Bert Smith

One incredibly important bit of info left out of the last post, and one you should all consider, is that focusing by tape measure is indeed the preferred method....IF your lenses are properly collimated. You can almost be assured that any used older camera system/lens you will buy will not recently have been serviced to allow for focusing by tape. And if you try, your chances of getting a sharp image will have the same Las Vegas odds that you'd have trusting the viewfinder. Neither eye (viewfinder) or tape-measure focus are to be trusted without having your camera serviced first, and then running tests. Not a single camera system we've ever owned had been anywhere near "production ready" when we bought them, and most probably neither will yours. Every one of them needed adjustment to the lens, the mount, and then the viewfinder system to assure that we could trust the footage counter on the lens, and the image in the viewfinder. In 16mm, it only takes variances of fractions of a millimeter to turn what might have been a brilliantly sharp image, into a nice soft student-grade bit of footage. Test test test. Then test some more. The simplest and most telling test, is to buy/download some large/small focus stars. Then shoot a test at various distances. Lock down the camera, and then then focus the image. While shooting, defocus slowly towards infinity, then go back past your original focus point towards close-focus, then slowly end back at your original point which you assumed to be correct focus. Evaluate the test. Pretty simple. If you dont run tests prior to production, you will have no one to blame but yourself if there are focus/exposure problems in your footage.

Like I assume was the thought from the previous commenter, I am baffled by this. Why on earth would someone, who is apparently holding good information or a possible solution, send that info via: ...a private message???? Inconceivable! This thread, like many others, comes up on Google when searching terms like MOVIOLA CRAB DOLLY, McAlister, ect. Again, I am baffled at that.

Gosh, where is the love?

Nearly six years? Maybe some of us were waiting with baited breath for you to deliver on letting us know how it went? Ah...if I had a penny for every post which was left open, which might have had useful information, had it been closed with a solution/answer/review.

Open the Pod-Bay door, HAL.

So what happened??? I'm sure quite a few of us have been waiting to know the final decisions, and hear/see the results.

This is a very encouraging thread. I cant imagine that the sensors within the Arriscan and Spirit machines have the tens of millions (hundreds, perhaps?) of dollars of R&D that something like Canon's 5D MKII sensor has. But adapting it for use photographing individual frames of film seems like a difficult task. Even the cheapest digital point-and-shoot cameras now have 12+ megapixels. Please someone, come up with a good solution! Anything under $5,000 and decently user-friendly (big problem there, I assume) would surely have plenty of buyers. Even a tiny project that we had telecine'd at Fotokem was half of that amount I just mentioned. It would pay for itself within just TWO short projects! So I for one, would be first in line to purchase a sub-$5,000 film scanning system.....IF IF IF...it yielded results decently close to what we've gotten at Fotokem in the past. Or at least "close enough" to fool art directors and agencies. The prospect of potentially eliminating all future film scanning costs with a single large purchase is overwhelmingly exciting. With film scanning costs eliminated, why not shoot 35mm all the time? Why not begin those personal and self-promotion projects that have been on hold because of cost? And good lord, think of a 2-perf 35mm system of this nature! No scanning costs, and double the footage from the same amount of film! Shooting on glorious film for less then the rentals costs of renting the RED? Can such a world really exist??? However, for the non-technically-minded like myself, I can only sit and wait for brilliant individuals to come up with a good system, and then hopefully hire them to build the same thing for me. I cant imagine I am completely alone there. Please someone/s....make this a reality!

I was really looking forward to seeing those images also, can you repost?

[quote name='David Rakoczy' date=' btw.. your 'video' sucks! :P Harsh! (but unfortunately, very true)

Hello Mr. Gross, we are considering buying the Zeiss 11-100mm T2. I am told this lens is indeed designed for S16, and it's still rented by most of the rental houses. Is this lens worth investing in for S16 production? The other ones we are considering are the: Canon 8-64 T2.8 Canon 11.5-138 T2.5 (most expensive of the lot) or Cooke 10.4-54 T2.8 None of the newest Angie S16 zooms are remotely affordable for us. I would be overwhelmingly appreciative for an opinion based on your lengthy experience. Thank you.

I am looking forward to seeing this.

Did you try: http://www.visinst.com/Locam.html I too am very curious about this model. I wrote the manufacturer too, and they didnt seem to think a reply was necessary. Odd. Have you found out anything about your camera? Do you have cables? Have you run any film? Please let us know.

You are speaking of the newer Illumina's, yes?

...but what about the "deadly poisonous gasses and radiation leaking out and killing the actors and crew"? And gosh no, I certainly did not take Bernie's opinion lightly, he has oodles of Eclair experience. That is exactly why I am so afraid to use those mags. He obviously has a good reason for warning me away from the English mags. Hope I didn't give the wrong impression. I was hoping to hear from others who might (or might not) have had experience with the English mags. Mine, are in really great shape. I couldnt call them "Mint", but very good condition. And I know full well that I will probably be in a situation at some point where I will be forced to use them. So I was hoping to learn what the common problems might be. But as far as camera Techs, I doubt there is anyone alive who is more familiar with the Eclairs then Bernie. Jesus maybe. But he now only works on the RED.

Really???? Bernie....without actually coming out and saying it.....pretty much implied that I should throw my English mags into the garbage. I just cant do it. They are running perfectly, and he is relentless in his statements that the English mags are risky. Since those idiots on Ebay took the last of my "magazine fund", I now only have the two English mags on one of my two ACL systems (thankfully, there are two good French mags on my other system). Nothing is more of a pain and headache then fears about your gear. It has now been so drilled into my head that my English mags are DEFINITELY going to fail, that I'll never be able to shoot anything of importance with them, since I'll be terrified of failure, scratches, or deadly poisonous gasses and radiation leaking out and killing the actors and crew. Say it isnt so!

What about the older Optar lenses? Like the Optar 8mm T1.5? Those are supposedly from a different factory, and dont look anything like the Illuminas. Yet are also Super16 lenses, yes? Are they as good? Nearly as good? They dont have gears on them, and they are slower, so they might be a completely different glass/coating recipe then the Illuminas and therefore far less desirable. I am thinking of getting that 8mm, since the price is low. But, can someone please advise? Thank you.

"Our day will come"!!!!! I really couldnt appreciate the footage the first time through, as I was singing along (while eating potatoes, of course)

Hello everyone. Well, here is some new and interesting news. Kowa has a new line of industrial C-mount lenses called the 1" Megapixel Series. They boast an astonishing and nearly unbelievable 120 lp/mm in the center!!!! And they sell for somewhere around $300 each. They have an image circle of 16mm (so plenty good for S16), and they come in the most excellent lengths: 8mm f1.4 (holy snot! 8mm!!) 12.5mm f1.4 16mm f1.4 25mm f1.4 35mm f1.4 50mm f1.4 75mm f1.8 http://www.rmassa.com/manu/kowa.htm http://www.rmassa.com/specsheets/Kowa_FA_Catalog_2007.pdf I dont know about anyone else, but if that claim is true, and if there is nothing that is preventing these lenses from properly mounting on our C-mount cameras, there is a new (affordable) sherrif in town, and his name is Kowa! (and he's Asian)

Hello everyone. Well, here is some new news. Kowa has a new (or newish) line of industrial C-mount lenses called the 1" Megapixel Series. They boast an astonishing and nearly unbelievable 120 lp/mm in the center!!!! Oh snap! And they sell for somewhere around $300 each. They have an image circle of 16mm (so plenty good for S16), and they come in the most excllent lengths: 8mm f1.4 12.5mm f1.4 16mm f1.4 25mm f1.4 35mm f1.4 50mm f1.4 75mm f1.8 http://www.rmassa.com/manu/kowa.htm http://www.rmassa.com/specsheets/Kowa_FA_Catalog_2007.pdf I dont know about anyone else, but if that claim is true, and if there is nothing that is preventing these lenses from properly mounting on our C-mount cameras, there is a knew (affordable) sherrif in town, and his name is Kowa! I had better start a new post with this same info, people are going to want to see this.

I like potatoes!

Me me me me me!!!! :-) As mentioned, I have the 10mm, the 16mm, and the 25mm. On this same forum, I have heard it mentioned that these Tevidons have extreme resolution. I would be very very surprised at that, if it is the case, but my resolution charts tests will prove this soon enough. There was another lens manufacturer I was looking into, called Navitar, which makes "high quality" industrial lenses. The main appeal for me, is that a few of their most usable Super16-covering focal lengths were......f0.95!!!! Oh how I was thrilled! I immediately began writing them, and talking to thier techs, and having them research what the lp/mm was on those several f0.95 lenses (if I recall, the lengths on those were 12mm, 16mm, and 25mm). I was very hopefull. I didnt think they would reach the otherworldly 200 lp/mm resolution of the high-end Zeiss and Cooke optics, but anything even getting close to that would still be usable. Hell, even half of that would be acceptable. Finally I got an answer. Get ready: 20 lp/mm :-( Thats pretty pathetic, isnt it? And these guys are rather respected too. But resolutions of 20 lp/mm are more then good enough for industrial applications. So, knowing this, I would find it highly unlikely that my Zeiss Tevidons are significantly higher in resolution. Why would they have designed them as such? There just doesnt seem to be any benefit to the manufacturer to over-design an industrial lens, since that would be wasted time, resources, and ultimately, profit. I am made hopefull by what I have been hearing though. And hopefully my Tevidons beat that 20 lp/mm number by quite a bit. I would be very curious to hear if there is any sort of guidline regarding what is "acceptable" for HD, in terms of lp/mm. Or what would be acceptable for blow-up to 35mm. Are there any such "minimum requirement" rules of thumb? And again, I will be shouting quite loudly after I do these resolution tests on the Tevidons. But, I honestly am not sure how to do them yet. The instructions for the resolution chart are as long as War&Peace. There are many considerations to getting a reliable and accurate lp/mm reading using this chart, including aperture, distance from chart, film grain, edge/center, illumination, secondary tests, ect ect. I find it very easy to believe that doing everything according to the book, you will get two different numbers out of two tests. So I will do my best to eliminate all variables. If anyone has any advice, please cast it down. Thanks

Good lord!!! As I just wrote about a moment ago on another thread, a C-mount Cine-Nikkor 10mm JUST ended on Ebay tonight, and I could not bring myself to bid, since there were so many questions, and answers that were not dependable. But now I read that it does indeed cover Super16!!! Damn!!!!!!! And it ended for right around $200!!! Unless I am mistaken, it seems I have missed an opportunity to buy a very nice wide-angle lens which does cover Super16, and is also as rare as rocking horse manure. Can someone please verify this, so I can walk to the closet, separate all the right shoes from the left ones, put them on, and begin kicking myself in the rear?

A Cine-Nikkor 10mm just ended on Ebay for around $200! I think I missed a chance to buy a very decent Super16 wide for next to nothing....or am I mistaken? I watched the seconds tick away, and I was having trouble justifying the expense, since I already have a Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f2 (which I assure you I will be writing about here, after resolution tests are done....since not a single person in history, seems to have ever used this lenses, yet many have opinions about them). I also have the 16mm f1.8, and the 25mm f1.4 Tevidons. None of which are tested yet, as they will first be collimated by Bernie O'Doherty, to be used on my Super16 Eclair ACL. And yes, that 10mm easily clears Super16, and ...at least through the viewfinder.....it seemingly free of barrel distortion. Is it a sharp and usable lens? Stay tuned, and you will be getting the first actual results from a series of detailed lp/mm tests I will be doing with the help of a test chart I bought. (and good lord, the instructions that came with the chart are lengthy! At least to use them with absolute accuracy). Stay tuned.

Any news on this? Anyone? Buller?

Wow. Pay no mind. An ACL that has been set up well (with proper lenses!!), is a great affordable S16 system. So while the guys who are caught up in buying super-expensive gear (who have almost nothing to show for it) are mocking in that laughable way that a rock groups underpaid roadie or sound tech will take any opportunity to talk-down-to or mock someone new...since they are on the bottom rung of the ladder, have massive egos but little talent (usually plenty of "skills" though...which is quite a poor substitute for...and very different then... talent), ...you can hopefully have a system that works, produces acceptable images, and have put your ego away, and are worrying instead about producing quality projects that stand on their own. (and have more then just rudimentary technical proficiency)