Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I need new lenses

This is topic I need new lenses in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004663

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-14-2003, 04:06 PM:

I was talking to the boss about things we need to get for the booth in the next year. We need a rewind bench and some good reels and stuff like that but the number one thing we need are some new lenses.

Take a look:

They look pretty shabby. [Frown]

The scope lens shows some fringe around the edges of the picture. The flat lens isn't much better.

Here's the Flat/1.85 lens:

Not too bad until you look THROUGH it! [Frown]

That dirt and the flaw are INSIDE the lens.

I've priced out some new lenses and they aren't cheap. Of course! Quality doesn't come cheap

My question has three parts:

1) How can I convince him that we DO need new lenses. Most people don't see the problem. If a picture comes out of the projector and you can see it on the screen, they think that's good enough. How do I tell him that the improvement will be worth it?

2) What lenses give the most bang for the buck? Ultra-Star and Schneider are great lenses but they aren't cheap. I priced out a scope/anamorphic lens at over $4,000. (150 mm) If I somehow convinced him to buy all the lenses I wanted, we'd spend over $9,000! [Eek!]

Is there a brand that offers comparable quality for less money?
ISCO Optic's lenses don't seem to come in focal lengths greater than 95mm. I need a 95 mm, 105 mm, 130 mm and a 150mm anamorphic.

3) I would LIKE to get four lenses: 1.85, 1.33, 1.66 and a Cinemascope. That would cover all the possible films we would play. We do play a fair number of European films at the 1.6 ratio. We only play one or two films in 1.33 per year.

What would be the best strategy for buying lenses?
Get the Flat 1.86 and 1.66 lenses now and get the others later, since we show less of those formats?

What I'd REALLY like to do is borrow a good 95 mm lens (for the flat 1.85 ratio) and sit the boss down in the theater and do an "A/B test" with a piece of RP-40 in the projector!

What do you guys think?

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-14-2003, 04:15 PM:

I would get the 1.85 first and the 1.66 second as the magnification is greatest on the 1.85:1
Sankors MC serries are pretty decent economicalption

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-14-2003, 04:30 PM:

There is Schneider and there is ISCO...the rest suck and I don't care who tells you differently.

ISCO does have focal lengths above 95mm.

At the moment, ISCO is less expensive (Schneider just raised their prices across the board and ISCO did not). Schneider will tend to have a more contrasty look...the ISCO will have more even light (on the PLUS series). ISCO's Blue Star anamorphic is the best by far and well worth the money.

I believe ISCO still has their "gold lens buy back" program in effect. They will buy back any "golden" lens for some nominal price (like $100 or so). If that is still going on then there might be some money savings there since you have a golden Kollmorgan lens.

If you want to talk prices, give me a call or email.

Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-14-2003, 04:36 PM:

Email me Randy. I think I have a couple of 95mm ISCOs sitting around you can borrow.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-14-2003, 05:38 PM:

So borrow a lens from Brad.

Place a new 1.85 lens in the turret with the old fucked up 1.85 lens in the other turret. Run RP-40 film and change between the lenses. I think when your manager sees the black and white of the new lens vs. the Grey and Somewhat Greyer of the old lens, he will spring for the new lenses.

You may have to write a lens purchase schedule so that the theatre doesn't spend all the money in one month.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-14-2003, 09:12 PM:

"There is Schneider and there is ISCO...the rest suck and I don't care who tells you differently."
_____________________________________________________________

Appropriately said and well put!! I second this statement for sure. Buying anything else is the equivelent to burning your money in the firelpace.....
Mark 2 CLACO

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-14-2003, 09:20 PM:

The biggest improvements you are likely to see are improved contrast (i.e., richer blacks, brighter colors) and better sharpness across the screen. Borrow a modern lens of the same focal length and compare. The SMPTE 35-PA test film provides an objective test, but any film with a range of contrasts and bright colors should look much better.

I agree with Gordon that the 1.85:1 format is more critical, in that the magnification is greater. But put priority in replacing the lens that has the most internal haze/damage.

Here's my article on the subject:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/pytlak/dec99.shtml

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 03-14-2003, 09:25 PM:

Randy, what are your lens sizes?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-14-2003, 10:21 PM:

ISCO and Schneider are the first names I think if when it comes to lenses and I really can't think of any others that I know anything about.

I looked on ISCO's website. www.iscooptic-usa.com
I think I found the lenses I need there.

Now that I think about it, we don't need a 1.33/Academy lens so much. We only play a few films in that format. The lens we have now will probably be OK for as much as we use it.

We play quite a bit of movies in 1.66/European format. It'd be good to be able to play them without having to crop off the tops of people's heads in order to read all the subtitles.

We really do need to get rid of that old, crappy Kollmorgan. It's seen better days. If it's not eligible for a buyback it'd make a pretty neat paperweight for the boss's office, doncha' know! Do you think it would be any good for burning ants on the sidewalk? [Big Grin]

The Scope... Due to the cost, I think we can limp along for a while longer without it. I'm thinking, "Sun Tsu"... "Pick your battles." If I can get the two flat ratios I want, people will notice the improvement. It will be easier to pry the money out of the boss later on when he's convinced of the improvement it will make.

Another question: When you're hung between two lenses, which way should you go? Let's say your desired focal length works out to about 113 mm. You can get a 115 mm. or a 110 mm.

I'm thinking get the longer lens. Minimize croppint and maximize light. No?
I can move my masking on all 4 sides of the screen to compensate for the image getting smaller byt that extra 2 - 3 inches.

Paul:

Right now, we have:

FLAT/1.85 - 4" (Kollmorgan)
SCOPE/2.35 - 6" (Kollmorgan) + Anamorphic. (I forget the brand)
ACAD/1.33 - 4.5" (Don't know brand.)

Would like to get. (In order of precedence.)

FLAT/1.85 - 95 mm.
FLAT/1.66 - 110 mm.
SCOPE/ 2.35 - 150 mm. + Anamorphic.
ACAD/1.33 - 115 mm.

To fit a Simplex PR-1003 without turret. 70.6 mm. dia. (?)

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-14-2003, 10:43 PM:

Go with the longer lens and adjust the masking
Sankor would do the job on the lower magnification ones

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 03-15-2003, 10:38 AM:

15 years ago, I swapped out some Kollmorgan lenses for Schneiders and in every case, (in addition to the better focus, resoultion, etc.) there was a 2 fL increase in light.

I may have all those lenses sizes, in addition to anamorphic adapters sitting around, if you'd like to test-borrow. I also have those 4" to 2 25/32" bushings so you don't have to remove your old lenses and possibly risk having to touch up apertures.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-15-2003, 10:44 AM:

Is Kowa lens still available and who is the importer now
at one time it was CFS is there an english web site for KOWA

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-15-2003, 10:46 AM:

"Sankor would do the job on the lower magnification ones"
____________________________________________________________

Gord what it this new fetish you've developed for Sankor???? They are considered coke bottles in most circles. Even the newer Sankors are not even decent as compared to the older Iscos and Schneiders!. Nothing like installing someones $750,000.00 booth and then plugging in a Sankor to create an image quality bottleneck...... And Schneiders or Iscos are not even that much more $$......
Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-15-2003, 11:02 AM:

No mark but the Sankor MC lens are actually very good for there price.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-15-2003, 01:29 PM:

Brad says he will loan me a couple of lenses for testing. I'll do some A/B testing and then get the boss to come in and sit down while I do the tests again.

Then, after the tests, how about I get out the old digital camera? I'll repeat the tests and take pictures. If they come out, I can e-mail them to Film-Tech and we'll have some photographic examples of what difference the lens makes. [Cool]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-15-2003, 01:53 PM:

Don't forget to get your fingerprints all over the old lenses before you A/B test the boss. [Big Grin]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-15-2003, 04:07 PM:

How about knuckle prints on the boss's HEAD? [Big Grin]

(No, I didn't really say that! It's just your imagination.)

[ 03-15-2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Randy Stankey ]

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-15-2003, 04:18 PM:

Out of curiousity--have you taken apart your scope lens? It's possible that you may only need to replace the prime lens or the anamorphic attachment if the other part of it is fine.

Also, consider looking around for used lenses. So many theatres have closed over the last few years that you may be able to get a good deal. Admittedly, there are plenty of crappy lenses out there, but it's probably worth a look, especially since you have a single machine and don't need a matched pair.

Agreed with others' comments: the recent lenses from Schneider and ISCO are great and you can't go wrong with either brand. Some older Bausch and Lomb lenses will occasionally turn up in good condition as well, although they are nowhere near as good as the latest designs.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-15-2003, 09:33 PM:

quote:
Also, consider looking around for used lenses. So many theatres...

...and so many unlocked booth doors. [evil]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-16-2003, 03:51 PM:

Why do I feel that Gord's Sankor lenses end up in theatres with SMART sound processors? [Roll Eyes]

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-16-2003, 04:01 PM:

All the booths I've been in with Smart Processors had Schneider lenses..... [Confused]

Mark

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-16-2003, 04:09 PM:

steve some have panastereos [Big Grin]

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-16-2003, 06:38 PM:

Well at least if you can't see the film you and hear it!

Steve

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-16-2003, 07:58 PM:

Funny thing: We have a Smart Mod II-B.

[Big Grin]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-17-2003, 10:07 AM:

Randy Stankey wrote:

quote:
Then, after the tests, how about I get out the old digital camera? I'll repeat the tests and take pictures. If they come out, I can e-mail them to Film-Tech and we'll have some photographic examples of what difference the lens makes

Easier said than done. Taking photos of a screen image and trying to access contrast and sharpness from the photo is problematic. With a two blade shutter, each frame is projected on the screen for two 1/96 second exposures, so a 1/24 second camera exposure may capture one frame, or portions of two. Since the contrast range of a good print far exceeds that of a digital camera, you may not capture the subtle differences in contrast that are obvious to the eye.

Use a roll of SMPTE 35-PA test film (RP 40) and trust your eyes. Look at a good print with a wide range of contrast and color, and you will easily see the improvement a modern lens makes.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-17-2003, 12:02 PM:

An A-B test is best, with the guy sitting in the auditorium. One of the most significant upgrades you can make in a projection system is new lenses. They make a world of difference.

A drive-in I used to work at in the 70s had terrible Hi-Lux anamorphics. They'd aged over the years, I suppose, and the deterioration was gradual. Even customers were used to it. I came there from another theatre and immediately noticed the discrepancy.

I kept trying to tell the manager that there were severe problems, but he wouldn't believe me, saying the lenses were "good enough", or some such. Then one night, I borrowed an old B&L anamorphic from a porn theatre (they never ran scope), and I put it on just one of the machines (on purpose).

I ran the first reel on the B&L lens and pulled the manager aside to get his assesment. He agreed that it looked great, but he didn't think it was enough of a difference to warrant new (even new - used) lenses. Okay, I thought, you're going to eat your words here in a minute.

You can guess what happened. When I changed over to the Hi-Lux - the theatre's usual lens - horns started honking. The manager ran back to the booth wanting to know what was wrong. I told him the audience could tell the difference. Nothing I can do about it... we're running on our normal lens, which is "good enough".

Heh-heh... the home office got new lenses in a few weeks. Used ones, but much better than the junk that had been in there since '57.
[Smile]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-17-2003, 12:30 PM:

quote:
You can guess what happened. When I changed over to the Hi-Lux - the theatre's usual lens - horns started honking. The manager ran back to the booth wanting to know what was wrong. I told him the audience could tell the difference. Nothing I can do about it... we're running on our normal lens, which is "good enough".

That's just great! [Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-17-2003, 09:07 PM:

Randy,
Another thought is to simply tear down the old theatre and build a new one with all modern equipment....... [Wink]

Many of my customers have done exactly that!!
Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-17-2003, 10:00 PM:

Now that's even better. [thumbsup]

Hundred dollar solutions to five dollar problems are always the best. [Smile]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-17-2003, 10:33 PM:

Yea, thats probably the best solution isn't it.....
I'd be willing to bet that the rest of the place is as moldy as the lenses are...... [Wink]

Out here in Utah we suffer from the excess dust syndrome where as, all the equipment turns to dust after 30 years and can no longer be used any more. The thing that usually goes first is the Ball brearings in the projectors.....heck, I've even seen some seats literally turn to dust in Southern Utah...so seat replacemsnt is also a normal every day affair here. Dust, dust, dust......Ah choooooo. That is why theayter oners regularly replace their entire building and all the equipment.
Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-18-2003, 12:21 AM:

quote:
That's just great!

Oh, yes. Nothing like raising someone's presentation quality, in spite of themselves. [Smile]