M Joel W

I believe there's a Lomo 22mm anamorphic out there somewhere. Could be that based on the 22mm t2.2 Lomo standard speed?

Long shot, I know. But looking for one of these.

Thanks, Victor. Lucky you – the super speeds are legendary. I think the OCT-19 mounts have more functional helicals than the OCT-18 do. The OCT-18 don't have helicals and the lens rotates in the mount more like an Arri Standard mount Cooke Speed Panchro (the Arri Standard Mount Mk1 standard speeds have their own helicals, I think the Cookes rotate in the mount and are thus more work to rehouse).... Anyway, I ended up with a Raf Camera adapter and a Leitax PL mount (that can accept deeper PL mount lenses than the stock Arri mount) for my Alexa Plus. Right now I don't really shoot professionally much so I'm sort of just holding onto all this stuff because if I sold it I couldn't afford to buy it again! But I only own the standard speeds (two sets: one old, one from the 80s) and a 50mm/75mm anamorphic from the 60s. I haven't even tested this rig all together, but piecemeal it seems to work. In your case, and I could be wrong, I'd just get an OCT-19 mount for your Alexa Mini when you get it – or convert the lenses each to PL, which should be easier than OCT-18. I could be wrong.

On Barry Lyndon, didn't Kubrick use a 12-240mm 16mm Angenieux zoom with a 1.6X extender that covered 1.66:1 but not 1.33:1? (Not not S35 either?)

Yes, with mixed results. If I remember correct I tried 49.5X0.5mm by accident and forced it in, then stripped the treads and switched to 49.5X0.75mm and it worked better but also wasn't quite perfect. It didn't screw in all the way. However (I just needed a hood I could use with a matte box) it worked for me.

Crazy question maybe, but could I pay a lab to develop in caffenol? I want the home made look without all the effort. (Or actually I'm just afraid I'd screw it up.) Also – as well as the added grain, there's a feeling of more macro-contrast, almost like applying unsharp mask in photoshop? Or is that an illusion?

Can you develop 7222 in caffenol? Based on your description 7222 sounds like the better stock for me to use regardless. Thanks.

Thanks, Robert. I want a lot of texture/grain, to feel that the image is composed of grain without losing tonality and having it feel thin. 7266 I worry might have that look? I want something similar to Death to the Tin Man, Bait, Following, etc.

Newbie question, but how do these stocks compare in terms of look?

Those sure look like Mk2 to me. Check to make the mechanics are good, I hear they can wear down with such heavy use (because they have been such popular lenses!). Fwiw I own a set of Mk1 standard speeds and they look NOTHING like that.

Mk1 are tiny and Arri standard mount with 49mm or 47mm fronts. Mk2 look like "normal" cinema lenses: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.squarespace-cdn.com%2Fcontent%2Fv1%2F59cc443df43b551e79fcd3bb%2F1507153265250-87DUZTSSN8E140BUTIA3%2Farri_zeiss_standard_speed_six_lens_set_2.png%3Fformat%3D2500w&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heindlcinema.com%2Frental%2Fzeiss-standard-speeds&tbnid=yeVbcOiGZ8Qc1M&vet=12ahUKEwj49dDPz7X4AhXaO80KHXe2BZgQMygCegUIARChAw..i&docid=8y2ecgEpsLPdxM&w=600&h=600&q=standard speeds zeiss&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwj49dDPz7X4AhXaO80KHXe2BZgQMygCegUIARChAw

Thanks. Should I look into the Laowa probe? I wonder if you can combine that with a teleconverter. One nice thing about the hybrid cameras like the S1 is you have so much resolution you can really crop in. Not sure if the probe covers FF but if it does that gives you the equivalent of 16mm I believe in S35.

Thanks so much! I might already own both texts and have them somewhere. And if I don't – I probably should.

I'm curious about dabbling in miniature photography for personal work. I somehow have the impression you need to adjust your frame rate and either focal length or t stop to account for the scale models but really don't know the details.... Can someone provide me with a link to an industry standard text on this? Thanks everyone. Separately, would it be better to shoot on a cinema camera like an ARRI ALEXA for this kind of work or a hybrid camera like the S1H, which offers 6K resolution and better low light and lens selection.

The Witch for instance used the look around room to frame for 1.66:1 and some other indie movies have alternate aspect ratios, too. However, the main intent of the 4:3 license is to shoot anamorphic (4 perf frame resulting in a 2.66:1 image you can then crop to 2.4:1). I believe the upgrade David is referring to also requires a hardware upgrade. I strongly suspect even the 16:9 Alexas would be 4:3 capable and are basically crippled.

The Schneider 138mm achromatic diopter set is all I can think of that fits that bill but it's quite expensive. In my experience regular macro lenses of decent quality don't degrade the image that badly. They might just add a bit of CA. But this is all above my pay grade, like well above it. I just researched this a bit when I bought a set of Series 9 Schneider diopters I later sold.

I tried to buy a set of these: https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/200767-custom-schneider-138mm-achromatic-2pc-diopter-set But got them in series 9 instead of 138 by accident. But I actually had a set of four achromatic diopters and they were incredibly heavy and thick compared with my close up lenses of lower quality. Lindsey Optics has close up lenses too but I also doubt they're achromatic. I think Leica or Zeiss have expensive and heavy/thick models. What are you using these for? Which lens? There might be models with smaller diameters that serve you better. Or it might not be necessary. I have cheap 95mm (non-achromatic) diopters for my square front lomo, but that lens isn't exactly optically pristine to start with. Century has some with smaller front threads. What lens do you want to use these for?

At that size (and price) I strongly doubt they're achromatic. They would be a lot thicker and more expensive if they were. I think.

Apparently Chris Probst has been using the 35mm AF f1.4 Minolta lens as a substitute for the 35mm K35. But what substitute is there for the 18mm? I was looking at the Canon Scoopic attachment but it requires focusing into Macro mode I suspect past the 24mm FD L's close focus. I only need S35 coverage.

I don't need aperture control. I plan to shoot all these lenses wide open and use NDs. (Until I can get them rehoused.) Edit: okay maybe when a question gets this esoteric it's time to pay someone to rehouse. But that would be many years down the road so I would like to find a solution in the interim. 3D printing would be fine.

I'm probably the only person in the world looking for this. But until I can afford to have them rehoused, I want to put my 35mm f1.4 Minolta AF lens on my Alexa with an FD mount so I can use it with my FD L lenses.

I would try more stuff before you buy it. Fwiw I think the FX6 looks great but have never worked with it. Varicam35 has a beautiful image but slight magenta cast to skin tones (slight might be generous) that isn't always flattering but otherwise I think it's amazing. I really like the F3's image but the internal codec is garbage, love the F35's image, personally have had really bad experiences with the F5 and F55 though they improved them after launch. Imo there is no easy way to know exactly what you need because if there were one right answer here everyone would own that. But imo – for the money a used EVA1 is the best thing going and the FX6 plus Sony GMs is the best thing going probably a step up (I haven't used them, just love how they look). And the Alexa Mini LF is the best camera on the market if money's no issue or you want to rent something.

A lot of this is using huge soft sources, make up, post beauty work, etc. Beyond my pay grade but presumably book lights, breises, etc. For still photography this is easier since strobes are a lot cheaper than hot lights, and they melt hot boxes a lot slower too. Generally tungsten stocks are more flattering on skin tones, a bit more toward green (like the Alexa imo) whereas daylight stocks might go a bit more toward magenta on skin, which is less flattering particularly on caucasians imo. I think underexposing or overexposing depends on what look you want. For film I like how overexposed tungsten stocks look printed down but there is a lot of debate even here whether you want to use an 85 filter or not. I guess for me I'd shoot 200T with an 85B, overexpose just a bit, and blast the place full of soft light. I am probably the last person to ask lol but figured I would chime in anyway because I can't help myself.

How much did it go for? I was in the market for a 416 for a while and almost bought one.

Looking to adapt some cheap lenses (specifically a 90mm Macro probably) to PL mount. Is this possible? Maybe with an M42 adapter intermediary? Doesn't need to be great mechanically, it would be for macro photography specifically. Open to M42 too so long as it can convert to PL.