who was shooting before then I think is likely to be more nostalgic than those who've never shot film. I want to romanticize it and say YouTube creators at least focus on content rather than fetishizing "vintage" aesthetics, but have not really found this to be the case except in rare circumstances, and in those circumstances it's primarily about providing a platform for a personality.

And it shoots ProRes! Post loves it, too.

I agree it's a matter of taste. The clipping motorcycle headlights could be mitigated in post with a Lum vs sat adjustment. It was likely a choice to leave it as-is or simply not a priority to correct it. I remember in 2006 I had a dvx100a and was looking for the "film look." But around then Miami Vice, Speed Racer, Tim and Eric, Inland Empire, etc. were embracing a "digital" look. And there was some wild digital color grading then, too. So it's a little disappointing to me that my favored digital cinema camera is the Alexa because I think the look is closer to a film emulation than it is to "digital as digital." The LF in particular is a bit cleaner and the image has more of the characteristic of reversal film or video than color negative, but overall I would argue Arri's success comes from taking a fairly conservative approach, bucking the trend those first few "digital as digital" shows took in favor of something more familiar. I guess what I'm getting at is: I like the Alexa best as a digital camera, because it looks the least like a "digital camera." So maybe I don't like how digital looks. Or maybe if I wanted a "digital look" I'd pick up a PD150 or HVX200 and shoot in 60p. But of course that assumes you want to "see" the medium rather than see a purely transparent version of what's in front of the camera. I'm fond of grainier film stocks, older lenses (Cooke S2/S3, Baltars, etc.), diffusion filters (Classic Soft in particular), etc. but not taking it too far or it gets too fuzzy. And there are aberrations (chromatic aberration) I can do without and I like their absence in S2/S3s and Signature Primes alike. Barrel distortion doesn't bother me, and I think Shane Hurlbut even favors it a bit because it pulls the center of the frame forward and emphasizes it. This sort of puts my tastes at odds with Deakins' tastes and maybe closer to Kaminski's or some of the younger generation shooting S16. But I have more respect for Deakins' work in a lot of ways and am consistently impressed by it. I liked those weird early digital shows so my preferences tend more toward "interesting" than "perfect" but Deakins is as close to perfect as it gets imo and very consistently, too. I think Karim's tastes are probably similar to Deakins' and maybe even further in that direction toward transparency and technical perfection, but it is (imo) ultimately still a matter of preference. It's probably just a matter of tone but questioning the post team's competency and intent in not correcting barrel distortion (which, fwiw, Fincher adds in post, so it's obviously to someone's taste) reads differently from saying you don't like it. Also there is a physical limitation in CCDs and CMOS sensors alike that at 18% gray (or 18% linear saturation) there are 2.5 stops of dynamic range above that. This is why digital cameras are 800 ISO or whatnot; most of them are pushing the curve digitally or combining signals from different ISO as with the Alexa. With film, you can add finer grain as with Vision 3 (which not everyone prefers to Vision 2) but with digital as resolution increases full well capacity decreases. There have been a number of attempts made at alternate sensor designs or readout, from the F35 to Fuji's Super CCD to the Black Magic 12k or Red's HDRX, but it seems like highlight detail just isn't a priority for most shooters. So it's not that people aren't trying, it's just not the top priority right now. Although with HDR screens becoming more popular (I was lucky enough to see a 10K nit demo and it's stunning) and resolution maxing out, this might change and a tendency toward neutral cinematography might win out. Hopefully the younger generation embracing film and vintage lenses and the even-younger generation pursuing neutrality and resolution will both have voices in the future. There are a few other good "film emulations" out there, but of course the issue persists that you need to light like you're shooting film. With a t2i or dvx100 I had to light more like I was shooting film than I would with an Alexa! Also, I'm foremost a hobbyist and not a pro shooter so my strong opinions are just opinions, too.

I have an S16 converted K3 but it's kind of rough. Image in the viewfinder appears out of focus when zoomed out, though I am told it's sharp when shooting film, something is off. Some fungus in the lens. I am going to try it out first I think to see if it works, but if it does I would sell for under $150.

Alan Gordon has one at a fair price: https://www.alangordon.com/sales/used/lenses/super-16mm/primes/12mm-zeiss

Curious if it's possible to load a 100 foot daylight spool in an Aaton LTR-X magazine. I have read mixed things.

It is possible to convert these lenses to Aaton mount.

You only see it when they move quickly, because when they move slowly, the discrete samples blend together, which is what's happening with the LEDs themselves. I suspect if he whip panned over the LEDs they would show similar artifacts. I have had this exact same thing happen before with 60hz HMIs.

I’ve had this happen with mag ballast HMIs and other 60hz sources like sodium vapor etc. It’s 60hz lighting and 24fps so that's something like 2.5 discrete sine waves per frame or I don’t know the terminology. But the brightness (which I think correlates with area under the sine wave–chop up 60 sine waves into 24 pieces and I think the area under the wave would be consistent per sample regardless of where you start and end) is consistent frame per frame but there are 2.5 “samples” of motion blur per frame rather than a “smooth” blur like you’d get with a high frequency ballast or tungsten source (which is also pulsing but heat keeps it more consistent). Which is to say there's triple-edged (or 2.5-edged) motion blur, but it's consistent frame-per-frame. In theory a very very dim tungsten light might do this, too. I'm not sure if that's the case in practice, but this is why for HFR you want bigger tungsten units. Anyway it usually looks fine to me. If you’re worried about it, add some pixel motion blur or reelsmart motion blur but that will look more smooth in motion more like a 360º shutter angle. I would leave it as-is.

Want to try this with an Iscorama to see if I can shoot S16 anamorphic. I can't pay too much since this is just for an experiment without immediate commercial prospects. Would also pay $100 (plus shipping both ways) to borrow someone's lens. Also looking for a 25mm t1.3 Mk 1 S16 super speed if anyone has one.

I haven't found that to be the case in the US. I've seen Primos and T Series on some pretty low budget productions. No idea how they ended up there, though, someone might have known someone. Also, I only wish Blade Runner 2049 were shot on C Series. But apparently Roger Deakins (and the Academy) know better than I do... Speaking of Panavision, I'm pretty sure I bought one of their old 4:3 Alexa Plus models on the used market. Branding was presumably removed specifically so I couldn't find out, but any way to figure out what blockbusters were shot on the camera I now use to make home videos based on its serial? Secondly, I know of the 2x Panatar for 16mm, but did you ever stock a 1.3X anamorphic lens set for S16? I'm looking into "budget" alternatives for the V-Lite 16s.

That’s reassuring to hear! I don’t know where I came up with the extra .02 part. I think I should just take the plunge and buy a Kinetal and try it. There are other weird options like an Iscorama 54 and Rokinons, but sometimes the rabbit hole is too deep. Are there any alternatives to V-Lite 16? Did Panavision make an S16 1.3X anamorphic at one point?

I've posted this same question twice before in some form or another and apologize for repeating myself. But I'm curious if anyone has tried this combination. The 17.5mm I suspect should cover and I have a wide angle adapter (the same one I think people use on Kowas) that would bring that to 14mm, which is wide enough for me. But I'm not sure it would cover without trying it and am hesitant to buy such an expensive lens prospectively with no other use for it. The Schneider 18mm f1.8 Cinegon doesn't quite cover, but it has 82mm front threads so it's an odd fit. I tried a 16mm Mk 1 standard speed and 16mm f2 Cinegon and they did not cover but the standard speed was very close. So I am curious if anyone has tried this combination. I suppose the other candidate is the 18mm Kinoptik, which is even more expensive. I think the Iscorama is actually a 1.42x stretch. So this is 2.35:1 exactly on S16. I think a dumb PL or Aaton mount adapter would lock the Kinetal at infinity, a problem for normal use, but this is desirable if shooting with an Iscorama.

I've heard Elswit I think does something similar. Hard key and soft "fill" from the same side.

Thanks! I like the look of them but there is something absurd about it too, kind of like the Veblen good Leica Thambar. Part of me gets it. I have some cheap old lenses that have a look I like but the mechanics are poor. And rehousing them would cost 3-4x the value of the original lenses, but without being rehoused they're not really very useful. And there aren't a lot of fast large format ranges to rehouse in the first place. I've read that older double gauss designs used glass with higher indices of refraction (lead, lanthanum, thorium) and more steeply curved surfaces and so it would not be possible to manufacture them today. But then Cooke did just that, maybe with slight changes, but the Cooke Classics are apparently pretty close to real S2/S3s? I think I have noticed a trend where chromatic aberration has become more and more acceptable. S2s have every little, my old Leica lens has very little, and even my old 50mm f2 Nikkor-S has a noticeable lack of CA relative to newer designs.

Also what's the deal with PVintage? That's another one of these.

Is the 47mm Arri DNA a Kodak Ektar? The lens diagrams on Blackwing's website don't look that different from Takumars or Nikkors to me? What are the DNA lenses? A lot of the f stop/focal lengths don't match up with anything vintage. Is Arri mixing vintage glass with new glass or are they all new designs?

Reviving a really old thread, my apologies, but did you have any luck? 17.5mm Kinetal and Iscorama seems like it could be a great combination if it covers S16.