charles pappas

Hello, I have a Switar 50 mm f 1.4, regular c-mount which I had used a bit many years ago.The glass appears to be quite good. The aperture ring functions well and the focusing ring also seems to be in at least decent shape, based on eye-balling a ground glass and guesstimating distances. However, the Visifocus function isn't working. When the aperture is set at f 22, only one of the copper dots appears, at the widest depth of field indicator. As soon as the aperture is opened up more the dot disappears, not to be seen again. The second dot never appears. I have attached a photo of the one dot visible at f 22. Does anyone know what the problem might be and if this can be remedied by me with some relatively simple fix? I am selling some equipment to raise funds for a project and would prefer to sell a fully functional lens. Thanks.

Very much appreciated; thanks again.

Hello, I have two Ang. 12 x 120 lenses and have attached a photo of the mounts, which appear to be the same except that one lens mounts is missing the plate surrounding the rear element. Can someone identify the mounts and also confirm whether or nor the missing plate renders the lens un-mountable. Thanks, Charles Pappas

Yes thanks, I'd completely forgotten about projecting as i've never used a flatbed, only sync gang, viewer and rewinds. It' been a while, but I seem to recall mostly rewinding the edited film to a regular reel for checking edits on a projector. I will keep in mind your comment about the price.

I recently sold several of the heavy Hollywood brand 16mm split reels on E-Bay (to raise filmmaking money). I now have a few of these much lighter split reels shown in the attached photo. They are un-branded and have aluminum hubs instead of the brass hubs the Hollywood reels had. I would not want to sell them for the same price as the Hollywood ones, but I am curious about them. Would anyone happen to know who could have manufactured them? Also, is the inferior construction indicative of merely seeking a lower price point, or were these intended for some other use besides being used on the cutting table, such as transporting or temporarily storing assembled film edits. Thanks.

Do anyone have an opinion on Soderberg's comments as regards the new 4k iPhone. If I were to make a feature I would use my Arri II-B, but, if Soderberg is accurate, my second feature might be made using an iPhone. "However, the biggest story around “Unsane” might not be its release strategy. Taking a page from Sean Baker’s “Tangerine,” Soderbergh shot the whole movie on an iPhone. While Baker has said he used a phone instead of traditional cameras due to budgetary constraints, Soderbergh said he was so impressed with the quality of iPhone cinematography that he would likely continue to use phones to shoot his movies going forward. “I think this is the future,” he said. “Anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on the phone. That’s not part of the conceit.” The filmmaker has experimented with digital cinematography for years, going back to 2002’s “Full Frontal,” but found that the iPhone offered unparalleled quality. “People forget, this is a 4k capture,” said Soderbergh, who was long a passionate advocate for the high-end RED cameras. “I’ve seen it 40 feet tall. It looks like velvet. This is a gamechanger to me.” Asked if he would commit exclusively to shooting on iPhones going forward, he replied, “I’d have to have a pretty good reason not to be thinking about that first… There’s a philosophical obstacle a lot of people have about the size of the capture device. I don’t have that problem. I look at this as potentially one of the most liberating experiences that I’ve ever had as a filmmaker, and that I continue having. The gets that I felt moment to moment were so significant that this is, to me, a new chapter.”"

Thanks to all responders. I am going to auction these lenses on E-Bay as I have only c-mount 16mm cameras, and I did not want to over or under describe them (although i will allow returns).

Mr. Jaeger, or anyone, I'm not familiar with a lens test projector - can they project through a wide variety of lenses regardless of the lens mount, or is the test projector restricted to testing lenses of a particular mount or for which it has the appropriate adapter. Thank you.

Could anyone offer any tips on evaluating lens glass, especially with no means to film test this lens. I have attached six photos from an Angenieux 9.5 - 95 lens (Camflex mount I have posted about earlier). At the front glass I can see at least seven or so blemishes plus a few more around the perimeter. (There is also an extremely fine scratch about 1/2 inch long no clearly visible in photos.) At the back element photos numerous specs are visible. Taking the lens outside and looking through it, a dark spec or two appear to move with the image. I know this is nebulous, and clearly the less seen on the glass the better, but any comments would be appreciated. Thank you.

Gregg MacPherson, thank you, I have attached two photos of the CM zoom ring with the openings shown. Also, sorry for the confusion, I was referring to two different lenses. I have attached a photo of the "Camflex" mount, about which i'm wondering if it is identical to a CA-1 mount. Heikki Repo, yes, I see what you mean, thanks.

I'm getting real down on Apple; it seems they are all about emojis now. I meant to write Arri B instead of Arri emoji.

Hello, i have an Angenieux 9.5 - 57 lens (Arri B) with a Chroziel-Munchen (CM) zoom attachment on it. The CM ring closest to the front of the lens changes the focal length when twisted. That ring has two openings, apparently for rods. Are those openings indeed for rods, or if not for what purpose? Why are the two openings fairly close together? And does anyone know threaded rod type I could use to substitute for the original rods, if that's what they are? The CM attachment has another ring closer to the rear lens element that has a knurled rubber grip around it. Twisting this grip and ring appears to do nothing. Can someone give me any information on that ring, what is it supposed to do, or is it not working? Basically, I don't know anything about these CM's except that they were maybe to smooth the zooms. Also, I have Angenieux 9.5 - 95 lens with a labeled "Camflex," mount. Is the Camflex mount the same as a CA-1 mount, meaning the mount could be used on a NPR or an ACL? Lastly, eyeballing the glass on the Camflex lens, it doesn't look that great, not horrible but with clear flaws when light is shined through. That lens has a zoom crank on it. I'm thinking of taking the crank off it and attaching it to another lens (not the CM one). It appears that the process would be straight-forward, but is that deceiving and is there anything I should be wary of? Thank you.

Thank you sir.

Can you identify lens mount please? Ang. 9.5 - 95. Thanks, Charles Pappas

Hi, this is from an ang. 9.5 - 95 f 2.2. Please help me identify mount. Thank you.

Hello, I've been wondering then if you know why Fotokem Lab would be credited each week for dailies and digital intermediates.