Deniz Zagra

This might be a trivial topic for a lot of people, but I'm very interested in learning more about lenses, and I couldn't find any information about these topics. Why is every lens company manufacturing new lenses that they claim to be specifically designed for digital cameras? Apart from the ability to make the lens closer to the sensor and to include anti-aliasing coating, what other benefits do these new lenses offer? Is it a substantial difference that these companies can justify (financially) making entirely new lens designs? A few years ago, Panavision introduced their Primo V and T-series anamorphic lenses. Apparently, the T-series lenses are being used a lot, even on film cameras; however, I haven't seen many productions utilizing the Primo V lenses. I've heard from some stills shooters that lenses designed for film can introduce extra chromatic aberration into the digital frame. Am I missing something here? If you were shooting a film on digital, would you go with the original Primos or the new Primo Vs? Would there be unwanted side effects if these lenses were used for celluloid capture? One last question: I was watching the bonus stuff on the Criterion blu ray of Barry Lyndon. There was a section where Joe Dunton talked about the lenses Kubrick owned. He mentioned some very small lenses that Kubrick used on his early black and white pictures and that these lenses were specifically designed for black and white cinematography. Any interesting facts about those types of lenses? What extra requirements/adjustments are needed for lenses designed for b&w? Are there any newly designed lenses specifically for b&w photography? The lens in question is discussed at this time code: 6:20

Btw, the famous Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7 is notoriously small, roughly the same size as my Canon 85mm f1.8.

I was fortunate enough to see a small part o the Kubrick Exhibition. While walking through and checking his equipment, I noticed how many lenses he collected over the years: from very small cine lenses designed specifically for black and white to the more famous Cooke Speed Panchros and the 20:1 zoom lens. Even though these were state of the art at the time, they look much more mechanical and "steampunky" than I expected, and they're a lot smaller than modern lenses like the Master Primes. I just wanted to share a few things that I thought might interest a few people on this forum. By the way, the Arriflex 35 II C, one of Kubrick's favorite cameras, is much smaller and more compact than I expected. It looks like it would be really fun to use it. Any experiences with this camera? 1b (18) copy.jp2

Are there any labs in the US that make duplicate slides from camera originals without DI?

Hi, How many feet and how much? Thanks

I agree; the ability to zoom in or out is something our eyes can't do; it might have a detrimental effect, but I think, if used properly, it can greatly help the scene. I think what people miss with zoom shots is that many directors who are considered auteurs use zooms very deliberately and not as a gimmick. If you watch the prequels, you'll see that zoom shots are very effectively used in key shots where the characters have to make big decisions. Spielberg is very good at moving the camera. I think he doesn't like to stand between the movie and the audience. However, I don't think he doesn't like anamorphic lenses. He wouldn't have shot Jaws with anamorphics , if that were the case. By the way, the way he hides breathing issues and uses them to his advantage in The West Side Story is quite remarkable.

Let's say you are working on a feature film, and the director wants the aspect ratio to be 2.39. Would you prefer to shoot with anamorphic lenses or shoot S35 or 2 perf and crop? What aspects of production would influence your decision (low light, speed, VFX)? Do you think the difference would matter much? Which lenses would you prefer?

I don't know if I like it in these scenes, but subtle breathing can be good to manipulate the audience and show them where to look. An example would be the arena scenes in Gladiator (2000). The camera focuses from a threat in the background to a tired Russel Crowe while also panning ever so slightly. The breathing is used to emphasize rather than be an illusion breaker. The panning also helps us overlook magnification issues. (Plus, Panavision Primo lenses apparently don't breathe too much)

My local movie theater was screening the new Knives Out movie last week, so I decided to check it out (I didn't like it, but that doesn't matter). As I was watching the movie I noticed that a lot of the focus racking shots had breathing in them; it was very noticeable and kind of distracting. I checked IMDB to see which lenses they used. Apparently they were using Zeiss Supreme Prime lenses on an Arri Alexa Mini LF. I'm kind of surprised; isn't Arri always boasting about the "no breathing" quality of their lenses, particularly the Master Primes? Has it got something to do with the larger sensor size (maybe larger formats require a lot more glass to eliminate breathing), or is the breathing visible because of the choices made in the shot (a lot of these shots seemed to be filmed very close to the actors)? Here are a few examples I found online: from 0:31 to 0:37: from 1:39 to 1:42:

Thanks a lot for clearing my mind. This has been bugging my mind for a long time.

Is there way to replicate the high contrast wave effect they used in the opening credits of the movie? They might have used CGI, but it is also possible that they used a special type of cloth to create the ripple effect. I really have no idea, and couldn't find anything on the internet; the American Cinematographer article that was published right after the movie came out didn't mention it either. I'm going to try Geoff Boyle's method in the future (attached below); however, I'm not sure if it would create a similar effect. Is there anything else I can try?

I'm currently working on a student film production, and our director is looking for premium cine lenses to rent. Since most cine lenses cover S35 or 4 perf image sizes, are the focal lengths numbers in s35 terms or in full frame terms? For example, if I put a Panavision Primo 50mm lens on a film camera that shoots 3 perf s35, would the focal length be 50mm or (50 x 1.4 = ) 70mm?

Yes. The TV was an OLED and was able to display 4K, and yes, the 4k blu ray was the HDR version. And the clipped highlights were definitely purposefully made. Even on a regular blu ray, I would have seen more highlights and a more gradual roll-off. The ones on this movie were blocky and completely overexposed. I asked a friend about this who recently went to a screening of the movie, and he also suspected that this was a deliberate decision made by the filmmakers (or the post production crew).

I recently bought a 4k blu ray of House of Gucci (2021), Ridley Scott's latest movie. It's almost been a year since I saw the movie, so I didn't remember much of it. As I was watching it, I noticed that most scenes had an "early 90s video" look: muted colors, weird digital effects that were used a lot in the early 2000s, and clipped highlights. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but I really felt like I was watching a fashion show that was recorded 20 years ago for MTV. This look is not something I see a lot these days. With everyone trying to escape the "digital look" with vintage lenses, diffusers, and filmic LUTs, this felt somehow different. It was a bit nostalgic but quite modern at the same time. The clipped highlights especially is something I never see anymore. Even camera brands advertise the "filmic smooth highlight roll-offs" a lot these days. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this visual style Scott and Wolski achieved made the story much more believable and effective (at least for me). They could have went with grainy warm images for the 70s and 80s sequences, but they embraced this visually heavy look, and I think it worked for there benefit of the movie. What are your thoughts?

I didn't know that Tiffen had filters for an antique look. Thanks! While this might also be useful, I'm looking for one that would have a stronger effect, closer to monochromatic. Sort like these: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0955308/mediaviewer/rm1667730688?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_9 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4244994/mediaviewer/rm1774779905?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_3 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11214590/mediaviewer/rm3428443137?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_sf_39 https://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/The-Thin-Red-Line/pages/The-Thin-Red-Line-125.htm

Hi, I'm looking for a filter that would desaturate and tone (add gray) the colors in the frame. I know that this can be accomplished in post, but having a filter that would deliver me these results in camera would save me so much time. I contacted Tiffen, but they weren't able to find a suitable filter. Right now, I'm thinking about getting a gray colored gel and putting that in front of the lens. I don't know if that would work, but I'm really desperate at this point. The look I'm after is kind of similar to the look of Robin Hood (2010). I read an interview with the cinematographer John Mathieson, but the article didn't delve into color grading. Just out of curiosity, how was this accomplished when DI was not a thing yet? Internegatives, or choice of print stock? Thanks