Jump to content

Bruce Taylor

Sustaining Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bruce Taylor

  1. condition: excellent make / manufacturer: LOMO model name / number: 35OPF18 This is an amazing lens. 20-120mm Macro Zoom, it will focus down to almost the surface of the front element with the built in macro feature. OCT19 mount. This set includes both teleconverters, so it becomes a 30-180mm f3.75 (1.5x), or a 42-250mm f5.25 (2.1x) lens by swapping the lens back. Swap to the ANAMORPHIC back and you have a f3.75 40-240mm ANAMORPHIC zoom lens. This is the complete, matched set. It works perfectly. It has Arri pitch follow focus and zoom gears and dovetail support (it is heavy and requires support). The last time this lens was used was to shoot "Wrong Cops" for IFC Films and presented at Cannes in 2013. Here is a link to the trailer shot on this lens in anamorphic mode on a Canon 5D MKII: The anamorphic function covers a standard anamorphic film gate (24.89 × 18.66mm), so the Canon "full frame" (36 × 24mm) was cropped. They rented my round front anamorphic prime set as well as this zoom, but preferred this lens over the primes. The glass has no flaws that I can see. The zoom and focus rings move smoothly and precisely. The iris and macro controls are smooth. This is a great versatile lens that works perfectly and is ready to shoot. It is easily adapted to digital cameras with appropriate adapters (Canon, RED, Epic, etc.) which I have and may be purchased separately. Raf makes a PL adapter as well, but I have no direct experience with it. Photos here https://www.flickr.com/photos/61796653@N04/shares/7D7aa4 $8500
  2. I have one. May not be anyone's cup of tea, but it works. Sync sound. Lenses, the whole shooting match. Russian. I had Anders Banke perform a full 2 perf conversion to a Kinor 35H. Including new electronics, prism resilvering, video tap conversion. It uses it's native OCT19 lens mount. I have a full set of serviced Lomo primes for it as well as the 20-120 OPF18 zoom. As I am out of the business I need the space in my garage. Hit me up if any one is interested. Also have a couple of 4 perf Kinor 35H outfits, and at least 2 Moviecam SuperAmerica packages (4 perf). 2 perf is a wonderful, inexpensive format. If you aren't cropping down from the 2.40 width it is much bigger than Super 16. Do you have to be careful? Yes. But you should be anyway. The hair in the gate thing just really isn't a factor in my experience. I am always very proactive on cleanliness.
  3. Yes, what David says. The film real estate used in 2 perf and super 35 cropped to 2.35:1 are pretty close. Wikipedia has all the dimensions if you want to get down to precise differences. Kodak did a demo of 2 perf and 3 perf S35 comparisons several years ago, It was not possible for me to tell the difference between 2 perf and 3 perf super 35 cropped to 2.35. I would think the grain in a modern 500 speed stock would quite a bit less than what you see in an actual '70's-80's low light film shot in 1.85.
  4. "Since anamorphic's are rarely very wide" That's not quite true. For example, a standard 2x squeeze anamorphic 50mm lens has the horizontal coverage of a 25mm lens. I have a 35mm Lomo that looks like an 18mm when it's unsqueezed, pretty wide.
  5. Also, 2 or 3 perf is not a realistic option for Konvas conversion, it requires too much modification. 2 perf can be great (about the same amount of film real estate as Super 35 cropped to 2.35:1)but converting cameras is very costly ($5 to 6k last time I checked). But you can rent them readily (Arri or Panavision). Kodak and Deluxe put on a seminar at Cinegear a couple of years ago with side by side examples of 2 perf and 3 perf. 2 perf looked great. You can probably find the article on the Kodak website.
  6. I highly recommend Stuart at Focus Optics in Burbank. But sometimes you have to push him to get the work done. Don't overload him with too many lenses either. No lens tech likes to work on the Lomos because they are such a challenge mechanically (poor materials, tolerances too large), but Stuart has mine in top shape now. I suggest you rent the lenses you want. They are very expensive, and most of the ones you buy will have issues that will take time and money to sort out. About a year ago I had a guy who was going to do a long term rental for a feature but ended up buying his own set (3 or 4 roundfront primes) instead, paid $27,000 on ebay for them. I think Slow Motion Inc in Burbank rents the Hawks in PL. A lot of people like the Lomo flares. Take a look at Ernesto Lomeli's site (he's a DP in LA) there are some examples of my lenses on a Snoop Dogg and fashion videos. They are a good example of what artifacts you can get with the Lomo roundfronts. Also, Morgan Schmidt (also a DP in LA) has a set of Lomo roundfront anamorphics for rent, I am pretty sure they are in PL mount. I refer a lot of jobs to him as mine are still in their original OCT19 mounts. The Lomos work great on the Konvas 2M. Cheap, easy, portable, reliable (once you work out all the bugs!).
  7. +1 for Olex. He did motor mods on 2 of my 17EP motors, they work perfect. Donald, if you're looking for a core to send to Olex for modification, let me know. I still have that 17EP motor with the inoperative electronics, everything else is about mint as you know.
  8. Is anyone here doing the math? If you shoot cans of 35mm that you buy from Kodak, 35mm is more expensive than 16mm. For sure. However... if you're willing to shoot short ends and/or recans, everything changes. If you make a few phone calls you can find perfectly good 35mm stock (Kodak or Fuji) for .08 to .15/ft. Processing is .08- .10 ft. (Deluxe). Unless you can find a super deal on short ends/recans for 16mm, 35mm will actually be cheaper. Transfer is the same, 16 or 35. This is in LA. UPS will ship anywhere, so that shouldn't be an issue. If you're shooting a short, 4, 3 or 2 perf 35mm usually doesn't matter that much in terms of film cost if you're using short ends/recans. If you're shooting a feature, then 2 perf can provide substantial savings if you have access to a 2 perf camera (like the Kinors I rent, or make a deal with Panavision). A 2 perf conversion is going to cost 6 grand or so, one might as well stick with 4 perf if you're buying the camera to make your movie.
  9. Daniel's correct, if the shutter is out of time with the transport it is not hard to correct yourself. If you're on the eastern part of the US try Bernie if you don't want to do it yourself. Here in LA I much prefer Richard at Cinema Engineering for service http://www.cinema-engineering.com/
  10. So I'm not the only one that did that a few times?! The jams seem mysterious at first, especially when it looks the same as when you rolled it correctly, and you can't run the camera with the door off.
  11. You can always see what's up on ebay. Other than that, Whitehouse AV is probably the way to go. Considering how hard it would be to find these items elsewhere (especially new!) Whitehouse seems pretty reasonable.
  12. In standard US diopters 138mm size works for the 35/50/75mm roundfronts. In fact you can tape a 138mm filter/diopter just inside the front element threads of the 35mm and get away with it. I know it's a hassle, but the 6x6 matte box is the way to go if you want to cover the big 35mm roundfront- that's what I've done.
  13. Excellent point. The prof in my little story also taught at Art Center and USC, two very good and very expensive schools. Community College gigs are very well compensated, so many professors at top schools make extra money in that system.
  14. That's an important consideration, always, how will the images ultimately be presented. On the small screen the visual impact of the anamorphic artifacts will likely exceed the resolution loss from cropping.
  15. Joel, you're getting quite an education on the industry here. You're a lucky fellow, Brian and Austin offer excellent, true advice. Austin provided the book list you'll find at any school, these are the standard texts for the field. You should read and study all that material. You don't feel your reel is up to snuff? It's not very good? (I checked it out and it's much better than many I've seen) Go out and make yourself one you're more proud of. Cinematography is an activity-- you have to DO it. But if you don't have the drive to go out and get yourself moving forward on your own... don't. Save your energy and do something that's easier. When I went back to school to slide back into movies I started with a basic cinematography course at Los Angeles City College. The professor spent the first 15 minutes of class telling the 30 or so students that they would never work in the film industry, they would waste their time in his classroom, and if they really wanted to train for a paying job that requires some creativity they should go to Pasadena and enroll in the Cordon Bleu cooking school, as they have 100% job placement of their students upon graduation. It was a surprise, but if that short speech turned off 30 wannabe filmmakers he did them a favor, there are so many obstacles to success in the industry. If you can discourage yourself with any form of "I can't," find something else to do.
  16. I would suggest you do the math and determine your return on investment (ROI). Do the numbers and see how things look in the end. Certainly you could sell it for 50% of the purchase price if less than a year has passed since purchase, figure that in. Also the insurance and risk-- one of the many advantages of renting is that you are passing most of the risk of damage, theft or equipment breakdown to the insurance company and rental house. There is also an accounting angle that can be significant depending on the structure of your company. Rentals (and leases) are directly expensable costs, a cost of goods sold. A durable equipment purchase (like a camera) may require the equipment to be depreciated over a period of years increasing tax liability. Talk to a tax expert about current rules to get those answers.
  17. Just a thought here, if you really want to work in LA after you go to school (and this is where the majority of production takes place, that's just a fact), go to school in LA because when you or your classmates get jobs you'll network where the jobs are.
  18. Sad to hear USC is now so film-unfriendly! I think Richard at CinemaEngineering.com might have a BL4 he would rent. You might give him a call and see. There are also some insurance companies that will insure rental equipment for very low cost, try https://www.buymyinsurancenow.com/ Good luck, and keep shooting film!
  19. Joel, I would bet you're correct, I doubt that Mr. Elswit's education stopped at the community college level. It was, however, a starting point for him and many other very successful filmmakers that cost almost nothing. My point was really that I hate to see people spend a LOT of money on programs of dubious value, and frankly I think most of the for-profit schools are a poor value. USC and AFI are two of the best film schools in the world. They are not for profit, and both have a highly competitive admissions process-- the success rate of their students will be much much greater than that of schools like the LA Film Academy where the entrance requirements are primarily the ability to pay their tuition.
  20. You can always check out the film department at LACC. Robert Elswit went there, he got an Academy Award for cinematography. And it's so cheap you might as well call it free.
  21. I would suggest contacting Ken Hale at Whitehouse AV about this. He is an expert on CP16 and gsmo stuff. I spoke to him once about Arri std lenses on the CP16R (this is/was a common adapter) and he had some advise on which Arri lenses would clear the mirror on the CP. Who knows, he might even have something in stock for you in CP mount. I think Visual Products also has good knowledge on the CP16 line. Did Canon make a w/a front adapter for that lens? That might be worth looking into as well. At one time I had both a CP16R with the Canon 12-120 and also a Canon w/a front adapter from my S8 Canon 1014xls. I never tried to put the 2 together-- they might have the same front threads (67mm?).
  22. Hmm, is this a small world? I think it is. I just got an inquiry about a 2 perf camera rental from a student at Temple U-- I wonder if he's your student recipient. At any rate, he's a smart enough student to shoot 35mm and cut his stock use in half! Unfortunately I can't donate a camera package.
  23. I have had people rent my Lomo anamorphics to use with the Canon 7D and 5D. They crop in post to get the proper size/aspect ratio image. It never really works out, as the 60D/7D is 16x9 in video mode and the Lomos for the most part don't cover the huge 5D frame (compared to the 35mm anamorphic film gate). I have been looking into getting one of the Canons myself to try out my anamorphics, but either sensor size doesn't really work with the 2x squeeze. There were some interesting experiments done by someone in Australia with the 5D and Lomo roundfront anamorphics I believe, you might check the archives at www.konvas.org for that. The results looked great on my computer screen-- I don't know about anything bigger or higher resolution. Also, I think Hunter Richards on this forum was doing some experiments with his 5D and Lomo anamorphics and posted some results. The Lomos have the anamorphic artifacts people are looking for.
  24. You might ask Paul Korver at Cinelicious.tv where he gets his Scoopics serviced. Last time I spoke to him he had several, so he must have them serviced somewhere. Bernie O'Doherty of Super16 Inc. in NY works on a lot of them, he'd be able to tell you about the difficulty of marking the groundglass. I recall he did his LaserBrighten groundglass process to someone's Scoopic on this list and vowed he'd never do it again. The Scoopic is more like a giant S8 camera than the other pro 16mm cameras of the day, and that can lead to some service issues, especially when things are this old. Fun and easy camera to use though, my only complaint was the wide end of the lens wasn't very wide.
  25. Yea, the Bolex (except for the Bolex Pro, which really wasn't a Bolex) is LOUD. I have never heard of anyone building a truly effective blimp, it would just about always be cheaper and better to shoot with a camera designed to be silent. "flexible material I can tailor & wrap around the camera; reducing the noise to almost 0db?" That would be a "barney." And they will not silence an MOS camera like a Bolex. Custom Upholstery Products makes barneys for all sorts of film cameras. He has a secret blend of materials (including lead foil I believe) he uses to deaden sound. It will help but not eliminate noise. He made one for my Kinor 35H, a "silent" camera at about 32db, but too noisy in small reflective rooms. CUP's barney brings the noise level down to acceptable in these cases. In general I think you'd be better off with an Arriflex 16BL, an Eclair ACL or NPR or a Cinema Products CP16R. They are all quite cheap these days.
  • Create New...