Robin Phillips

for when using 15mm lightweight arri still sells the ARRI LS-11. Im currently using the Wooden Camera universal lens support set on my lwz2 for when Im doing 19mm studio and its great

the Scanity is a spectacular scanner, and scans faster than the arricsan. so if one is cheaper than the other, you really cant go wrong with either image wise

I'd also note that small differences in flange depth calibration can also result in a less defined image, where it goes a tiny bit soft and thus makes the grain seem more apparent. I've seen this even on 416s where the footage being shown off is just a tiny bit soft, even when Ultra16s or Master Primes were used. A tiny bit out of calibration can be the difference between looking like grainy 35mm or sharp 8mm. Same goes for lens collimation. Whenever possible, you want to test and then harp on getting everything super dialed in if you're going for max resolution. Theres also a chance that in example #1 they over exposed a bit to get the smaller grains to expose and thus gave the picture more detail, where example #2 may just be 500t rated at 500. Overexposing by 1/3rd of a stop always seems to help a bit (so 500 shot at 400, 200 at 160 etc) Contestant number 3 just looks like they didnt want a super contrasty look.

you found an FEM-2 in the wild? hell of a find sir. I dont suppose theres a chance the source had another one eh?

thank you for correcting me

You'd need to check the spec of the video wall refresh rate, but I know that you mostly no longer need sync boxes to film displays. Discovered this a while ago while doing a test and rolled on some stuff with a TV in the background. The TV was showing normal (Im guessing 29.97) playback, but because its a 120hz tv its showing repeats of those frames longer (frame smoothing was off). So it refreshed so fast in combination with displaying the whole image at once (vs CRTs that drew lines with an electron gun) that there was no roll bar or flicker. Unfortunately the only way to be sure is to test. But if the walls are running at 120 or 144hz I suspect you'd be fine.

I had this problem when I got mine. IIRC the problem was a damaged prisim inside the viewfinder near the beam splitter. Jorge at Cinematechnic sourced the replacement part and fixed it. you could reach out to him and ask about it. Hes sometimes on this forum too

just a side note, if you didnt measure focus you should get your flange depth checked (or lenses colimated). this seems kinda soft for super16 on an sr3

I do believe all the answers lay here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Aaton france still has ground glasses, at least as of 2018. thats when I got a 1.85 one from them. Pierre Michoud is the guy to contact over there

this panavision document has equivalent focal lengths https://www.panavision.com/doc/2-perf-explained

I found the piece I need last week. thanks though

My understanding about the price cut for the LWZ.2 + the EF mount was an attempt to reach the new DSLR market, its unclear if any compromises were actually made or if the LWZ.1 was just super heavily marked up and originally targeted at rental houses not individuals. When discussing the differences between the two lenses once, I was told by one service center that if you send in a LWZ.1 thats broken, Zeiss will try to just replace it with a LWZ.2. The story behind the line suddenly ending on Zeiss's end that I heard was that the two specialists who lead building them both went on leave around the same time, and due to a combination of the lens's complexity, lack of training given to anyone to replace them, and the overall cost of the lens being so high vs the forthcoming Compact Zoom line that they simply opted to transition away from it. Mind you, these are the stories I have heard 2nd hand, so its best to talk to ziess directly if there are any servicing concerns. The only quality thing I'd just re-iterate is that I regularly use my LWZ2 for super 16 use with great results. I'd expect the LWZ.1 to be roughly if not exactly the same glass, so test results should be quite excellent.

I have a LWZ.2, and beyond it being insanely sharp (its good for super 16, rivals the U16s in 4k scans) it has the same coatings that will match the Ultra Primes, which I personally love. Some footage I've seen of the Alura's, which are in theory designed to match the ultra primes, always seem just a tad warmer and a smidge more contrasty (I was contemplating getting an Alura 30-80 a while ago and wanted to see how it might match with my LWZ.2, but all my observations are from tests on vimeo and youtube). If it matters to you, the LWZ and LWZ.2 both have to be serviced at Zeiss HQ. I dont know of any shop in the USA that will service them, even for lubrication. My understanding is this is due to the complexity of the lens, which may or may not be one of the reasons Arri collaborated with Fuji on future zooms (maybe someone else here knows?). Now if I was asked if I wanted to keep my LWZ.2 or trade it for an Alura of the same range, I'd keep my LWZ.2. But thats just me and my 2 cents

Hi all, does anyone happen to have the video tap optical elbow for the Arri 435 (without IVS) that they'd be willing to part with? Or possibly an old video tap with this part attached? The name, per the manual, is the "Video Optic V0-2" part number K2.47086.0 thanks!