Ryan Patrick OHara

What does the yellow switch do next to the ballast red 'power' switch? The yellow one is a temporary toggle, meaning it won't seat in the opposite position, just temporary while you press it.

Correction: I just looked a few years back previous of your dates and there is a 'Videotape & Film' article and cover from October 1972.

The earliest American Cinematographer magazine from the 1970's and onward that featured an article AND cover regarding what you describe seems to be March 1982, entitled "Electronic Cinematography'. I went through my collection and found nothing else on the covers that fit what you describe. -Ryan PS: my other american cinematographer collection is relisted on ebay at reduced pricing. Free pickup in socal, too. http://cgi.ebay.com/American-Cinematographer-Magazine-Collection-362-Issues-/230558045690?pt=Magazines&hash=item35ae5495fa

Thanks Mitch. I figured as much. Just wish that 80mm telephoto end was just a bit more! A 100 would have been the bee's knees.

They make 2x tele-extenders for the bigger film optimos... but can those work on the DP Optimos? The 80mm maximum is not enough., Thanks!

Is there such a thing as a PL mount extension tube... to increase flange focus from the standard 52mm depth to, say anything up to around 100mm? I know this will completely change the focus scale, but it's for a little experiment I want to do. Thanks! -Ryan

I've got a decent collection up on ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/American-Cinematographer-Magazine-Collection-338-Issues-/230544131630?pt=Magazines&hash=item35ad80462e It may seem expensive, but it's less than $3 (at auction start) an issue and I ship for free or deliver them for free! And not to worry, I have not fell on hard times. This is my second collection of American Cinematographer Magazines, which is for sale. My first collection is much much greater... over 700 unique and original issues from 1922-2010! ;) those won't be for sale until I'm 6 feet under ground. Through my years of collecting, I have amassed a great deal of duplicate issues when I've bought in bulk, hence the collection for sale is everything I have at least two of. Some issues I have over 6 or 8 copies of. As you can tell by the price, I'm not really looking to make that much off of them as I'm really trying to get rid of a couple hundred pounds of AC magazines I don't need! Trust me when I tell you I've spent much more gathering these issues than I stand to make in the sale. That's just the truth of collecting them little by little. Hopefully this collection for sale can give someone a big jump-start I never had. ;) Best, -Ryan

http://cgi.ebay.com/American-Cinematographer-Magazine-Collection-/230535376309?pt=Magazines&hash=item35acfaadb5 I have an extensive American Cinematographer Magazine collection. Over the time period of acquiring these magazines, I've come to accumulate many doubles, triples, etc. In fact a couple of editions I have 4, 5, 6, 7, or even 8 copies. I've gone through all of them and made a second collection. This second collection is the one for sale. It is comprised of all the editions I had at least two of. I picked the best condition editions and it's a quite nice collection. I listed all the magazines in the collection for sale by year. Good for anyone starting out a collection or any educational institution looking for some great reference resource. Thanks! -Ryan

No no, it's not something WE have to compensate for on our end. It is in the design/manufacturing stage... after which, the lens will, of course, be correctly labeled in the factory with accurate T-stop aperture markings on the barrel. And then the corresponding T-stops of a FF35 lens and 35mm lens will be the same exposure. FF35 will simply have to gather more light than a 35mm lens at the same stop, because it has to disperse that light over a greater area.

Hahaha, well 3D, if anything, supports our desire to shoot T/4 or higher. :) In my opinion, 3D works best with deep stops. So the advent of 3D is one I welcome... plus as a cinema lens owner, I welcome double lens and camera package rentals! hahaha.

Hmmm maybe I needed to reword that. I meant, if you were to make a lens FOR FF35 sized sensors, and you wanted it to be the equivalent T/Stop of a spherical 35mm film lens, since it would have to have the same 'brightness' yet spread it over a larger area, it would have to collect more light. I do know that a 35mm lens will project the same light despite sensor size. My point was manufacturing a lens for FF35 would require more light gathering, as it needs to disperse the image across a greater sensor area. I could still be mistaken though.

Ok, so I know DoF depends on three elements and this is a very open ended and non specific question... but I'm just curious if anyone else thinks the same as I. But, if you had to shoot a film (S35mm) with 'normal' coverage (some ECU's, CU's, mediums and wides) and you had to pick and stick with one working T-stop... which stop would you consider the end of 'shallow' and where do you consider the stop being a 'deep' stop. Again, I understand the focal length and subject distance matters... so I guess assuming we are using an assorted normal lens range (25mm-100mm) with assorted average coverage, what would you say. Obviously no right or wrong answer... it's kinda like asking where you feel wide-angle lenses turn to 'normal' lenses and where 'normal' lenses turn to telephoto. I would personally say that, on average, a stop of T/2.8 is the end of the shallow side, and T/4 would be the beginning of the middle area. I'd then venture to say T/8 and above becomes 'deep'.

Yes... I'm sure Lieca did not make a set of lenses that cost $178,000 for a $5,000 DSLR H264 compressed video camera. Renting these lenses for a week from otto nemenz could probably buy you two brand new 7D's. :) Currently the compact primes are the only big choice for FF35-PL mount. They are rehoused/revamped ZF's. They are great quality lenses, especially now they focus the 'right' way and have a more proper cinema lens housing. They are relatively affordable to the DSLR market and are a very nice fit, considering they can have their mount changed for Canon or Nikon. The only down sides to the lenses is an inconsistent maximum aperture across the set, the fastest lenses not being the sharpest all the way open, and although i have not experienced the following, color matching seems to be a little off with some lenses. This list is negligible for the most part, and especially when using on a DSLR. I say this because if you're gonna make a list of issues using a DSLR, these minor imperfections of a pretty good lens set is the least of your worries. I don't think we are going to see FF35 anytime soon. The Epic (which isn't even FF35 until future releases of the same camera) has been delayed. Arri won't abandon S35mm anytime soon, Panasonic is going 4/3rds, and Sony probably won't be the first to venture that route. If anything it will be Canon, but they have bigger things to solve and focus on versus trying to change an industry standard. And I certainly hope the change is not soon... because I fail to see it's use. Sure it allows more space for pixels meaning either higher resolution or larger photo-sites, which offer benefits, but outside of that it cannot use the great cinema lenses we have today AND the larger sensor means a change in FOV, which, in this case should decrease DoF overall. And I'm terribly sick of 35mm shallow DoF as it is. I don't want everything to look like a T/1.4 on the 5D. UGh. I'm over it. I want my T/4 back, please... now i'm not a lens technician, but i'm going to go on a limb and surmise that since the taking lens will have to project the light upon a larger sensor, to make a lens for FF35 with an aperture equivalent of a spherical 35mm lens, it will need to gather more light, yes? Anyhow, I don't see the advantages for the time being. I'd rather see 2k/4k as the standard, and simply see an increase in latitude, sensitivity, and noise reduction. I don't need to cram more pixels onto a chip. Please. (that turned into a rant.... I apologize. it's late.)

What do you guys think about him being cinematographer and director? Do you think he delegates some of the DP's responsibilities onto the camera operator and gaffer in order to handle the work load? Or do you think he handles both roles at fair value? What does it mean to you? I'm curious on other peoples opinion.