Max Jacoby

For twice the price of regular 35mm I can shoot 65mm.

I've been shooting a feature on the Hawks at the moment and I would not consider their 40mm V-Series to have serious barrel distortion. Sure there are some lines that bend, but I don't find it distracting (and I am don't like barrel distortion). What I've found though is that when you look through the viewfinder of the camera or a director's viewfinder, there is more barrel distortion than what ends up on the screen. I guess the optics of the camera/viewfinder add distortion also. We've been shooting candlelight/fire scenes without any additional light at T2.8 on 500 Asa stock and it looks really gorgeous. Of course it helps that a lot of the frame is dark, so you don't notice the drop-off in sharpness compared to shooting on deeper stops.

They haver 7 blades. I agree that the Cooke S4 bokeh is very distracting.

Oh god Tom, please spare us all these 'major impacts', 'game changer' or 'film slayer' posts, they have nothing to do with reality, it's only wishful thinking from your part. Change is something that happens slowly, over time, not from one day to the next.

Tony Great avatar, you had me touching the screen, trying to get that insect off!

I don't think this changes much at all in the cinema world.

Century don't make their own lenses, they do conversions of exisiting stills lenses to PL mount.

Thanks for the info Georg.

Did you also do the catering?

Do you know what focal lengths and stops these S lenses will come in?

Also his Super 35 films (The Insider and Ali) look gorgeous. And they are great films also, which can't be said for the ones shot on HD. Not that one has anything to do with the other, but still...

Get outta here! ;)

Yes that's why I LOVE Hollywood films, they never ram a message down your throat...

Do you want to bet on that Stephen? I'm sure we can agree on a proper bet, not like last time ;)

Okay what really appeals to me that 65mm increases your stageing options. Because the neg is so much bigger you can do wider shots and still see the actors faces. Plus the colors are much cleaner.

For one you get to handle a big-ass camera and that feels quite nice ;)

We did some tests for my feature and found that the Hawk primes look much better than the zoom. I'd love to see more front anamorphot zooms (like Panavision's 40-80mm T2.8, a converted stills lens), because they give you the typical anamorphic look, plus the image is sharper because a bigger anamorphot can be used and the lenses can be faster also.

I'd avoid anamorphic zooms, the anamorphot is almost invariably at the back of the lens, hence they just don't look as good as primes.

As far as I know 65mm was used for plates. The film features a mix of 65mm, 35mm and 16mm.

It's the same thing with 16mm, 35mm and 65mm, the higher the resolution, the cleaner the colors, especially in the shadows.

Nice title for a film ;)

Did you get this off a press release?

I like John Bailey's approach to cinematography. In the same article he argues that anamorphic contact printed is so much nicer than Super 35 DI and the man is so right!

Gosh guys, an 35mm package with anamorphic lenses is around 6K.

What I'd be interested to know is whether all those old Zeiss glass lenses are rehoused existing lenses or whether they are based on designs by Panavision and Zeiss made them the glass and/or assembly.