RESTRAIN YOURSELF! -- I know these lenses SUCK already. That's why I'm replacing them.

Briefly...the Westars were purchased used and they all have pits and/or scratches. Some of them seem to have little web-like formations "growing" on the inside (mold?) They also happen to be the wrong size...a few of these flat images come frightfully close to filling the scope screen.

Kollmorgen lenses are outmoded. They don't focus. Actually, the specific problem that I've experienced with ALL of these is that if you focus the centre of the image, the sides will fall out-of-focus. If you split the difference, then the ENTIRE picture is somewhat out-of-focus. Some of them also have "stains" on them.

But...please...let's not dwell on the outgoing lenses...

...Here's what I have requested a quote for...

Isco-Optic CinemaScope Blue-Star lenses (scope) These are the blue lenses
Isco-Optic Ultrastar HD PLUS (flat) These are the red lenses

Am I on the right track here?
Are they gonna cost a fortune?
What's your take on used lenses?
Is there something better (or comparable) you wanna suggest?

Please let me know what you think! I'd appreciate the help.

Just so you know: I did a search and I got some information to start with. But I can't see where this topic has been "done to death" or anything like that.

I only use the red or blue Isco lenses if the situation demands it. ie Preview room or something in the theatre conditions demands the extra performance, short throw & big screen for example. For most cinemas the gold ones are perfectly adequate.

To answer your questions.

Expensive, depends on what you call expensive. IMHO good lenses are worth every penny, and will last almost indefinitely if well cared for.

You won't be dissapointed with the picture from those lenses.

Used lenses I'ev no problem with if they are a good make and are in good condition, if you'ev sourced some used lenses, ensure you can try before you buy.

As far as I'm concerned there's only two companies make lenses. Isco and Schneider.
 

For the prime lenses, ISCO's plus lenses or Schneider's SC lenses are both excellent choices. The PLUS series is a bit more flexible in that there are stop-down rings (f/2.4 and f/2.7) if you want to balance light a bit better between formats or to improve depth of focus. The PLUS lenses brightness improvements are chiefly in the corners...they don't hot-spot like older designs. Schenider lenses tend to have a more contrasty look to them. They really low lens flare.

When it comes to cutting your aperture plates, watch out on the PLUS lenses...they practically look around the aperture plate! The fringe area is notably larger than using older designs. I have found this to be true of Schneider lenses on some focal lengths as well.

To answer you question though...yes you are on the right track.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

Is it still true that the longest one available is about 50MM or so? That's what I remember, so they are only applicable if you have a short throw/big blow-up.

On two of our screens, we couldn't even get integrateds, let alone blues...(focal length in excess of 90MM for the backing lenses).
 

Actually, I just looked at the ISCO site and you can actually get integrated anamorphics up to 95MM...maybe we needed longer than that, or a 'between' focal length. I will check next time I'm at work. I should remember these things!

ISCO Blue Star integrated anamorphics are only available in 42, 45 and 48MM, according to their website. If you can't use those, then something else from their range would need to be used. You can also get 'red' and 'gold' series integrateds.

For our more 'normal' focal lengths, we got 'gold' series ISCO integrateds. I think the red series is optimised if you are light-challenged; otherwise the golds do well.

One of the most recent screens we added has stunning sharpness in scope (ISCO gold integrated). Cannot recommend them highly enough. I can only imagine what the blue ones must be like. You cannot go wrong with ISCO.

Steve is right - Schneider are a little more contrasty, but overall I prefer ISCO. They are spectacular lenses.
 

First -- yes, you are on the right track. You might take a look at the Inventory Reduction Program Strong has going on right now -- great way to pick up some Ultra-Star * HD lenses at a great price, if the focal length(s) and/or types you need are still available.

ISCO's Blue Stars are in two types. The "Cinemascope Blue Star" is the integrated type, available in 42, 45 and 48mm focal lengths. The "Blue Star Cinemascope Attachmnet" is the 2:1 Anamorphic that you attach to a fixed focal length prime lens. This attachment works with ISCO Plus lenses above 52.5mm with the proper adapter., and with Ultra-Star * HD lenses above (I think) 65mm.

Michael -- as much as I like the Integrated Scope lenses, I still prefer a separate prime lens with the separate anamorphic, either the great Blue Star or the nearly as great Ultra-Star * HD Cinemascope attachment, especially in critical applications. These are larger lens assemblies than the integrated's but they do give a sharper image with better light uniformity on screen. The difference is the anamorphic section itself, where the separate attachments have more elements.

Pat

No Blue-Star for me?

"Where do we go from here?"
--Eva Peron, "Evita"

You could use the Blue Star Anamorphic with 85 or 90mm prime lenses in the ISCO line. You'd have great results. Couple the Blue Star Anamorphics to Ultra-Star * HD lenses and your picture would be awfully good.

Pat
 

Why do you want to fool with integrated anamorphics? Unless you have a clearance problem of your flat image hitting the anamorphic lens with a turret, there is no sensible reason to us an integrated. Stick with the Blue-Stars if you can afford them.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

No...there's no problem with the flat image hitting the scope lens.

Does this mean you'd like to recommend something else? By all means, go ahead...I'm all ears
 

So basically, if you have the clearance for it, and your turret motors can handle the slight increase in bulk/weight of separates, go for the blues!

As to suggestions, I believe I have already made them...if you can afford them, use the Blue-Star anamorphics. For the prime lenses, you have both ISCO and Schneider to choose from. Each have their ups and downs and personal preference will often decide which you choose.

As Pat stated there is a pretty good sale going on for the older style ISCOs as well...including the Ultra-Star line of primes and anamorphics.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

...Are all Blue-Star lenses (the integrated as well as the components) actually blue in color?
 

This location will be moving in less than 2 years, so I decided to go with a complete set of ISCO Ultra MC and ISCO Ultra Anamorphic lenses.

The flat lenses will be new.
The scope lenses and anamorphic adapters will be used.

Any word on how happy I can expect to be with these? Never mind that they are used. Assume that they were well taken care of. Does this line have a good reputation?
Thanks for your help.
 

The corresponding flat lenses are in the 50mm range.
 

I found one "spare" anamorphic adapter lying around and it was an Isco (gold). It made a big difference on this projector I just re-did. To satisfy my curiosity, I switched the backup lens (it was fried) with a somewhat spiffier one from the other projector I'm about to start working on and the overall difference is like night and day.

We also did some work on aligning the lamp house, but there was only so much we could do. It's an ORC vertical 1600W model and the bulb adjustments don't really help all that much. But moving the entire reflector around helped some.

Also, the dichroic mirror may need some attention because it turns out that the cooling fan was removed. God only knows how long that mirror has been without that fan and what the damage might be.

I can't wait for my new Isco's to arrive.

I currently have Kowa scope lenses that cast shadows on the flat picture
They are approx 11cm wide across the front and extend approx 15cm from their mount in the turret..... Oh, did I mention how much they SUCK! I'd love to replace them ... Is the Isco smaller?
 

Steve Guttag would probably then suggest you go with an integrated since that's what they're made for. I always wondered about that.

~Manny.
 

It is usually the 'big' (around 5" diameter at the widest) older Isco-Gottingen and Japanese anamorphics that cause this problem. The later model Isco Ultra*Star and Schneider full-size anamorphics do not usually cause this problem, and the Isco Blue*Star (and other compact/integrated anamorphics) absolutely will not.

The Isco Blue*Star (and almost all other 'compact' and 'integrated' anamorphics) are approximately 80mm in diameter at the widest, and the distance the lens protrudes from the turret mount will vary depending on the turret design and the focal length of the lens.

-Aaron

If you are forced to use integrated amamorphics, then use them but they are inferior. Schneider's are more flexibile since they allow you to change the prime lens just like the full size anamorphics. With ISCO you have the Ultra-Star Plus which are quite light efficient. In general, the ISCO anamorphic will out class the Schneider anamorphic though, as Mark G says, the Schneiders have gotten better (at focus) they still magnify the image willy nilly (mostly too wide).

If you can get the Blue-Stars...get em! You won't regret it.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

And doubly surprised you didn't do it now. I didn't see anything in the FAQ about having to search out our old postings to see if the images have been transferred but I suppose I can if this is a retroactive requirement.

Recently I had the chance to see the difference between a standard glass and a Schott optic glass on our projection window.
The difference is OUTSTANDING! I just would say that no matter the lenses if the glass in front of the projector is worse quality.

Bye
Antonio
 

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

quote:

---

" I'm surprised you didn't move the image to your own server long ago as was the prior policy for off-site images directly linked."

---

Steve, the policy from day one has ALWAYS been that for any picture that is not time sensitive (of which the picture of a lens is certainly not), that it must be emailed in for posting. Only time sensitive images could be served from another server, and at which point I would pull them and move them to the FT servers. It was made very clear, but you apparently you had skimmed it.

Now that the user-upload is functional, members can upload any picture you need without waiting and emailing is only used for people who cannot resize to under 550 pixels wide or have a need to post something other than jpg or gif formats.

If you have a problem, please email. No I did not notice the date, but even when you posted that it was against the policy at the time. I am working on a new script to log outside image linking and automatically pull the member's posting priviledges until such time that I can make sure they understand. Policy is just that, policy. I am tired of other servers screwing up the display of the pages on this forum. Members may abide by the policy or refrain from posting images. Either is a simple solution and it's your choice.

Anyone who currently has images hosted off of their servers or another server, if I don't catch it in the log you may find yourself temporarily banned by the system. Not to worry, a friendly email will get you turned back on within a couple of days for older posts. Also note that any image hosted on another server will be replaced with one of my choosing (it will be something from the rude depths of Joe Redifer's mind), so if you have images on older posts of yours that you want to make sure are archived, now is the proper time to upload those to the FT server and edit your post to reflect the new location. This is not a mandatory thing, so if no specific thread comes to mind, don't worry about it.

(Those who feel the need to chime in at this point and make arguments concerning linking, don't. This is not open for discussion.)

EDIT:
I did find the old faq [from Google 8/3/2002, captured by their spider sometime previous]:

"To add a picture to your post, there are two choices:

First, you may upload it to your own server and use the [img] tags. For example, if you have a picture stored on your server and that direct link to the picture
is...

Please note, if you opt to place an image onto a separate web site, we will pull this picture and
place it on our own servers, generally within a day. This prevents broken links in the future...

If you do not have your own website server, you may email the picture to Flix@film-tech.com as an attachment. This is actually the PREFERRED method..."

That's the version of the FAQ I am most familiar with and there was nothing in there about timeliness of the image in question. That was probably a later change. Certainly not from "day one."

I do apologize for missing that later change to the policy.

----------------

Link removed by moderator.

The Blue Star does a great job and other than price and physical size I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it. As good as the five-element 75448 Anamorphic is, the Blue Star is a step and a half better.

When we did the original TU2020 Turret a few years ago we made it large enough diameter so that the two lenses were far enough apart, to eliminate shadowing by a full-sized anamorphic of the flat image. I was very much an advocate of that decision back then and have been somewhat disappointed that the "Integrated" Scope lenses generally seem to be more popular. I think that's mostly a "price and use" issue, because quality always looks better with the full-sized anamorphic coupled to a good primary lens. By "use", I mean that the old estimate was that 70-80% of the releases were in flat rather than scope, so it was hard to justify higher cost for a les that you use 20% of the time.

What ratio of flat to scope are you folks seeing out there now?

Pat
 

Pat
 

quote:

---

"As for the lens picture you have me at a disadvantage as I do not have the old faq available..."

---

Steve, what part of "this is not open for discussion" do you not understand? Believe me if you want to start an argument over this, the end solution will be to remove you from the forums, because it isn't worth my time and aggravation to listen to a debate from someone who has no say so over the policy in the first place. This sort of childish nitpicking like is seen all the time on newsgroups that some of you guys do really hacks me off. Until you start funding the bandwidth for this place, you have no say so whatsoever. Clear enough? Your next comment regarding it will give you a temporary ban.

To answer your rude queries, no that is not one of the more recent versions of the FAQ. The original instructions on how to post pictures was quite long before. Here is one of the paragraphs in there that specifically explains this. Unfortunately, you are either looking at a VERY OLD page or you didn't bother to read it through.

quote:

---

"To add a picture to your post, there are two choices, but we won't like you very much if you choose the wrong one (read all the way to the end of this section!):

<snip>

We frequently receive lots of emails when someone chooses the first option alerting us that they cannot view a certain page of the forum and then we have to go back and pull the images and place them on our servers (usually having to resize the pictures AND trying different browsers until we are able to grab the files). If you really feel your picture is so time sensitive that you just have to have it appear immediately, then go ahead and choose option 1. Assuming the world will not blow up if the picture is not displayed the second you make your post, we greatly appreciate and expect you will use the email option instead. If members continues to link from their own servers for non-emergency images, we will block the use of outside links on the forum and/or suspend the member. "

---

Also, do not ever re-publish anything on this website again without direct permission. You are to remove everything on your website that has been reproduced from this one immediately.

Now allow me to re-clarify my stance on this, the next person who feels the need to make any comment regarding policy here will be taking a vacation from the forums. This includes another post from you Steve. You are being an ass.