Michael Lindsay

I normally want Zeiss lenses to be less zingy sharp and with less contrast.. so they sound good to me!

this is the cool bit! I do feel you guys did a great job and Art did a great job explaining things BUT... I honestly think if we (or anyone I know) are using the negative set I'd take a 2nd mount shimmed to work rather than shim a load of lenses..

Hi Gregory Great to hear what you are up to! Are seeing any focus shift when dialling in the effect? Could you ramp in shot..? thanks Michael PS we played with the idea of rehousing the Nikon 100 and 135 that allow spherical aberration correction to be dialled in and out but the focus changed so we decided not to try.. This could probably be solved but it was complex..

Pretty sure the 49 is a 50mm f0.95 If people are scratching there heads wondering what these are...A young Uk Dop has set up a resource to explain these lenses... https://canondreamlens.com no affiliation to either party but I do own a set in the uk and am obviously biased due to that.. ?

I, and my biz partner, have done a bit of work were the editorial, commercial or PR print work came from the motion camera.. The smallest part of it all was the resolving power of the lenses. If I knew it was likely I would alway try and use masterprimes (now it would be Signature primes for me) but ultimately the success of the project came from other factors.. The main factor is the client actually happy with the look we will get from 'not' using flash (and its ability to really really freeze motion) and also not using cameras that have an OLPF... often the answer is not really! (many medium format digital cameras don't have an OLPF and the perception sharpness bump they get from all that false detail is difficult to argue with... no amount logical reasoning every helps cause people just point and say it looks sharper.. and it does) If they or borderline then I would try and push the motion look to accept a slightly higher shutter, shoot raw and rate the camera very slow (and babysit the highlights all day long).. I would also often shoot at deeper shots than I may have otherwise. We mainly used Red camera (1st 6k Dragon now Monstro 8k) and there used to be a Redcine tool called ADD which was sometimes brilliant at creating a sharper image from multiple images! I have been told you can do the same thing with PS from multiple images shot very close together temporally and spatially. I would also try and shoot with as little compression as possible as this can soften the image on the older red cameras due to the wavelets compression design. The Red Raptor is slightly sharper than most other Red camera I have tested (the DCT compression may be the factor as it is crunchier than wavelets). I suspect the Venice 2 8k would be fantastic and a more useful aspect ratio... 17:9 cameras can be a challenge depending on the print channel needs.. I would always refine the pick and prep the frames for output.. and give them big files!!!! and make sure the meta data told them it was high DPI! (reason for the DPI thing is a funny story: I was once told my image was not fit for print and all I did was change the meta data and resend.... they then said it was amazing! ) Occasionally if the stills are clean enough I have added a tiny bit of grain to increase the perception of detail... basically swapping one set of false detail for another ? PS I have tested the Leitz primes and Signatures and they seem higher performing than Masterprimes for resolving at S35... I prefer the look of signatures over very crisp photographic lens (Primo's also look great) But cheap Cine Sigmas will out resolve any camera (perhaps stopped down a tad) and maybe have the right look... the 28mm is amazing!

The irony is Arri sold them really cheap at one time... I bought 2 sets for S3d for a really reasonable amount. I wish I had them now as they where fantastic for windowed HS work. I did hear a rumour Zeiss dumped some stock rather than sell cheap but assumed this was not true.. from memory they where brutally sharp!

I have tried reading the above sober and drunk and it made no sense sober and some sense drunk but I am sober now so I can't remember what I thought it meant when I read it drunk ? Sorry to be no help!

Some good stuff in there.. but Oddly named series that is maybe only meant for people under 35 with brains wired for conspiracy? Also Why nothing on PV's very expensive abandoned digital camera?... https://nofilmschool.com/2013/01/red-epic-dragon-arri-alexa-sony-f55-f65-panavision-70mm-camera actually most of the list is cameras which did actually come out.... or does abandoned inc coming out but not selling well? .. surely failed is better name as all cameras are eventually abandoned? even my crap memory remembers loads of other abandoned cameras http://www.urbanfox.tv/articles/cameras/c19joedunton.htm what about Kinetta from Jeff Kreines... thank you Simons for your mechanical list ...

Ok I just quickly looked again at the 25mm and the 57/58mm very rough test indoors but set to infinity and stopped down.. the Signature 58mm was now a tad longer but very close.. (as it should be) the Signature 25mm was still a little wider but much closer than before... So breathing is a big deal.. I do think the optical design of the reducer prob needs tweaked per lens so maybe .71x is just an average or ideal use abstraction... As I mentioned on another forum the Mamiya 45mm N is narrower via the Kipon than the Mamiya C older design used in the same way..

to re-iterate Dom's point re breathing... Mamiya FOV really change massively with focus I quickly tested the TLS Mamiya 25mm (as you know made from a 35mm 645 lens and the Kipon reducer) against a Arri Signature 25mm TLS Mamiya 57mm (as you know made from a 80mm 645 lens and the Kipon reducer) against a Arri Signature 58mm TLS Mamiya 78mm (as you know made from a 110mm 645 lens and the Kipon reducer) against a Arri Signature 75mm I tested at 5-6ft (so the mamiyas will have contracted quite a bit due to breathing) and did my best to line up the entrance pupils! In every instance the signatures are wider! ... and if you consider just a 16mm portion from the centre then even more so.. But due to breathing I would assume I'd see the results I got.. I can measure the focal length of lenses but I am not quick or clever in doing so... others would laugh at my process and I have to assume non variable magnification across frame. If I get time I will try at infinity ALSO but on refection I think I need to look at the the whole image as the Mamiyas are far from rectilinear in projection so it gets a bit complicated re focal length..

I was interested in this and talked to Arri.. (I may have misremembered but this is what I took away) Yes the space is for the obvious stuff like OLPF + IR and UV filers etc but also for the Variable ND systems of now (Arri's current tech) but also for the unknown innovations in the future and if you don't leave enough room now then there will never be enough room.. Maybe a new creative filter system, or a Vari con or a more extensive ND system from Arri with more granualirty and range? Ultimatly it was perhaps Arri being conservative but that seems to be key to their brand... Also with a increased width it is more possible to have optical elements driven far closer to the sensor than 44mm .. Look how far rear element extends beyond the LPL flange here https://www.instagram.com/p/CcHE_j9vuqX/?hl=en

Thanks Phil I will also ask Cooke and Leitz what back caps they use when selling LPL lenses..

Alex at Zero seems to have answered your question! https://www.instagram.com/p/CcHE_j9vuqX/ LPL but they look promising!

Sorry for the very very boring question! We have 3 sets of LPL lenses and all the Arri back caps are really dreadful!!! they lose there ability to stay put after a few cycles of on and off... Anyone make good ones?? TLS make nice PL replacements so I assume someone makes replacement LPL caps but I can't find them... or has Arri addressed this (and not told anyone) with the caps you can buy now?

I have looked into this... but there are others who have looked much further into this so I reckon you should contact TLS and Zero . Would you accept rehousing them to LPL...? it leaves more room to work on the rear elements movement.. I fancy a very fast set in LPL but it won't be able to inc the 21mm for example... and which ones do you want to rehouse? https://www.truelens.co.uk/leica-noctilux-50mm-t0.95?deptID=9&subID=60 BUT if I understand you right you are thinking about changing actual glass elements? So the lenses protrude less? This I am think is not really practically possible.. Even the https://www.leitz-cine.com/product/elsie (which I was told are kind of based on the look and feel of Leica M glass) don't work in PL.. Any way good luck!