£150 Arriflex lenses on the GH5

[cantsin]

On 17-6-2017 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Reid said:

Quote

The GH5 has the chunkiest 10bit files I've ever seen for $2000.

Chunkier than BM Pocket/Micro or BMCC recording in ProRes? 

EDIT: And a small correction of the article - classical Arriflex lenses aren't (officially) for Super 16, but only for 16mm format; i.e. classical 4:3 film format with 33% horizontal crop in comparison to s16, or put in video terminology: 2/3" sensor format vs. 1" sensor format.

 

At 25mm focal length, most 16mm lenses do cover s16 and bigger sensors, but only outside the "official" image circle, with major vignetting and blur in the corners. At 16mm focal length and below, 16mm lenses rarely cover s16. (A notable exception are Cooke Kinetals with 12,5mm and above and all Canon "V" and "TV16" c-mount lenses.)

 

'Official' s16mm lenses were mostly made for Arri Bayonet, Aaton and PL mounts. AFAIK, Schneider never made s16 lenses.

[Ed_David]

2 hours ago, cantsin said:

On 17-6-2017 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Reid said:

Chunkier than BM Pocket/Micro or BMCC recording in ProRes? 

EDIT: And a small correction of the article - classical Arriflex lenses aren't (officially) for Super 16, but only for 16mm format; i.e. classical 4:3 film format with 33% horizontal crop in comparison to s16, or put in video terminology: 2/3" sensor format vs. 1" sensor format.

 

At 25mm focal length, most 16mm lenses do cover s16 and bigger sensors, but only outside the "official" image circle, with major vignetting and blur in the corners. At 16mm focal length and below, 16mm lenses rarely cover s16. (A notable exception are Cooke Kinetals with 12,5mm and above and all Canon "V" and "TV16" c-mount lenses.)

 

'Official' s16mm lenses were mostly made for Arri Bayonet, Aaton and PL mounts. AFAIK, Schneider never made s16 lenses.

I have used the angenieux 12-120mm 16mm glass extensively on the blackmagic micro camera.  With a 10 percent digital zoom in, it takes care of vignetting.

You can convert some 16mm glass to s16mm - but at this point, why not just do it in post, right?

Arriflex refers to the brand.

I don't think Andrew made an error in his comments?

 

[cantsin]

18 minutes ago, Ed_David said:

 With a 10 percent digital zoom in, it takes care of vignetting.

You can convert some 16mm glass to

Arriflex refers to the brand.

I don't think Andrew made an error in his comments?

 

Yeah, but this should be mentioned because people easily get confused over the difference between 16mm and s16, which is comparable, in relative terms, to that between MFT and APS-C. There's lot of 16mm glass on the market, but little true s16 glass (and most of the latter is so expensive, even second-hand, that it's cheaper to buy new Veydras or Lomo Illuminas).

When people speak of Arriflex lenses, they mostly mean the classical Arri Std or Arri bayonet mount, both precursors to PL mount.

Even on Ebay, a lot of 16mm lenses are advertised, by confused sellers, as "s16", so one should watch out before buying.

[Ed_David]

My mistake - Arriflex is what Arri labels their film cameras.  They are the arriflex  535 and 435 and 235 - which are their most modern film cameras. But yes, the older cameras, all the way to the 50s were also called Arriflex cameras.  But yea, I think all cameras that have the arriflex name probably had a PL or Bayonette mount, right?

But yea, there aren't as many s16mm converted glass.  

And you can convert certain 16mm glass to s16mm glass - like with this service: http://cinematechnic.com/super-16mm/super_16_lens_conversion

But, really, at this point, I think why bother losing the stop, if you are using the glass with digital cameras and are doing a DI if you are shooting film, and can easily just increase the frame size 10% in your edit, right?

This is cool in a nerdy way - the original 35mm lens camera - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriflex_35

With the turret - I think this is why they call it when you change a lens, "swinging a lens"

[Andrew Reid]

12 hours ago, cantsin said:

Chunkier than BM Pocket/Micro or BMCC recording in ProRes?

Yes, as the sensor is better. A lot of junk noise, banding, in the Blackmagic files.

[cantsin]

9 hours ago, Ed_David said:

But yea, I think all cameras that have the arriflex name probably had a PL or Bayonette mount, right?

Not quite - there are three Arri mounts: Arri Standard (abbreviated as Arri Std), Arri Bayonet and, as a vendor-independent standard derived from the previous two, PL mount. Standard and Bayonet are not the same and need different adapters on modern cameras. Most affordable second-hand Arriflex 16mm lenses are for Arri Standard (which did not include any Super 16 cameras or true Super 16 lenses), sometimes you can also find Arri Bayonet (which can be either 16mm or s16, confusingly).

[Ed_David]

8 hours ago, cantsin said:

Not quite - there are three Arri mounts: Arri Standard (abbreviated as Arri Std), Arri Bayonet and, as a vendor-independent standard derived from the previous two, PL mount. Standard and Bayonet are not the same and need different adapters on modern cameras. Most affordable second-hand Arriflex 16mm lenses are for Arri Standard (which did not include any Super 16 cameras or true Super 16 lenses), sometimes you can also find Arri Bayonet (which can be either 16mm or s16, confusingly).

Right. But again i think the need for s16 glass is no longer needed in the digital era.

And Andrew is indeed right. Just cause the bm micro gives you raw...the sensor out of it chokes on banding moire and iso.  You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

I sold mine.

[Shirozina]

Exe. Tele Conv setting in the GH5 - corner shading solved?