georg lamshöft

Thanks for this very informative and comprehensive answer! But (Made in Germany - not the cheap Contax-Lenses) Zeiss-lenses are not cheaper than Leica-lenses. I think I understand what you try to explain with the different "construction philosophies". Cooke's customers are artists, cinematogrpahers, but Zeiss builds many optical instruments for scientists, they are not interested in non-measureable characteristics like "boke". "This leads to pictures with more depth which have more three dimensional character". I've never noticed that, maybe I was too shocked about the flare and the distortion ;-) But I try to keep an eye on it in the future :blink: @audiris You're right, 720x576pixels are not enough, but as I already told, on DVD I only try to notice the flare, the distortion and other lens-characteristics. I think Lord of the Rings was the first film shot with Ultra Primes, even with prototypes. I think Lesnie only used older lenses (Standards etc.) when no comparable UP (focal length) was available.

"It is quite obvious that this projector cannot ONLY replace traditional video projectors" But it couldn't replace normal beamers yet for home-cinema etc. - it is too expensive and large, but for digital high-quality cinema it would be great.

What about that? : http://www.zeiss.de/de/planetarium/home_e....5e?OpenDocument I've seen an older version of this system and I've talked to an engineer who worked on it. Theoretical this system is far ahead of any other display technology: Unlimited depth-of-field (no lens-system), powerful colors (lasers have the best color-quality), extremly high contrast and nearly infinite resolution (only capable of the source). The quality was really great!

Look at the "featurette", avaiable on the official site. I've only seen Arricams!?

" I kind of got the feeling that you felt that only Zeiss and Leitz are the ones who make lenses to a high standard" That's the impression I've got in still photography. Really big companys with long-time experience developing new "high standard"-lenses but every time I have the chance two compare them to the newest Leica-constructions (e.g. sharpness of Apo 90/135/180...) I need to recognize that Leica and Zeiss are always ahead, especially in extreme situations (full aperture, edge-sharpness...). I don't say that all non-Leica/Zeiss-lenses are bad, but they are not highest-end. So I'm wondering that such a "unknown" (for still photographers) company like Cooke is able too reach the Leica/Zeiss-Quality, but maybe ZGCs money has made this possible. I've thought of "Lord of the Rings" as a good example because of some "close range"-shots especially in the third episode but maybe the good DVD-transfer and the great work of Andrew Lesnie has blinded me ;-) I've noticed the soft image in the "beauty shots", I think he used a black net in front of the lens, in this case, even the sharpest lens is worthless... But as still photographer many things are told here are new for me, if I want the best quality I use Technical Pan or Velvia (both 40-50ASA) - when there is not enough light I use a tripod - things like anamorphic lenses or the fact that exposure time is limited (at >24fps) are completely new for me, but thanks to all people who are trying to help me :-). Many details seem different in cinematogrphy. For example: Most photographers looking for the best lenses they could get or simply don't care about technical quality, but I barely know photographers who use old lenses BECAUSE of the softer sharpness or the flare - that seems to be different in cinematography!? @Christian Appelt Maybe you're right, but it seemed logical and it's hard not to believe (even in technical questions) somebody who is such a brilliant artist - that's like telling picasso that he is using the false brush ;-) I've read the book "Das fliegende Auge", Tom Tykwer (Director of "run Lola run") is interviewing Mr. B about his life and career. I didn't noticed technical flaws in his answers, and he also talked about the lenses he is using :-)

It's really difficult to see the differences in sharpness/grain for somebody like me, because there are so many different film stocks, the projector and the copys have a bad quality. How big is the negative area? 18x24mm with anamorphic and Super35 4:3 ? 13x24mm with Super35 1:1,85 ? 7,6mmx24mm with Super35 and 1:2,35 ? So I think it will be really difficult to reach the quality of a more than two times bigger negative area "just" by sharper lenses but shot with an two times slower film, shot with the sharper lenses... Kubrick used the best of both worlds with the aspect ratio of 4:3. How fast are "normal" anamorphics? ~1:2? Is "Lord of the Rings" or "Gangs of New York" really not as sharp as films filmed with anamorphics? Like I've already told, it's really hard for me to find out. Is there no way to see high-quality examples/scans? Is it like shooting with a 6x4,5 Hasselblad with a Zeiss Superachromat (outstanding performance) and Fuji Provia 100F and shooting 6x9 with a Fuji-Camera (good performance) and Provia 400F? "I remember having this argument with an executive at Arri " I've heard the same argument from Michael Ballhaus... When somebody shots "normal scenes" with 500ASA, he/she isn't looking for the best quality anyway... The Primos are build by Elcan, that was a part of Leitz/Leica (ErnstLeitzCANada) and has become independent since Leica has brought (nearly) the whole lens production back to Germany. Switzerland has nothing to do with Leica, only with somes special tools (medical stuff?) from Leitz. "They charge HIGH prices " Okay, but they don't have a "consumer"-market, I think they only sell a few hundred lenses a year!?

Thanks für your answers but a few questions are still left: Primos are not always spherical? Are there special adapters to make a spherical lens anamorphic? @audiris But anamorphic lenses are not as fast as spherical lenses, so you have to use faster film and the advantages of the bigger area of the negative are gone - am I wrong? Mostly I only see the copy of a copy of a copy... in the cinema, not a good quality, but I still have the impression, that films shot with Ultra Primes are sharper than those filmed anamorphically. On DVD I only analyze the flare and distortion. Every time I see masterpieces of cinematography shot anamorphically (Apokalypse Now, Leon...) I'm shocked by the flare, the distortion - I hate this look :( You can always reduce the sharpness but you can never increase it, so you can put a Softar, "vaseline" (you know what I mean?) or a black net in front of a Ultra Prime when you need it and you still have the mechanical quality, the flare-prevention - is it really necessary to use "cheap" equipment in 35mm (in big productions)? Ok, but you said it already, people's preferences differ, I for myself don't like unsharp pictures, flare, Video, >35mm, shaky hand-camera if it isn't really necessary (exception: James Ryan), Dogma 95... @SamWells Ok, most of the scenes, but only in special situations, because there are no Zeiss 10x Zooms (after "2001"). Cooke = Taylor-Hobson? But how do they earn enough money for the newest machines and developements? Zeiss is very innvovative (so is Leica), aspherical lenses, floating elements, special coatings..., I've seen the production-facility from Leica, really impressive! When they are really as good as the newest Zeiss/Leica-constructions, they are welcome at "still photography"!

I'm a semiprofessional photographer and I've used nearly every camera/lens system and I have to say: there is no comparison to Carl Zeiss and Leica-lenses. So I've tried to get more information about the equipment that is used in cinematography and I've wondered that even the newest Zeiss-lenses (Variable/Ultra Primes?) are often not used in Hollywood, Panavision seems to be the favourite system. I never had the chance to compare Zeiss, Panavision and Cooke lenses directly, but in cinema or on DVD I think that I can see differences. All anamorphic lenses seem to have horrible flare and distortion. But films which are made with Ultra Primes seem to be sharper and have nearly no flare (even less than Primos and Cooke) - is this an illusion? Or have this little firms (Panavision and Cooke) managed something, what the photography-industry never (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Schneider, Rodenstock...) managed - surpass Carl Zeiss with over 160 years experience? Okay, the newest high-end-constructions from Canon etc. are often better than very old Zeiss- or Leica-lenses and films made with the newest Cooke (S4?) or spherical Panavision-Lenses (Primos?) seem to have less flare and better sharpness than old Zeiss, but the all Ultra Prime-lenses are new high-tech-constructions with all the knowledge of this company. Janusz Kaminski or John Toll are great cinematogrphers, but both are using mostly Panavision, but Kubrick, the perfectionist, always used Zeiss-lenses. Are Ultra Primes the "reasonable way" and all the other lenses are only used because some cinematographers don't like a certain look, without a logical reason (cinematography is still art). Please apologize my bad english, but in school they never told me how to post in a cinematography-forum about lenses ;-)

Arri is working on their own digital camera: http://www.arri.de/infodown/news/0404_e.pdf It uses a 6MPixel-CMOS-sensor developed by the frauenhofer institut which is already used in the arriscan. But as far as I know Arri has the opinion that film is still better than any current digital technology.