Subforums
16,731 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.2m views
-
- 1.7k replies
- 352.9k views
-
- 0 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 126 views
-
- 1.1k replies
- 126.3k views
-
- 6 replies
- 229 views
-
- 2 replies
- 78 views
-
- 121 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 4 replies
- 224 views
-
- 14 replies
- 3k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 8 replies
- 388 views
-
- 100 replies
- 10.8k views
-
- 331 replies
- 74.4k views
-
- 2 replies
- 272 views
-
- 55 replies
- 3k views
-
- 18 replies
- 640 views
-
- 13 replies
- 450 views
-
- 41 replies
- 2k views
-
- 39 replies
- 15.7k views
-
- 443 replies
- 32.4k views
-
- 39 replies
- 6.6k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 604 views
-
- 235 replies
- 16.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 318 views
-
- 53 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 17 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 30 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 16 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 78 replies
- 14.4k views
-
- 17 replies
- 5.2k views
-
- 19 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 473 replies
- 125k views
-
- 55 replies
- 9.9k views
-
- 2 replies
- 558 views
-
- 0 replies
- 282 views
-
- 19 replies
- 1k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics16.7k
-
Total Posts338.2k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By John Matthews · Posted
It's definitely an Angenieux lens. Here are more shots and there's a Tiffen lens shade with writing on it. Only Angenieux has zooms machined like that. I found some better shots: I'm fairly sure it's a "version" of the Angenieux 12-120mm, but I cannot guarantee it. -
I think it's likely to be a real camera and lens (for the reasons you mention), but no idea which lens. TV news gathering was in a slow transition phase from 16mm film to ENG back then, so there would have been plenty of working 16mm film equipment around, used both for news and other TV production outside the studio environment. -
I very much agree with that - the opposite of someone filling an answer with the latest buzzwords, fashion statements and acronyms to gloss over the fact that they don't really understand the subject. I've been interested in science and engineering from quite young (the first book I ever bought was about electricity and magnetism). Favourite subject at secondary school was physics, helped a lot by an enthusiastic teacher who really understood the subject and could explain the fundamentals behind it very well. When I went on to study physics and electronics at university, in marked contrast some of the lecturers were terrible at explaining things in a simple fashion. One lecturer in particular kept pushing his own textbook, which was just as impenetrable as his lectures, so some of us students just gave up and found a book that explained the basics of the subject much better, just to get us through the exam at the end of the year... (and it was a subject that in my subsequent electronic design engineering career I've become much more familiar with - so now I know it's mostly much less complicated than it seemed at the time). "Simplicity is the essence of good design" I've found to be very true. If things start getting too complicated and messy in a project, it's usually a sign that I didn't set off in the right direction at the 'blank sheet of paper' stage.
-
Excellent point about the compatibility - I'm so used to MFT and almost everything being interchangeable that I'm not used to even thinking about these things! In terms of it being a prop, I would have thought that it would have been easier to grab whatever was the cheapest / most common / not-rented item from their camera rental house. I mean, if you're shooting a feature film then you're renting a bunch of stuff anyway, so renting an extra 16mm setup to use as a prop wouldn't be hard at all. They could have rented it from a production design rental house along with all the other props etc, but then anything in that place would be non-working and likely turned into a prop when it stopped working. In this sense, it's very unlikely to have been a camera / lens combination that wasn't compatible, as someone would have had to have glued the lens on the body or something, which takes extra effort etc which wouldn't be needed considering there would be that many of those cameras and lenses that wore out or got dropped into a river etc that they'd be worthless and ubiquitous. -
If it was a real working 16mm film camera, I don't think it would be an ENG (Electronic News Gathering) lens, as they are designed for professional portable video cameras (which in the late 1970s would have been triple vacuum tube image sensor cameras using a dichroic colour splitting prism, thus having a long flange-to-sensor optical path). But of course in the movie it's basically a prop, so doesn't have to be a working camera.
-
