octoplex

Nolan's Memento (2000) is an enduring masterpiece, and The Prestige (2006) was Nolan at his absolute creative peak. What sadly seems to happen with these Hollywood-endorsed directors is they quickly become 'establishment' and cease to create anything of real integrity or interest. Many of these directors reach a point in their careers where it has been so long since they've sat in a room with anyone even vaguely-human that they forget how to tell relevant stories. They also get (consciously or not) pushed into agenda-based storytelling. Less generously, we might call it 'sophisticated propaganda' funded by established-money. It's not Nolan's fault. Anyone exposed to the people he has to fraternize with in Hollywood would meet the same fate. The trick is to leave the casino (Hollywood) while you still have your soul. Few directors time this exit correctly. Stanley Kubrick, of course, exited to a odd English-suburb and refused to return. His work is rare in that it retained a consistently high-quality. Nolan reminds me of Ridley Scott, who really hasn't made anything of real interest since the masterpieces of Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1982). As with Nolan, the puzzling thing about this outcome is just how staggeringly incredible Scott's early work was; and how mediocre most of the later work. What happened? What does Hollywood to do these artists? I'll leave the reader to decide...

Thank you; this is exactly what I needed to know. I suspected they might be the same thing, but it was very hard to get this confirmed elsewhere. Again, thank you immeasurably for this information. This explains, for me, why the lens components in one of these "wide angle" adapter/converters can be removed and re-purposed for use in a Front-Variable-Diopter. Mystery solved. I appreciate your assistance!

I'm struggling to understand the definition of the terms 'adapter' and 'converter' when applied to wide-angle lenses. Can the community here offer a perspective? In some places online, the words appear to be used inter-changeably. Does anyone know the difference between the two? As a random example, this lens self-describes as a wide-angle "adapter": While this one, for example, self-describes as a wide-angle "converter": Ignoring the finer-specifics of these two lenses, how does a "converter", in general, differ from an "adapter" ? Final question: If there is a difference between these two general-denominations: Is an 'adapter', or a 'converter', more suited to having its lenses 'harvested' and retro-fitted into a variable-diopter system? Thanks!

Important Update: I discovered today that the large adjustable-ring on this Cinelux lens is, indeed, a focusing ring .The reason why it initially appeared to be doing nothing is that the sensitivity on the ring is extremely low. It took about forty turns of the ring to begin to notice a substantial movement in the focus of the lens. This is probably normal for commercial 35mm movie-theater lenses. This is my first close-encounter. I have now locked the lens at infinity, as is advisable for my intended setup. I discovered that the "MC" specification of this Cinelux denotes "Multi-Coated" and refers to the lens coating. This Cinelux lens has been coated to reduce flaring artifacts etc. Apparently these Cinelux lenses are known for their very sharp and clear anamorphic properties. Some cinematographers go as far as removing this Multi-Coat to increase the anamorphic-flaring effect Some Mysteries Still Remain I still have no idea what the "WA" specification of this lens denotes. I also do not know why the front element on this lens is bigger than the rear-element (unlike many other Cinelux lenses). I am also unsure about how to build the variable-diopter system that will sit on the front of this anamorphic for single-focus during video work. Any thoughts on this topic are appreciated.

I recently acquired an (apparently) more unusual Cinelux Anamorphic 35mm-movie-projector lens. As an emerging-cinematographer, I'm trying to adapt this for video use. I wondered if anyone here could answer some questions about this lens? Here it is: My questions: 1. The "focusing ring" (if it is that), with the black locking-screw attached to it, does not seem to do anything. I have not yet attached the lens to a camera, so it may be that this adjustment-ring is doing something so subtle it is currently invisible to my eye? 2. Unlike the more commonly adapted Cinelux lenses, this "Kreuznach WA" model has a much bigger front lens than back lens (apologies for possibly incorrect terminology here). Is this related to the "WA" specification? Does this mean "Wide Angle" or something? The smaller end is 67mm. The bigger I have yet to measure, but noticeably bigger. Incidentally, what does the "MC" specification refer to? 3. Are there some special considerations when adapting this particular Cinelux for video use? Or can I use the same method as with a more common "Cinelux ES" etc? 4. I plan to build a Front Variable Diopter for this Cinelux WA from a modded Century Precision Optics wide-angle convertor, like this person has. Is this going to work? Obviously I need to redesign the mounting system, because, the Cinelux I have has a kind of "lens-hood" and is bigger at the front-end. Any guidance in solving these mysteries greatly appreciated. Thank you!