David Sekanina

You're welcome ?

Last puzzle piece: my Optex focal extender protrudes 29mm to the back and fits the the SR3 as well as the Aaton. So even the widest of the anamorphic lenses protrudes less than my focal extender, so therefore it'll fit.

As I was on my own, I had to resort to a stop motion example. Shot with an 80-200, camera is stationary, plushie is moving towards camera. Yes, it's silly ?

the video was shot with my cellphone, so the zoom is not a zoom but a crop-in - which is not the same like a zoom in. But I totally doubt myself now ?

error

If your actor moves away from the camera you change the distance to the camera - you compensate him getting smaller by zooming in. This changes the field of view, hence you have the background warp around an actor that keeps his size. Your actor ends up in a different position in the room, yes, so the end image will not be the same as when moving the camera away. The field of view change and the warp still happens, doesn't it? Edit: I might be wrong, I have to test this ?

Oh, then i got it wrong, my bad. But back to your question, you would get a warping 'vertigo' effect of the background with both approaches - moving the actor, or moving the camera and maintaining the size of the actor with the zoom. EDIT: You can easily test this in a free 3D software like blender

You can see this in the stair fall scene in "Psycho", where the actor is stumbling down the stairs (away from the camera) after being stabbed with a knife, while the camera zooms in, so the face of the actor is always the same size. In "Vertigo" it was the camera that was moving.

Glad to help, PM sent.

Not entirely sure if your question was rhetorical, to make a point, that such a PL mount is indeed hard to source, but if you'd like to have a few manufactured at a local machine shop, I can measure the Aaton LTR hard front on our CMM and draw up a matching PL mount for it and send you the files in October.

not a feature, but uncorrected 500T:

The 16M is an MOS camera, very similar to the 16ST, but built to take only 400ft mags.

When I bought my first 16BL over 30 years ago from the Swiss TV, they both had NPRs and BLs in my price range. The NPR was more silent than the 16BL. So is the LTR (still sub 10K) and XTR (closer to 20-25K)

It's the widest one, and yes, being 1mm longer than the Elite 20mm should pose no problem, as the ground glass sits quite a bit further back. Best I could do ?

In green you see an S16 Optica Elite 20mm lens compared to ARRi Studio (blue) and Loawa anamorphics (yellow)

Hmm. Dom posted these dimensions a few weeks ago, which are for the Alexa Studio (with rotating mirror shutter) I now compare this with the dimensions given for the Loawa anamorphics (in yellow) and they are all within the Alexa Studio dimensions. So I don't know why Loawa tells you it won't fit a 35mm camera, let alone a 16mm camera, which has more clearance. ?

For those interested, the reason the mirror on 35mm cameras sits closer to the PL mount, and further away from the film plane than on 16mm cameras, is because the mirror has to cover a taller frame on 35mm cameras, hence in order for the mirror not to collide with the film plane, it has to move forward. ?

I don't have the clearance dimensions for the SR3, but because I'm also interested in these anamorphic lenses, I checked the fit for an A-Minima (pink lines) and the Y16 (black), and all three lenses (yellow lines) have enough clearance on these two cameras. So unless there are some S16 lenses that only fit the Aaton, but not the SR3, they should fit.

I don't know. Maybe because you watched 'Eyes Wide Shut' 300 to 400 times?

The longer you search for meaning in something, the more "patterns" you start to see, that aren't really there. Similar to some people over-analyzing the Zapruder footage and finding new silhouettes etc... But I could be wrong - as long as you're having fun doing it, great ?

Thank you Martin for your insights!

let's go for a beer Simon, I'm buying, you've been a bit grumpy these days ?

David Watkin shot Out of Africa on Agfa 320, to lower the contrast, from what I read in the ascmag. So the choice of film for the original negative and how much it was pushed or pulled was probably the biggest contributor on contrast. David Mullen on Agfa 320

Isn't the digital press their biggest revenue now?

I wouldn't design film cameras if I didn't believe in film ? Just thinking, no one will be able to replicate this at such a scale, should (for whatever reason) Kodak decide to stop manufacturing motion picture film.