M Joel W

Not in a rush, but if someone has these and doesn't need them, I'm trying to complete a set. Can't afford Baltars or Cookes. Non-rehoused only please.

*shot on ultra primes

I would try both out if you can before buying either. I was on a job that was shot on standard speeds primarily and the zoom was an Alura or Fujinon I believe. Anyway, it had a good image and intercut but also some pincushion distortion that I didn't care for. Might have been another zoom entirely, but it bothered me enough for me to notice.

Next time I do muzzle flare vfx I'm going to add flash banding to make it look practical. To be fair to Arri, the rolling shutter on the Alexa is very well-controlled. I've seen a hint of it in whip pans but it's vanishingly low compared with other cameras (excepting F55/F35 etc.).

Thanks, Phil. Are there any textbooks on optical design that are comprehensible to someone with a fairy limited understanding of physics? I want to be able to read a lens diagram and understand roughly what it's doing.

Obnoxious question, I'm sure. What would happen if I were to take the front from a 28mm f2.8 Nikon lens (everything in front of the aperture) and put the back (everything behind the aperture) of an 18mm f3.5 Nikon lens behind it? Even though the rays from both converge in the middle, if I'm not mistaken, I doubt it would make a functional lens and strongly doubt the focus scale would line up at all, but would it even create an image? If so, what would that most closely resemble? I've read the Tegea 9.8mm and 5.7mm share the same front half, but have a different rear half and some Angenieux lenses can be converted between FF and crop by swapping the rear group. So I'm just curious what this would do. Also, if Panavision anamorphic lenses are based on Nikkor taking lenses, how do they have a t1.1 model when the fastest 50mm Nikkor is f1.2? Or how is there a 75mm model at all?

I forgot that there's a rumor Panavision has a 1.3/1.4 anamorphic option for S16 that's cheaper than Hawk. I wouldn't know. Worth calling, though!

I was just looking into this, but mostly out of curiosity. With an Iscorama you get a 1.4X stretch, which gives you 2.35:1 exactly. I think Gaspar Noe shot 4:3 2x anamorphic for one feature. Hawk makes 1.3X anamorphic lenses for S16 that look beautiful but are very expensive. Others will know more than I do.

Schneider Cinegon 10mm f2 Schneider Cinegon 16mm f2 Schneider Cine-Xenon 24mm f1.4 Will the rear elements hit the mirror in an S16 reflex camera? All in Arri B mount. Also curious about the 8mm Zeiss, I know it's not meant to, but neither is the 9.5mm super speed if I'm not mistaken and it does well enough.

Thanks. I've had similar experiences with NDs but I've read other people have had issues with some less expensive Schneider filters. The Misfit mattebox is at the top of my budget, so that makes that decision easier. What are the 6X6 matteboxes even for? I'm assuming 4X5.65 will be good for anything except ultra ultra wides and crazy zooms?

Also, if I can only afford half-strengths (0.6, 1.2, 1.8) to start, would it make sense to complement them with a 0.3 and stack them? I suppose I wouldn't be using Classic Softs that much. The Tegea also has a 2x2 filter tray so I suppose I can go without the mattebox when I use it.

I'm looking to get a mattebox. I suspect I will need a 4x5.65 or larger mattebox, but I want to keep it as small and affordable as possible. If I could get away with a 4x4 mattebox I would. Unless there's a 4x5.65 mattebox that is almost as small and still good. Until now I have been getting away with screw-on filters, which is my preference, but there are too many sizes for it to remain practical. I will be using mostly Zeiss standard speeds from 16mm to 85mm, but also a Tegea 9.8mm and maybe renting Cooke Speed Panchros or similar lenses. I also have an Angeniuex 12-240mm zoom for S16 (it doesn't cover fully but close enough) but I've tried this with a 4x4 filter and it works okay. (I also use it with a 2x expander and it covers S35.) With K35s, the 18mm t1.5 has a 110mm front I believe? So would you need a 6X6 mattebox for that? Thanks. How do I know without buying/returning/etc. what I can get away with. I suppose I'd want a two-stage mattebox. I often want to use ND and Classic Soft together. The more stages the more worry over vignette, though? Lastly, any recommendations for NDs for digital? There are Arri FSND, Schneider Rhodium, Lindsey Optics, TrueND, etc. but they're all kind of expensive.

I believe there's an Aputure 120T or something similar but maybe it's discontinued. Also, a 650W frensel (if you don't mind the heat and additional power consumption) is a lot less expensive than either and has an even higher quality of light. If you do use a gel on an LED, look at the Lee gels specifically designed for LEDs. (Haven't used them, but I hear they improve color rendering relative to traditional CTO/CTB.) Do you want a hard light or soft light? By the time you diffuse and gel an aputure 120D it might not be as bright as you were hoping. A cheap kinoflo 4 bank is another option but I find them a bit awkward to set up compared with LEDs.

Thanks, wouldn't be the first time I overthought something like this.

I'm in New England now. It's less humid here than in Japan, I believe, but I had one lens (a 18-55mm Canon kit lens) develop pretty severe fungus on just one element, weirdly. There's also a set of binoculars we stored for like twenty years in a closet and it's full of fungus, but it was possibly stored in a damp case or something. So I'm a little more paranoid than I would be were I in LA. I suppose the answer is I should buy the Pelican cases I've been putting off buying so I have a case for everything but still store things in the locker when they're not in use. I might be traveling for a few months at a time, but in that case I will just put desiccant packs in the Pelican cases. What do you do when you get home from a rainy shoot btw? Throw lenses in an airtight bag with desiccant? Or when it is cold, put them in a bag outside, seal, it, and bring them inside, to prevent condensation? I finally got the money to buy some cinema lenses and now I'm just afraid of damaging them!

Thanks, David. I do worry since I live in an area that's more humid than LA. Is a humidity controlled locker better or worse than a sunny shelf? I assume it depends on humidity levels. What's the concern with just storing in Pelican cases? I assume if there's desiccant fungus won't be a problem? How are lenses stored at rental houses btw?

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Echoing Shawn's question, do you mean on a shelf in open air, or would a humidity controlled locker be better? I suspect it's environment-contingent: I’ve noticed on eBay that lenses are much more likely to have fungus when they come from Japan. (I assume more likely to have haze when they come from Arizona.) I live in a temperate area (New England) but would be bringing my lenses elsewhere. I had an 18-55mm Canon kit lens develop fungus just lying around the house here so I'm using a Ruggard humidity-controlled cabinet to store my cinema lenses, but it's possible I'm unduly paranoid.

With very sharp cameras, Topaz seems like a miracle to me. Externally recorded C100 or C300 and F35 footage often comes out looking like sharp native 4k. (Then again, those sources are oversampled from 4k or more and recorded essentially uncompressed.) With compressed or soft sources, it often looks like an abstract mess to me. Its handling of compression artifacts and noise can be strange.

I'd like to store my lenses to avoid fungus and haze. I bought a small humidity controlled locker, but I would rather store them in Pelican cases so I can take them out with me. I have a few Pelican cases and a few knock offs. I've read I should store lenses with desiccant, and so I ordered a few of these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015OTBKAA/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s03?ie=UTF8&psc=1 What do rental houses do? I've always wondered how master primes etc. are stored to avoid fungus. Do they stay in their pelican cases or do they go back in a humidity controlled locker? I've never heard about fungus on a master prime....

@Miguel Angel that looks great. For situations where there are not such large windows and hard light is preferred, a DP friend of mine once recommended mirror boards. They require constant adjustment during the day (and sunny weather) but pack the punch of an 18K without drawing any power of course.

That was my guess! I like how the catch lights look in the first and the last frames. How would you achieve this look without brightening up the face too much? Lone dimmed 4 foot kinoflo on the floor? LED panel? I've heard of people putting white diffusion or black nets or muslin over catch lights, but each approach seems to contradict the next. How would you go about achieving this?

No, I don't think the 17.5mm covers S35. They're designed for 16mm I believe (so are the 16mm and 25mm Cine-Xenons) but some of the longer focal lengths happen to cover S35. At least so I've read. And there are some images on Flickr that indicate the 37.5mm covers APS-C, maybe with a bit of vignetting. But I've never tried it myself. I have first-hand experience with the 28mm f2 Cine-Xenon, though. It's borderline on S35. But on Alexa 2.8k 16:9 it should cover I think. I believe it was designed for academy 35.

I've never used them, but have read that the 37.5mm, 50mm, and 75mm Kintal cover S35. Schneider Cine-Xenon 28mm f2 covers academy 35 (probably also 2.8K 16:9 on Alexa). The 16mm and 25mm probably don't. I believe they are 16mm lenses. Schneider Cinegon 18mm f1.8 covers S35, though. All these lenses have a strong vintage look, similar to Cooke Panchro imo but maybe not as nice. Different coatings and aperture shape.

I scored a two, with a weakness in greens. So I might not be one to talk as I don't have perfect color vision, but I once tried something really odd, staring outside with one eye while staring at a flashlight with another. Something along those lines. Anyway I think each eye adjusted independently because one eye had a warmer tint than the other until the two grew acclimated. Kind of like those tricks where you see an after image briefly after staring at an inverted image for a while. Clearly I was bored. I suspect the eyes do a lot more local adaptation than we realize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

I've converted the 12-240mm to a 24-480mm t11 (or something?)... twice... It's Arri standard mount only, but Birns and Sawyer made a teleconverter that I'm guessing was designed just for this purpose. I bought one on eBay. They show up from time to time, but I don't see one now. It's called Birns and Sawyer TeleZoom 2x for Angenieux I think. The other converter I tried (which I'm selling, it's bayonet mount and has larger glass elements) only fit with a modified lens that had the mount converted to bayonet and worked worse and didn't quite cover Super35. Kubrick must have used a different lens from me. This lens is soft and loaded with distortion and CA. Doesn't look a thing like Barry Lyndon. Looks pretty bad. And I think he had a zoom motor. On the other hand, it seems to cover Super35 throughout the zoom range. I even got a clip on 4x4 filter holder working so I can shoot through Classic Softs for an even weirder look.