[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Eclair Cameras: angenieux 16-44
The Angie 17 - 68 will just manage to cover S-16. It isn't though, in my
opinion, sharp enough for blowup to 35mm with modern color film stocks. In color
tests that I ran on 7245, I found that at T2.8, wide shots didn't seem sharp.
Extreme close-ups weren't awful - but not "Zeiss" crisp (this test was viewed
projected in S-16, not blown up).
I once used this lens to make some close-ups in S-16 B&W that was blown up to
35mm and these shots looked ok intercut with shots made with sharp primes,
but B&W negative is inherently less sharp than modern color films, and so I
assume that B&W is more forgiving of a softer lens --- (Plus-X negative and
Double-X negative have not been reformulated since the late 1950s) --- but I leave
it to the guys who know more about optics to confirm or deny that. Mark.
PS - As a footnote, I was considering having a special batch of T-Max
still-film emulsion coated on S-16 film, but Kodak wants a minimum of 3 dozen 400'
rolls to do special orders. It is a shame that they don't just put a batch out
there to see what happens. Even if it is not technically the same contrast as
P-X or D-X, there may be filmmakers who could accomodate with lighting design.
T-MAX 100 would certainly be the finest grain motion picture negative film
ever made, and should be compatible-enough with standard processing. But I guess
there is no $ in it for Kodak. I was at Kodak in Hollywood the other day
picking up some film, and I made a surprised comment that the current price
catalog hadn't been replaced in a year. The veteran person at the desk said
cynically "Yeah, they're just waiting for a price increase so that the rest will
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACLfirstname.lastname@example.org
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!