Dom Jaeger

With any zoom the front focus (controlled by the focus ring) is more critical at the long end, while back focus (the distance behind the lens where an image forms) is more critical at the wide end. The back focus is always set at the wide end, so if it is correct (and the corresponding flange depth of the camera is also correct), when you focus at the long end and zoom all the way out to the wide end, the image should be sharp. But with a non-parfocal stills zoom the focus will drift during the transition from zoomed all the way in to all the way out. And/or the focus may shift a little depending on which direction the zoom ring is turned. Stills lenses have larger mechanical tolerances than cine lenses, less fine adjustability and less stringent quality controls, so it could be that the back focus is a bit out, as well as having the focus drift or shift through the zoom range. But as Mark mentioned, focussing at the wide end then zooming in is not a good test. Even with a parfocal cine zoom, it can be hard to focus by eye at the wide end and zoom in to a perfectly sharp image.

Well they're different focal lengths, so yes they have different spatial distortion. If you think about it, to perfectly match a S16 25mm image you'd need to use a S35 25mm lens, and crop a S16 frame out of the middle. But to get the same angle of view on different sized formats you need to use different focal lengths, which have different characteristics in terms of how they render spatial depth.

It's also dependent on what format the lens was designed for. You can't get a wider angle of view by putting a lens on a larger format camera if the image circle won't cover it. Since lenses are designed and optimised for a particular format, you could make an argument that in terms of mechanical design the angle of view is built in, even if someone chooses to crop the image circle (and thus reduce the angle of view) by using the lens on a camera with a smaller sensor/film gauge than it was designed for.

That's actually a very good question, James. Without getting too technical, my understanding is this - the front element (or front group of elements) gathers the basic image, in terms of an angle or field of view, limited of course by the basic construction of the lens and its focal length. The rest of the glass is concerned with correcting out aberrations, and focussing the image at the focal plane. At the plane of the iris the light is travelling in such a way that rays from the entire image are passing through more or less at every point, so reducing the diameter of the opening only diminishes the amount of light passing through, rather than cutting into the image itself. Some people believe that stopping down only uses the centre of a lens, but this isn't really the case. The front and rear elements are always passing through light all the way to their outer edges, no matter the stop. Greg's analogy of a "funnel" is a good one. As mentioned, reducing the aperture also affects depth of field, depth of focus, and control of certain aberrations. It can also sometimes cause a slight focus shift (particularly in high speed lenses). Too small an aperture introduces diffraction.

Don't know where you'll find information other than Sachtler parts drawings like this: Pretty easy to dismantle, if the break pads inside aren't worn too bad you can just give them a clean and tighten up the screws/locknuts to the point where the leg no longer slips. Otherwise get new bits from Sachtler (or Vitec who now owns them as well as O'Connor).

Hi Gregg, we usually charge AU$390 for a full service, including checking lens collimation. Given the time it takes it's far from being a money spinner for the company, but we're pretty committed to keeping film an option for filmmakers down under. It tends to be mainly experimental filmmakers here who still shoot film, occasionally students, and a lot use Bolexes because they're affordable. Professionals in Australia (or at least the producers) seem to have all but forgotten film still exists. Funny thing is, when someone does have the balls to shoot on film, they invariably scoop up all the industry awards, and their careers take off. Go figure. Thanks Jean-Louis - I'm a Bolex novice next to you, so if it gets your approval I'm a happy man!

For all the Bolex lovers out there I documented a service procedure on an RX5. As mentioned in the blog, it is not a guide for servicing your own Bolex (and I've deliberately left out a few parts), but hopefully it's of interest to some people. At the very least it should demonstrate that putting a few drops of oil on the bearing pivots is not giving your camera a service. Send it to a professional! And long live film.. http://cinetinker.blogspot.com.au/

It's in the article: "You format the XR Capture Drive either for ARRIRAW or for ProRes. SxS PRO cards have not been forgotten. An adapter with a single slot accommodates an SxS PRO card. (SxS-1 and SxS PRO+ cards are not compatible with Alexa.)"

Arri just announced an upgrade to allow internal ARRIRAW recording, using an XR module that replaces the existing SxS card holder. It will only add 8mm to the width of the camera. The XR drives will record 55 minutes of ARRIRAW at 24fps, be able to record up to 120 fps, and have a data rate of 6.7 Gigabits per second. An adapter will still allow for SxS PRO cards to be used for ProRes. A new Alexa XT range will have the module built-in, all with 4:3 sensors. http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/02/20/arri-alexa-xr-and-xt/

It's probably OK without a support on a PL mount camera, as long as the camera doesn't get jolted. You'd definitely want to remove the zoom from the camera during transport (which was always the professional procedure in the past, but lately I've noticed people transporting cameras with lenses attached - yikes!) Add a clamp-on matte box and filters and you'd be pushing it. Personally I'd recommend a support, but I tend to err on the safe side.

You can find a B8 manual here: http://www.intervalometers.com/pdfs/2003-bolexb8.pdf The B8SL was a simplified version with only one speed and a more basic viewfinder, but included a built-in lightmeter. A manual for the D8LA (which will include information about the meter) is here: http://www.apecity.com/manuals/pdf/bolex_D8LA.pdf A reproduced test report, which includes lots of information specifically about the B8SL is here: http://www.pathefilm.freeserve.co.uk/cel8/cel08.htm And lastly, if you want to pull it apart for lubrication, I wrote an easy-to-follow guide for lubricating pocket Bolex cameras, which you can find here: http://cinetinker.blogspot.com.au/

They're all good really, not much between them optically. The 7-81 is actually about the same size and weight as the 7-63, maybe even a little thinner. The main drawback to the Angenieux is that it loses light at the long end, it's T2.4 until 50mm then T3.5 to 81mm. Focus marks are also a little haphazard on the feet scale ( ie 3'6" then 5'6" then 8' etc). It breathes more than the Canons, but not badly, nothing like the Zeiss 11-110 for example. If you're considering buying one, get whichever one has been the best maintained. With older zooms, condition is more important than anything. For that reason renting can often be a safer option, particularly if a whole feature depends on the one lens.

Should be OK in cameras that don't have too much torque driving the claw or registration pin. I'd be a little wary of running it through pro cameras like an SR3 or 416 (especially at high speed), but S8 cameras, Bolexes etc have claws that are either spring-loaded or will slip under pressure. Fuji's Single 8 system used a polyester base. I've heard stories of Estar stock destroying Mitchell movements though.

You've gotta look further than REDuser for all your news Keith! :P http://cinescopophilia.com/red-vs-arri-inc-micheal-bravin-court-case-settled-dismissed-with-prejudice/ http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/red-sues-arri-sony-lawsuit-f65-f55-f5-camera/

If you examine the neg over a lightbox with a magnifying loupe you should be able to see if the footage itself has the problem. If it's OK then you can assume the transfer is responsible.

Given their age, there can be a lot of variation between Super Speeds, especially introduced de-centration of elements due to substandard servicing (particularly the 18mm). Just mentioning it as a caveat to these sort of lens comparisons. Also, there's no mention of the focal lengths used in this comparison. I've heard of issues with the 18mm and 25mm Illuminas, it would have been interesting to see them compared to the Super Speed wides. The 25mm Super Speed is often the weakest link in that series, from my experience.

Interesting interview with the DP of Breaking Bad, one of the best looking shows on telly, and one of the few still shot on film: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/behind-the-lens-michael-slovis-asc-breaking-bad

The 16D is smaller, so it vignettes a little more. I've used the 16H on standard 8 cameras, and can get down to about 10mm for that format using prime lenses. For 16mm format coverage you might get down to about 20mm, but the front element of the taking lens needs to be no larger than the rear element of the anamorphic (about 44mm for the 16H, maybe 36mm for the 16D), and as close as possible, so a long hood for example will set the lens back and introduce vignetting. The anamorphic doubles the horizontal angle of view, so a 20mm ends up with the horizontal view of a 10mm, which is reasonably wide for 16mm format. I don't think a 16D would get below about 30mm (for 16mm format coverage) even if the taking lens was no larger than the 16D rear element. Zooms tend to vignette more, I haven't got below 15mm (or 30mm for 16mm format) with the various compact zooms I've tried with the 16H. A short zoom range works better than a long one. Long focal lengths aren't a problem (unless the front element is too large). See: http://www.oocities....anamorphic.html

Hi Will, adjusting the bayonet mount flange depth is pretty simple, an adjustable lens wrench would do, or machine a basic tool out of an aluminium cylinder. Measuring the flange depth is what requires specific tools: a depth gauge with a 52.00mm zeroing block and a backing plate to fit in the gate. Or access to a bench collimator. It might be simpler (and cheaper) to get a rental house to do it, should take 15 minutes. Checking the ground glass depth is also important, which needs a collimator if you want it accurately set. Here's a pic of the Arri tools anyway:

This recent thread might be helpful: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58691

PM sent (and in-box emptied!)

Hi Will, we've got a S16 gate that we were saving for a film school that was considering getting their SRII upgraded, looks like they won't go ahead though. It's a re-machined R16 gate, P&S Technic job. Your tech might need gate shims to set it at the right depth for reg pin protrusion. You could probably live without using the centreing jig to position it perfectly. You also need to add about 5 degrees to the mirror/shutter if you don't want smearing, as it won't quite cover the expanded gate unless the pulldown is modified to be faster. When I was at Panavision Sydney years back the techs came up with a simple solution by glueing a wedge of balsa wood to one edge of the mirror/shutter and painting it black.

I haven't had my hands on a 416 but I'd agree with Adrian, it's a function of high speed designs that makes them noisier. The high speed SR3 is rated at 27 dB compared to 20 dB for the standard. Noise is always measured at sync sound speeds (since noise at high speeds is kind of irrelevant.) I suspect with SR3s the noise variation is mainly due to the pressure plate design in the high speed mags, which is quite different from the standard ones. Something similar would be happening with the 416.

Yes I think it will certainly be useful for the MFT version, very good timing on Metabones' part, they'll probably sell a ton of 'em. I brought this up about 5 posts ago, but with this thread at 8 pages long now I don't blame you for not spotting it!

If you know it's a complex issue then why ask questions that deliberately simplify and demand an either/or response? You're setting up a conflict through the questions. Even as part of a larger thesis, the statistical information you'll get from this kind of survey will be useless, because these days most professionals I know would find the questions too simplistic to be comfortable answering yes or no. Your response demographic will be skewed towards the diehard fringe on either side. It strikes me as a rather lazy approach, reminds me of an online workplace evaluation survey I was once forced to do by a corporation that outsourced the process to a generic questionnaire assembler rather than be bothered simply talking to its own employees. Sorry to be so blunt, but surveys like this really annoy me.