Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I always thought t-stops were all about matching cuts in feature films With t-stops and pro-batch corrections, those three camera shots could be more readily matched in a final edit ric On Oct 27, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Sonny Carter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Henning Wulff <henningw at > archiphoto.com> wrote: >> In view of the above I remain quite skeptical about this article as a >> whole. >> I don't think they have a true handle on what's happening, just as DXO >> doesn't seem to have a handle on some of their 'quality' criteria or >> measurements. > > T stops. I remember when "they" decided to make it an issue for film > cameras. It started to fall apart almost immediately. If I recall, > not too many companies reissued lenses with T stops. Arriflex Zeiss > lenses did it, but most of us did not rush out and sell our Angenieux > lenses so we could join the club. > > After all, we were shooting Color Neg, and if we transferred to video > on Rank chains or if we were going straight to print, we had great > timers doing scene-by-scene corrections. > > I was shooting with a CP16 reflex with ttl exposure meter, but I still > always took incident readings if I could. Later, most of my docs were > with Aaton cameras, but always with Angenieux glass, so T stops were > never anything I cared about. > > The article seems like it is blowing smoke. I am not too weird-ed out > if my camera might change the iso slightly to make the picture better > . . . but then, I'm never in a position to make images that are > repeatable. > > > > Regards, > > Sonny > http://sonc.com/look/ > Natchitoches, Louisiana > > USA > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information