Jump to content

Larry Miles

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Larry Miles

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The subject pretty much says it all. I'm thinking of converting my Aaton mount camera to PL, but I would hate to lose the use of my Aaton-mount lenses. Thank you.
  2. I was told by Steve at Du-All here in New York that the 'AR' stands for anti-reflective coating. Specifically to Davo: I in no way claim to be anything close to an expert on this but my understanding is that a lens in an Arri Bayonet lens mount will not fit into an Arri Standard camera mount, precisely because of those wings, which are usually machined as part of the lens housing. I believe you would need an Arri Standard to Arri Bayonet lens adapter, which may not exist, since except for those wings, these mounts are the same, including the same depth. Unfortunately, you may need to either re-house the lens into an Arri standard mount, or find a different mount extender with the appropriate adapters, which is how I solved the problem. In other words, my lens is in Arri standard, my extender is in an Eclair mount, and my camera is an Aaton with an Aaton mount. Thus I purchased an Arri to Eclair adapter to fit the lens into the extender, and an Eclair to Aaton adapter to fit the the extender (with the lens and its adapter) into the camera. I have yet to test this set up for light loss.
  3. Or did you mean that this doesn't itself attach to the camera but the mount that is removed from the Angenieux lens is then reattached to the telezoom's other side?
  4. Thank you, but into which camera mount will this tele-extender fit?
  5. The O-L refers to Open/Lock. The front piece, the one on top of the telezoom in the fifth picture that prevented an Arri Standard mount lens from being fitted into it, is removable. Once removed, my Angenieux 17.5-70 with an Arri Standard mount fit, however the O/L lock did not keep it in place. The removable front piece has a tab that fits into a slot in the telezoom which allows it to be locked. Perhaps the Angenieux AR 25-250 has the same tab? Also, although it fit, the 17.5-70 is not in focus when used with the telezoom. I have yet to experiment with sliding it so that it's not fully pushed in, but I'm doubtful that will work.
  6. Does it simply mean Arri? I believe the AR designation on Kern lenses refers to the coating. Does anyone know if an Angenieux 12-240 Arri std mount will fit into the telezoom? If you believe it will, do you know why my Angenieux 17.5-70 Arri std mount does not?
  7. Thank you, both. I ordered some Wiha precision screwdrivers.
  8. Thank you, David, I hadn't considered that. The specific reason why I'm asking is that I recently purchased a Birns and Sawyer Angenieux AR 2x telezoom with an Arri standard mount. It in fact does fit into an Arri standard adapter but my Angenieux 17.5-70mm lens, with an Arri std mount, does not fit into its other side.
  9. I apologize if this has been covered previously but if it has I could not find the thread. What does the "AR" of Angenieux AR lenses refer to, and which Angenieux lenses are AR? Specifically, is the Angenieux 12-240 an AR lens? Thank you.
  10. I've recently purchased an Arri Standard/Bayo-lens-mount to Aaton-camera-mount adapter. I believe that to use it with an Arri Standard lens the adapter's three screws need to be tightened into the lens's mount. Could someone please recommend a specific screwdriver to use to do this? Thank you.
  11. Thank you for your responses. Does shooting an aspect ratio card at the head of the reel solve, or help solve, this issue?
  12. This may be a very noob, obvious question: I shot a roll of Super 16mm film (to be clear: Super 16mm camera, lenses, 16mm Kodak film). My understanding is that the native aspect ratio for Super 16mm is 1.66, and I was told that my film, scanned on a Scanity, was scanned at 1.66 The resulting individual frames from the scan include portions of the sprocket holes as well as the curvature at the corners. These are elements that need to be removed from the final image. The only ways I can see to do this are to either crop them out or to enlarge the image until they are no longer seen. It seems to me that to crop (blanking) them out would be to change the aspect ratio, even if only minimally, and to enlarge the image is to degrade the image by reducing its resolution, if only minimally. To need to enlarge the image means that the resolution at which I had it scanned isn't "true," meaning it's not truly 4K or 2K if I have to enlarge the image to remove these elements. Am I correct? Are these problems taken care of when an aspect ratio card is properly filmed at the head of the reel? Is there a standard protocol that is followed with scanned images that include pieces of the sprocket holes and curved corners (as in, enlarge it .023 percent, etc.)? Is it the fault of the lab? Is it the fault of my camera? In case it's relevant, I am using Davinci Resolve 12.5 (free version). Davinci shows the whole scanned frame (with the elements I wish to remove) as being 1.66. Thank you.
  • Create New...