Kevin Roy

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well, the studios have exclusivity contracts with Kodak. So they literally were not allowed to shoot any other film. That's why Fuji stopped manufacturing. They weren't getting the 2 million feet of color negative jobs. Can you imagine if Kodak had competition? It would be another planet today, but alas those days are gone...

I don't think competition necessarily would have kept prices down significantly. The decline in the use of film for all productions was worldwide + the studios, since the 70's and 80's when video was starting to emerge as more affordable and accessible. And that registered on the bottomline for Fuji and Agfa hardest. It's been a long long road in this transition, and since then film prices have constantly increased. My recollection is after silver spiked in 1980, Kodak never lowered prices! It's easy in hindsight to point to mistakes made by Kodak, not only in the film arena, but digital. Kodak could have owned digital imaging, so to speak.

I think at the price point of $5500, considering that Kodak is a company that can support a new product with added features, and bring it to the market, not to mention the its brand, it's worth it. I think there are strong arguments for someone spending money on a new product, especially for filmmakers just getting into it, as opposed to getting into refurbished vintage equipment (not that that's bad), and trusting there will be support. If I were a young filmmaker (or school or company) in that position, I'd lean towards Kodak.  

Will the market be what it was? No. But I'll be an advocate to support sustaining what's left for as long as possible. It already is an art thing, and for high level professionals, though I don't see film as ephemeral or a fad even now. It's still here, and it's being invested in. At NAB last year there were at least four companies with new or improved motion picture film scanners. To me and my process, it wasn't the film or processing that was limiting, it was scanning to digital which was in short supply and expensive. And I think that we see that filmmakers of every variety will pay for it because it balances out. In other words, I pay more for film and processing, but way less for scanning now. And I get deals on stock, just like those who buy in bulk.

I don't think it is for rich kids or people who want to look cool, primarily. I think it's for artists, filmmakers, film schools, rental houses and people who are serious about the process and adding something new to the palette of options they can choose from or provide, to distinguish their work. And if that is one's MO, they'll figure out a way to afford it whether it's through bathroom processing, shooting short ends, renting a camera, whatever it takes. And I hope Kodak sees that, not just the bottom line. So far, it seems like they do. Compared to making a film on film in the 90's (or prior), compared to now....it's way easier now for a wider group of filmmakers, despite the inflation of the cost of the raw materials. And I think that's a variable to consider in how film can sustain and a clue into what Kodak knows about the market.        

Everyone points to the nuanced flaws of this camera relative to the years and years of experience we have working professionally with highly advanced/technical systems. The flaws of Super 8 are well known and obvious measured against the technologies that we've worked with. Kodak should've done this and should've done that. All the points are great, don't get me wrong. But thank god Kodak did something because lest we forget, film has a real likely chance of going away for good, permanently. Case in point, god I loved shooting that Agfa 400XT. Gone. And mmmm, that creamy Fuji 400T Eterna....it was so good. Too bad those companies abandoned film in an instant. And it's not like Kodak is exactly and economically thriving company these days. It's amazing that this even got done. 6-7 years in the making now?

Anyway, also, good on all those "hipsters" who think it's cool. Hopefully they'll start shooting more 16 and 35mm some day as their careers advance, so that I can keep my Arri rolling too, or not have to resort to processing 16mm in my bathroom in a garbage can.  Maybe one of 'em will buy my camera someday for a good price when I can't lift it anymore. And in my opinion $5500 is not that much cash for a rental house, a film school, or a kid who is willing and capable of slapping down that kind of cash for the latest DSLR BS package with a floaty gimbal thing....which truly will be obsolete in a couple years. I mean, anyone ever try finding storage media for a Red One or getting any support? Good luck. But I digress. 

The Logmar camera...I want to get my hands on one of those as well. Good for them too. I hope it becomes more widely available.   

21 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's impossible to get a crisp image because the system uses a plastic pressure plate. 

Not impossible if you have one of diese. ?

I've shot some beautiful Super 8 and I think it has some really special qualities. So glad Kodak has made this important investment for artists and students of the medium who really want to explore the process of working with film. In the hands of the right filmmakers, I think we can expect to see some really interesting and inspiring work that will further propel new interest in film. From my conversations with a few folks close to its development, there's definitely a few niche areas they are/were focusing on. Kudos to Kodak and all those talented and dedicated people for doing their very best to bring us this incredible camera. I'm looking forward to unboxing one and testing it out, asap. 

Sorry I don't have any footage posted. Keep in mind that the 11-20 is meant for S35, which equates to about 22-40 on a S16 camera. There's no exposure change that is discernible through the range of the zoom. It's a consistent 2.9. It's a well built modern lens and it feels solid. When I bought my camera, I abandoned looking for older Zoom lenses like the Canon's. I shot so much with that older glass I couldn't bear to bring myself to go back to that look which seems largely a result of the older coatings. And I couldn't afford the latest greatest zooms. I'd be interested to hear other testimonials on the Tokinas for s16. So far I'm the only one, I think, doing it.   

It's a rabbit hole. I chose perhaps a rather unconventional approach to lenses for my SR3 which you might want to consider. On a bit of a budget,  I chose a Tokina 11-20 and a 50-135, then picked up an Optar 8mm for wide angle stuff. I'd prefer a 9.5 or 12mm though, but the 8mm has a look that I like. There's still a gap in focal length but for what I do, it works. The Tokinas seem to me, less "vintagey" looking which I like. Plus if I need to cover S35 on the latest digital cine cameras, I can. Just a thought.     

Before I remove this plate off the video assist (image linked below) to repurpose it to mount a second battery to power some accessories, is the piece something I can obtain? Seems like it should be a standardized piece of hardware. I just don't know what to search on to find it. Thank you. I imagine this mount has been used to attach other accessories, like a french flag, so it seems like there might be availability. Thanks again. 

Thanks for the feedback. It seems most Portabrace bags that I can find are a little too small I think. I actually have one that I use. If it was a little bigger it would be perfect. I did find this:

https://www.caseclub.com/product/case-club-cc2914153isk-case/

It has the dimensions that I think would work but soft but sturdy like a Portabrace would be better. Probably searching for a ghost but any other ideas are welcome.

For an SR3 I have a hard shell shipping case however I'm looking for other options.

Does anyone have any recommendations for a soft yet sturdy case/bag that I can sling over my shoulder to tote around an SR3 w/ a zoom, 2 mags, a couple of batteries,  charger + a few accessories? The camera would pretty much live in the case when I'm on the road shooting, so it does need to afford some protection as well. Any good options? Thank for the insight. 

48 minutes ago, Arnold Finkelstein said:

I think it's fair to say I wing it.  I have been changing the mount to accomodate Canon EF still lenses, and my employer's Tokina Vista PL lenses, both primes and zooms.  I haven't noticed any issues, but I don't do anything special to make sure back focus is okay.  I typically use a 7" Atomos monitor.  

Is there something I should be doing to be more careful about back focus, or will I generally easily see a problem.?

Flange depth is pretty easy to measure but I'm not sure what's required to make the adjustment on the Canon. Some sort of shimming I imagine. 

You'll see there is an issue if the image does not stay in focus when you zoom. The other issue is that the witness mark on the lens may not match the actual measured distance to the point you are trying to focus.  A focus puller will prefer pinpoint accuracy so they know the distance marked on the lens exactly matches their tape measurement, especially in low light situations working wide open. 

38 minutes ago, Arnold Finkelstein said:

 

All my research indicates that the Tokina 11-20 is a manufacturer rehoused lens, meaning it is optically the same as the still version.

Ah yes, so it is. I thought this link was informative. 

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/06/11/tokina-cine-11-20mm-t2-9-review/

I use mine to shoot Super 16, and have never had issue with the sharpness. When I was looking to purchase, I opted for the Tokina given its shorter focal length. I also have the 50-135. It would be nice if the Tokinas were a stop faster though, like the Sigma. I'm shooting film though. With digital, perhaps its less of an issue. As the review article points out, I do agree that the 300° focus rotation on the Tokina can be a bit of a challenge.

I don't think that the Tokinas are rehoused at least that has never been my impression when working with them. I can report that I'm extremely pleased with my Tokina 11-20 2.9 and it has all the features and build quality I would expect from a moderately priced cinema lens. 

Thanks everyone for the info. I'm probably unnecessarily fixating on the update though it would be nice improvement to have it seems. My camera came to me with a new (or refurbished?) gate anyway, though apparently "aftermarket," which is what I was told. And I don't think I'm shooting enough for wear to be a real concern. And I'm considering just finding an Advanced body as suggested, just to satisfy my craving and perhaps mitigate any obsession that the internet has a special way of amplifying. ? All insight appreciated.     

53 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

I think you’d probably need to replace the whole gate, which is a relatively straightforward procedure for an Arri technician (not something a user can do though since you need the tools to set it correctly and check flange depth and ground glass focus). 

I don’t know where you’d find one though. 

Yes, it's the whole gate that would need to be swapped. One must exist somewhere, some place. That would be a nice upgrade I think.

If anyone has a lead, I'd be happy to follow up on it. Camera being parted out somewhere, maybe? Thanks all.    

Does anyone know if film guides on the SR3 are upgradable to the SR3 Advanced guides with sapphire rollers? Are they even available, perhaps aftermarket?

27 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The one I have was actually entirely made by Tokina. They got into the cine-modification themselves after seeing others do it. But the lens has now been discontinued. It looks like it's been replaced with the 11-20, which I'm still not sure will fit on my camera. My camera is modified and may have a slightly different front to an unmodified SR1. I'd like to know the exact diameters of the aperture and zoom geared rings on the 11-20. I've asked CR Kennedy in Australia to contact Tokina for these measurements.

Regarding getting a lens tech to move the PL mount around, on the back of the lens, I've looked at the screws and they're not equi-distant. It looks to me that it wouldn't be possible to rotate the mount 180 degrees.

Thanks for the info. Interesting. And then the marks on the rings would still be upside down, if I have the spatial orientations correct in my mind. I'm not sure how much it would cost but a lens tech might be able to machine some notches, and/or it might be easier to get the new holes drilled in PL mount, 180 degrees from where they are now. Though certainly an expense would be incurred. As a one man show, I'm looking mostly at the T-stops anyway, but still it would probably drive me a little nutty looking on the wrong side by habit.  

On 1/23/2022 at 6:57 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

That lens doesn't protrude back much at all behind the PL mount adapter, so it would be OK on an SR. (Whether it actually focusses to infinity is another question.) 

It's an adapted full frame stills lens for Contax/Contarax, though not sure what the original mount is in this case. Normally those can't be adapted to PL.

The Zeiss cine range is different, they are either T2.1 (Standard Speeds for 35mm) or T1.3/1.4 (Super Speeds for 16mm and 35mm). Note the aperture for cine lenses is usually marked in T stops, not f stops. An aperture of f/2.8 is pretty slow compared to many 16mm format lenses. 

Be careful of these sellers, there is an identical listing for a different amount:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/165241256518?hash=item2679257a46:g:xuAAAOSwoNVhvwxx

 

Why would it be an issue? The field of view will be the same as any 25mm lens on S16. It's a "normal" focal length, neither wide nor long, pretty common for S16. The image circle of that particular lens will be a lot larger than needed for S16, that's all.

1 hour ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'm learning a lot too Jefta. Glad to know this information is really helpful to others!

The Tokina 11-16 T3 has arrived, and yes it definitely fits underneath the viewfinder on an ArriSR1. The gear ring for the aperture only just fits, on my camera, with a few millimetres to spare in the area recessed into the camera front. So, all good there.

However, there's only one notch in the PL mount, that fits over the pin on the camera. When mounted on the camera, the focus and other marks are on the right hand side. I was assuming that the lens would be mountable with the markings on either side. I wonder why Tokina omitted the other notches. The marks can be transferred to a piece of tape on the other side.

I believe that lens is a Duclos conversion correct, which may account for the installation of the PL mount as it is? Guessing, but it may have been fitted to a particular camera that had all the functions on the right side, for an assistant. Wasn't there a Blackmagic camera that you would access all the functionality on the right side of the camera body? At any rate, you should be able to take it to a lens tech to position the mount so the witness marks where you want, I'm thinking. 

On 1/23/2022 at 6:57 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

Why would it be an issue? The field of view will be the same as any 25mm lens on S16. It's a "normal" focal length, neither wide nor long, pretty common for S16. The image circle of that particular lens will be a lot larger than needed for S16, that's all.

On 1/23/2022 at 6:57 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/165241256518?hash=item2679257a46:g:xuAAAOSwoNVhvwxx

 

Why would it be an issue? The field of view will be the same as any 25mm lens on S16. It's a "normal" focal length, neither wide nor long, pretty common for S16. The image circle of that particular lens will be a lot larger than needed for S16, that's all.

Yeah, the focal length is the same no matter. My conclusion from the eBay listing that this was a lens built to cover 35mm, not S16, therefore narrowing the field of view when used on a S16 camera, similar to the issue that occurs with the Tokina zooms that I mentioned, built to cover S35.

7 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I'm wondering if this one might extend too far back into an Arri SR. It might be adapted from an old S mount lens.

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/165241256518

 

No, there wouldn't be an issue as far as I can tell. The issue I would have is the field of view on a S16 camera. 

On 1/21/2022 at 10:17 PM, Uli Meyer said:

Shooting on 16mm will give you a somewhat dated look, no matter what lens you use. Happy to be proven wrong but if you are after a “modern” sharp look, digital seems a better choice.  

Yeah, I think of 16mm in slightly different terms though. I recall Allen Daviau describing black and white as being more "immediately abstract" as opposed to color. I love that idea. I sort of think of film versus digital cine in a similar way. And I like that abstraction albeit so subtle, and even more subtle with 35mm. It is interesting the extent to which viewership changes, and how we get normed to expect or accept a particular look. With my work, on the fringes and intersection of film and new media, it's still challenging for me to accept the look of digital, or have an emotional connection to it, not to mention a connection to process. I remember working with DPs who were cutting the sharpness of Primos with Promist filters. Some hated how sharp they were, razor sharp. But again, now, I'm working in an entirely different arena of art making and experimental. 

Swinging back to those Tokinas. For filmmakers just getting into it, they're versatile in the sense that they'll cover S35, but can be used for S16 as well. Even for me that has appeal as someone who does do the occasional digital project.

11 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

 

A 35mm lens shouldn't be a problem in terms of the oversize image circle unless there are shiny areas in the mirror cavity of your camera. I have had to black out the odd spot occasionally in SR2s and 3s. Just look carefully around the back of the gate area with the mirror out of the way. 

A recent feature film we supported used a Tokina Cinema 11-20. They can be quite sharp and contrasty for such a wide angle zoom, but I have come across examples already that had wear issues that caused them to lose focus depending on the direction you turned the zoom barrel. The cinema version is definitely better than a cine-modded stills version though.

Modern lens design has certainly come a fair way since the 80s and 90s, but I think a Canon 8-64 is still a pretty decent lens. It's worth noting that 8mm is actually quite a bit wider than 11mm on a S16 frame, and at T2.4 the Canon zoom is more than half a stop faster than the T2.9 Tokina. Plus it's an 8x zoom rather than a 2x one. I have worked on a few and they were very sturdy designs, I often find minimal wear in them, which I doubt will be the case with a Tokina 11-20 in 30+ years. But then when new these Canon zooms would have cost more than twenty times what a Tokina costs.

Good information. Thanks for your expertise and details with regard to the Tokina. Issues to keep an eye on.

No doubt the Canon is stout. It will always be in demand in the market so if considering resale....absolutely. And you have the wide angles and speed. When I was in the market I was really heavily leaning towards finding a later Canon. It's truly versatile, built like a brick. I went back an even looked at the Hurt Locker, and I have to be honest, I was just like, "ugh." It's purely "the look" that pushed me away from it. I didn't want any of my footage to look stuff I was doing back in the 90's! One thing to consider too for buyers, is something I considered, which was the idea that I could take the Tokinas and put them on a S35 digital camera. So I was thinking about that level of versatility as well, if god forbid I have to learn the endless menus on a new cine camera. ?

But for me again, I'm purely into experimental work in an academic environment, and traveling light and compact. Off topic, I recently picked up a Sachtler Activ8...omg, I never thought I'd ever be able to easily carry camera support. Amazing stuff. Camera tech has truly come such a long way. Constantly blown away at the innovation over the decades.    

2 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

"Original 35mm lenses fit on 16mm cameras, but if they were designed for digital cine cameras they won't fit. The rear element sticks out too deep for the shutter and the lens will damage the shutter. You will have to watch for stray light inside the camera too. Since a lot more light comes through it can cause ghost images from bright objects around the edge of the frame."

There are lenses that would not clear the shutter. That is certainly a consideration. I can't report having any issues with regard to stray light, and the negative effects of that. Zeiss lenses are tanks, no doubt, but they have to be, as most seem to land in rental houses first. For me I baby all my gear.

Best thing to do is test, test, test. Buy from a source that will allow you to do the testing you need to do to compare and make certain of the image characteristics. Most of the reputable dealers and equipment brokers will offer such terms. They may charge to return fee (or not) but that's a good backup if things don't work how you'd prefer. 

A rare bird, indeed. In my lens quest over a couple of months or so, I could never find one or any details to get a sense of how much of an improvement it was over the 8-64.

This is the last one that I saw come up for sale....

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-6-6mm-66mm-PL-Mount-Zoom-Lens-S16mm-Fantastic-Condition-/304236412230?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m4689.

12 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I just found out there is a similar version of this lens, with thinner diameter. It is only 11-16 but it has (or had) a good reputation among DSLR shooters apparently.

I'm not sure about that particular Tokina you are referring to. Was it available from Tokina with a PL mount or does it have to be converted?

FWIW, to my eye, these Tokinas are sharper than the 9.5mm and 12mm Illuminas I used to have, and any 8-64 I've shot with. I was leaning towards finding an 8-64, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. For me the look is tired, and I'm not really into film looking "vintage." I can't speak to the older Zeiss primes. I determined that I wanted at least the MkII but for me affordability was an issue as well, if I could find one. And I figured if ever a job came along, I just rent a set of primes anyway. But I'm not in the business. I had reservations with the Tokinas, stepping away from what might be the norm, but frankly, I'm blown away at the quality. Perhaps it's the difference between 30 year old technology and what they can do now. 

21 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

This is very helpful! I've been considering the Tokina 11-20. I have a Canon 8-64 and so far I like it a lot but it's very heavy and long. I think I will keep it but also seek out a lighter lens. Are you using the 11-20 with an Arriflex SR series model? If you are, could you tell me how much clearance there is between the lens barrel and the viewfinder 'elbow'? I'm wondering if this distance could be similar or the same as it is with the SR1. Does anyone happen to know?

Yes, I'm using them on an SR3 and I can report that there is no contact whatsoever between to lens and the viewfinder. See attached. When the viewfinder elbow is in the lowest, locked position closest to the lens i.e . level, it is tight, but not tight enough to in any way impede the mounting or removal of the lens. Further, the iris, focus, and zoom rings will not come in contact with the viewfinder whatsoever. It's snug, but I didn't even consider there might be an issue until I read your question. Perhaps on the SR2 there might be even more space because if I recall the diameter of the viewfinder elbow is a little less. I would bet you wouldn't have an issue. Same goes for the 50-135.