Adam Paul

This gives me the impression anamorphic movies are rare today, but yet I see anamorphic(2.35.1) quite often on the big screen. Am I missing something here?

I see what you are saying Mitch. So they do use omni mikes at times.

Thanks everybody. So for general use and if you could only have one of them, the eyebrows with side brows are the way to go? Even for handheld? Freya, I wasn't talking for making of videos, but feature film production. I often see a round mic hanging from a boom recording dialog in a scene. I think it's an omni because it's round and fat and too short to be a shotgun. But I thought features only used shotguns when booming. I just saw it again on the Lord of the rings making of.

So an eye brow and siders is the best way to go? Even when shooting with strong light sources? I wonder why productions shoot with both. There must be situations where one is preferable over the other.

Thanks David. About the mattes and eye brows, I understand what they are for, but I have seen them both being used for different shots in the same production. Is there a right time or situation to use each? Which is better, mattes or eye brow + siders?

These are more like general questions about 35mm production which I have long wondered about. I often see Velcro attached to camera matte box. What is it for? I have always heard that zoom are for cheap productions, yet, I often see zooms when watching making of videos of big budget Hollywood 35mm productions. When is it desirable to use a zoom instead of a prime? Ok, this one is more of a sound question, but I will ask anyways. Mostly, dialog is recorded with shotgun microphones. But I often see a shorter, more round looking microphone hanging from booms recording dialog in making of videos. They seem like normal omni directional microphones. Are they? Why?s that? Some times I see matte boxes with eye brow and siders, sometimes I see them with mattes for the different lenses, in the same production. When is it advisable to use eyebrow with siders and when is advisable to use matte for the right focal lengths? Another question is, how to calculate the hole size for the different focal lengths if I want to cut my own mattes? Thanks in advance.

Or any grip for that matter... to fit an Aaton

Tried searching but didn't find anything. Google had nothing either. Looking for an Aaton wooden grip. Any ideas of where to get one, new or used and how much they go for?

I take it you already have the Cinegon 10mm that was specially adapted for the Leicina Special? If not, that should be your first prime, since it's the only one "designed" for the Leicina. But I'm in no way a Leicina or Super-8 expert. Santo or Sparky will probably chime in and give you all the advice you will ever need on all things Leicina Special. They are the Leicina experts around here.

Those are CCTV lenses. Do you really think they are sharper than the Cinegon?

Which Fujinon primes are there?

I know 50mm is supposed to be the "normal" lens in 35mm photography, but I always found it so narrow, specially when filming indoors. Is it ok to replace it with a 35mm? Will it impact the cinematography or the audience's perception of "normal" shot in anyway? I don't think a 35mm has the characteristics and distortions of a wide angle like a 24mm or even the 28mm, so I think it wouldn't be bad to use it as the normal lens. Reason I ask is because I want to buy a set of three 35mm motion picture primes and I was thinking of a 18mm, a 75mm and something in the middle. But the 50mm is to close to 75 and is too narrow for indoors. So I thought of a 35mm, making my set 18mm, 35mm, 75mm. I thought of 18mm, 35mm and 100mm as I prefer it to 75mm for close ups. But 100mm are almost always slower. Opinions?

I have heard of 9x9 filters. Are they still in use? When is there a need for them? I would assume a 9x9 mattebox would be huge. Anybody how big they are?

Those who can?t or don?t want to contribute to the thread, at least leave the jackass comments out.

Disagree with me? I don't really care. It's a free world. I believe on what I see, and that super8 frame looked as sharp as any HD originated material I have ever seen. About that website, well, what would you expect from a website about digital cinematography? Were you expecting they would say digital sucks and film is king? :lol: About the Viper, the only reason it?s not really widely used is because it?s quite cumbersome since it needs to record to a computer system and not to an onboard recorder. If it was as portable as the Cine Alta, it could make a real dent on 35mm production, because it sure have the resolution to rival it. We will see what happens now that Panavision has the Genesis. I'm looking for a Leicina Special to buy right now and I will give the 100 and 200 negatives a try. Should beat any SD or HDV camera out there easily. I realize the process used to produce that super8 shot is expensive and complex, but at least it shows the potential. I would love to see a short or feature film up on the big screen done that way. I wonder how wold it stack up against HDCAM. Maybe George Lucas would make his next movie with Leicina Specials after seeing it. :P

Here are some interesting frame comparisons over pixelmonver.com (Scott Billups site). Ironically they are also shots of an eye. The Super8 frame posted here looks better than anything there but the 35mm frame shot in a Panavision. It beats the Digibeta by a huge margin on color and sharpness. It's a pity he doesn't have a HDCAM frame as well, as I'm sure the Super8 frame here will beat it as well, or at least match it. http://www.pixelmonger.com/hotgear.html

So, when using the new negative stocks, the limitation will really be in the optics?

Thank you John_P_Pytlak and Santo. Santo I'm still looking for the MTF for the Cinegon 10mm.

This frame looks awesome. It definitely defeats the notion I have gathered by researching this forum, which is Super8 is about same resolution as normal PAL/NTSC video. This frame looks at least as good as a HDCAM frame, if not better, since it doesn't have the digital look, because it it?s not of course.

What's Super8 resolution/sharpness in lp/mm?

Thanks for the detailed reply Santo. Did you get my last private message?

Santo, could you give more details on the Leicina 28mm prime? Was it specially made for the Leicina special like the Cinegon 10mm? If not, since the Leicina has that prism, shouldn't it be a problem?

Anybody know a link where I can find focal length conversions between super-8 lenses and 35mm, 16mm, 2/3?, 1/3? video? I couldn?t find one single director?s viewfinder which would cover super-8. Thanks in advance.

What's lecina special's focal flange distance by the way?

I keep hearing Contax Zeiss 35mm still lenses are the same as the Zeiss super speeds motion picture lenses. Does anybody know which Zeiss Contax are the same as the supper speeds? Planar, Sonnar, Tessar, Biogon,Vario, Distagon? Which one? Also are just the Contax Zeiss or also Zeiss for other 35mm still mounts that are the same as super speeds?