Subforums
16,731 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.2m views
-
- 1.7k replies
- 352.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 10 replies
- 98 views
-
- 6 replies
- 216 views
-
- 2 replies
- 62 views
-
- 121 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 1.1k replies
- 126.2k views
-
- 4 replies
- 216 views
-
- 14 replies
- 3k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 8 replies
- 381 views
-
- 100 replies
- 10.8k views
-
- 331 replies
- 74.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 268 views
-
- 55 replies
- 3k views
-
- 18 replies
- 635 views
-
- 13 replies
- 445 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
- 600 views
-
- 235 replies
- 16.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 312 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
- 14.3k 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
-
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. -
Tamron is also putting out an RF-S (APS-C) zoom lens (11-20mm F2.8). Makes sense as Canon have barely developed any RF-S lenses (not a single prime or fixed aperture lens). So this will surely help sell crop bodies. So yeah while this is great news for APS-C Canon owners, I really don’t see this as a solid indicator Canon will open third party FF RF lenses although one can hope! -
I don't think so.. all the photos I found showed the Angenieux has the writing on the outside and not visible from the front Filters don't tend to have writing on them like that - that pattern looks like lens info anyway. None of the ones on here have writing that looks similar either: https://www.oldfastglass.com/cooke-10860mm-t3 It seems to have one of those boxes that controls the lens and provides a rocker switch for zooming etc, maybe that narrows it down? Maybe it's an ENG lens rather than a cinema lens?
-
It's ok - neither does anyone else!
-
