Saul Rodgar

Well, yes -but just to play devil's advocate- for focus pullers to go through every lens and make marks could be rather cumbersome. There are proven focus pulling technologies where that is not necessary, so I doubt any focus puller would want to embrace a technology that makes his on-set life harder. Maybe I am not getting the full picture of the product's capabilities from the video tho.

The older Angie glass is sharp enough for S16, btw. I have a short 17-65mm f2.2 NOS latter gen zoom that covers S16 and it is very nice, sharp and good contrast. I sold a 15-150 f1.8 monster zoom that was also very good. I have used them in conjunction with other Angie zooms, a converted to S-16 10-100 Cooke zoom, some 35 mm (Canon, Sigma, Nikon) zooms and some Schneider and Pentax primes to excellent results. There are excellent quality 1" c-mount primes made by companies besides Schneider and Kowa, like Pentax, Fujinonand and others that are very good and may be cheaper to buy than the Kowas and Schneiders . . . Just an idea.

That is impressive control of the lens' motors by the electronics / software, with a caveat for real world use. I watched the first video of the series only and it looks a very "visual" method of focus pulling. No mention that I could find of the more traditional method of pulling focus off the lens barrel and tape measure "by the numbers." How many camera assistants have a full sized high res monitor in ideal viewing situations available on set to them at all times to pull focus off of ? . .

I agree . . . an interchangeable or PL lens mount would be better than EF only. But it makes sense in the "corporation" mode, (while making no sense to the rest of us, of course): no self respecting lens and camera manufacturer would diss their lenses (or lens mount) for someone else's, even if they are not a traditional cine lens manufacturer. Unfortunately for us, Canon did not do it for the XL series, and it doesn't look like they will right now. While Jannard is still dithering on the Scarlet series, Canon and others are going to beat him to the punch. So Jim, do yourself a favor and release a sub $3K, non (pseudo) RAW DSMC 3K camera with included on-board monitoring, interchangeable lens mounts, 4:4:4 HD SDI out and other goodies before your company's sales peter out once and for all. This industry is crazy about cost-savings. Few will buy $20K body-only cameras when they can get similar results with $5K camera bodies, RAW or no RAW. You can offer both, of course, but the time is NOW!

I have some of the machine vision 1" and 2/3" lenses that you talk about. They look every bit as sharp as the older technology Angie glass you mention, which I also own some examples of. I have not used a lens projector, but I have done 2K transfers with footage shot with both lens technologies and I cannot tell them apart. Very limited "critical testing" at best, I know, more along the lines of "real world" testing, but they have me sold. These days I don't do a whole lot of "filming," mostly "videoing," but for a while I was looking forward to the 2/3" Scarlet to try my newer machine vision lenses and older lens technologies, to see how they compare on video, but the Scarlet is apparently nowhere near to be released yet, and at a higher price point than other cameras, so I may not get around to test as I would like, but I am really curious how the older Angie lenses look on the latest HD / RED pseudo RAW technologies.

Indeed, picture quality rules, but in this case you may be betting on the wrong horse. Don't let the numbers fool you. There are other things in a camera's circuitry that make up for perceived disadvantages, the lower MP count, in this case. All of the Canon cams have sensor line-skipping technology in place for the video display / recording, in order to fit the 18 mp's of info onto 1080, lines or rows of information are dropped before they are displayed or recorded. So one is not getting the full 18 megapixels of info from the (T2i) sensor for video recording (or anywhere close to that, for that matter). It is my understanding that the GH1 does not do line-skipping, but instead it fits the entire 12 mp image on to 1080 by binning individual pixels together, which may be better ultimately --depending on compression used and other variables (hack vs no hack, etc) -- at keeping the video image looking potentially better than if recorded with line-skipping technology. http://www.videomaker.com/community/videonews/tag/gh1/ So, if one were to use a camera for video recording mostly, the GH1 and its newer, unannounced sibling, may be the ticket. But, if one plans to use the camera for stills mostly, and the occasional video recording, then the Canons may be a better bet. ;)

Cheap pictures from a cheap camera. :P Seriously now, I have seen some good RED images, admittedly not very often, mostly from David Mullen, Anthony Dodd Mantle and a (very) few others. I am yet to see RED footage shot by Stephen Williams'. My take is that, in addition to what Rob alludes to, and echoing what Freya hints at, a lot of RED DPs are not very well versed or experienced on film and it shows more often than not. The RED is ultimately just another tool. How it is used is by particular individuals is another matter, totally independent from the actual camera technology itself, however limited it may be, which in the case of RED, it is. RED RAW? Give me a break . . . :rolleyes:

So it is "The Real World: Film Making Edition," then? :P Good luck!

I am F-ing sick of these "revolutions" in film making. Can't we just make movies and forget about the f-ing marketing hype? :angry:

It really is a race to the bottom. People and business big and small will generally always choose to save money at the expense of some (perceived) quality. Film is already a dinosuar to most people out there . . . What seems crazy to me is that people like Jim Jannard, for example, refuse to acknowledge that their (pricier) highly compressed RAW cameras (in the case of RED ONE) will be at a disadvantage against the DSLR offerings, line skipping, and other artifacts notwithstanding. Other manufacturers are on the same boat as well, of course. The trend points at under $2K 1080p large sensor DSLR bodied cameras that record HD, take stills and record sound compromising quality over versatility. For RED (and other established camera manufacturers), it seems they could compete in this market if they released a non-RAW Scarlet type camera with large sensor and other options (consumer DSLR lens mounts, hdmi/comp/hd sdi monitoring, etc). The longer they wait to release this camera, the sooner they will get a foothold on this newly emerging market: The "everyone is a (high-end) film maker" world. I'm expecting cellphones with professional lens mounts on them soon, as there have been some with 10mp sensors on the market for a while now.

This industry is all about volunteering, at first . . . That is how most of us have started out. Most producers / heads of department want to make sure that one will get the job done before they pay one the "big" bucks. Of course, most union features / projects are the exception to this type of situation, at least in the US. And yes, there are a lot of people out there who take advantage of the fact that people want to get into the industry to crew / cast their (mostly) semi-amateur projects. There is nothing wrong with an all amateur production, of course. But when some people get paid and some don't, then things start getting complicated (and possibly illegal) fast. Like most things in life, there are a lot of shades between black and white when it comes to volunteering, and it is up each individual's judgement to navigate the unpaid vs paid work environment to achieve what one sets out to accomplish.

I dunno, I have seen a lot of complete film / or digital video noobs (some by their own account) make the damned things sing. Of course, as Brian Dyzak argues, "ANY camera technology in the hands of an experienced qualified professional can look quite good no matter the limitations/parameters. " But I still think that DSLRs, much like RED, give people who have never shot film the tools to shoot projects that, if shot on film, would make them look like complete noobs. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. What I would like to see is all of these new "digital cinematographers" shoot a project on film just like they pick up a DSLR or RED and shoot a movie digitally. That'd make for some interesting results. If I were a producer hiring a (digital) cinematographer, I'd prefer to hire someone with range and experience in a variety of formats, not just one or the other.

Very nice. You used these vintage lenses on a RED One, right? After hearing a number of camera people throughout the years routinely dismiss older lenses as "obsolete lens technology," this certainly shows how "modern" lenses do not necessarily produce "better" (whatever that means) images than properly cared-for "vintage" ones. Sure, modern lenses may be sharper, breath less, be more flare resistant, be optically and color non-aberrant, etc . . . But when it comes to producing aesthetically-pleasant images, there is no perfect recipe for success. I'd be curious to see how these lenses perform when paired with modern film stocks, tho.

Sweet! Looks nice. I have used Nikon glass on my ACL and never had any problems with it. I wonder what is causing your internal flare issues, maybe a combination of what you and Oliver talk about . . . Where did you transfer the footage?

Ditto on the 5219. And if it is a little too bright, you can always pull it for extra snap and tighter grain. Generally prefer doing that than adding too much ND - an overly darkened viewfinder makes the operator's job harder.

Test, test, test. An experienced (film, not just HD) cinematographer would handle it better, of course. In addition to what Bruce said re. camera, mag, lens tests, I'd say your lab techs can also check your processed stock for (some major) problems - density / exposure, threading, etc. Best-light telecine-transferring the tests is always encouraged. The tests should always be filmed with the same camera / lens package you are using to be helpful, and as close as possible to your start date to prevent any changes in the condition of the gear. Using film necessitates proper handling, AC and loader with film experience, not just HD. For student productions that is sometimes a problem. Do not give up on film! Properly handled and exposed film can set your project apart from the get go in terms of a "look." Particularly now that everybody and their mothers are using HD for their projects. Nothing wrong with that, except most tend to look alike, very sharp and contrasty right off the bat, without too much, er, soul.

If both the lens and the camera are native 2/3" technology, you are good. If the camera sensor is larger than the one the lens was designed for, you would vignette the image, if it was smaller your field of view would change, not your focal length. The HPX2100E camera IS 2/3", so if your lens is 2/3" as well, then your field of view (and apparent focal length) remains the same. The SD lens won't give you all the refinements that an HD lens might (it also depends on what HD lens you are comparing it with), but no one will tell the difference if you know what your doing. If you shot side by side comparisons of color and line charts, or if you projected the images on a 50' screen, you would see a difference. For most other everyday applications, the difference would be negligible to nil, even to trained eyes, particularly if they didn't know what lens was used.

This may set an interesting trend: Maybe if I name my first born Alex(a) Arnold-Richter, the folks at Arri would give me an Alexa camera?

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/clarionledger/obituary.aspx?n=paul-e-bruening&pid=143152673 That seems pretty legit to me. Everything matches with what little I knew of him and the very little info on his profile. These newspaper obituaries are hard to fake. The funeral home's name and phone number listed there as well.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/clarionledger/obituary.aspx?n=paul-e-bruening&pid=143152673 Seems legit to me. I know he lived in Oxford, Miss. So it can't be a coincidence. Paul, you will be missed.

@ Richard: Winters are nicer here in New Mexico, but summers suck. Don't come here unless you like tons of dry heat, not as bad as Phoenix, but pretty brutal. Water is definitely a problem, and not just for the movies. And the movie projects coming here mostly come for the gorgeous desert / mountain environs, or (surprise!) unless there are some big financial reasons involved. Urban movies often have a hard time finding locations here and some directors I have worked with LOATH New Mexico for that reason. Boom or bust? I guess we shall see what happens in the future. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

I think Paul meant the link for the new Spirit HD/2K U16 transfer footage. What Vincent posted is the old "Diamond Clear" upres HD reel link, or one of them.

You can use the Canon FJ-Series HD primes or the Zeiss DigiPrimes, both in 2/3" B4 mount.

Pfffft! Go Timmy! Film is such a dinosaur technology already. All the cool kids shoot RED / DSLRs. No one would like to be caught dead threading up a film camera: "What is this? Like, my parents' film camera or something?"

The video assist and the film systems on film cameras are completely independent and one system being out of order does not affect the other, except for lens, power or prism issues within the camera of course. So no surprise your negative was fine.