Jump to content


Photo

Cooke Zoom VS Lomo


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Jason Baker

Jason Baker

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:35 PM

I'm shooting this indie feature in 35mm on an Arri BL4. Lens options are limited and boil down to either...:

A- Cooke zoom 20-100
B- Lomo primes anamorphic square fronts 25,50 & 75
C- Lomo primes anamorphic round fronts 25,50 & 75

Does the 1:85/zoom resolution disadvantage of the Cooke end up being comparable to the 2:35/prime advantage of the inferior Lomo?

We prefer a big negative (scope) but not if other aspects of resolution quality make it a shaky one.

If anyone has insight or an opinion on this, it would be more than welcomed. Thanks.
  • 0

#2 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1604 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 02:52 AM

We often rent out a set of Lomos with a Cooke 20-100 fitted with a Technovision anamorphic rear adapter, making it effectively a 40-200. They seem to intercut well enough (although rear adapters don't give the same anamorphic attributes - horizontal flares and oval bokeh etc).

I really wouldn't recommend mixing anamorphic lenses with a cropped spherical zoom. It shouldn't be hard to find or rent an anamorphic adapter for the zoom.

It's worth testing them yourself, but the round front Lomos are newer and I find generally better than the square fronts - less breathing and distortion, better mechanically, easier to pull focus. I wasn't aware of a 25mm round front - 35mm is the widest I've come across. We have a square front 30mm and 22mm for very wide angle.
  • 0

#3 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1604 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:10 AM

Sorry Jason, just reread your question and realise it's an "either" not an "and/or" situation.. :rolleyes:

Seems like it depends on what the script calls for.. in terms of resolution, a good set of Lomos will be pretty similar to a good Cooke 20-100. You'd need to shoot tests to properly compare them. They're old lenses, enormous variation is possible. But do you want the widescreen framing and 'epic' feel of anamorphics or the flexibility of more than 3 focal lengths?
  • 0

#4 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:50 AM

Jason;
my biggest issue with Lomos, and I have a set of the old primes which I love, is the markings in Meters. Not too helpful being here in the states where everything is in ft. That said, listen to Dom, he's spot on about the need to test both of them and see how they work. Personally I'd go anamorphic, if the script called for it, but that's just because I really enjoy the way anamorphic translates on a big screen (not the flares, so much, but the bokeh).
  • 0

#5 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 May 2011 - 12:29 PM

Adrian in this stupid country we have both metric and ft.and inches . Although we are supposed to be part of Europe we have never had rulers with the balls to dump imperial and go all out for metric ! Just one of the many reasons we are the creek.
  • 0

#6 Dom Jaeger

Dom Jaeger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1604 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:08 PM

Here in Oz we went metric decades ago but for some reason the film industry still likes their lenses marked in feet. A respectful nod to our British colonial roots perhaps, more likely we want to pretend we're in Hollywood.. B)

I actually prefer imperial markings - I seem to be able to visualise 8 feet more easily than 2.4 metres.

It does create some mixed-up language though: "400 feet of 35mm", "set the 50mm to 6 feet" etc
  • 0

#7 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7118 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:13 PM

Maybe you should change it up and call for the about 2 inch lens...
  • 0


Tai Audio

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Abel Cine

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Opal

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies