mark leuchter

I've used the Zeiss 10-100 converted to 11-110mm for s-16, and found the optical quality to be superb. I've been informed that the s-16 conversion of the lens to 12-120mm is not done by Zeiss but by Optex. Does anybody have experience with the 12-120 version, and if so, could you offer comparisons to the 11-110 model? Mark

I'm sorry to hear about your Paypal ripoff, Matt. I wasn't suggesting that the guy was a scammer because he wouldn't use paypal, but because he seemed to hell bent on having me wire him the funds through Western Union. It was also sort of suspicious that he was willing to sell a Zeiss 10-100 t 2 for so little money, especially when his "ad" on Ebay seemed to reflect a good understanding of how valuable the equipment was. He probably lifted the ad from another website, then entered a line or two of his own underneath it. Anyway...trust no one, agent Mulder. (except for David Mullen, Mitch Gross, and the rest of the Peanut Gallery from this forum...)

Hi... I ran across a short-running Ebay lsiting for an SR2 with two mags and a Zeiss 10-100 T2 Mk 2 zoom, all for $4000. I wasn't going to buy it but I was just curious...so I emailed the guy selling it. He said he would be willing to sell just the lens, for $1300. I figured that the resale value of this lens, which was apparently in perfect condition, would make it a potentially worthwhile purchase at this price. So I asked the guy if we could do the deal through Paypal. He refused. I asked if we could do it through escrow.com. Again, he refused. He wanted to do it through Western Union, and THAT set off alarm bells in my head. I remember an earlier post from someone out here who had a similar experience, and the great way they determined if the seller was a scammer. So I did something similar, and asked MY seller if "the Zeiss zoom had 4 flange compression chambers" or the "Factory standard 3 flange compression chambers". He replied -- "it has the factory standard 3", and then gave me the info for sending off the money. I was thinking about sending off another email asking him if this was the Zeiss lens that came with the hyperdrive and photon torpedo option as well, but didn't want to waste more internet bandwidth. It was EXACTLY the same scam as depicted in the earlier post out here. The guy is going by the email address "jasonreese@myway.com". I have a hard time believing he is really someone with such a proper English name, as his typed messages are in broken English, though this doesn't really matter. He is certainly a genuine scammer. He lives in London, UK. Just wanted you guys to be aware of this dork. Mark

Well, thanks so much, everyone, for the input. It is a tough decision for me. I wonder if, perhaps, going with the S-16 camera would be viable if I could sell my Cooke 9-50 or exchange it for a few decent S-16 compatible primes (maybe a Zeiss 9.5, a 12, and a 25, though I personally prefer the Cooke "look"). I don't know if there's a market for my Cooke without it already being converted to S-16 compatibility. Would that be a more viable option? Or perhaps I should just have the Cooke converted to S-16. It may be expensive but it might be less expensive than pricey rental fees.

I know, we generally prefer S-16 because it provides more negative to work with and is already formatted for 16:9. However, I am faced with a dilemma and would appreciate your input. I currently own a lovely Cooke 9-50 zoom, and have the opportunity to purchase an Aaton LTR in standard 16 at a good price. HOWEVER... I also have the opportunity to purchase an Arri SR1 in S-16. Both the Aaton and the Arri are for the same price. I may very well be shooting an indie feature next fall, possibly this summer; the budget may be quite limited. If I purchase the Aaton, I will have a very nice camera and lens package and will find it much easier to make my indie. My suspicion is that the film's market will not primarily be theaters but DVD/Cable TV. Even if I frame for 1.66:1, I don't think the DVD or TV forum will make the iamge quality problematic, especially with the lovely Cooke zoom working for me. Of course...if I buy the Arri, I'll have a rock solid S-16 camera, with higher resale value and probably more opportunity for use in the future if I don't sell it. But the extra cost of renting appropriate lenses and getting an additional mag (it only comes with one) may be prohibitive, and in the end getting the film to work dramatically and come together under the best circumstances (cinematography matters aside) is a very significant consideration. Who wants to watch a film shot in S-16 if I couldn't afford to get the proper lighting kit or do those extra two takes that would have made the scene better? What do you folks think? Are we living in a time when making a feature in the standard 16 format is so ill-advised that I should go for the S-16 Arri and hope to squeeze as much as I can out of the budget? Or can standard 16 still work well enough for a feature -- and even be acceptable for a blowup if the lensing is sharp and resolves well -- to warrant the purchase of the Aaton? And are there other considerations as well that I haven't addressed herein (I'm sure there are...)? Mark

I'd say anything by Ingmar Bergman would qualify. See The Silence (1963), Persona (1966), and Cries and Whispers (1972). Maybe also John Frankenheimer's Seconds (1966). For earlier work, see Fritz Lang's M (1931) which is genuinely brilliant.

My favorite five: 1) Welles' The Trial 2) Reed's The Third Man (might be my all-time favorite for cinematography) 3) Coppola's Godfather 2 4) Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove 5) Allen's Stardust Memories OR Radio Days, I can't decide Mark

I just received an email from someone at Cooke optics that they will shortly be releasing two new S-16 primes: a 9.5mm and a 12mm. I wonder if they're limiting the run to these focal lengths because the S4 series seems to pick up immediately thereafter. Does anybody know if these new Cookes will be designed for compatibility with the S4's? If they are optically compatible, then wonderful -- the S4's are lovely lenses, and having them in effect go down to 9.5mm opens up the floor for S-16 photography, I would think. On an unrelated (or perhaps related) note, has anybody experimented with the new Kinoptik 9mm for S-16 that comes with the A-Cam? Mark

Sean, when you had your Kinor lens adapted to s-16, how did it affect focal length and f-stop? (and do you have any footage you shot with it that I could view on video or DVD?)

Thanks for the info. Dirk, would you say the optical features/qualities are consistent from the CVP to the CVK?

Hi, I just inherited a Cooke 9-50mm zoom in mint condition. I've used this lens before and truly love it, though I am curious as to how it compares, optically, to the Cooke 10-30mm varopanchro. I don't know much about the 10-30, though if it is a smaller lens, it would make handholding the camera (an Eclair ACL) much easier, I would imagine. I rarely need a range longer than 25-30mm anyway, so if the optic quality is the same, it would be a more practical and productive lens. Thoughts, anyone? Mark

Michael, thank you for that last post. The reason I am asking for these opinions is because I have a very distinct shooting strategy in mind. The story is one of anxiety and desperation involving a man going through a divorce, and I want everything -- the colors, the depth of field, the focal length -- to suggest the hyper-reality that goes along with living through a 6-month anxiety attack. There will be some flashback shots, some "mindscreen"/imagination shots, and for these I am imagining a telephoto look. But for the first half of the film, I want an exagerrated, almost painfully too real sense to the visuals. As the story progresses and the character becomes more aware of why his life has fallen apart, the lens use will go to more conventional focal lengths, depth of field, etc. The characters will be given more room to speak their minds, reveal the depth of their emotions, and as this happens, I plan on having them more distinct from their surroundings, going in for closer shots and letting some of the backgrounds go soft. This is all tentative, but as I am currently working on the script, I find it very helpful to envision how these scenes I am writing will appear and play within the film frame. This is a circumstance where learning from you all as DPs actually helps me craft the storyline and develop these characters. I am thinking here of something Ingmar Bergman said -- that film is like music, it goes directly to the senses, only to be analyzed after it is experienced. As such, and since this is first and foremost a visual medium, I wanted to better understand the DP's perspective on communicating these ideas. Mark

Oh Matt, ye of little faith! :-) Mark

Kubrick made him change back because while the framing was the same the perspective was not. It changed what Kubrick was looking for. Mr. Bill, that story is retold on the documentary film made by my friend Jan Harlan, who was very close to Kubrick. The film is entitled "Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures" and if I remember the episode, Kubrick wanted to use a 25mm lens. The DP figured it would be easier to shoot it with a longer lens and tried to fool Kubrick into thinking that the effect would be the same. Kubrick apparently took him aside and calmly said that if he every tried to do that again, he'd be fired. Kubrick was the master, the ultimate filmmaker, at least for me. His example is a very good one to invoke in our current discussion, as here was a guy who could have been one of the great cinematographers in his own right had he not opted to direct. And with him, too, is this generally consistent visual approach that favored the deep focus, wide angle aesthetic (with a few exceptions, of course). Last night I attended a sceening of Dr. Strangelove; it was the first time in many years I had seen it on a big screen. I was amazed at how he was able to make deep focus work for him. With the exception of a few moments in General Ripper's office (played by Sterling Hayden), there were virtually no closeups at all, and telephoto work seems to have been limited to the battle sequences shot documentary-style. My impression was that he employed a 25mm lens (or some similar length) throughout most of the film, and let the characters and atmosphere unfurl within the frame as opposed to emphasizing just one actor or object. Imagine the scenes in the War Room, shot with standard length lenses (say, a 50mm lens): as George C. Scott carries on, or as Sellers as Strangelove wheels himself around, they would be separated from their background. Rather, in one shot in particular, Strangelove approaches the camera from the background, wheeling himself towards us. He emerges from the background but is not separated from it as he approaches. There is no need for follow-focusing. The result is a character who is part of a world/culture in that room, a pervasive reality of which he is a part. I suppose my curiosity runs such: Kubrick's use of the deep focus aesthetic is atypical, but it seems so natural to me, and I've used the same technique in my own limited experiences as a director. It is the OPPOSITE way of doing things -- using regualr focal lengths, doing follow-focusing with more limited depths of field -- that seems like something unnatural to me. Not WRONG, just not my first instinct. Yet it is also the case that most films I see do this, using shallower depths of field in an instinctive sort of way. Beyond practical or technical reasons, why is this method of framing and shooting the norm, whereas the deep focus work of Kubrick, Welles, Renoir, etc., seems to be the exception? When you, as DPs, are told by a director to follow a character in medium shot, is it your initial instinct to use standard depth of field unless told otherwise by the director? What governs your decision making process? Ideally, a director should know something about cameras/lenses, but often, directors think about the camera last and have only the vaguest idea about the visual choices he or she makes, relying on the DP for the detailed decisions such as Fstop, lens choice, etc... (forgive me for pursuing this thread to such a degree, but I very much want to be as sympathetic and knowledgeable a director as I can be when it comes to the cinematic elements of the filmmaking process over against the story/dramatic elements of the writing/acting...not that the two are mutually exclusive...) Mark

Hi, Anybody know where I can find an adaptor that will allow a Kinor lens to be mounted onto an Eclair ACL? Mark

Thanks Adam. I also agree that panning with WA lenses is tricky. Maybe I am a bit old-school, but I try not to move the camera if I can avoid it. Most of my shots are typically static, or if there's movement, it's subtle. As a director, I like the framing, the lighting, and the acting/dialogue to do the work for me. When I used the Optar 12mm in my last film, I found that it forced me NOT to overindulge in closeups. I could go in closER, probably close enough to accomplish what a closeup would need to accomplish. I could even go in for a medium-to-close closeup from certain angles without difficulty, and without much distortion. In fact, when I did have a moving/tracking/panning shot, I found that the 12mm lens was perfect, as it helped to retain the deep focus aesthetic and allowed the viewer to explore space while at the same time not being too extreme and distorting the actor or other objects in the moving frame. But this brings up another point related to the purpose of the initial post -- what do you, as DPs, think is the difference in aesthetic effect when using a 25mm lens vs. using a wide lens like a 12mm or a 9.5mm? I don't mean the obvious, i.e., one gives deeper focus and distorts space more than the other. I mean the dramatic and cinematic implications. Let's move away from the technical discussion for a second and discuss the artistic element. Let us say you have a scene where you must follow two actors as they are playing pool at a billiards hall. What circumstances -- dramatically -- would motivate you to use a wide agle/deep focus aesthetic vs. a standard angle and shallower depth of field? Mark

Hello again, As some of you know, I'm not a DP but a director. On my first film, I seved as my own DP, but probably will not on the next one. So here's my question for you all: at what point must, or should, the director release the reigns when it comes to the camera? Where does one draw the line as a director in terms of his/her vision for the film, and respect the decisions of the DP as to how a shooting strategy should be executed? For example, I really like using wide angle lenses. On my first film, I used the Optar primes, and relied on the 8mm, 9.5mm, and 12mm almost exclusively throughout the shoot. One mentor commented to me that this might cause problems in terms of going from shot to shot in the editing, but I didn't experience any problem like that. And the very deep focus I achieved seemed like the most natural thing in the world in terms of the story (I generally did not go in for closeups...and when I did, they were never too close). Indeed, my favorite directors -- Welles, Kubrick, Frankenheimer -- all tended to favor deep focus, wide angle work. (and I admit that when I made my first film, I chose the wide angle approach in part because I did not have focus-pulling ability...the crew was just me manning the camera, and a sound guy.) Yet, I am also aware that this is not the norm. Last night, I watched The Human Stain, a wonderful film, and it was shot beautifully. But it was conventional in terms of lens choice, framing, etc., and there was no deep-focus aesthetic at work. I think of some of my other favorite directors: Bergman, Woody Allen, Coppola...they all have wonderful DPs manning the camera, and they generally don't go deep focus. So, again, the question -- where do I draw the line in terms of how I envision the shot? Do you feel it is really unconventional to maintain wide angle, deep focus aesthetics throughout an entire film? If a director insists on maintaining this aesthetic from shot to shot, when do you, as the DP, feel that you must suggest otherwise? Mark

Hello all, I am planning a standard 16mm shoot, and I intend on using a 200 ASA stock for all night and tungsten scenes. In the past, I used 7274 with great success, overexposing roughly 1/2 a stop and getting excellent saturation and contrast. I would like to achieve a similar color and contrast scheme for the current production, and the possibility of significantly reduced grain with 7217 is tantalizing. However, I realize that using this stock would reduce the color saturation and contrast. In your opinion(s), would overexposing by 3/4 stop or even a full stop in 7217 approximate the color saturation and contrast I obtained with 7274 when I overexposed by a half stop? Mark

Question, dear friends... Can the A-Minima spools of Kodak film be used in the coaxial 200ft. magazines of an Eclair ACL? If not, can 200ft. loads still be special ordered from Kodak?

Is the Kinor camera itself an MOS piece or is it quiet enough for sync sound work?

Thanks Sean. How does it compare to, say, the Zeiss 10-100 Mk 2 in terms of sharpness and color saturation?

Hi folks. Someone is offering to sell me a Russian 10-100 zoom lens for a very low price. I am attaching two pics of this mystery lens in the hopes that someone here can answer the following quesitons I have: 1 - what brand is it and does it have a decent performance record? 2 - what is the minimum focal distance? 3 - is this an arri mount pictured (probably not, I'm sure)? 4 - if it is not an arri mount, how expensive is the conversion process to MAKE it an arri mount? 5 - is this lens now, or has it ever been, a member of the communist party? Just kidding on the last one, but the other questions are legit, so help me out if you can. Many thanks, Mark

Friends, you all have to do what I did yesterday... I bought an Arri 16S, with three lenses, 400ft. mag, case, etc....for 150 bucks. It needs a little cleaning, but it works. Ha ha, ho ho, hee hee.

>>Besides, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) gets to do masterpieces before they do a bunch of crap Except for Orson Welles (though I doubt any of us would consider his body of work subsequent to Kane to be crap)