Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BrooklynDan last won the day on May 28 2016

BrooklynDan had the most liked content!

About BrooklynDan

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The blue part looks like a simple Double Gauss prime lens. Maybe Zeiss or Kinoptik. The grey tabs on top and bottom are probably the focusing levers. I can't guess from this schematic how the taking lens and anamorphic lens was synchronized, but if the helicals are cut right, a bridge between the focusing tabs might be able to pull off dual focus in one movement. This is a Totalvision adapter (circa France 1960) that's similar in design and construction: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Totalvision-Anamorphic-Cine-Lens-made-in-france-/113426233375 It was used with a set of four Speed Panchro primes from 40mm to 100mm mechanically linked to the adapter via the focusing lever. I'm guessing that your Moller works similarly. Either way, let's see a lens test!
  2. It was almost certainly used with either Cooke Speed Panchro or Kinoptik taking lenses. Probably 40,50,75 and 100mm. All the early European 'Scope (Dyaliscope, Totalvision, CinePanoramic) systems used either one or the other. It's most likely pretty sharp since the glass is so big. Would love to see a test, both at infinity and close focus.
  3. It must be said that video amplifies the difference between formats far more than in stills. Once you add camera movement and focus pulling, the advantages of a larger sensor become crystal clear. Watch any film shot on Alexa 65. There's more gentle falloff, less distortion in wide shots, crisper more intimate close-ups, more apparent depth and more detail but without clinical sharpness.
  4. I simply do not understand the nostalgia here. I shot my senior thesis project on an FS100 and while I got some decent images out of it thanks to the skill of my DP, it always looked very videoish to me. The highlights burned horribly, the colors were oversaturated, and even if you shot it flat, you could never quite bring it back to the way you want it in post. Also, the form factor and ergonomics were some of the worst I have ever seen, the placement of the LCD screen on top was ludicrous, and the lack of NDs (thankfully rectified in the FS700) made screw-ons or matteboxes a necessity, which is difficult on a zero-budget. It was Sony's first go at making a prosumer large-sensor camera (after the F3 which came out at the same time), and their lack of common sense and feel for camera design just wasn't there, despite their long history in making video equipment. My C100 mk. I(same era, same price-range) eats it for lunch in every possible way. Image quality, roll-off, NDs, hand-holdable ergonomics, etc.
  5. Panasonic needs to put a full frame sensor into the Varicam in order to stay competitive in the digital cinema space. The Varicam was a bit late to the party, but managed to build a following thanks to its picture quality and dual ISO capability. But today, I was playing with a Sony Venice at work, and once you go FF, you don't go back. The look is intoxicating. Plus having the ability to use anamorphic lenses all the way to the edges of the image circle. I don't know whether they still step into the full frame mirrorless space, but if they can partner with Fuji and apply GH5 tech to the medium format GFX and have clean, jello-free 10-bit 4K, it would be a game-changer.
  6. Even if it does make it to market, it is the worst-designed camera body I've ever seen. It makes the original Red One (a clunky, heavy, loaf-shaped turd with non-sensical UI) look like a masterpiece of industrial design. Holy fuck, who puts a screen on top? Where am I supposed to attach a handle?
  7. I heart my C100 mk 1. Still the most cinematic image you can get for the money. Dslrs and Mirrorless cameras just don't have the same level of richness and depth to the colors.
  8. BrooklynDan

    Arri D21

    I saw one for sale at Arri Rental complete with OB-1 recorder for $6K. As tempting as the image quality and low price are, it is far too cumbersome and heavy to be practical. It's also very power-hungry and just try getting a quote on maintenance. Just the spinning mirror assembly costs thousands. It was a $200K item new. Now that original Alexas are dipping under $10k and will soon be even cheaper, there is no real reason to use a D21.
  9. Durability and servicability are the two major issues that guide lens purchases at rental houses. They have to survive Preston motors and clip-on matteboxes. If a lens goes down, it's hundreds of dollars per manhour for repair, plus the rental time lost during repairs, plus the subrentals required to complete the set during said repairs. There are of course exceptions for rare and desireable vintage lenses, but even there a thriving rehousing industry has developed aimed at bringing old glass up to snuff because lenses designed to live on sticks will start to suffer swinging from an easyrig or a gimbal with a lens motor cranking away. If they look decent and work reliably with minimal maintenance, rental houses will buy them because anamorphic is in right now and more cameras than ever are compatible with them.
  10. I'm guessing they're gonna cost around $4-5K. There are very realistic limits to how cheap you can build anamorphic glass and still have a semblence of quality. Bent glass is very difficult to grind. They look like they have a T1.4 aperture. If they're sharp at 2.8, that'll be a victory. Most anamorphics are mush wide open.
  11. The Canon XL2 was a fabulous camera. I still wish that Canon would release a Super 35mm camera in that form factor. It reminds me of an Aaton or Eclair film camera. Off the tripod, on the shoulder. And the colors were excellent. In that same vein, I also look upon the DVX100 fondly. That first generation of 24p DV had some kind of special sauce. I own a C100 mk. 1 and while it's not yet vintage, I think that people will keep shooting with it long into the 4K, 8K, 16K, etc age. A lot of soul and charm in a small package.
  12. True cinema lenses are not dead by any means. I don't know of any ACs that would like to pull focus from a smart phone. At the rental house where I work, we have invested heavily in Preston and Arri wireless gear. You'll pry the Hand Unit 3 from my cold dead hands. That said, there is a need to cut down on the gunk that hangs off of cameras, as you can see in this picture. The latest generation of Panavision's DXL has a Preston receiver built in and the Primo 70 lenses have lens motors for focus and iris directly inside the lens barrel. So I think that there will be more integration in the future. That said, DSLR-level technology is just not gonna fly on a pro set. Your Panasonic lenses are gonna get destroyed easily. Also, I don't think that anybody wants to let go of human focus-pulling. It's a hard job and it gets harder as sensors get bigger. But it remains an organic, vital part of image-making, and I don't think that machines are gonna be able to deliver that.
  13. My first film. Sony HDV Handycam. Shown at multiple film festivals and on television. Still my most successful project.
  14. This has been known for a while now. They are developing it with input from cinematographers and post houses. It's going to take advantage of Sony X-OCN compressed raw format in order to bring file sizes under control. One of the Achilles' heels of the F65 was the fact that the file sizes were massive. And with 8K, it's even more important to provide efficient compression.When data rates go into the terabytes/hr range, data management becomes feasible for only the really big productions. Word on the street is that it will be compatible with Sony's R7 raw recorder, which indicates that the camera will share the F5/F55 form factor and that's a big step forward. Those are well-sized and shaped cameras. The F65 was an ungainly beast.
  15. I patently disagree with many of your observations. Ridley Scott and Jordan Cronenweth did amazing, iconic work with the original. It is now Villeneuve's and Deakins' turn and they should do what feels right to them. I actually find it somewhat refreshing that Deakins shoots on 'plain, old lenses' as you put it. He actually prefers Master Primes, which are the top of the pile as far as spherical photography is concerned, I'm getting tired of reading ASC articles where the DP goes on and on about whatever custom lenses they had Panavision make. From day one, it was pretty obvious that Deakins wasn't gonna shoot anamorphic. And that's fine with me. He makes his mark with lighting and framing, which matters far more than any funky lens flare or aberration. And I'm actually very happy that the director chose to build off of the world depicted in the original instead of trying to create a whole new speculative future. This is not thirty years into our future, but thirty years further into Blade Runner's future. Yeah, the logos and signs are omnipresent. Just like they were in the original. Just like they are in our world now. The references to the Soviet Union might be clunky, but considering what's happening in global politics today, they might be more timely than ever. I would probably reserve any final judgments of the screenplay until we see the finished product. Because a couple of lines taken out of context and edited into a trailer probably don't communicate what the final movie will sound like. Of course at first glance it pales next to the original. That dialogue has been drilled into our collective cinematic subconscious. Finally, the big problem with modern filmmaking isn't that too many directors are trying to make a masterpiece. It's that too few are trying. Making a film overly serious does not mean one is aiming to make a masterpiece. Most big budget films these days are quite homogeneous, mostly designed by committee (looking at you, Marvel), arrive with a ton of build-up so that they can take your money opening weekend, but vanish from consciousness within a few hours after you've seen them. Most have sloppy, underwritten screenplays credited to multiple hacks. Few are actually memorable or contain any real thematic or philosophical depth. Blade Runner 2049 looks like it might actually have the talent behind it to stand next to the original. I'm incredibly excited for it, more than even the next Star Wars film.
  • Create New...