Adam Paul

Hi,

 

No, Arri uses 32 pitch gearing and Kinor uses 50 pitch gearing or "Canon" gearing.

 

I hope that helps.

 

regards,

 

Ian

By Canon, do you mean the Broadcast video zoom gears (the gears on the Broadcast lenses)? If so, the same as Fujinon?

I thought Kinor was 32 pitch, 0.5 module by the way?

Is Arri pitch the same as Kinor (Lomo) lenses?

Thanks.

You mean lens gears?

 

Most film lenses use .8m/32p (metric/imperial). Video lenses differ between manufacturers.

 

- nathan

Is .8mm the thickness of the gear ring?

Any ideas of Cinevator rates? That site is all in foreign language and has no prices. I did a little quick research and some people are saying the final results are soft. How does it compare to Arri laser? I know Arri laser is very expensive, but it's the best and a good reference.

Any ideas what 90 min. worth of 35mm film would cost including processing and all it's needed for a print for projection? Thinking about doing a cheap HDV to 35mm transfer using a huge LCD/Plasma screen. Probably use a Konvas for the job. Maybe one of the older ARRIs with PL mount.

I guess I did the right thing then, cause I went ahead and got it. To have fresnels for the first time is really useful. Thanks for all replies.

Thanks Mattias. 2 of the stands in the kit are C stands by the way.

Somebody wants to sell a light kit with 5 Fresnel lights (2 used 2000W, 2 brand new 1000w and 1 brand new 650W) complete with barndoors and screens, plus 8 stands(2 of them are wind up stands for the heavy used 2000w Fresnels). He's asking $1200. Is it a good deal or can I find a better brand new kit out there?

Also, is it a good starting kit for HD? How flexible is it? Thanks.

Anybody know how an eyepiece extension works? I mean, is it just a tube with a magnifier glass inside? If so, why are they so expensive, specially the ones for HD cameras?

I have heard some good things about the Spectra Professional IV-A from an user, saying it's better than the Sekonic L-558 Cine and does even more, and it's cheaper. I'm trying to find comparisons online, but it seems if it comes down to the lower end L-358, the Spectra IV-A is much better feature wise.

Just not sure what to get between those three. It will be my first meter, but I want it to last.

I hear the Sekonics are easier to learn too.

Thanks Brian.

So I think I really don't need the L-558. I'll save my money and go for the L-358 then. Spectra has a digital model too and it sometimes can be found for cheaper than the L-358. Would you advice going with it instead? I have no idea if it goes down to F0.7 like the analog version though.

Just another question. When is a spot meter desirable in a feature shoot?

By the way when you say "shooting film", you mean filmmaking style shooting right? Because I use HD and video.

I will check the reviews. Thanks for the link.

Thanks for the input Dimitrios. But I have decided I'm getting a meter and would love getting some feedback on the models I mentioned.

So if I don't need a spot meter, does it mean the Sekonik L-358 will do just fine for me or are there any other features on the L-558 besides Spot meter that I would need?

Still would like some comments on the Spectra digital as well. Thanks guys.

What's wrong with using your eyes and the monitor? I mean, if it's a lit scene anyway, and you use the same lighting set-up for fill (let's say a bounce off of a 4x4 card) then it should be giving you the same fill level if at the same distance to the subject and the key is the same level, even as you change angles.

 

But either way, you should be able to set it by eye and the monitor.

Hi David. I see what you mean. But it's not always possible to keep the same light fixtures when changing angles during the filming of a feature style project. Sometimes I find myself changing for space and other reasons. I have worked with the monitor only and found contrast differences when watching the footage later, or had an editor complaining about it. I think a meter may be the way to make sure contrast in right.

I have been looking at the Sekonic L-358. Would it be a good meter for this purpose or do I need a spot meter? The L-358 doesn't seem to have spot, but the combo meter L-558 seems to have, although not as flexible as a dedicated spot meter. Do I need it or the L-358 will more than do? I'm really not interested in setting exposure with a meter. I think for that the zebras are enough. But if I have a meter on set, I might as well use it to check critical exposure situations at times. The thing about using a meter for exposure with video is that the camera's ASA is never constant and so not really reliable.

But my question is, what are the feelings about the L-358? Will it be a good meter or should I spring out for a L-558? In this case why? Do I need a spot meter? There's also the Spectra digital, which I heard is even cheaper. Thanks in advance.

What I meant was that video doesn?t require a light meter to light the set. A well calibrated monitor will do the job. But I'm getting the feeling a night meter is the only way to keep a constant contrast ratio? The DSLR camera trick sounds a bit inaccurate, besides I don't have a DSLR. So I'm thinking about getting a light meter to keep the foot-candles and contrast ratio. Should I get a spot or an incident would do?

Since light meters are not very usual when shooting video, how do you keep the contrast between shots from the same scene without a light meter when shooting HD?

Was it shot with Russian cameras like Konvas and Kinor with Lomos or with Arri? Any information on the lenses and general equipment they had available? For the said budget, the image quality cinematography, specially camera movement, looked amazing.

A lot of the 2.35 movies you see are shot in Super-35, where the soundtrack area of the film is used, followed by the image being cropped, to acheive a 2.35 aspect ratio (sometimes 1.85). The negative is horizontally squeezed, either in printing, or, most of the time nowadays, in the DI, so the image is projected in 2.35, but the squeeze occured after it was shot, as opposed to anamorphic, where the camera lens squeezes the image. The advantages of Super-35 are that you can use more lenses, since many will cover the super-35 frame, and you can shoot in lower light, due to quality issues you get at lower stops in anamorphic. But, many are excited whenever a picture shoots anamorphic because the negative area is larger, so you get more resolution, and, if a picture doesn't go through the digital squeeze in the DI, the optical squeeze adds a generation, degrading the quality of the image. And, one overlooked area of the whole anamorphic vs. super 35 debate is that many feel the out of focus ovals in anamorphic are aesthetically pleasing!

I see now. So normally 1.85 is shot Academy and 2.35 is shot either Super35 or Academy with anamorphic lenses? What are the give aways to recognize anamorphic? Are there any 16:9 movies shot those days anymore? If so I would think it would also be Academy?

What you are asking here is how much area the lens "covers." I guess this could technically limit the lens' field of view due to vignetting (dark areas in the corners of the frame), but if you have a 35mm format lens -- that is, a lens that is designed to "cover" 35mm, then you'll be fine. A 35mm format Lomo (not a 35mm Lomo) might not cover the exact same area as a Cooke or Zeiss, but as long as it at least covers 35mm academy (22x16mm), your field of view will be the same with any of these lenses.

I was talking about a Lomo for Konvas or Kinor(motion picture).

But thanks for clarifying it all. Now I know where I was confused with the whole different frame size thing. Thanks Thomas.

Thanks also to Mitch and everybody who contributed to the thread and sorry for the big confusion. Mitch said it all for me here:

Short answer: The glass is all the same and the formats are all the same. Use a MarkV or similar and select 35mm Academy as your guide. You're good to go.

That was basically the whole reason I started the thread. I was afraid the angles wouldn't match if I used a director's viewfinder.

Thanks everybody.

Hey Thomas. Maybe I?m just not being clear here, or I?m just confused, but I will try to explain again. I thought Konvas/Kinor used a different size of film frame, because I have always heard you need to convert them to use normal Kodak 35mm. Then if the frame was smaller, a 18mm would yield a different angle of view in the same way a 18mm yields a different angle of view when used in 16mm (smaller frame) as opposed to 35mm(bigger frame). That was what I was talking about.

To give you a picture of what I mean, let?s say you would manage to install a Lomo Konvas lens and a Cook in a SLR camera . If you take pictures with both, as they are motion picture lenses they wouldn?t cover the still frame, which is 36x24mm. You would end up with a little round image in the middle of the picture right? My question is, would the Lomo circle in the middle be smaller or the same size as the Cook(or Panavision or Zeiss superspeeds for this matter)?

Hi guys. I know a 18mm is always a 18mm lens. I meant in terms of angle of view. The angle of view of a 18mm in 16mm film is not the same as in 35mm for example. I wanted to know if the angle of view changed between a Lomo and a Cook when used let?s say on an Arri? I know Lomo can be fitted with PL mounts to be used on an Arri for example.

About the director?s viewfinder, I was talking about the simpler ones like the Mark V where you don?t use your actual lens. If I set it to 18mm and set my shot, will the angle of view match when I look through the 18mm Lomo in a Konvas?

By the way I have never seen a director?s viewfinder for OCT-19.

What I meant about frame being smaller was the ground glass. Isn?t the ground glass smaller in a Konvas than in an Arricam?

Academy is the standard for Hollywood films right? Unless shooting cinemascope of course. So a 18mm Lomo gets you the same angle as a 18mm Zeiss, Cook or Panavision? So I can just use any director's viewfinder to work with Lomo lenses?

Because I was always under the impression the Konvas/Kinor frames were smaller.

Hi guys,

I have a question about angle of view. Is there a

convertion tab to convert Konvas/Kinor angles of view

to Academy? Since Academy is 24x18mm and Konvas/Kinor

is about 22x16mm, there must be a convertion factor.

Specially when using director's viewfinders which only

have Academy, Super 35 etc, but not Kinor/Konvas.

Let's say what's the angle of view of a 18mm Lomo?

What would it be in Cook or Panavision terms when used

on a Arri or Panaflex?

Thanks in advance.

Why not buy one of them 20" Apple Cinema Displays? Besides bigger then a 14", the new aluminium ones have firewire inputs. You can plug the camera directly to it using firewire, which is preferable since the analog outputs don't show the real image and you don't see if you have dropouts etc. It is much cheaper than a CRT, about $800, and many say a LCD is actually better for HD since it will end up being viewed on a LCD because all HDTV is LCD/Plasma etc. I know of a lot of people using Apple Displays on set. I think even Hollywood productions are using them. The Apples are the only ones I know with firewire. Some people use the Dell 24" but it only has component IN.

I have a very basic question about follow focus units. How do they work? Turning the knob clockwise (towards the camera body) brings the focus closer or the opposite?

Thanks in advance.