Jump to content


Arri Master Zoom, 435 HS?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 808_Bass

808_Bass
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2006 - 07:02 AM

Has anyone shot with the Arri Master Zoom?

Had a look at one today, big piece of glass, physically more the size of an 11-1 Primo.

It's a 16.5-110 T2.6, nice big rear element, it just looks like a sharp lens if you know what I mean.

I'm guessing that it's been built to compete with the 4-1 Primo, not that (in my opinion) that would be hard.

I'd think it'd be fairly safe to assume (gulp) that a longer one will appear before too long as well.


Also wondering if anyone has heard if a high speed 435 might be in development?

It seems Arri are doing a great job of integrating all of the various facets of their camera systems at the moment, which is what I always felt was their weak point. Shooting with Panaflex's always meant that whatever accessory you got, it was designed by Panavision for use on Panaflexes (apart from Preston's of course....grrr), and therefore fitted like a glove, where-as with Arri there were always issues with 3rd party lenses, mattebox compatabilitys, new accessories on old cameras, and so on, and so on.

From both a purists' and an assistants' perspective, it's great to see so much r&d going into film cameras.
  • 0

#2 Chris Fernando

Chris Fernando
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 24 January 2006 - 01:15 PM

Has anyone shot with the Arri Master Zoom?



Never shot with one, but from what I gather, from these forums and elsewhere, is that they are virtually breathless (is that a word?). Kinda nice from a 1st's POV.

Having seen one perhaps you can concur or refute.
  • 0

#3 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 January 2006 - 03:54 PM

Also wondering if anyone has heard if a high speed 435 might be in development?

You mean faster than 150fps? I don't see much need for that since photosonics already do very high speeds and it's rare that you need anything faster than 150fps anyway.
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 January 2006 - 05:46 PM

From an optical point the Master Zoom is the best zoom lens available today, bar none. It is the zoom equivalent to the Master Primes. It does not breathe and does not distort, even on the wide end.

Now the bad news is that for the moment there are only few around. On top of that Arri is not going to sell it, if you want it, you have to rent it from them.
  • 0

#5 808_Bass

808_Bass
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2006 - 05:59 PM

You mean faster than 150fps? I don't see much need for that since photosonics already do very high speeds and it's rare that you need anything faster than 150fps anyway.


When you say that it's rare you need anything faster than 150fps anyway, is this because to shoot faster than 150fps is not practical unless it is for a specialized shot, so 150fps has become a nominal value? I mean a few years ago, it was 130fps with the 35III, and if I had a buck for evertime the directors asked me "How fast will this camera go?"

If it was practical to shoot at say 200 or 300fps without the need for an additional camera and technician (ie Photosonics) then wouldn't it just open up new realms of possiblity? Filmmaking and in particular Commericial production has always been about pushing and reinventing the limits with the equipment that's available, and a HS 435 would seem to be the next logical step in it's evolution.

As for the Master Zoom, I didn't get a chance to mount it on a camera, but would be interested to know how it compares to the Optimos, and Master Primes, particularly with regards to breathing, which seems to be the only reason that the zoom gets taken off the camera these days.

Anyways, that's my 10 pesos worth.


From an optical point the Master Zoom is the best zoom lens available today, bar none. It is the zoom equivalent to the Master Primes. It does not breathe and does not distort, even on the wide end.

Now the bad news is that for the moment there are only few around. On top of that Arri is not going to sell it, if you want it, you have to rent it from them.


Sorry Max, must have been typing when you posted.

Thanks for the info on the zoom, it's as I suspected.

Have you shot with one? How does it perform flare-wise? Have you used it at night? I am also curious about pulling focus on it, is the focus barrel a monster like on an 11-1 primo? The barrel on those has to rotate a long way between distances, which isn't an issue with the smaller rear focus gear on a Primo, but does it become an issue on the Master Zoom?

Cheers.
  • 0

#6 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 January 2006 - 06:10 PM

Unfortunately I haven't tested one yet, since there are many around and I haven't been to Munich lately. I've only asked Arri about the Master Primes. They have shot a test comparing them to the Ultra Primes, Cooke S4s and Primos and the Master Primes are the only lenses that did not flare in nightscenes. On top of that the bokeh is perfectly circular for pretty much all the various stops. The look of the Master Primes was described to me as so technologically perfect that it was almost 'synthetic' and 'without character'. Meaning that since they do not distort, flare, breathe and have a perfect circular bokeh, these lenses look very neutral, just how the human eye sees. Just what the doctor ordered for any shots involving CGI, etc...

Could you elaborate your opinion on the Primo zooms, how they perform optically and how they look. I have never worked with them unfortunately.
  • 0

#7 808_Bass

808_Bass
  • Guests

Posted 24 January 2006 - 07:46 PM

Unfortunately I haven't tested one yet, since there are many around and I haven't been to Munich lately. I've only asked Arri about the Master Primes. They have shot a test comparing them to the Ultra Primes, Cooke S4s and Primos and the Master Primes are the only lenses that did not flare in nightscenes. On top of that the bokeh is perfectly circular for pretty much all the various stops. The look of the Master Primes was described to me as so technologically perfect that it was almost 'synthetic' and 'without character'. Meaning that since they do not distort, flare, breathe and have a perfect circular bokeh, these lenses look very neutral, just how the human eye sees. Just what the doctor ordered for any shots involving CGI, etc...

Could you elaborate your opinion on the Primo zooms, how they perform optically and how they look. I have never worked with them unfortunately.



Sure, here's my 20 pesos worth.....


As with all of the Primo series, the zooms have a very "organic" look, you can definately tell when they are sharp, but the focus also falls off really nicely, giving them a kind of warmth. Nice Bokeh as you'd expect from any professional lens (what was up with those Variable Primes!? Can't remember, but weren't they a 3 leaf iris?)


The 4-1 has never been my favourite lens, I put it down to having to do too much work - 17.5 to 75mm is a big range (until now), sure it might only be 4-1, but to go from as wide as that to a potrait lens is, I'm sure, lots of work optically speaking.
I've also never found it to be the sharpest piece of glass on the planet (that's my excuse anyways), and the focus markings tend to drift in extreme hot or cold weather. As far as the flange depth is concerned it behaves like a 17.5mm, and I'm sure everyone has heard the stories of people going to weather cover sets, or heading to the snow from the rental house, shooting all day on the 4-1 and all the rushes coming back with that slightly diffused look - very popular in Eastern Europe I believe, which is where you'd most likely be headed after you're inevitable firing.
I'm sure it's an urban myth, but it is possible. Believe me, checking and adjusting the flange when it's freezing cold is not much fun, and neither is carrying extra batteries for the camera heater.
I've also noticed that it is very susceptable to ghosting with hot sources and highlights in the frame. I'm not sure if this is due to the front element being so convex that it is hard to back the filters right up to it, or, as someone that would know once told me - there is a higher than normal concentration of silver in the front element, causing more light than normal to be bounced round between the filters and the lens (optical pong if you like), I think it's the combination of both.
In my opinion using an anti-reflection filter tray is the standard rig for this lens, even though using a regular tray sometimes fixes the problem (angle of incidence = angle of reflection, and all that stuff y'know).

On the positive side, physically it's a really nice size and weight, particularly for mounting on remote heads, it balances without much drama, even on stabilized heads. 17.5 to 75 is also a really nice range, especially for remote work, you know that even if the DP or Director goes nuts with the zoom, you're not gonna break too much of a sweat! With stablized heads becoming more common I can definately see the long end of this lens becoming not long enough to test the head though.


As for the 11-1, it's just an alround great lens, they vary a little, but with a bit of testing it's easy to find 3 or 4 really good ones. I've also noticed a little ghosting of hotspots and highlights, but if you're keeping an eye out for it, there are always solutions to be found.
Check that the lens doesn't "auto zoom" when you tilt steeply down, fun to watch during prep, not so fun to watch on set.
I guess the only real criticism I have of this lens is that it's hard to mount 3 Preston motors on. I end up using the focus motor (with a zoom gear attached) on the big barrel up the front, but the motor has to physically turn so quickly to rotate such a big barrel, combined with the finely pitched gear it's quite susceptable to slipping, so you really have to have a gentle touch on the focus knob, almost coaxing it round.

I haven't used the 3-1 (Hubble) an awful lot (my back is thankful), but I have never heard (optically) any bad reports.

Anyways, that turned into 50 pesos worth rather quickly.
  • 0

#8 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 25 January 2006 - 10:12 PM

I just shot a commercial with the Master Primes. It was shot wide open, all the time. In TK it looked very sharp and with a lot of snap - impressive. Nice set of lenses, but very big. Will definitely use them again for the right project.
  • 0

#9 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2006 - 03:28 AM

When you say that it's rare you need anything faster than 150fps anyway, is this because to shoot faster than 150fps is not practical unless it is for a specialized shot, so 150fps has become a nominal value? I mean a few years ago, it was 130fps with the 35III, and if I had a buck for evertime the directors asked me "How fast will this camera go?"

If it was practical to shoot at say 200 or 300fps without the need for an additional camera and technician (ie Photosonics) then wouldn't it just open up new realms of possiblity? Filmmaking and in particular Commericial production has always been about pushing and reinventing the limits with the equipment that's available, and a HS 435 would seem to be the next logical step in it's evolution.

Well, I suppose if a camera did 200fps then people would shoot at 200fps more often, but I think it would be for the same reason that most people shoot at 150fps.....because they don't know what they want, so they just shoot as fast as they can and figure it out later. 150fps really slows things down quite a lot, so to me it's like....."Oh, now we can make things 7x slower, instead of 5x slower!" But, why? Sure, there are situations where you need an extremely high speed camera, but in my mind that's what the photosonics are for. Sure, having to have a tech just for the camera could be an issue, but if you're shooting 1000fps or faster, the tech's rate quickly becomes a very small factor in the budget.
I've certainly heard the "how fast does this camera go?" question plenty of times, but I don't often hear someone say, "Gosh, if only we had been able to shoot at 200fps" after the fact. Does that make sense? I just don't see 200 or 300fps being that big of an advantage over 150. Of course there are always exceptions.
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2006 - 12:18 PM

You have to ask yourself if the number of people that want to shoot at 200 fps, and want to shoot it often enough to want more convenience than an occasional Photosonics rental, makes it worthwhile to develop a 435 that can go faster than 150 fps.

Personally, after thirty features, I can only recall once needing a camera that went faster than 60 fps, and that was 96 fps. But I don't shoot commercials.
  • 0

#11 Daniel Stigler

Daniel Stigler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Berlin, Germany

Posted 26 January 2006 - 01:29 PM

How many times have you done 150fps?
  • 0

#12 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2006 - 03:11 PM

You have to ask yourself if the number of people that want to shoot at 200 fps, and want to shoot it often enough to want more convenience than an occasional Photosonics rental, makes it worthwhile to develop a 435 that can go faster than 150 fps.

Personally, after thirty features, I can only recall once needing a camera that went faster than 60 fps, and that was 96 fps. But I don't shoot commercials.

Exactly my point. In the long run it basically comes down to whether it's worth it for Arri or not, and in my opinion it's probably not.
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2006 - 07:10 PM

How many times have you done 150fps?


Never, but then, I can't afford a 435 on a feature.
  • 0

#14 Daniel Stigler

Daniel Stigler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Berlin, Germany

Posted 28 January 2006 - 04:11 PM

Never, but then, I can't afford a 435 on a feature.



Sorry. My question was intended to be a response to 808_Bass's original post.

But then, have you been in situations where you would have done 150fps if it was in the budget?
  • 0

#15 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 28 January 2006 - 05:30 PM

How many times have you done 150fps?


Hi,

About the same amount as 360fps on a Photosonics! I have my own Mitchell that goes 120fps, so 150fps is no big deal.
With the Photosonics at 360fps you could get 4 or 5 takes on a 1000' roll if the takes were very short, producers uaually start crying by the 10th roll!

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Daniel Stigler

Daniel Stigler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Berlin, Germany

Posted 29 January 2006 - 04:55 AM

Hi,

About the same amount as 360fps on a Photosonics! I have my own Mitchell that goes 120fps, so 150fps is no big deal.
With the Photosonics at 360fps you could get 4 or 5 takes on a 1000' roll if the takes were very short, producers uaually start crying by the 10th roll!

Stephen


Dammit! I never got beyond 100fps...
I'm shooting an imagefilm for a tire company in Capetown in two weeks. I'll encourage my DoP to go as fast as possible :D
  • 0

#17 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 29 January 2006 - 06:05 AM

Dammit! I never got beyond 100fps...
I'm shooting an imagefilm for a tire company in Capetown in two weeks. I'll encourage my DoP to go as fast as possible :D


Hi,

To be honest 100fps is fast enough for most things. I once spent a week with an Actionmaster 16mm filming tennis. The director wanted to shoot every shot at 500fps, because we could! Almost all the shots had to be speeded up afterwards. Lighting was such pain (we were inside), the producer would not pay for a generator, I only had 63 amp 3 phase available. Every shot was wide open, after that I got high speed out of my system!

Stephen
  • 0

#18 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 14 March 2006 - 06:51 AM

Is the Arri master zoom different from ARRI/Zeiss Lightweight Zoom LWZ-1? Are you talking about the same lenses?
  • 0

#19 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 March 2006 - 12:13 PM

The Masterzoon is a different lens. 16.5-110mm T2.6
  • 0

#20 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 14 March 2006 - 12:33 PM

The Masterzoon is a different lens. 16.5-110mm T2.6

Max, do you have some literature about it? A weblink?

Do you know when it will become avail for general rental?
  • 0


Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Opal