BrooklynDan

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My first film. Sony HDV Handycam. Shown at multiple film festivals and on television. Still my most successful project.

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.

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.

The Sony FS5 is a lump of poo in my opinion. Thin, dull, dirty colors, nasty highlights, too much rolling shutter, and the build quality of a fortune cookie. The form factor and feature set are great, but the execution really suffers. The image out of my C100 is so much more pleasing and pretty, 4K or no 4K. The C200 or whatever Canon offers up next will probably have 8-bit 4K, and only up to 30p. The mighty C300 MK II only does 4K 10-bit at up to 30 fps. Above that, you have to switch to 2K. If Panasonic's new camera offers the lush Varicam sensor with 10-bit 4K and high frame rate options at $6K, it will be the best option in its class. I'm not saying it'll sell the best, cuz brand loyalty or whatever. But it will certainly own in terms of image quality and value.

I was actually somewhat disappointed to find out that these are variable diopter-based lenses. Based on the advanced hype, it appeared that the engineers had created a whole new way to focus. But the prototype at the show looked like it was built from a Schneider Cinelux. I look forward to see how they handle the 40mm and wider lenses. Variable diopters start to have a lot of trouble at wider focal lengths. Still great to see innovation happening in this part of the market. Also excited about P+S Technik's brand new Kowa recreations. Same price as vintage Kowas, brand new glass, parts and additional focal lengths.

This is the long-awaited successor to the AF100. It will almost certainly have a Super 35mm sensor and 4K 10-bit internal recording. Hopefully the price range will be in C100/FS5 territory. Fingers crossed for a true 4:3 sensor and anamorphic support. It served Panasonic well on the GH4/5.

Got something in the works, Mr. Friedman? Maybe a 15mm rod-supported, 2x single focus adapter with a 114mm fixed front, 0.8 pitch focus gear, maximum-sized rear element, aspherical focusing group for minimal breathing, touch of flare and barrel distortion and 28-35mm coverage on Super 35 format sensors, maybe in the $3K-$4K range? *fingers crossed*

I've never seen any footage from the 1.8x. I don't know if it ever actually hit the street. The footage I've seen from the 1.3x looked awful. Just terrible.

In theory, it is worth that price because it is a professional-grade anamorphic prime lens, and similar lenses from Lomo and others have been going for about $8k. However, I think the value of this lens should take a hit because it is, of course, a one-off. The chances of building a complete Agascope set are slim to none, So that makes this lens a curiosity, rather than a functional cinema lens, and it should be priced as such. I would put it at $4-5k.

It is an AgaScope lens. It was built by a Swedish industrial firm during the widescreen craze of the late 50s/early 60s. It was mainly used in Sweden, although some sets made it to Eastern Europe. The set was fairly sparse and included a 46mm and a 75mm. There weren't any zooms or wide focal lengths available, so the modern day appeal of these lenses is limited. Quality should be on par with other early anamorphic systems of continental Europe like Dyaliscope or Totalvision.

I think that it's important to look less at the specific aspect ratio of the sensor than at the height of the sensor, especially when it comes to using professional anamorphic lenses. When shooting for a 2.40 aspect ratio, having a taller sensor means using more of the field of view of the lens. And this comes into play when using older lenses that may not have the wide angle options, or have wide angle lenses that are unusually large or oddly shaped. At my job, I have compared Lomo anamorphics on the Alexa (18x24mm sensor) and the Red Dragon (15x30mm sensor). On the Alexa, you can more or less get way with using the 50mm as your widest lens. On the Red, the 50mm is more like a 60mm, and you're gonna be relying more on the 35mm Lomo, which is a big heavy lens with a giant front diameter, and a lot more barrel distortion and softer edges. It's just more practical to have a sensor that matches the full height of the 35mm academy format, regardless of whether it is 4:3 or not. And with how high resolution have gotten lately, there's no need to fear cropping. No use crying over spilled pixels.

Oh hell yeah. Used Alexa packages are getting soooooo cheap. They're really taking the piss out of the Red market. You can have a used Alexa now for what used to be the price of a brand new Red One. 90% of people I know would rather shoot Arri over anything else. The only barrier to entry is the weight, power requirements (it has a serious hunger for juice), and necessity for PL mount glass. But new cheap PL mount sets are getting released every month, and once the Minis and Amiras hit the used market complete with EF mount option and in-camera QHD ProRes, it's gonna be over. Finished and done.

Only suckers pay 15 grand per lens. They weren't worth that much new.

Panavision C-series is THE look. That is what everyone thinks of when they imagine the ideal anamorphic image. Blade Runner, Die Hard. Alien, Pulp Fiction. Chinatown. Punch-Drunk Love. The list goes on and on. It's the perfect combination of crisp blue flares, fall-off, vignetting, creamy bokeh, vertical breathing and barrel distortion. Entire films have been shot on the 40mm lens alone. That said, there's a set of Lomo Roundfronts at the rental house where I work, and they look pretty sweet as well. Lots of distortion, unpredictable flares and aberrations, all the weird funky shit you get with old Soviet glass. I love 'em.

Alexa ProRes (particularly in 4:3 mode with anamorphic lenses) is without a doubt a theatrical format. Many, many movies have been shot this way, and it's standard procedure for films that are under $3-5 million to go this route. Arriraw is expensive and extremely data-hungry. The Codex workflow, while bulletproof, requires a pricey on-set Vault system, and a skilled DIT to run it. ProRes can be handled with a laptop and a couple of hard drives. Boom. Direct to edit.

The XL2 was my favorite camera in film school. So ergonomic and fun to use. I wish that Canon had stuck with this form factor. And the motion cadence was excellent. Despite the tiny chip, it looked much more filmic to me than the DSLRs we replaced it with. One of my sophomore exercises:

Looks very nice. A tiny bit of softness visible, but beyond that, there is very little here that distinguishes this from a high-end anamorphic prime lens. Hell, if you threw on an actual Kowa anamorphic monoblock prime lens, you would dealing with a lot more distortion and breathing. And the Lomos I have at work would be struggling in this desert environment.

I really, really want them to upgrade the EVF system. The LCD mount is flimsy and the loupe is a cheap piece of crap. I would prefer a solid three-axis mount that's more like the F5/F55. Also, the menu. But this is Sony, so of course the menu is gonna be three miles long and impossibly confusing.

That actually looks pretty sharp. And quite dreamy. Reminds of some of the super high speed Panavision lenses used in Killing Them Softly and Heat. At T1.4 and down, the anamorphic character just goes through the roof.

The original Black Magic Cinema camera was used as a B-camera to the Alexa for stunts and gimbal work on Mad Max Fury Road, so that might be your best bet.