kevin jackman

What do you see thats wrong with it?

Well, he is in Canada so the shipping was an issue regarding cost. He might be going your way in a month though.

Im sure the price will go beyond my control, but is this one that people would use?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170639774005&fromMakeTrack=true&ssPageName=VIP:watchlink:top:en

Hmm I was just hoping for a setup where I could use primes on the front if that mean normal focussing and just adding some light.

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/pho/2362810664.html

 

for weeks I have been trying to sell 2 rolls of 16mm single perf...the reponse? nothing.... someone telling me... dude I thought you were a film guy....

I am, but also digital, but also clay.... and flesh and photos and what ever helps me tell a story

 

No offers... nothing.... for stock that a year ago it will cost me 250 or more..... ladies and gents, Film is dead.... enjoy your dhslrs

 

Best

Funny, a friend saw the ad and actually was really thinking about contacting you.

Holder is the word I was looking for. I wonder what the video anamorphic lenses are like in terms of quality and sharpness. would a behind the lens anamorphic make it so focus issues arent a problem? sorry for the questions i just have no idea about this.theres a 2x anamorphot for sale, not sure if the holder is there or if i should get it. the money is sounding a bit high.

I think these exist but know nothing about them. I would guess using one means no issues with focussing. Any info anybody?

does anybody know what the specs are to file the gate? is it 13% or 20% more frame area? I keep reading conflicting information.

Who doesn't love some bad French.

Anyway, does anybody know if Contax 35mm still lenses can work on an Eclair NPR?

Hi Kevin,

If you don't want them, I do.

 

TTT

That was about 3 years ago. It would have been about 300 bucks to buy a beaulieu r16 with three nikkors on it. I should have bought them for interests sake but after doing some talking to people they arent that sharp.

I would consider getting a camera that can go super16. It does make a huge difference.

I think he sold it by now...

All the Moeller lenses are attachments. The Möller 2x is the same design as the Kowa 16D so i would say that they pretty much ARE projection lenses. You are correct regarding the 1,5. It creates a 1:2 aspect ratio. These lenses will not be hassle free but they do a good job for the money. Try even getting a good ISCO lens now for well under 2000 $. If you don't want anamorphic 16mm projection i would just forget about it and crop.

I think I like the idea of the Bolex lens because it comes in a frame that screws into the c mount. Im guessing any other lens would need fabrication to build an attachment to fit to the camera. I am curious about sharpness and quality when using these lenses and I dont even know if they will work with the preset switars. There is so much I dont know!

No, they're not. Resolving power is not measured in megapixels.

 

I absolutely understand what you are saying and the need for you refer to these manufacturers terms, but as this is a Cinematography forum, I think there's a need to cut through any manufacturer's BS and misinformation and make it clear that these terms mean nothing. If we don't, the next thing will be a post from a student somewhere asking how many megapixels a Master prime is.

Yeah but when you are trying to get information from people its probably best to use language that will jog their memory unless you know the lenses Im looking for.

Isnt the kowa a projector lens? I would have thought the bolex version would fit my bolex better, have better optics, easier to use. but opinions would be greatly appreciated. I would really like to try and have the most hassle free anamorphic setup. So the 1.5 is a ratio of 1.995?

There is some reason to it. most machine vision lenses are crap. by using that term, they are indicating three times the resolving power of the lens or more compared to standard lenses. Im also looking for someone that is familliar with the lenses that Im trying to track down and that is a term that somebody might recognize. Its better for me to mention terms that are attatched to the products Im trying to track down than not I think if I want to jog somebody's memory.

There's the cause of the confusion. Megapixels refers to the resolution of a camera's sensor, not the lens that is on it. Calling it a 'megapixel' lens is like calling it a 'color' lens.

Yes and no. I am aware of what you are writing sbout however in their industry the lenses are marketed as megapixel lens. Therefore in their business, the term has a meaning because it excludes other types of lenses. So I am actually asking about something specific by using that term. And in fact, it can be said that megapixel is their version of what some companies refer to as HD lenses in the film industry.

anybody have one, used one?

any condition considered

No, you see lens makers now market high resolution machine vision lenses as megapixel lenses. For example, google, megapixel machine vision lens and you will see a few examples. Some of them resolve up to 200 lpm in the centre. There is a manyfacturer that puts out some very high res lenses and I cant for the life of me remember the name.

80 is pretty good but Im talking about c mount lenses and not 80! I think they were about 25 but not sure

Im also wondering what the difference is between the rectangular and circular yvar units.

anybody have one for sale?

Hey folks I read up on some ultra high megapixel machine vision lenses last year. They were something like 15, 25 or around there in megapixels. Does this ring a bell? I so don't remember any details.

Anybody have any idea of what the sharpness is like of of these various peices of glass...? Does everything go soft?