Adam Nikolaidis

Hi everybody, I apologize right now for posting this in the 16mm forum as well, but I'm not sure where it belongs and I'm in a great state of distress. We're in the Everglades getting ready to shoot some footage for a documentary tomorrow, and we can't seem to get the lens/bridgeplate/camera assembly aligned. Normally I would have had all of the equipment ahead of time, but due to budget circumstances (funding was delayed for several weeks longer than expected) the equipment wasn't available until the last second. After several different attempts at assembling, we tried putting everything together without the camera in place. It appears that the camera should actually be mounted about one inch higher than the bridgeplate. The lens is a Cooke 25-250mm MkII T3.9 and the camera is an A-minima (yes, it does look like an RV attached to a Volkswagon). We have an Arri bridgeplate (it says it's an arri 35mm bridgeplate) and bridge support, and a panavision 6.6x6.6 mattebox. Any thoughts? We're desperate! If you know what's going on andd you don't mind, please call us at 954-649-7448. We will be eternally grateful for any help or suggestions, or workarounds if there is some problem with the equipment. Thanks, Adam Nikolaidis

Hi everybody, We're in the Everglades getting ready to shoot some footage for a documentary tomorrow, and we can't seem to get the lens/bridgeplate/camera assembly aligned. Normally I would have had all of the equipment ahead of time, but due to budget circumstances (funding was delayed for several weeks longer than expected) the equipment wasn't available until the last second. After several different attempts at assembling, we tried putting everything together without the camera in place. It appears that the camera should actually be mounted about one inch higher than the bridgeplate. The lens is a Cooke 25-250mm MkII T3.9 and the camera is an A-minima (yes, it does look like an RV attached to a Volkswagon). We have an Arri bridgeplate (it says it's an arri 35mm bridgeplate) and bridge support, and a panavision 6.6x6.6 mattebox. Any thoughts? We're desperate! If you know what's going on andd you don't mind, please call us at 954-649-7448. We will be eternally grateful for any help or suggestions, or workarounds if there is some problem with the equipment. Thanks, Adam Nikolaidis

Does anybody know the front diameter of the Angenieux 25-250 3.7 HP offhand? Thanks, Adam

Ok, that makes sense. I thought it was probably an mkI, but I wasn't sure. The labeling was a big hint too, as it was labeled as a Rank lens, wheras the only mkII I had seen was specifically labeled Cooke. Cooke split off from Rank, I believe, so my intuition told me a Rank would be an older lens. I'm surprised that you didn't like the mkII sharpness, though. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything (that I'm aware of) shot with this lens, and I live in the middle of nowhere, so I haven't really been able to evaluate it (hence, I've been relying mainly on opinion, which is not my favorite thing to do...). In your opinion, how would you say it stacks up against, say, an Angenieux 25-250 3.7 HP? Thanks, Adam

Thanks for the reality check, guys. I figured I knew better than this guy, but every once in a while I start thinking I'm crazy. Apologies for the confusion in interchanging "16mm" with "Super16mm." For what I was trying to get at they seemed effectively the same, but in retrospect I can see why it was unnecessarily confusing. R8 Peleng: Excuse me, I think I need to go wipe some drool off the front of my shirt. I wonder if you could throw a shallow mattebox on if you were only using it for Super16. At $800, I'm listening... -Adam

Somebody tried to sell me a Cooke 25-250mm T4.0 as an mkII. When I pointed out that the mkII, to my knowledge, was only manufactured in a T3.9, he seemed to get a little snippy. He said the T4 was newer, as it had a square "module" in front. That evidence seems like a bunch of hot air. I can't really find any info on the Cooke 25-250mm T4, does anybody know much about it? Anybody know the difference between the T4 model and the T3.9 model? Is the T4 really newer than the T3.9? Is there a difference in sharpness? Thanks, Adam

I've been reading the forums for a while now, but this is my first time posting. I tried searching for this, but didn't seem to come up with anything useful. I'm aware that, for example, a lens length of 25mm is 25mm, whether or not it's on a 16mm camera or a 35mm camera (though the FOV is clearly different). I'm wondering, however, if manufacturers have ever "compensated" for the difference in FOV between these negative sizes by mislabeling the length? E.G., are there any lenses out there labeled for use with 16mm cameras that have a true length of 25mm but are labeled "50mm"? I don't think this is the case, but a representative from a (in my understanding reasonably reputable) used equipment vendor seemed to indicate that he thought a specific 25-250mm 35 lens would look like 50-500mm, but implied that a 15-150mm Super16 lens would not suffer the same relative change in FOV to 30-300mm (for a 16mm camera). It could be that I'm misreading his email, but I wanted to make sure I'm not totally off base in assuming that the 15-150 and 25-250 would both have the same relative difference in FOV when used with a (Super)16mm camera. Is this another case of seeming misinformation? Is he on crack? Am I? Reading this over, I hesitate to even bother asking because it seems so obvious to me. A response of "Adam, you are not on crack" would be clear enough. Thanks, Adam