if want wider, then do the math. what I'm saying is the difference between using a lens designed for full-frame or super-35 on a super-16 sensor and a lens designed for the actual format is negligible. Perspectively speaking, if do the math the end FOV will be pretty damn close. Close enough that isn't even worth discussing. Not to mention the center of the glass is often the sharpest. If you want soft-corners then yea, shoot with old super-16 glass otherwise you're pulling at straws.
"One of the lovely ironies of Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" is that to accurately capture the look and feel of 18th-century Europe, the director turned to futuristic technology created for NASA. To film scenes illuminated only by candlelight, Kubrick relied on the German company Zeiss, which had recently built a special ultra-fast 50mm lens for NASA's use in satellite photography. Upon discovering the firm still had six of the 25 lenses made, Kubrick purchased one and, with creative engineering help from Ed Di Guilio of Cinema Products Inc., attached it to his faithful 35mm Mitchell Blimped Noiseless Camera. Since the f/0.7 Zeiss lens was twice as fast as any other lens, Kubrick could now film by candlelight alone. Since the lens had almost zero depth of field, the beautifully atmospheric candlelit scenes required precise staging to maintain focus."
Also he Haskel Wexler's son confirmed that he did tests with this one lens his dad had that there were only two in the world at the time. "I will add to this story that before Kubrick sought out the lens from NASA he borrowed a very rare Angenieux lens from my father, Haskell Wexler. The lens was specially made, there were only two of them, and it had an f-stop of .095 (obviously almost no depth of field). Angenieux referred to as a prototype for an "instrumentation lens" and it may well have been the same type of lens that Kubrick ultimately obtained from NASA. Many tests were shot with my father's lens and a few scenes in "Barry Lyndon" as well. Another interesting thing about the lens: the only camera it would work with was one of my father's Eclair CM-3 cameras which had a highly modified custom lens mount to accommodate the unique construction of this ultra fast lens. So, Haskell had to lend Kubrick not only the lens but the camera as well."
Also your talking about Kubrick, who was allowed to go over budget and schedule on his films. He had in his contract that no one fromMGM, the studio funding his movie, could even come onto the lot. The studio was bitching because he was going over budget but he was Stanley Kubrick. he got to do what he wanted as it was in his contract.
Please name a semi large or large budget studio film shot with super 16 using 35 mill lenses. I will wait. Here is another thing about Kubrick, confirmed by Doug Trumble. it says filmed with Panavision lenses as the studio had a contract with Panavision to film all movies with Panavision cameras and lenses. Actually Kubrick hated Panavision lenses and had sets of Nikon still lenses converted to film lenses. it only says Panavision lenses as they were contractually obligated to put that there. You know how Dances with Wolves says filmed with Panavison cameras and Primo lenses. Nope. The film went over schedule and they had to return the cameras back to Panavision and the DP put out the call to all DP's who had camera packages and my ex Boss, a Commercial DP loaned them his Ari BL4 to shoot with as well as a few other DP's who owned Zeiss camera packages to finish the film. So the film is 1/4th shot with Arri BL4's and Zeiss lenses.
The guy who shot the series 24 and the producers wanted to shoot it with a canon 7D and mark 2 when they came out. They shot for one day and Keifer Sutherland nixed it because he would not shoot anymore without a bigger camera as he felt he could not act with a HDSLR. many times DP's are told what to shoot with now, and if production can save money they will force on what they can film with
Last edited by daydreamersproductions; 03-05-2017 at 08:09 PM.
And yes, if you read the old American Cinematorgrapher mags from 1988 on when Cameron first shot the Abyss with Super 35, there was a lot of conjecture about the lens being cropped. Some DP's did not like it. Karl Walter Lindenlaub who shot both Stargate and Independence Day for Emmeich was upset about having to shoot ID4 in Super35 and one of the main reasons was the cropping. He shot Stargate in Anamorphic and wanted to shoot ID4 with it as well but got voted down by the studio because of how much was being cropped out in the pan and scan transfers to VHS and having to to do 2 film transfers for the standard and windscreen releases on video. He was completely bitching about it and said he hated the format. So did the guy who shot Bird on a Wire. Dean Cundey was not happy about having to shoot with it on Apollo 13 and did a lot of tests to ease himself on it. Shooting in Super35 you had less cropped out in the transfer for VHS. But at the time DP's were fighting and losing studios mandating they had to shoot Super35 instead of anamorphic because of it. On Standard pan and scan releases you just had a little more in the head and a lot more on the bottom than the cropped out 2.40:1 and and scan versions because they cropped it out but both version had a close common top line. You had to makes sure when you shot that nothing was in the bottom portion of the frame under the 2.40:1 frame line etching in the ground glass on the cameras eyepiece. It was a big deal for the studios to shoot that way when laser discs came out because they had to do 2 transfers. Later on when the DVD market started with widescreen releases only, studios relented as they did not have to do 2 transfers and were just releasing windscreen versions on video. But DP's were constantly gripping about the cropping.
And yes my ex boss in LA was a commercial DP and I would go down to his house in N. Hollywood where he would have parties with industry people including feature DP's cause he went to school with a lot of them at UCLA. I used to bug them about stuff like this. A lot of them wanted to shoot on Fuji film but cold not because the studios had contracts with Eastman and they were forced to shoot Eastman film even though they desperately wanted to shoot Fuji for it's pastels or AGFA for it's reds. They shoot with what the studio tells them most of the time now.
This argument with you two guys is seriously getting pointless. You like shooting on Super16 sensor. Fine! Got it! Most people do not! I am so done with this pointless argument here. there is a thread for you guys who like to shoot in Super16. Go there.
Last edited by daydreamersproductions; 03-06-2017 at 12:14 PM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|