Sean Cunningham Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 What magic anamorphic lens are you using where a night stop like 2.8 delivers a picture as sharp as a daytime stop with daytime light? Also, are you operating under the impression that the lenses used to shoot Apocalypse Now and Die Hard and Boogie Nights and all sorts of other watershed scope films perform well at their widest stop, were used at their widest stop or focused close without a diopter? Reading ASC interviews with the DPs that shoot these films there's a close parallel to a lot of discussion here. Anamorphic is never chosen because it's easier to deal with, cheaper, requires less light and doesn't require diopters for close-up focus. All of these things are a given even for the big boys and it's their choice in spite of the caveats. The performance of the Bolex adapters being better than the big dogs, as pointed out by Mr. Wilson, is a lofty goal for all other consumer products but it's also kinda unrealistic. Kinda like expecting a significant number of these things will ever be used to shoot something other than a vimeo equivalent test shoot (ironic here because that Porsche footage was done by a pro). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmu Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Hey richy101 you're a funny guy.... [& hey have we met before?] [vimeo test shoot... I like it, a perfect description of all you're online content, you don't post your wedding videos because you think they undermine your credibility - that's arrogance, inexperience & fear my young friend - wedding shooters work bloody hard for their money and they get one crack at it. and so now we begin to understand all this big talk about focus & vaseline, oh dear interesting that you haven't rejected or even questioned the 720p rez? WTF? Vimeo is Vimeo so stop using it to write off peoples work - your a constant contradiction. man, I'm sure I've met you before... I've been in the broadcast/advertising/film industry since 1983, I've ran my own production company since 1999 I live and work in lil' 'ol Adelaide South Australia, but my work takes me all over the place ...Melbourne, Sydney, New York & Paris [now stay with me here RichyRich - stop eyeing off that tub of Vaseline] we don't give a shit about your 'criteria' Richy ..all we we want for xmas is that you stop polluting this forum with such an arrogant bullshit attitude. You've made this thread all about you - because our challenge apparenlty is now to 'prove you wrong' ??? WTF go and start your own thread and ...oh tried that did you and no one replied? OMG yes, I knew it, I have met you before many times, your the big mouth know it all that puts himself above the rest of the crew - till you fuck something up - and then curl up crying in a little ball. I've seen it all before... Hey, let me know if you're keen for some work I'll fly you down my way and you can make some real money assisting me, I save on lighting because we can shoot by the glow of your brilliance I cant wait for your reply Mr Razor Sharp 300m... dazzle us all ...which way you gonna go? I'm thinking it's all just a big misunderstanding and you're being treated very unfairly - you accidently dropped your Century in the Vaseline right? ps 'projection' is what a good stage actor has - oh sorry you meant something else? do forgive me it was just a bit ...vague? yes ok Rich now you can have the tub of Vaseline... @ teh - my apologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richg101 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 im done with this hilarious thread. im not arrogant. just believe in what I say because it's based on my own experiences. it's not about me. i came here offering advice based on my experience, and if you all rewind you will see I originally stated my points were 'IMO'. go whack a 12mm lens on an la7200 if it makes you happy. go tell kids to do the same. im sorry if you got offended by my comment about your video. you have taken it the wrong way. my point was that in broad daylight, shot at f8 or probably smaller aperture, any lens will be sharp. the video of the car is sharp, but at f8 it would still be sharp even with a plastic lens. I never once questioned the artistic or technical ability of the footage, just that it is not a viable example of a lens wider than 35mm (equivalent! for the umteenth time!!!!!!!, do none of you get this?) and used where selective focus (at wider apertures) is an important aspect. cheers for the over the top retaliation by searching out my own stuff and slagging it off. It's sad you misunderstood my point and took it so personally you felt the need to try and get one over on me by attacking my stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmu Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I don't have any footage with 12mm - but I do have some with the Pana 14mm I used on another [paid] broadcast shoot - I also have some examples using the Pana 14-42mm - I have to get clearance on some of this footage - I'll be as quick as I can. ps Richy I merely used your own words to describe your work - I'm sorry that you felt 'attacked' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony wilson Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 The performance of the Bolex adapters being better than the big dogs, as pointed out by Mr. Wilson, is a lofty goal for all other consumer products but it's also kinda unrealistic. Kinda like expecting a significant number of these things will ever be used to shoot something other than a vimeo equivalent test shoot (ironic here because that Porsche footage was done by a pro). i have floated around some high fulluting circles in my time also looked after vittorio storaro`'s anamorphic lens which where owned and made by technovision and cleaned up robert altmans custom optics on the way out onto a movie. i worked for the owner of technovision Henryk Chroscicki and also joe dunton the 2 most important men in hollywood movie anamorphics after takuo miyagishima of panavision. i worked at panavision in the 1980s when the warped belief was the c range where shit and old fashioned technology when compared to later generations. the mind set was also confused because late generation panavision optics where so pure and yet they could not understand why great dps still wanted to use the more flawed jdc and technovision scope stuff. i collect anamorphics all sorts. when people contact me i say test your gear locked down on a tripod rather than read that something is shit test the thing then you decide. why not start testing wide open and stop down from that point. it is not important what someone else thinks really if the owner is happy that is what matters. clearly if you are being paid you have to back up that belief on firm ground. my moller will outperform nearly all of them wide open. it will also give a sharper picture than a panavision lens from the 60s or 70s at f2.6. what hollywood gives you apart from size is ease of pro use. clearly a complete single focus fixed focal length hollywood scope lens is best but the dual focus moller bests many scope lens from film history. truffaut was one of the greatest film men whoever lived i have one of his old dyaliscope lens it shot this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksyUySDjEYU dyaliscope where known to be sharper than most hollywood lens. it performs well at f4 at f5.6 it is rather good given the restrictions one has to applaud the great film men of the past. especially as that la nouvelle vague generation went on location so much. my moller beats dyaliscope into a cocked hat. has the moller ever shot a movie like this no but if it had the night time street scene would have been sharper also the early scene where you see the shadow of a camera cast by the brutish light that was needed sometimes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w95qiN91X5Q truffauts dyaliscope and my mollerhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/34211301@N00/8336906516/in/photostreamhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/34211301@N00/8335849555/in/photostream/ Sean Cunningham 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cunningham Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Sometimes it's hard to decipher the nuances of your posts but I enjoy them anyhow. Hopefully you weren't interpreting what I said as anything but complimentary. So many things get asked and stated multiple times on these (or any) forum, I mentioned your Moller revelation because that was really interesting and I'll be on the lookout for one when I'm back in the market with discretionary funds. Anyway, by unrealistic I meant folks condemning other lenses simply because they're not as good as the really exceptional if not freakishly exceptional lenses that exist. edit: yeah it's interesting about those old lenses from Panavision. Time and time again when I look up even modern anamorphic films to see what equipment was used it'll be the C-Series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony wilson Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 do not look for nuances in my posts i am mental : ) i am also dyslexic. one of the big advantages studio or rental lens had and still have in a limited fashion today was servicing. jdc had at least 6 people that could strip a lens down and rebuild it the same with samuelsons movie rental. panavision at least 20 people around the world. a lot of that expertise has gone that is a big reason why vantage hawk have dominated so much. they get them built new but have good people that can look after the optics and engineering. panavision are in trouble massive debts but have real optical treasure in store rooms and on shelves spherical and anamorphic. they upgraded some of the c series probably ruined the look of some by recoating. again the technicians are such an important part of the process. i have been lucky my moller was perfect when i got it so never needed a service maybe others are not as good. wave error and scratch dig are important and destructive elements in optic making. technovision,jdc and panavision all used either zeiss,leica or cooke taking lens very expensive and the best and cylindricals that took weeks to make and polish.. the high quality moller and low wave front error was much easier to achieve i think because they are so tiny compared to these 2kg movie optics. my view is also moller had to make something that was overkill for the 8mm film format because of kern. bolex where a great engineering company who had a super tight relationship with kern optics. kern had made a prototype scope lens but did not have the experience of others like isco,moller or chretiens benoist berthiot. kern made some amazing 35mm format spherical optics for the alpa camera so they would of been up for it. moller probably just thought fuck it lets blow everyone out of the water. bolex would have been shooting and projecting that 8mm and 16mm scope footage 15 foot across. one look was probably all it took for swiss bolex to get their name put on the side of the german moller lens. paillard bolex where a massive company and unlike companies today most of the products where made in one facility or at least in the same town. the engineering quality of the stuff out of the door was pretty incredible. when you have such supreme high standards on the cameras then the optics have to match or exceed requirements. this stuff is so over engineered it is unreal that is why you can pick up a 16mm or 8mm bolex and it will still run great 50 years later. this is great it is in 4 parts but this shows the factory nothing amateur going on here just pure engineering as science. https://vimeo.com/11029378 Sean Cunningham 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.