Jump to content

BrooklynDan

Members
  • Content Count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BrooklynDan

  • Rank
    Active member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes! This is exactly what I want. Handicam form factor with large sensor and interchangeable lenses. EVF on the back, flippy screen on the side, handstrap for comfort. Winning combo.
  2. My biggest problem with modern cameras is the form factor. Besides the profusion of buttons all over the damn thing, there isn't really any way to comfortably handhold the camera for smooth shots without having to put it on a gimbal or a Frankenstein shoulder rig The FX6 actually makes sense for me since the LCD is upfront on an arm. You press the camera to your chest and keep a hand on the lens. I hate shooting with cameras that have the LCD on the back (i.e. all mirrorless cameras). You wind up hovering the camera in front of your face which makes it difficult to maintain a steady fram
  3. IBIS is not a substitute for a properly shoulder-mounted camera. It tunes out micro-jitters, but it doesn't help you when you're trying to shoot handheld with longer lenses because the lack of inertia causes the frame to swing around when you're trying to move. Also, digital stabilization is a machine interpreting human input. It always looks artificial to me somehow, ever on high-end gimbals and stabilizers. When you have a properly shoulder-mounted camera, you can press it into your shoulder and into the side of your head, which creates far more stability. I've been shooting with a Cano
  4. I shot documentaries on one in film school. It was a heavy, unwieldy beast. I preferred the Arri SR and especially the Aaton. Aaton was actually formed by ex-Eclair engineers, and you can see a rational progression from the NPR to the ACL and finally to the XTR. As far as a modern equivalent, it's obviously 2/3" shoulder-mounted broadcast ENG cameras, both in terms of sensor size, form factor, lens range, and intended purpose. There's really nothing in the modern landscape of Super 35 and full frame cameras that comes close in terms of shoulder-mounted operability. The Amira and original
  5. The Nipponscope was a different system. Nipponscope was the other widely used anamorphic system in Japan. Early versions utilized a front anamorphic group that could be attached to a number of different prime lenses (mainly Canon rangefinder glass). The focus ring was on the taking lens and the focus on the anamorphic was effected by lining up the slot and the pin in the mount. Later versions incorporated a variable diopter system so the focus ring was on the anamorphic group. This system was later exported to Europe and became the basis of the Technovision system, as well as (in more refined
  6. This was obviously focused separately from the prime lens. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for synchronizing focus with a prime lens. Dual focus didn't die out until the late 60s, especially in Japan. I remember seeing an interview with Kurosawa's DP talking about how they had to have two ACs pulling focus on Yojimbo because of the double focus set-up. This lens was probably used with 50mm lenses and up. Probably 75mm and 100mm too, but not too far beyond that. European attachments like Franscope and Totalscope functioned the same way.
  7. I know that there were different series of the Kowa anamorphics with the designation 35-X. The most common series is the 35BS, but there was also 35B, 35BR, and 35BE. The housing on this lens resembles the early 35B series, so this was probably an additional adapter that was used for B-camera and second unit photography on Japanese films. It's double focus obviously, and at the time (circa 1964), combined block lenses were almost universal, so this probably wasn't used much.
  8. Analogy time: If you paid half a million for a Lamborghini that was advertised as having a 200+ top speed, but could not actually maintain that speed for more than a few minutes and in fact couldn't go more than 100 MPH most of the time and would overheat constantly and leave you stranded on the side of the road, would you be satisfied with your purchase? Your expensive italian supercar just fried its own V12! That's basically what's happening here. There's a considerable gap between what's advertised and what was actually delivered. This didn't happen overnight. The fact that people kep
  9. This camera is such a colossal failure, even if the issues get miraculously fixed somehow, I would not touch it with a ten foot pole. Not even for personal projects. There are way too many good options out there to justify spending $4K on a glorified hand warmer. I honestly think that one of the reasons for this debacle is the entire marketing culture than has sprung up that demands flashy specs over rock-solid reliability. I also think that the race to miniaturize cameras has created new challenges for engineers, and this in turn creates conflicts. One of the reason why the Panasonic S1H
  10. Color really does look nice with lovely skin tones and separation. Can't really judge 12K sharpness and resolution on my 1080p computer screen, but I'm sure it's all there. I really hope that BMD seriously upgrade their reliability and build quality. If they want to compete with the big boys, they need to make cameras that rental houses can buy and rent to customers. A lot of rental houses, particularly the bigger ones, won't go anywhere near Black Magic because the bodies simply don't hold up to on-set use. They need to move away from chintzy plastic to durable aluminum and magnesium. Th
  11. I want Sigma to go all the way and build a dedicated cinema camera. They already have a complete line of full frame lenses which have developed a cult following among young DPs. No other lens set comes close in terms of speed and quality for the price. A medium-sized modular box ( think Kinefinity/Komodo/Alexa Mini) with full frame sensor, internal RAW, built-in NDs, SSD media slot, XLR audio, SDI out, compact EVF, accessory power outputs, and of course, an L-mount. Under $10K of course. And if they manage to put in a Foveon sensor and make it work for video with a fast read-out, they'll
  12. Speaking of Lomos, there's a guy who did a group buy on Reduser for newly manufactured front elements for the 35mm Squarefront. Once he got enough people to commit, he got a Russian lens factory to do a run. He was quoting around $2000 a piece. Now let's say that you wanted to mass produce Lomos again. The squarefront has four cylindrical elements in 2 groups. Let's figure $1,500 per element since the higher the number, the lower the piece. That's $6K just in anamorphic glass. Add another grand for a simple spherical group in the back. The original was a copy of a Zeiss Distagon. Plus a rugged
  13. I think that both the Aivascope and the Vazen are fantastic value for money. The Aivascope in particular is the closest thing we will see to an Iscorama this century. That 70s/80s mojo is not going to come to consumer-level glass, ever. Contrary to popular belief, it's not just in the coatings, it's also due to the shape of the glass, something that modern, mass-produced, computer-designed glass simply cannot easily replicate. The actual examples of vintage glass that I posted above were hand-ground in limited qualities by master opticians and were (and and still are) extravagantly expens
  14. Previous generations of cinema lenses (Cooke Speed Panchro, Zeiss/Arriflex, Schneider, Kinoptik, etc) used variations on simple double-gauss lens designs with few elements (lens than ten for most focal lengths) and deep meniscus surfaces on the inside. Modern cinema lenses contain many more elements in multiple group with aspherical optics to control aberration. If you have 13 or 14 elements, you don't need to grind them into deep shapes, except for very wide angle lenses. To use an example from the anamorphic world, one of the reasons why Master Anamorphics are so flat and free of distor
  15. I played with Xtal Express and Technovision Cookes at my previous job. They have nothing in common with the new Cooke Anamorphics. The Cookes have pin-cushion distortion. The vertical lines bend inward. The older lenses have classic barrel distortion. Also, they were converted from spherical lenses, whereas the modern Cooke Anamorphics are purpose-built. And some of the cylinders are rotated 90 degrees which stretches the image out vertically, in addition to it being squeezed horizontally. They are also fairly consistent from focal length to focal length and color matched. JDCs were notoriousl
×
×
  • Create New...