Peter Welander

If you're talking about 16 mm, the Schneider Cine Xenon and Cinegon lenses in standard mounts are easy to find. 10 mm, 16 mm and 25 mm are generally available on eBay and not all that expensive, although condition can be all over the place. They're pretty old.

"Responsibility? Don't talk to me about responsibility." Paraphrasing Marvin.

Following Phil's recommendation, I just installed the BenQ SW2700PT. It's not rubbish, in fact it's quite stunning. I've spent 'way too much time with crummy monitors.

I went through a similar experience as Mark. I had been running FCP7 on a 27" iMac and things worked pretty well. The iMac died (video card burned out...got too hot due to clogging of the internal air passages over the years) and I ended up replacing it with a slightly newer MacPro, the last version in the big silver case. It came with a 20" Apple cinema display, so I bought a Dell 27 to go with it. FCP7 looks terrible on both monitors. Footage that looked very nice on the iMac looks dark and very contrasty. Other things look fine. I have tried all the color settings and find SMPTE RP 431-2-2007 DCI (P3) is the least terrible but still not nearly as good as the iMac. Am I missing some sort of color adjustment setting in FCP? (I reinstalled it from a Time Machine restoration when the other one died. The hard drive was also damaged.) If there is, I can't find it. Is there a monitor that is not terribly expensive that does a nice job? I see Phil's recommendation, are there others?

Star wipes? Even The Simpsons got into the discussion: Why eat hamburger when you can have steak?

After recently pondering ways to get more recent lenses for older Arri cameras, particularly 35 mm, that have their original bayonet or standard mounts, I was trying to imagine the potential for retrofitting more current lenses with older mounts. Naturally such a thing has obvious commercial limitations, but if it could be done it would open up some options for BL1's and 2C's that haven't been retrofitted. Yesterday I was reading an article in the current issue of Pro Moviemaker and there is a compare and contrast article looking prime lenses in general. One of the points it makes is that Rokinon's Xeen series has lots of mounts available, including PL. It says, "The mounts are described as 'interchangeable by a technician,' although it must be done by well-informed laypeople with an understanding of basic lens calibration. The ability to do this quickly greatly increases the utility and therefore potential profitability of the lens, especially as a rental item." To my thinking, the Arri standard mount (and even the bayonet) is about as simple a mount as there is and it doesn't seem all that far fetched to think a competent machinist could make the part(s) needed so these lenses could be retrofitted for older cameras. (Again commercial considerations are a major element, but let's stick with the theoretical side for a moment.) Has anybody done mount switches on these lenses? How hard is it? Is it a one-size-fits-all so one mount can be used on multiple lenses in the series? Opinions on Rokinon lenses in general? They certainly seem priced right. Thanks.

If it's for your masters thesis, you need to be picky about the subject. No apology necessary. When you mention living sources, naturally Barry Lyndon comes to mind. Imagine what Kubrick had to go through to get those interiors lit with only candles. Could he have achieved the same effect using some other less challenging method while still creating such a convincing and authentic 18th century environment? (At least we assume it was authentic, most of us weren't around at that time...)

Yes, I think you have it. The 1:2.2 has an 11xxxxx serial number, and the 1:2-2.2 is 14xxxxx. I hadn't noticed a difference in the coating immediately, but upon closer examination, on the older one I see the normal violet and tan reflections. On the newer one I can also see the bright green that I associate with multi-coatings from that era. Both lenses are Arri bayonet, by the way. Externally there are hardly any other differences. I'll see about trying to figure out how to get some directly comparable pictures. Maybe on a M4/3 camera... Generally Zeiss zooms seem to be held in higher regard. Is the 10-100 2.8 considered a better performer overall? Particularly in the T* version?

Normally you're correct, but on the Enterprise, there are spacial anomalies caused by the warp field that cause light rays to bend differently. Panavision cameras are particularly susceptible to these effects which allow the 12-120 to cover a conventional 35 mm frame.

It seems that the ubiquitous Angenieux 12-120 has some variants. I've ended up with three and I'm curious what their chronological dates are, and which version might be considered the most desirable. Two appear to be the same version. They are characterized as 1:2.2 and have dual aperture scales on opposite sides of the ring. The F scale has white characters and begins at 2.2. The T scale has red characters and starts at 2.5. (At least I assume those are the relevant scales, they aren't marked.) The third is marked 1:2-2.2 and has a single T aperture scale (so marked) beginning at 2.1. This one looks newest, but it could simply be worn less. I'll probably do some shooting tests, but getting enough footage under various conditions to tell anything will be a challenge. I remember seeing a discussion of this venerable optic on some forum, but now I can't find it. Who knows, perhaps one of these was used to film Star Trek TNG... Except wasn't it shot with Panavision cameras? Thanks.

That looks like an interesting if somewhat drastic solution. Truth to tell, I don't think I'll try using any of the old Schneiders on my 16SR, but I would like to use the Angie 5.9. I may have to look for a genuine bayonet mount for that one, or just be happy to use it on the 16Sb. It might be an interesting study to profile the back ends of some of those lenses and see how much they vary.

(My first post...be gentle) OK, so Arri standard lenses are supposed to mount in the bayonet mount as is often the case with a 16Sb. Now, here's my problem. When I try to mount standard lenses on my 16SR1, it doesn't always work. I have a standard mount Zeiss 10-100 that goes in very easily and locks. BUT--When I try to mount some of my older Schneiders (and not the really old ones with the weird twist-in-the-mount focus mechanism), they don't want to seat all the way in. Ditto when I try to put on an old standard mount Angie 5.9 mm. It goes in most of the way, but maybe not the last millimeter. It seems to be engaging with the tab (won't twist), but still won't fully seat. Somehow I am reluctant to give it that last shove... Any ideas? Is the position of the mirror relative to the flange/mount on a 16SR different than a 16Sb? I hope I'm not hitting it. Yikes. Thanks.