Jump to content

Ryan Patrick OHara

Basic Member
  • Posts

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ryan Patrick OHara

  1. 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.
  2. Correction: I just looked a few years back previous of your dates and there is a 'Videotape & Film' article and cover from October 1972.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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'.
  13. 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.)
  14. 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.
  15. the euro has hit 1.19, making the Alexa 59,000. Attractive yet? Do you think they will raise the price bc of parts bought from other non,euro countries raising the overhead?
  16. I'll name my first child RedOne, if I can get a Dodge Viper.
  17. So without getting political, the sliding Euro is beginning to make the Alexa not so unaffordable (for a camera). Half a year ago, if I remember, the Euro was about $1.50 USD. Now it's down to about $1.22 USD. So an ALEXA which has a price tag of $50,000 euros would have been $75,000. Now it would be around $61,000. $14,000 off the price tag is nothing to scoff at. The highest the Euro has been was 2008 around $1.6something USD, while the lowest was in 2000 at $0.8something USD. If the euro simply falls another $.02 USD that is an additional $1,000 off for Americans. Silver lining of a financial dire straight cloud. (PS i know this is still expensive, but I'm referring to in terms of a high end cinema camera.)
  18. Thank you! That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Sharp at f/2.8 is the minimum I'd want to give my 1st AC. In fact, if you view lenses as an investment, the future of camera sensitivity is only going to get higher. Just look at DSLR's for the future of chip sensitivity. When cameras are hitting 1600 iso or 3200 Iso (only 1 or 2 stops improved sensitivity from where Red-mysterium and Alexa are now) the beautiful 2.8 lenses will have really very few situations where the stop is an issue.
  19. Just to answer the question... yes they both have Neutral gears... BUT they both can have the neutral gear disengaged and be completely free 'floating'. This is done by disengaging both worm gears. I did not show this in the demo video, and it is useful for whip pans or other specialty movements. Any other questions just ask! BTW, LINK should be working: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...=STRK:MESELX:IT
  20. I'd normally bump my old thread, but since it went a little off subject (in a good way) I thought many people might not make it far enough into the thread to see the resisting at a much lower price. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...STRK:MESELX:IT Relisted.. Free shipping + case + tilt plate. I bought the tilt plate used for $300. All that for 1,900... subtract shipping and the tilt plate and that's well below 1,600. I'm selling for less then I had bought it.... before ebay takes all it's fees. A great deal for buyers! 2 days left.
  21. I suppose that is an advantage for cable driven heads, as replacing the brass gears is probably way more of a hassle. In other news, my auction for the Original Worrall is coming to a close in about 24 hours! Thanks for everyone's interest.
  22. You sound like every low-budget producer just 5min after hearing about the 5D or 7D. :P
  23. If that happens, you think you could pass one my way? I'd like to check it out! Take a look at this: http://www.RyanPatrickOHara.com/download/MiniWorrall.zip From that book I've been talking about. Not what you asked for but it can't hurt to have. -ryan
  24. Hahaha, yeah. I don't know. It's this kind of uncertain ambiguous information that prompted me to try and collect and organize a written record of geared heads to begin with. Almost every make/manufacturer that isn't Panavision or Arri has a history or other models which are forgotten or unknown about. Hell, I bet most of you had no idea there was a baby Panahead. It's called the Panahead Compact (PH-C) and there are only two of them... one at Hollywood and one in Woodland Hills. Hell the people who work at WH don't even know where it is. I found it in an unmarked case on one of my lunch breaks... most of the employees had never seen it before while some of the old timers claimed they hadn't seen it in over 10 years. Cutest freakin thing ever... to bad it's missing the plate that slides in the 'less then standard' sized dovetail. Apparently everything was miniaturized on the PH-C, including the dovetail and baseplate. And since nothing else at Panavision is that 'mini' size, once the plate was lost, the PH-C became the coolest paperweight at Panavision... Hence nothing can mount to it... I appealed to some higher-up people to machine new parts for it, but I was told they wouldn't pay for it. Geared heads are just a forgotten but really kickass part of cinema history. So what I know about the mini Worrall: 1) In 1984 the advertised Mini Worrall Geared Head could not turn past 85* from a set neutral point. 2) Within the next 10 years at some point the Mini Worrall Geared Head could turn multiple 360* rotations... as you and the other poster has pointed out. 3) In 1994 the Professional Cameraman's Handbook 4th Edt. is published and refers to the Mini-Worrall Geared head formally twice, both times as the "Super Mini Worrall Geared Head"... and within the rather detailed operating instructions clearly leaves out the now seemingly nonexistent portion about pan limitations. I'm not thinking that there were ever two models being sold at once, as if the buyer had a choice, but more like discovering there is a Mini-Worrall MKI and a (possibly 'Super') Mini-Worrall MKII. Either way, it is certain that a MiniWorrall MKI and MKII type units exist... so in my report I might just put 'Super' in quotations for the MKII type unit. Maybe it'll stick :P If you can't find the history just rewrite it, right? That's Wikipedia's philosophy. Hahaha, I dunno. I'm a dork with more free time on my hands then I really need.
×
×
  • Create New...