Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Posts

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M Joel W

  1. I'm looking for something similar (but if possible affordable) for a similar "lightweight" ARRI Alexa Plus set up to this Alexa XT set up: https://www.abelcine.com/uploaded/articlemodel/Da/Day-10-208-XL1-e1451422112784.jpg I want to mount them to the rosettes on the camera rather than on rods. I don't need them that far forward but still comfortably far forward. Looking for something relatively inexpensive if possible. Thanks!
  2. Thanks. I won't bother. I love the footage I've seen from the 1.44X Auto Panatars from Panavision and since an Iscorama is 1.42X I kind of wonder if there's a way to put together a similar set DIY (16mm, 50mm). I'll never have a project that justifies this kind of thing for real. A DIY approach is probably possible. Is it advisable? Probably not.
  3. Also, could I use an adapter like this with an Aaton Mount LTR-X without issue? Thank you. https://www.ebay.com/itm/374393015914?hash=item572b900e6a:g:aHQAAOSwIK9iABpu&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoByDT0Cf9W2KdMNsof2bpLwWQjus3HQL2MOiJqN0VOMaTTqnFG3higZGUGHCpfkmU21ACruGlax%2FZ6k2VQhbaZI0gqBwbz2TcqCDiSTUTRBdhilsrkpgDPbBPQMfNdPVjaX1TM10gosOAly53Ac7Wcut%2FuLfB33GsUFUCmw2XFg%2B8Eg618MJ%2FVPE4HEDJ%2BORAcOu5%2BVXVQU1hOiGgPZy4dI%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR5Ld26y-YQ
  4. Really curious about these. What t stop are they. What era were they made? They're 1.44X apparently. I have an Aaton mount S16 camera so I can use Nikon F lenses. Wondering about 16mm f2.0 Rokinon, 28mm f2.0 Zeiss, 50mm f2.0 Zeiss with an Iscorama 36 on the front. Weird mix of old and new glass but would this be a viable solution. The stretch is 1.42X, perfect for S16. The front of the 16mm lens is much too big, but I believe this should result in vignetting and not a reduction in f stop. And hopefully not so much vignetting it wouldn't be useable on S16.
  5. Watch out for the rear element hitting the mirror. You can convert Arri standard and Bayonet to EF (might have similar issues with the rear element) but those lenses are expensive compared with an 11-16mm Tokina or whatever would probably work just about as well. Also might have issues with mirror clearance.
  6. Optically good. Ignore the dust I forgot to clean off. Similar look to Cooke Speed Panchro but no yellowing. No mount. Not a standard or common part so you'll need to put something together yourself. $100 plus shipping.
  7. Underrated lens set. Similar coatings to Kowa Cine-Prominars. Beautiful flares. Sharper than expected. 19mm f3.5 is a sleeper, better than other brands from this era except perhaps Leica. All in very good to excellent condition. Great optically. 85mm f1.8 has been serviced recently but shows cosmetically just a bit more wear. Includes: 19mm f3.5 (retrofocus 77mm front version) 28mm f3.5 35mm f2.5 50mm f3.5 Macro 58mm f1.2 85mm f1.8 135mm f2.5 Gorgeous blue and yellow flares, consistent coatings. Similar look and feel to canon rangefinder glass but longer flange distance. Looking for $2000 plus shipping for the set. These might be my favorite lenses but I need money more.
  8. Selling my Scoopic MN, sorry to see it go. In great shape EXCEPT that the light seals could use replacing (I have seen light leaks under bright sun, but nothing too bad) and the viewfinder window is VERY HAZY. I will post a separate picture so you can see what I'm talking about. Regardless, could use a service for sure. But cosmetically beautiful and runs well. Includes accessories like lens hood, lens cap, ND4 filter, skylight filter, battery (I believe there are two and they're working), charger, AA battery adapter, flight case, etc. Runs well but the viewfinder is too foggy to judge focus through easily (I had to zoom in and focus then zoom out). Just shot two rolls with it, they looked great. Great camera. $1500 plus shipping for everything. Sorry to see this go. I might recommend sending it in for a service but it's in beautiful condition other than the aging light seals (which aren't even that bad) and hazy viewfinder window (which is pretty bad).
  9. Thanks. I think I got my hopes up reading about the TLS "FD-X" line. The original 18mm K35 appears to be halfway between a novel design and modified 24mm FD L. It's got its front few elements (focusing group?) moved forward and a two-element wide angle converter placed in front. I think it has 95mm front threads. TLS has a nice looking "full frame" 18mm lens that appears to be a 24mm FD L with an Angenieux wide angle converter. I figured it was using the one above because the FD L has a 72mm thread and so does it. But I think it's instead a much much larger one. (143mm front) Single-element converters (and macro tubes) don't seem to do the trick. Too much barrel distortion. Multi-element converters like the Canon 72mm that is often used on Kowa anamorphic lenses are too heavy. I found a very very good but apparently uncoated 600g wide angle converter with 72mm threads but the front is 100mm (larger than I'd like) and it vignettes a bit even on S35. It might be the best I'll get. Performance is actually really good but the lack of coatings is an issue and I'd rather a 95mm front.
  10. I was looking for a Scoopic wide angle converter and bought two of these: https://elokuvakonepaja.com/product/...x0-75-o80mm-2/ It turns out, it's not the same thing. It's for 80mm ø lenses, not 75mm. Curious if anyone knows what this is and if it's useful for anything? Seems to be a vintage 70s or 80s aspheron/macro type attachment with good performance and vintage coatings. Unfortunately, it also seems to introduce quite a bit of barrel distortion, inconsistent with my experience with Zeiss and Kern aspherons. Wondering if I should keep them.
  11. I got my hands on a similar adapter. It appears to be the same but for 80mm fronts instead of 75mm fronts. It works and is quite sharp – but there is a fair amount of barrel distortion. It covers full frame. I suspect the original K35 18mm t1.5 had a special aspheron to reduce barrel distortion. I don't know if there is any replacement for that.
  12. I've read that wide angle converters (that maintain focus distance) neither increase nor decrease the f stop (coatings and t stop aside) of a lens. But aspherons require a lens be focused in macro to hit infinity. Is there light loss from this (similar to a lens being in macro mode suffering from light loss)? I calculated it at about a stop for a 24mm lens to be in macro mode for an attachment I want to use. But the adapter also is 0.7x. Would that cancel out somehow? Or would I lose a stop of light light because the effective aperture is shrunk by the asperhon too? What if I used a 250D filter rather than a macro tube? Does a 24mm lens lose less light when focused as a macro lens than a 180mm focusing at the same distance? The 10mm Zeiss standard speed, 18mm K35, and 17mm Moviecam lens are just 16mm standard speeds, 24mm K35s, and 21mm Olympus lenses with an aspheron, right? I need to spend less time online lol.
  13. Also following. You can do the math for film cost pretty easily by comparing film stock prices and using a footage calculator for 2 perf vs 16mm: https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/film-calculator But that excludes the cost of rental. 2 perf packages and S16 anamorphic lenses alike are scarce. I feel like with modern lenses 2 perf would have a significant advantage in resolution. But the trend with 2 perf seems to be more toward shooting older lenses to get more character, which would narrow the gap. The only S16 anamorphic lenses that are viable imo are the Hawks and Panavision, which are around 1.33X stretch. Neither is an inexpensive rental but you could get a quote and compare it with a 2 perf package. I had almost put together a working solution with a 16mm MK1 standard speed and an old Iscorama. But it seems like such an involved endeavor you'd want to avoid DIY. It got to the point where I was looking into filter thread converters from 0.5mm to 0.75mm threads or something and was just like: why am I trying to solve this problem? That said? It could work....
  14. It looks longer to me than that actually. Space is a bit compressed with the mountains behind. So if 30mm is equivalent to maybe a 16mm on S35, I'd expect something longer.
  15. Also consider the physical size of the lens, not all S16 cameras can accommodate wide-barreled PL mount primes from what I understand. Not really sure because all of this gear is outside what I can afford to buy. But research this first. I think the SR3 can't always accommodate (physically) wider lenses, the 416 can.
  16. Still looking for this. Clinging to this fantasy that it (and maybe a macro tube) will turn my 24mm FD L into an 18mm K35. Oh... and I want it for my Scoopic too.
  17. I agree and this is why I originally mistook it for set extensions or matte paintings or something across the board. I am starting to think vfx is a bigger part of this process than is being advertised though. And I imagine just lining things up between film and video was a bit tricky. Not sure why they didn't just use two Alexa65s other than wanting to keep things shot on film. I recently shot some traditional day for night footage and used the red channel as the luminance values (after getting it into linear space). There are issues with purple fringing or CA, where if you have CA there are dark black edges around trees, for instance. But just using the red channel as the luminance channel and otherwise working traditionally (underexposure and shooting with tungsten white balance outdoors with heavy ND to open up the aperture) works really well and results in a similar look to the look Nope. (Except very very primitive.) Infrared photography does darken skies, but it does strange things elsewhere, so I can't imagine the luminance for Nope was just from the IR channel, I bet it was a mix of things. Not sure. And not sure how different that would look from just using the red channel either. Regardless, I suspect there is a tremendous amount of compositing involved here. I still liked the look a lot and felt it was very cool learning it was done more in-camera than I first expected. But now I'm thinking a lot of it is compositing. Still refreshing compared with full CGI sets, and it looked better to me than that would have, and fit the movie's story better.
  18. Thanks, David, I appreciate your patience and expertise. Trusting your eyes (and using references) is probably the way to go. I was wrong to claim 2383 print stock turns blues cyan. But the emulation LUT in Resolve does tint shadows cyan and highlights orange. I posted the result I got with it on a grayscale gradient, and it's consistent with the look of recent films I've watched that have been printed on that stock. And different stocks do render colors differently, even those intended for neutrality. I feel like 50D is a bit more magenta, more similar to Portra maybe, and 200T is more gold – but the host of variables with processing and scanning and what filter you have in front of each make this statement sort of meaningless, especially when you can correct for it digitally in a much more meaningful way. Chances are I'm responding to something as simple as older movies having a simple rec709 LUT and newer ones having more attention in the grade. I don't actually remember what things looked like in the 90s in theaters beyond a vague impression. I do remember thinking Lord of the Rings had a "heavily color graded" feel when I saw it in theaters, but the impression, not the specifics.
  19. I understand how digital color correction works. The optical side is where I'm confused. I'm overthinking this, not under thinking it. I should have posted this question in another thread anyway. But now that we're discussing it.... Where I might be confused is in how the look of a print film affects the final image in an optical workflow and how that is emulated if you're delivering digitally. I always assumed print film LUTs were meant to emulate a specific print film, and each film print has its own look (color and contrast) that the LUT is emulating. So either you use a film print LUT to preview how something will look before printing it back to that film, or keep the film print LUT on to output a digital master that emulates the chosen print stock. This is where I might be wrong and would appreciate any correction. I understand how lift/gamma/gain etc. and the fundamentals of Resolve, etc. all work, but not print films. Resolve's 2383 LUT, and similar ones available online, do add a teal bias to darker areas and an orange one to highlights. I ran a monochrome gradient through the 2383 LUT in Resolve and posted it here. I understand the teal/orange look is normally applied by moving lift toward blue and gamma toward orange – but Resolve's 2383 LUT turns highlights warmer and shadows cooler, too. So I have to assume 2383 prints take on a similar look if you're doing a DI and printing to that stock. You seem to be implying print stocks all have an identical and neutral color rendering, and I don't think that's the case, even if the differences are relatively small compared with creative decisions in the DI. I associate this look (however it's applied) with contemporary films - and 2383 is a contemporary print film (I think late nineties forward, not sure?). I notice the Pulp Fiction frame grabs (and most 80s and early 90s movies I see on streaming) don't look like this. When I work with film (lately mostly 5213/7213 for some reason) using the LUT the lab provided it has more of the "old school" Pulp Fiction look compared with the more "modern" look of Resolve's 2383 LUT – but that's just my subjective impression. So this is where I really don't understand what's going on, and I should have just posted this question (in another thread) in the first place: If you're going back to the camera negative for a Blu Ray or streaming or DCP release, I figure the intent of the color grade is often (not always) to emulate the original print. Not precisely, but approximately, and not always. But let's say it is.... For something like Pulp Fiction, where the print stock that was used at the time is no longer available, what do colorists use to emulate it? The Blu Ray is scanned from the camera negative, not a print, right? (I could be totally wrong here.) I could be wrong (this is where I genuinely have no idea how this works), but for the digital release of something where the theatrical release had gone through ENR or bleach bypass – ENR or bleach bypass is typically not done on the camera negative, right? Usually on the internegative? So in that case, for a digital remaster or for the Blu Ray, you'd be scanning the internegative, or the camera negative and then applying an ENR LUT or otherwise matching the look of ENR in post? This is what I should have been asking from the get-go rather than derailing this thread. I've been watching more movies from the 80s and 90s, made before the DI, and wondering if the digital versions are scanned from the camera negative or from the internegative or print film – and, if from the camera negative, how optical processes like ENR or beach bypass or just printing to discontinued print stock are emulated digitally in a contemporaneously accurate way. Long story short I was trying to get the look of something from the 90s while shooting on an Alexa or with 7219 or 7213 and accidentally completely derailed this thread in the process. I understand the basics of digital color correction – but not how to do that. The Blu Ray of Pulp Fiction or Catch Me if you Can looks approximately how I remember the theatrical release looking (just cleaned up). I was wondering how to accurately recreate that look on something shot today.
  20. In my experience 2383 emulation LUTs apply a teal/blue cast, pushing blue more toward green than toward magenta. When I google 2383 LUT that’s what I see, too. I could be wrong, it's just what I see. I don’t mean that Tarantino wouldn’t strike new prints, just that the original prints (and the blu ray) have a look that reminds me of its era. And I'm wondering how that's maintained in the blu ray, assuming it's been scanned from the negative and not a print. (What film emulation LUT – or none at all and just contrast – is applied to the grade.) I think I was mistakenly ascribing too much of a "look" to the print film/print LUT. But when I work with 200T it usually looks more like Pulp Fiction than it does a contemporary film – until the grade…. Nevermind. I’ll just trust my eyes and/or hire someone. I should have saved this for its own thread and not gone off topic.
  21. Thanks, that makes more sense. I guess a better question is: the 2383 film print emulation LUTs I see have a teal/orange look that looks "modern" for lack of a better word to me. Those scans of Pulp Fiction don't have it. How similar do those scans from Pulp Fiction look to how the movie looked in theaters (on print film) and how do colorists account for whatever the contemporaneous print film was being different from what's used today? I much prefer that look in Pulp Fiction. I've been watching late 80s and early 90s movies and the colors feel much more neutral than Last Jedi, for instance. I'm wondering what's responsible for it.
  22. As others have mentioned, lighting is a major factor, Pulp Fiction favoring hard light. Lenses are another. C series Panavisions have a lot of optical flaws. Even where they're not "soft" they have flaws. I think the biggest factor is the grade. I remember LOTR had a really aggressive DI. Pulp Fiction didn't have one. Speaking of which... I notice some of the log film scans I get (both S16 and 35mm) end up having a more "old school" look when I apply a simple Log C to rec709 LUT than the final graded material. I've also noticed film emulations look more like late-80s or early-90s films before applying a print stock emulation. After a print stock emulation, they take on a teal/orange look that feels modern. For something like Pulp Fiction – or any other feature from that era, how true is the Blu Ray to the release print? I imagine the scan is from the negative, so there has to be a film print emulation LUT applied thereafter; however, are any contemporaneous film print stocks even available to model? What is the reference point for the "look" of the Blu Ray and what, if any, print stock emulation is employed?
×
×
  • Create New...