Here is Schneider's "zoom" lens product to give you and idea of what I *think* a Cinevar is.
http://www.schneideroptics.com/projection/con/con.htm

The generic name for these kind of adapters is; "Magacom(s)." The word was actually owned by Kollmorgan (a company that used to make projection lenses 30+ years ago.) But it's been in use so long, everybody uses it interchangably with current manufacturers.
 

I looked at the ISCO site, and found this unrelated but interesting thing:

ISCORAMA is an exclusive development of ISCO-OPTIC, Germany, for widescreen taking and projecting. Similar to Cinemascope, integrated anamorphoic lenses or anamorphtic attachments compress the image by the factor 1.5 in horizontal direction during the process of taking the picture.
ISCORAMA can be mounted to all common 35mm SLR cameras. Together with the ISCORAMA integrated anamorphoic projection lenses the image will be de-squeezed again. As a result of this, the user faces an attractive widescreen image with an aspect ratio of 1:2.25.
 

As I noted in another post, Glenn Berggren demonstrated a 1.5X squeeze anamorphic lens called "IscoVision" in 1984. It basically used the ISCORAMA optics developed by IscoOptic.

Using a 1.50X anamorphic lens with the present 0.825 x 0.690 inch "scope" image area gives an aspect ratio of 1.79:1, which is very close to today's 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and a near perfect match to the 16:9 aspect ratio of HDTV. By using a larger image area on the film, grain and sharpness are improved, and you get 1.5X more light on the screen than current "flat" 1.85:1, by simply changing the lens. For example, a theatre struggling to get 11 footlamberts for 1.85:1 would get 16 footlamberts by using the scope aperture and the new 1.5X anamorphic lens.

It was a great idea, and still is! That's why I am making a presentation and showing a demonstration at the SMPTE Technical Conference in Pasadena this October, showing how it could easily be done using today's technology, including Super-35 production with new 1.5X anamorphic printing and projection lenses. Doing the 1.5X squeeze on an optical printer when making the duplicate negative has the additional advantage of "forcing" a pin registered printing step, which should greatly improve steadiness and sharpness, since it eliminates the printer "slip" issues associated with contact printing short pitch master positives to short pitch duplicate negatives.

But convincing cash-starved theatre owners to buy new 1.5X anamorphic lenses costing a couple thousand dollars will be a challenge, even with advantages clearly seen on the screen by almost anyone.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

John Walsh: They are the same gold color. I will double check next time I'm in and mention it here...just promise not to be too upset if I have sent you on an altavista goose chase

Mark is probably right; it's probably one of those smaller magnifiers.

John P: I knew about Iscovision for motion pictures, but never knew they developed adapters for 35mm slide application.

Not to be a crank, but I kinda feel that Iscovision is like ISDN; too little, too late. The results are of course better, but not enough to spend the money on. In addition to the cost of lenses and labor (not much, I know), what will theater owners (employing less experienced projection staff) do with lens turrets that only accept two lenses? Would the studios be willing to help with the cost of outfitting the theaters with e-projection looming?
 

"Not to be a crank, but I kinda feel that Iscovision is like ISDN; too little, too late. The results are of course better, but not enough to spend the money on. In addition to the cost of lenses and labor (not much, I know), what will theater owners (employing less experienced projection staff) do with lens turrets that only accept two lenses? Would the studios be willing to help with the cost of outfitting the theaters with e-projection looming?"

I hope you're wrong. IscoVision was ready in 1984, everyone agreed the improvement was significant, but no one wanted to spend the money needed to improve quality. Today, screens are even larger (and dimmer). I hope theatre owners can see the logic of buying a new lens that gives them 1.5X more light on the screen with their current lamphouse. Doing the same thing with a lamp might mean going from a 4000 to a 5000 watt lamp, with its increased purchase and operating cost, and increased risk of film heat damage and focus flutter. For underlit screens that already are at the limit of 6000 or 7000 watt lamps, the format is about the only easy way to get more light.

As far as the lens turret and automation, the new format would eventually replace the "flat" 1.85:1 format, so there would still be only two widely used formats (Scope 2X 2.39:1, and Scope 1.5X 1.79:1).

Something is wrong with this picture : Theatre executives willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per screen to install Digital Cinema, when a $2,000 lens will give them a much better picture that is 50% brighter.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

The Schnieder zooms that people are refering to are CINE XENON CONVERTERS which can adjust focal length up to approx 3.5mm from its original focal length. What you are describing though is the CINEVAR lens from Schnieder which acts the same as a Magnacom that you can get from other lens suppliers. Basically, if you use a single lens for your primary or backing lens, then in most instance its focal length is set for Cinemascope and because its focal legth will be higher than a Widescreen the Cinevar lens will reduce that focal length back down suitable for W/S presentation.

These are not ideal situations as stated by Brad in an earlier thread as these types of lens will reduce focal properties and light output.

Hopes this helps your question

Tim Killen
 

What's wierd about this current installation is that it uses two completely separate turrets with no immovable lens. That is, both turrets are fitted with backing lenses...one has the cinevar, the other has the 2X anamorphic. As noted the focal length for 1.85:1 is 65MM - I should take note of the focal length of the other backing lens.
 

This seems a very illogical way of going about things, as stated by using a Cinevar lens it reduces focal properties and light output. Check your scope lens and you should find that the backing lens is also 65mm if this is the case you should be able to use a 32.5mm lens for W/S without the Cinevar and this should produce a much sharper picture.

Hope this helps

Tim Killen
 

Tim Killen
 

Tim knows all about the various Schneider adapters and lenses, I worked with him on a few lens issues this week!

Let me know what projectors the lenses are on and what turret set-up is utilised. As Tim states the Bauer U3 and U4 utilized a fixed prime backing lens with a two lens auto turret containing an anamorphic and a modern day Schneider version of a Magnacom (an adjustable focal length converter). A similar system is used on other projectors like Century "A" models but with a slide-type automatic lens system in front of a backing lens.

David
 

The 'Cinevar' is a model number M65 which lists on Scneider's website as a 'Cinelux' converter. They must have used that designation at some point or in this region.

So, the backing lens on the cinevar is a 65MM lens for 1.85:1 as I've said but the backing lens on the anamorphic is a 70MM lens. These are in separate turrets, which as we've said is a very strange way of doing things.
Therefore, the cinevar must have the function of shortening the focal length of the 65MM prime in order to fill the screen. Why anyone would opt for this combination is still a mystery.

Even with the later FP 20/30's having the cut-away, projector body modification is still required if going past 30mm! I would imagine adding length (and elements) would not help picture quality either, but it's academic when under 30mm, the picture is compromised anyway.

These short focal lengths cause other problems, the picture notwithstanding; we have a couple where the picture on the port glass is 800 wide!

I still maintain that Schneider will always give a better picture when compared to most other brands. Try pulling a Sankor and replace with new Schneider and you'll see what I mean.
 

If Michael's theater uses a 70mm lens for scope, I figure the 1.85 lens would have to be something like 45mm. Yet, it's a 65mm? I don't know of any adapter that would change tha focal length that much.

I'm assuming that the scope prime lens is 70mm, and there's no magnacom or any kind of enlarging/reducing adapter with it; just the regular anamorphic adapter (I'm using that as my "fixed" reference, since I don't know the size of the screen or the throw.)

Have I got some numbers wrong?
 

Tim K: I've put the idea forward, and we're going to try to replace that combo with a prime. You mentioned that somewhere between 37.5 and 42.5 should do it...let's hope they go for it so we can lose those Cinevars...

Thanks to everyone for their help again!