Jump to content
Jon O'Brien

2 perf and S16

Recommended Posts

It's not directly relevant to the original topic, but can anyone comment on the qualities of Lomos

I messed around with some early generation lomo's a while back, they're real junk in my opinion unless you're looking for a particular old school look. For film, they're a bit soft and they're so old, finding a set that's in good working condition, even at a rental house can be tricky.

 

Pricing for rental really varies on your location. Here in the states, it may cost $250 - $500 for each lens per day, but it really varies on the quality of them. Rental's require insurance and they also require a credit card. So there is a lot involved for a smaller project. Then you've got the other issue of needing a ground glass that decodes the 2x anamorphic glass. That's also tricky to find for older cameras, unless the rental house has some film stuff. Also remember, the Lomo's are for 1.33:1 framed cameras, so 4 perf 35mm or straight/standard 16mm. However, the 16mm cameras mirrored shutter is at such an angle, that a lot of 35mm style glass doesn't fit. So if you were trying to shoot 16mm with those Lomo's, you maybe SOL. I haven't tried them personally, but I've noticeda lot of standard glass from 35mm doesn't fit on my 16. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pricing for rental really varies on your location. Here in the states, it may cost $250 - $500 for each lens per day, but it really varies on the quality of them.

 

Where are you getting these figures, they're ludicrous. A quick google of US rental houses shows it's more like $150 per day for one round-front or $500-650 for a full set of up to 5, with a 3 day week. Square-fronts should be even cheaper.

 

The company I used to work for here in Oz, Cameraquip, advertises round-fronts for AU$120 per day.

 

 

..the 16mm cameras mirrored shutter is at such an angle, that a lot of 35mm style glass doesn't fit. So if you were trying to shoot 16mm with those Lomo's, you maybe SOL. I haven't tried them personally, but I've noticed a lot of standard glass from 35mm doesn't fit on my 16. :(

 

 

What 35mm lenses hit the mirror of your 16mm camera? Is that the Aaton?

 

The general rule is the opposite, you want to be careful fitting 16mm lenses to reflex 35mm cameras. 35mm lenses are often used to fill out a 16mm lens set, and I've never come across one hitting a 16mm camera mirror (aside from the obvious Angenieux DP zooms). Sometimes a large barrelled 35mm lens will foul on the viewfinder elbow, but in my experience never the mirror.

 

Lomos would fit fine on an SR or something, if you didn't mind a lack of wide or even standard focal lengths and the massive cropping required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Super 16 cropped to 2:40 aspect ratio would still be less grainy and sharper than u16 as the image area on the negative is larger than an u16 image area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not directly relevant to the original topic, but can anyone comment on the qualities of Lomos, for instance the 50/T2.5, 75/T2.5 and 100/T3.3 anamorphic primes, as might be rented? What sort of extra costs are involved for a set of 3 such prime lenses from what they quote per day? There is a branch in Brisbane I could ask, but presumably they would have to ship up from Melbourne. Is there often a requirement to hire for more than a day? Must you be a company with solid industry experience to hire? I suppose it depends. I will ring and ask but would like to be slightly more informed first. Feasibility is my interest at this stage. Sorry if my questions irk those who've already made clear that this sort of gear is not for small projects. Your point is noted.

 

 

There are various generations of Lomo anamorphics, the very early 2-part ones, the square-fronts and then the round-fronts from the 70s and 80s (which are the ones you're referencing). The round-fronts can be very nice if properly adjusted. I spent quite some time aligning the cylindrical elements of those Cameraquip Lomos to get them as good as possible. Check out "The Tracker", a Rolf De Heer film that used those lenses. They have classic anamorphic artifacts like blue streak flares, distortion and edge fall off, but less breathing and better mechanics than the square-fronts. I think they're perfect anamorphics for low budget jobs. As has been mentioned many times, the C series Hawks are basically rehoused Lomo roundfronts, and even the later Hawks share some design elements.

 

The problem with Lomos is that the quality can vary wildly. They really need an experienced technician to check and adjust them, and many owners have simply picked up a set and then start renting them out, assuming the poor image is just due to them being the "old glass".

 

You can do one day hires, you don't have to be a company. Give them a call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting these figures, they're ludicrous.

Buy calling around and getting quotes from numerous houses and realizing the prices are ridiculous.

 

The best deal I found was $250/day for a later gen round front 2x anamorphic lomo prime. The set of 3 I believe was like $500 as a "deal".

 

A set of vintage Hawks were around $1500/day and a set of NEW Hawks (1.3x for super 16) were around $5000/week if I recall. It was so much money I basically gave up even thinking about it.

 

What 35mm lenses hit the mirror of your 16mm camera? Is that the Aaton?

Yes, the XTR. I heard it was a problem from other people, so I brought my Aaton to Alan Gordon who has a host of used lenses for sale. I wanted to make sure if I invested in a set of "classic" primes, they would work on both formats properly. So I grabbed each lens and started fitting them. I noticed right away the wider angle lenses were hitting the mirror. He had a Aaton 35III there as well, so I could go back and forward between the two cameras I own and one thing we both noticed is the angle of the mirror on the XTR was more then on the 35III, so the lens wasn't hitting the "mirror" but the actual shutter itself because the last piece of glass was so large in diameter. So the opposite issue of the S16 glass on 35mm, which is the depth of the last element to keep the length of the lens shorter.

 

Unfortunately, I don't recall exactly what glass had the problem. I do know it was a 24mm so I "assume" it was the Zeiss Standard Speed, but not positive. We tried a dozen primes and some of the wider angle's had issues, but not all.

 

Most of my S16 glass doesn't fit my S35 cameras at all, the mirror is too large, it just hits the back element. The 50mm fits perfectly and it works without vignetting on the 35mm camera in 3 perf mode.

 

I wound up buying cheap glass instead (Rokinon Xeen's) because it fit's both of my cameras perfectly and I don't need anything crazy special for film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tyler, hiw did you find the Xeen lenses on S16?

I haven't shot with them yet on the S16 camera, as I have beautiful Optar's and a Zeiss zoom for that camera.

 

I have shot with them on the S35 camera and they look pretty darn good. The only "issue" with them is that all the way open, they are nearly impossible to focus. They do very strange things from 1.5 to around F2. So from F2 on, they're fine, which is disconcerting because they're "suppose" to work at F1.5, but they don't. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that they miss marks as a result of focus shift... or are they so soft you can't focus off a ground glass?

Miss on the ground glass. I rarely measure focus, never had a reason to. My focus is always spot on from the GG, but I struggled with these lenses all the way open. I'd nail it in the GG, but on film it would be slightly off on the finished product. If I was anything over F2, it was totally fine.

 

So we put the lens on a collimator found out, the lens changed back focus slightly when all the way open. It's an optical anomaly and it's probably present on other glass as well, but I didn't realize it was a problem because most of the time I use higher end glass and it's crisp all the way through the stops. We actually for shits and giggles, threw up one of my Optars for comparison and it was FLAWLESS all the way through the range. The tech and I looked at each other and we were like "that's a keeper" LOL :P

 

So yea, I mean it's not a big deal, just something to be aware about. Also, the glass is a bit green. The scans all came back slightly tinted green and we attributed that to the glass, rather then the scanner. This is fine for movies being finished digitally, but for photochemical prints, maybe not smart?

 

I'm gonna write something about the experience and post it in the general area with still grabs. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went and saw Darren Aronofsky's new film. I said I wasn't going to but changed my mind as I wanted to see what the S-16 looked like on the big screen. I was very impressed with the look of the 16mm! I loved the grain.

 

The S-16 was a very appropriate artistic choice for that picture as it was almost entirely shot indoors with a lot of close-ups. The whole film had an arty look. I was sitting there wishing there was going to be some outdoor shots but there were hardly any.

 

I came away from the film loving the look of the 16mm but I think recognizing that for a period picture filmed with a lot of external shots and wide-angle views of landscape, and people and animals in the far distance, eg. on the horizon, 2 or 3 perf (and of course c-scope) would be better. I was really encouraged by what I saw!

 

It was a pretty standard horror flick I thought. Seemed to be an allegory of relationship problems, drug misuse, anxiety, lack of love, and a fear of home invasion. In mood I found it a bit of a mix between What Lies Beneath and, at times, Monty Python's The Life of Brian. I did pick up on the fact that it seemed a bit 'anti-people.' A sort of a Malthusean whinge at humanity is getting pretty close. Didn't like parts of it at all. But the parts that were done well were indeed good filmmaking I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Abel Cine



    Metropolis Post



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Ritter Battery



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    G-Force Grips



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Glidecam



    FJS International



    Visual Products



    Serious Gear



    Tai Audio



    Just Cinema Gear



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Wooden Camera



    Paralinx LLC



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc


×
×
  • Create New...