Raymond Zrike

Have any other singles for sale?

Looks like an amazing piece of technology. If it were either cheaper or not as heavy, I’d maybe buy it. Or do any rental houses have it? Would love using it with anamorphics on s16. Or a zoom like my Angenieux 17-80mm (although it’d probably break my Sachtler).

I’d also be interested in more info about/photos of the adapter and possibly buying one. Also wondering if you think it would work on other c-mount cameras or just the Bolex?

Anybody know about the clearance for the 28-55mm and 50-100mm zooms? I didn’t know they had expanded the line of lenses to zooms until right now.

I think I'll pursue the possible 8K options you all have suggested, and if none of those work out, I'll see if we should go with the alternative scanner-side crop-in route. Thanks everyone! It definitely could stand out a bit from the ScanStation scans (though I don't know if RGB scans will look dramatically different from 2-flash HDR bayer), but luckily narratively it makes sense for it to be dissimilar from the rest of the movie.

Forgot to mention that I own an SR3 (framing shouldn’t be an issue since it has an HD tap, and I can throw up frame lines on a smallhd). I pitched to the director the idea of shooting 16mm 500T pushed a stop or two to make it look somewhat more 8mm-ish, but for these particular shots he’s interested in larger grain size (rather than more grain) which that doesn’t achieve. I definitely expect the 8K+ RGB scans to be more expensive. We have the budget for the scene to a certain extent—probably 2-3x what we’ve been paying for ScanStation 4K scans. Will definitely post some results if/when it comes to fruition!

I realized the perf stabilization problem with that idea as I was typing it out. Too bad. Would love the referral! What scanner do they use?

Essentially we’re wanting the 8mm look but want to shoot s16 with an SR3 for practical reasons (because of the 400’/12-min mags, reliability, greater rigging ability, sharper lenses, video tap, etc). We’d like to do a post crop-in of the 16mm footage to achieve the look. I’ve gotten scans of 8mm in 4K and 2K, and I prefer how the grain is resolved in 4K. I’ll contact Roundabout and Prasad, thanks for those suggestions. Alternatively, would a lab be able to move the optics of a ScanStation 6.5K to take a super-8mm-sized 4K extraction of the center of s16 footage (since the machine is already capable of 4K s8 scans)? It’s a little less ideal since it gives us less wiggle room when it comes to the exact crop. And I’m not sure if that is possible considering the scanner wouldn’t have perfs within its sight for optical stabilization. Also, production is in NYC, so I’d lean toward suggestions in the east coast if anybody has any—but I’ll definitely be contacting the two labs mentioned. Thanks for the help.

Are there any labs that can scan s16 at 8K, particularly in the US? The majority of our project is s16 at 4K via a ScanStation, but there is a particular small section of the movie where we need higher resolution. Don’t need info/a lecture on 16mm’s resolving power—I understand that it’s very (very) unlikely that 8K scans would resolve any more image detail than the 4K scans. But we need the extra grain resolution for post. Do any labs do it (I’m under the impression that the LG Director 10K could do it)? Totally understand if it’s not something any labs do since it’s incredibly niche. It’s hard to know different labs’ capabilities since most are not public online about the scanners they’re using. Any suggestions on who to contact?

Huh I thought the Aatons had more clearance than the SRs. Does that mean the 20mm won’t fit on the SRs?

It's 7-63mm and 8-64mm, just to clarify. The 7-63mm is an update to the 8-64mm. Way better housing, slightly sharper, goes wider, but it's a bit slower.

It does sound like a limitation of the photo lens you are using. Cine lenses have much longer focus throws.

Full frame is a terrible term, and I try to use it as little as possible. Usually just use VV or vista vision, and other camera people know what I’m talking about. It’s also sometimes best to talk about things comparatively, so I’ll usually say “formats larger than s35” rather than just LF. And “LF” tends to be shorthand for the Alexa LF rather than a general term (does anyone refer to the Venice as LF?) for cine purposes at least. The terminology is certainly messy at the moment!

I'd love to try them out and get some 4K scans, but nobody seems to have any of them for rental in NYC. It's odd; been waiting for at least one person on ShareGrid to pick them up for nearly a year.

That's fantastic news! I'm surprised since I wouldn't think there is much market for a PL-mount MFT lens, but that works perfectly for s16. And T2.2! You're basically completely covered with the 20mm, 27mm, 35mm, and 50mm. Maybe throw in a 9.5mm/6mm Ultra 16 for when you have to go wider.

Would the shot at 0:35 in the trailer posted above be a part of those more stylized sequences you are talking about? Because that shot is a good example of what I’m talking about. I'm mainly focused on skin tones—there’s no color in anybody’s face (except for the warm push that is over the whole image). I guess this shot could be evoking an old photograph considering the context of the moment, but it doesn't scream Vision3 to me, at least how most people grade it these days. Also, pairing softer lenses (“‘We literally put optics from the 1950s inside the lens so it wouldn’t look so modern,’ Sasaki said”) with extremely low-grain stock like Vision3 50D, and then finishing with a DI, gives somewhat of a similar feeling of softness that you’d see with a poorly DNR’d scan. Very much my personal opinion, but softer lenses with grainier stock or sharper lenses with less grainy stock both work well while soft lenses with less grainy stock does not. Visible, well-resolved grain gives the appearance of a focused and sharp image. From the third row of the theater at which I saw Flower Moon, the daylight exteriors looked grainless and mushy.

Wow, Marty opted for an iPhone for this shot. Voilà, cinema.

This looks like a Venice. I think a lot of it that was shot on film has kind of a digital appearance because the grade is so aggressive. The daylight exteriors bothered me a lot in particular (saw it at a Dolby Cinema last week).

Has anyone done a comparison between Sony's X-OCN LT and X-OCN ST? I couldn't find any direct comparisons online. I'm wondering how much of a real-world limitation it will be for the upcoming Burano since it'll be limited to X-OCN LT.

The hyper tap isn’t truly flicker free at 24p, and AZ Spectrum had a wait list of about 6 months last I checked, so I went with AM. Great tap.

Seller was labeled a scammer, just FYI.

"Sideways" as in the camera is rotated so that the frame is now vertical? Or "sideways" as in the camera is tilted 90 degrees up or down? The former is not something I'm planning on doing while the latter is. Interesting. I'll probably keep my hand on the top (now the bottom) of the mag the whole time so maybe that won't be an issue. One of my mags made some incredibly weird noises last shoot. Took it out of commission immediately. Nothing worse than a film camera making sounds you haven't heard before.

Good to hear. Thanks! Maybe a test is in order.

Is there any issue with running an SR3 upside down? Or at a 90 degree or more angle? I think I've read about the topic on this forum before, but I can't find the thread. I'm hoping to rig the SR3 like in this demonstration:

All of those could very well be the explanation. Thank you! I'll make sure to have some magenta gels on hand next time. We'll just have to embrace the green for these shots haha