Robin Phillips

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

11 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

I haven’t had a Zeiss LWZ come my way, so I’m just speculating here, but it’s an interesting history.

The first Arri/Zeiss LWZ 15.5-45 zoom came out in the mid 2000s when film was still king and it was priced I believe at over $50,000. It only came in PL mount. The second gen LWZ-2 (no longer branded Arri since they had switched optical partners to Fujinon) was released in 2010 and had a rather short production span before being discontinued. (The Arri/Fujinon Alura 15.5-45 was announced in Sep 2011.) The LWZ-2 was the first zoom to have an interchangeable mount, including the option of EF, so it was clearly aimed at a lower-end market and priced accordingly at around half the price of the first. I don’t know how different the two versions are, since the specs are basically identical (and LWZ-2 owners seem happy) but even assuming the first was over-priced at a time when there were no low budget S35 zoom options, there must have been some lowering of standards or compromise to achieve such a price drop. At any rate it’s interesting that Zeiss discontinued it so quickly to make way for the Compact Zoom range. (I have read that the LWZ-2 didn’t match well with the Compact Primes and Zooms so maybe it was too good!) The latest LWZ-3 is under $10K.

It reminds me a little of Angenieux’s trajectory from the classic Optimo range during the film days to their first “Optimo Rouge” digital zooms (clearly aimed at Red owners) which were half the price but with similar specs. In that case I know the quality dropped, and it has largely remained below the high point of the Optimo days, even with marketing designed to convince people of the superiority of optics “designed for 4K” (now 8K). 

Anyway, my point is that the first generation LWZ may well be superior to zooms made after the digital transition around 2009/10. In any case, I think the Aluras are still very good zooms, and either would be a good choice. The point Robin brings up about servicing Zeiss zooms is a good one though. I’ve run into this a few times, where a normally straight forward service (say a clean and relube of the focus mechanics) required sending the lens back to Oberkochen. 

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!

2 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

You mean like the Alexa Studio? The camera that everyone asked for, but very few used?

yup. hell even just a rotary shutter version without the optical viewfinder would be nice, but is probably not to be

3 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Bear in mind a lot of sensors now have dual gain designs; it's been necessary to make the output amplifiers achievable for some time. It's actually a fairly common fault on Ursa Mini that it can lose its sensor calibration and the banding between the high and low gain parts of the image becomes visible.

I think they could push it to a true 4K. There's been enough development in sensor design in the last decade that they could go from 3.4K to 4.1K without losing anything. However, I also think that some of the reason people like Alexa is that it had excess resolution, just as you say. It massively helps with both level of noise and the appearance of what noise there is. Doing that would maybe not require 6K, but it might require five and a half, and that's a slightly bigger ask. 

My biggest request would be true global shutter, but that's really tricky to do.

we can always hope they do a spinning mirror shutter model

Hi all, random and possibly silly question - does anyone know if its possible to convert a moviecam SL to 2 perf?

yeah, still havent found the manual. 

5 hours ago, Jan Bujnowski said:

Hello,

I'm looking to buy an Aaton XTR or newer model. Preferably in Europe. Thank you in advance for any help!

 

 

maybe reach out to Herman at http://cameramarket.eu/ , every now and then he has one. I got a few of my aaton s16 400' mags from him

this looks kinda LOGy, maybe a bit over exposed too (or transfered with middle grey a smidge to hot)? the quick and dirty way to adjust this is to crank the contrast up. Its 50D so even a stop or two over exposed it should be recoverable if something is wrong. 

did you shoot a color chart at the head of the roll? If not, I strongly recommend even getting just one of those small foldable color checker charts, as it gives the transfer house a good reference for dialing things in. you can also then bump a hand written note that says "Time to chart" to instruct the transfer artist to dial the colors in to the color chart. 

Definitely get yourself a program that can do basic color adjustments, that way you wont be waiting on the lab for everything.

5 hours ago, Paul Scaglione said:

Hello All,

 A couple of you had asked about side-mount cheese plates to mount accessory bits to in the shadow of where the old IVS control box mounted and availability is getting much closer... An industry professional that I was bouncing ideas off of during the development of the IVS unit had already been working on a really good cheese plate for the SR-3 and is in the manufacturing stages now. We will be offering the plate when ready for a projected retail of just under $400.00.

Here's a teaser!

Stay tuned & stay safe!

 

definitely want one. is it high up enough to clear the taller dc converter (with the run button)?

On 3/21/2020 at 10:41 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

I'd be in for $1200. 

 

also interested

11 hours ago, Paul Scaglione said:

Hi Robin,

 I'm glad your install went well. Did you access the "How-to" video we put together for installation or did you just crack open the box and figure it out?? Major considerations during the design process were to make this thing "Plug & play" as we will no doubt have potential buyers overseas that would rather install it themselves rather than have to ship their camera body back & forth internationally. We do recommend whenever possible that we do the installation here but again, considerations were to make installation not require an engineering degree.

 On the subject of a side-mounted cheese plate, Yes! In early conversations with an industry professional that we were bouncing ideas off of, it was talked about as something that could and should be done to take advantage of that now lonely side-mount dovetail to allow mounting of alternative power sources, power distribution or whatever the heart desires however in conversation it was revealed that they or an industry partner was already developing something along those lines so it was decided to give them time to develop theirs and then we would either stock some of theirs and offer to buyers or point buyers to their product. We will give them a little more time to bring their product to life but if that timeline draws out too long may go ahead with manufacturing and distribution of something of our design.

 Post some pictures of your camera with your new tap installed!

Thanks,

-Paul

I'll post some photos tomorrow. installation was very easy. I did watch your videos to be 100% sure but it wasnt that difficult. 

awesome to hear about a potential side plate. I hope it can be a thing in the next 6 months or so (universe willing)

On 3/16/2020 at 1:58 PM, Paul Scaglione said:

Shipping now!!!

Here 'ya go.

http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail02.asp?productID=2052&Cat=3&Cat2=46

 

Got mine installed today. Boy is it an improvement over the IVS. 

Paul I dont suppose you guys might be considering a side mounted cheese plate accessory to go where the old IVS side car went, would you? Cause I will buy that like now if you do.

mine arrives today. installation will be a nice project to distract from the human malware. 

Paul at Shruco tool can help, he did my custom 2.39:1 sr3 ground glasses. shurcotool@aol.com 

I dont think either are 100% flicker free, IIRC they both run at 25fps. The footage I've seen off the AZ one is effectively flicker free, it just dims a little in cycles.

The listed VP tap requires the non-IVS video arm top, though my understanding is they are working on full replacement for the IVS.  

I got what I needed form Aaton directly (alas, no 2.35 glasses around anymore). thank you though

3 hours ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Remembering some previous chat on this forum....To have the same sharpness in a projected image of the same size the 16mm camera lens needs about twice the sharpness of the 35mm camera lens. S16 superspeeds had about 200 line pairs/mm (lp/mm) and the 35mm versions only needed about half that.

Maybe later Zeiss is a lot sharper, so this is less important.  

with older lenses this is for sure true, but I'd note that the zeiss ultra primes, master primes, and cooke s4s are all sharp enough for super 16 work. I also use a LWZ.2 on my super 16 cameras and its sharper than the mk3 s16 superspeeds. It's probably best to be safe on the wide end and use Ultra16s or Sk4s for a 12mm (and wider than that you need super16 glass anyway). For older era zeiss glass, the rule of thumb I was taught was that anything longer than a 35mm is most likely sharp enough for super16 work, so like a zeiss standard speed 40mm would be fine in theory. Still best to test though.

probably in the 10k range in the US, especially if it includes 3 + mags, viewfinder extensions etc. Maybe expect to pay more for something fully services, less for something that needs a check up. In some cases a place like Visual Products will offer a 6 month warranty, so that can add to cost too (but arguably worth it for peace of mind)

4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Fotokem has Imagica machines and they're very expensive to operate due to their slow speed. Where they do look good, they aren't an affordable option for most filmmakers. 

They run 16mm on the scanity 4k. I've had all my stuff in the last year that went through fotokem run on that machine, has outstanding results.