Leo Anthony Vale

they're larger than the Arri std.mount. This is from the Rafcamera site: Flange Focal Distances Flange Focal Distance is distance from a lens mount flange to focal plane, and this distance is the same, irrespective of the actual focal length as a 19mm lens should focus the rays to the same physical location as does a 600mm lens. I have info on FFD and mount diameter of some movie cameras. If you have reliable info to add, it will be appreciated. Camera FFD, mm Mount diameter, mm 1 1KSR-1M (Konvas-1M,-7M,-Automat) 57±0.01 47 2 1KSR-2M (Konvas-2M,-8M, Kinor-35) 61±0.01 68 3 US-3H 61±0.01 68 4 US-2M 68±0.01 68 5 1-SKL (Temp) 57±0.01 50 6 Arri-2C 52±0.01 41 7 Arri-BL2 52±0.01 41 8 Arri-BL3 52±0.01 54 9 Aaton 40mm ? ?

The hand held work in 'Cranes are Flying' and 'I am Cuba' are among the smoothest moving shots around. They do things like passing the camera to another operator which can't be done wia steadicam. But 'The red Shoes' ballet can't possibly be an actual ballet on a stage. Too many cinema tricks. It's a fantasy ballet.

Not really. 'The Leopard' was shot in Technirama, but Fox's US release was 'in CinemaScope and Color by DeLuxe'. MGM CinemaScope films from 1958 to 1962 or 1963 mostly used Panavision lenses. There will be a credit line in the main titles saying "photographic lenses by Panavision". & some MGM B/W C'Scope films from '57/58 were in Super35 & blown up with a Panavision printer lens. 'Jailhouse Rock' was the first of these. The credit line reads "process lenses by Panavision". In the late 50s Columbia was using a mix of Panavision and CinemaScope lense on its Cinemascope pictures. Fox's 'The Blue Max' used Franscope lenses. Fox advertised the 35mm releases of its 70mm films as being in CinemaScope. Having the CinemaScope license was more important than the actual lense. David's most likely right about the copyright being expired.

Japanese studios would name their anamorphic systems after themselves, just as WarnerScope, RKO-Scope & HammerScope. According to this Nikkatsususcope originally used Dyaliscope lenses. http://www.tok2.com/home/rionawide/p31.html Though I'm sure they later added Japanese and other anamorphs. .

The CA-1 flange-focal distance is 48mm. Don't recall the mount diameter, but it is wider than the Arri std. & bay. The PL and other Arri flane-focal distance is 52mm.

There's always the public library. & no charge either.

3-M Dynachrome was the equivalent of Kodachrome, process-wise. Color-wise, no! http://www.photography-forums.com/anybody-ever-heard-dynachrome-t81442.html Good morning from Austria, when Kodak was forced to separate Kodachrome film sales and processing in the USA in 1954, and the original Kodachrome patents had expired, Kodak disclosed the processing scheme and reagents, and independent laboratories took over Kodachrome processing. >From 1959 on, Dynacolor Corp. manufactured Dynachrome as Kodachrome clone, initially for the Kodachrome K11 process, later, as Kodachrome II and X were introduced with K12 processing, Dynachrome issued its own successor process named SK91 and a 25 ASA film, which was sold in Germany as Turachrome-2, Kranz Color C16, and as the mail-order films offered by department stores as Neckermann Brilliant, Reporter Color, Unichrome, as well as Gratispool (GB), Tower Color, Mirachrome, Canachrome etc. (US), as described by the German photo historian Gert Koshofer in his book about color photography (1981). In a permanence test published in 1994 by the same author, Kranz Color and Ilfachrome (another Kodachrome clone from Ilford) slides from 1961 had virtually unchanged colors. Dynachrome 64 was manufactured by Ferrania with Agfacolor technology. In 1970, Dynacolor stopped production of Kodachrome-clone film.

There was a Century Precision 25mm f/0.78 C-mt. It was a Japanese CCTV lens. They also had a 25mm f/0.95, which was also a japanese CCTV lens. I have no idea about the picture quality, nor whether it could clear the prisms/mirrors of all reflex C-mt. cameras.

Well, my test roll of 7231 rev was processed in standard Kodak reversal at HFI lab. & it also had quite abit of drying marks. I'd conclude that the 7231 emulsion was thicker than the reversal stocks.

This is so embaressing. There was something familiar about this movie, after some pondering I remembered it was shown at FILMEX in the70s. Then I seemed to recall acouple of shots: a diffuse foggy interior with Christina surrounded by a multidude of candles, maybe part of the main titles or shortly after the M/T & an exterior, quite diffuse of Christina running through a field of yellow flowers at a cliff overlooking the sea. Actual shots? FILMEX would have a'secret' movie. Buy your ticket, take your chances. 'The Abduction' was that year's secret movie. Most viewers seemed to be expecting something else.

Ages ago I had a roll PXR processed as reversal to see what it would look like. The neg came out dark, but not under exposed. Grey scale card showed normal exposure. & there were halos around black objects. So most negative stocks have more silver in their emulsions than reversal stocks do. So the first rev developer leaves a large amount of unexpossed emulsion which becomes an extremely heavy base fog after the second development. This might also be going on with color neg.

Spherical aberration. Light rays coming through the edges of a lens don't quite hit the focal point, blurring the image slightly. Stopping down the iris cuts out the edge rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration As the lens is stopped down to very small apertures, light rays passing the along the edges of the iris are bent once more blurring the image. Edge diffraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_diffraction

& that "choice" has nothing to do with newspapers and magazines being put together on computers rather than having "camera ready" copy being pasted on boards to be sent to the printers? Might it actually be the format of choice of the editors and publishers?

One big reason was that news and magazine photographers could literly phone in their photos from the other side of the planet & meet the deadline for the morning edition. Yeah, they were able already able to wire photos from a scanner, but the film had to be developed and taken to a facility for transmitting. The "death" of chemical film was a victory of convenience over "quality". We are living in the Age of Commodus. I'm guessing you never had a chemistry set when you were a kid.

They did a show a day. Shooting, editing and printing would be to time consuming and expensive. & as JS points out it was the Age of Live TV. It was apractical choice, aesthetics had nothing to do with it.

Since I have limited 'net time, I can't go over the math again. As long as you're comparing the same aspect ratio and aperture(cam or proj), the ratios are the same.

& I always thought it was because those were the cameras the video studios were equipted with back then. Which makes me wonder why did 'Shirley Temple Story Book Theater' opt for the reality look? ...or 'The Muppet Show'? Might it have something to do with the lack of another video option at the time, rather than over thinking some intellectual aesthetic concept for pouring uot "footage" quck and chear?

You'll notice in this 'Lust for Life' promo that there are TWO focus pullers on the camera.The one on the veiw-finder side pulling the prime lens, the other focusing the anamorph. Not practical if you're focusing on the fly. I don't know of any other 16mm anamorphs, other than the iscorama, that has that sort of focusing.

With these attachments, you will have to adjust focus on both lenses. The Iscorama has what is basically a variable diopter for the front elements. That one is focused by setting the backing lens at infinity and focusing on the Iscorama. Many pro 35mm lenses-Technovision, LOMO round fronts & Hawks-use that type of focusing. The 16mm atachments use the same type of focusing that was on the earliest anamorphic attachments-Cinemascope, TotalScope & the LOMO square fronts.

Not really. The2-P frame is about 9x21mm, The 3-P frame is about 10x24. The 3-P Scope has a slight edge, near the difference between 16R and S16. The PDF for Penelope GGs: http://www.aaton.com/files/1002_penelope_viewing_screens.pdf The 2.35/1 3-P area is 235mm2, 2-P area is 185mm2, "21% less than 3P"

The Panavision PSR and R-200 were rehoused Mitchell NCs. So the Panaflex movements would be slightly modified Mithell movements.

The LOMO OST-18 lens mounts may look like Arri standard mounts, but the dimensions are different. They're too big for an Arri.

LOMO has made Super8 cameras in the past, including double S8 using 25' spools. They were hardly top of the line, even if some had metal bodies. http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_lomo/cameras_lomo.htm

Because the rear of the Arri bayonet & standard mounts won't clear the mirror on the Mitchell cameras. The adaptor would be used on Arris and Moviecams with BNCR mounts.

He needs to shoot with a zoom & not a 4:1 zoom. A 12-120mm is too heavy for an filmo turret. Snap zooms are the signature shots of fights in kung-fu movies.