Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Which anamorphic is better?

This is topic Which anamorphic is better? 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=007211

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 05-20-2005, 02:55 PM:

I have been using a gold Isco Ultra MC and just picked up a Schneider Super Cinelux MC off ebay, new. Looks completely different with no flare at the end and focuses down to about 7 feet. Both are working great but any advantages to the newer Schneider over the Isco.

Thanks!!

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-20-2005, 04:17 PM:

Hi Alan

Did you get that Super Cinelux compact MC from the guy in Pittsburgh? I purchased several myself and yes I assure you these are much better then the ISCO Ultra MC's. I have not tried to get the focus down to 7 ft but the tick marks say 10 ft so 7 ft is not unreasonable.

I am not sure what prime lens your using but if you go Super Cinelux all the way with that Rebuilt Devry XD of yours, the picture should look better then excellent. Now all you need to do is find someting printed on Kodak Vision stock.

Larry

[ 05-20-2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 05-20-2005, 04:44 PM:

Hi Larry

Yes thats the guy/lens. Its a nice compact lens and focus is great. I even have a super 8mm projector close to the wall in another room ( 6 feet throw) and while the lens is at its min max it focuses perfect for that.
I was just wondering because its so small and compact if it had any shortcomings.

Thanks!!!

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-20-2005, 05:23 PM:

Hi

I put it on the optical bench it it looks great. Only problem is the focus is very shallow. That means it's almost impossible to get a really good focus say at 17 ft when the tick marks are 10,15,20 and so on. I had to put it on the bench, take a resolution target set out at 17 ft and then focus it.

So focus is very tight. If it's even 1 foot off, say at 16 ft and 18 ft, it becomes very Astigmatic. So I would stick with tick mark focus points for now.

Larry

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2005, 06:05 PM:

Actually if you have not seen the ISCO Blue Star HD(5 element) and HD Studio(6 element) anammorphics you ain't seen a good anamorphic!

Mark

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 05-20-2005, 06:30 PM:

Thanks Mark

Every time I spend additional money to improve my system its to find out theres still something better. Now you've peaked my interest in one of those. Im guessing its hard to come across a used one??
Do they focus down to a short throw?

Thanks!!

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 05-20-2005, 06:54 PM:

I totally agree with Mark. I've never seen any lens focus as sharp as the Blue ISCO. I run a pair of them at an Atlanta screening room and I'm always amazed at the razor sharp images.

It's almost too real [thumbsup]

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-20-2005, 06:59 PM:

Hi

Now we are getting in the issue of better. Remember lens designs may be different because of different uses. I get the sense the compact anamorphics such as the Super Cinelux MC's are really designed for smaller screening rooms meaning that they are fully corrected at about 15 ft with good correction between 30 to 10 ft. Not something for a large theater.

The color coded anamorphics are more or less designed for a larger theater. So the use of a large theater anamorphic lens in a small screening room may mean astigmatism may not be fully corrected at it's prime use distance. The lens could be fully corrected at 50 ft with good correction from 20 ft to 200. So someone dealing with rather large theaters, meaning 50 ft throws or more, might hate that 15 ft fully corrected compact anamorphic or at least say the color coded lenses are better since the compacts are no where near fully correction at 50 ft.

Really, you can't tell much about a lens unless you get it up on an optical bench. Then it become very clear exactly what the lens designer had in mind.

Larry

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-20-2005, 11:25 PM:

quote: Larry Myers
Really, you can't tell much about a lens unless you get it up on an optical bench. Then it become very clear exactly what the lens designer had in mind.

Larry,

Then you need to get an ISCO Blue Star HD Studio and see what that designer had in mind..... No, I can answer that one easily..... The very best! Optical benches are really somewhat superficial and are good for doing some generalized tests and in doing assembly adjustments..... but you n eed to test a cinema lens under actual conditions to really judge it properly. One of the best tests of a projection lens is probably the Schneider test film, since its a negative it might be considered more of an acid test. The Blue Stars pass with flying colors.

My experiences with compact and standard anamorphics is that they generally introduce at least some pincushion distortion, of which the exact amount depends on the working distance and they generally don't focus perfectly flat at any usable distance. The Blue Stars take care of all that and do it exceptionally well. I would not hesitate to say that these will do as good or better than the best camera anamorphics made today. I've always considered the compacts just a general purpose anamorphic that was designed mainly for projectors with turrets. They can be good but still don't begin to approach the Blue Stars capability.

Mark

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-21-2005, 07:57 AM:

Hi

Now distortion is another matter. Not exactly easy to tell distortion on an optical bench. Most people that talk against using optical benches never have used one.

So yes, some of the higher price blue and red anamorphics may have better correction for distortion. Generally speaking, not one lens will do all things. What I am saying is. It looks from what I see on the optical bench, the design of the Super Cinelux MC compact anamorphic to focused around a 15 to 20 ft presentation. Something you would expect in a small screeing room. It is true though, because of it's compact design, distortion may not be fully corrected.

Larry

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-21-2005, 09:02 AM:

quote: Larry Myers
Now distortion is another matter. Not exactly easy to tell distortion on an optical bench. Most people that talk against using optical benches never have used one.

When I worked at Canon USA repairing lenses we had several optical benches but more importanatly we had a lens projector and darkroom to perform some of the adjustments in. In using the lens projector it was easy to see and actually measure the resolution in lines pairs per mm and the amount of distortion in a given lens.... excepting extreme wide angle lenses.... which threw such a large image that they went way past the test chart. It would have been interesting to test anamorphics this way and I'm sure that ISCOO, Schneider and others are equipped to do it this way.

Even so actual testing in a cinema is still the better route since you hahvea the added efects of focus flutter, heat, and lens mount mis-alignment. All of these affect what the lens will ultimately do on screen.

Mark

Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 05-21-2005, 10:24 AM:

Im not so concerned about geomitry distortion. The black boarder on the screen should mask that.

My personel preference is to have a lens that offers the best contrast and sharpness. If the blue and red are better at this then I want one.
I am impressed with the little Super Cinelux over the Ulra. To me this is what I was looking for and im perfectly content but knowing something better is out there has me questioning should I try one.

Thats what I get for reading this forum...its costs me money:)

Larry

I took your advice and changed out the Kollmorgen for a nice Isco Ultra as my primary and what a difference. Combined with my new anamorphic it has greatly improved the image.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-21-2005, 02:52 PM:

An optical bench is a nice tool but it doesn't tell the whole story in film projection. The film is not stationary during projection. It is pumping in and out. It fact, it has been shown that the position of the film that we focus to is when it is most puckered. (High speed photography experiments were done to show this).

Both the ISCO Cinelux Ultra MC (later known as the Ultra MC) and the Schneider Cinelux anamorphic (compact) are 4-element anamorphics. I can believe that the Schneider has the edge on ISCO in the near field. It is a very good lens. However, watch out for Schneiders from before 1993 or so...they absolutely sucked...very piss-poor focus uniformity. Another issue even with current Schneiders is that they do not have a 2:1 expansion....they are a bit wide and it varies with the prime lens.

Then again, you are comparing Schneider's 1990s lens to an ISCO design that goes back to the 60s Kiptar designs.

Since the late 1980s ISCO had the ISCO Ultra Star Anamorphic MC lens, a 5-element that is significantly better than Schneiders in both focus uniformity and less distortion to the picture. In the late 1990s, ISCO brought out the Blue-Star anamorphics, a 6-element design that is just simply the best anamorphic lens, period. Less distortion, sharp corner-to-corner and no chromatic abberations. If you are working with Schneider anamorphics, you are working with 3rd best, at the most. ISCO has discontinued their Ultra anamorphic (why have 3 levels?).

I have used Blue Stars on short throws (22-feet) and long throws (110-feet) and they shine every time.

Where Schneider is doing better in anamorphics is on their "integrated" designs. ISCO is still using their old design, even when coupled to their newer Ultra Star PLUS (red) lens. Schneider has their compact anamorphic attach the same way as the full-sized models...they screw on (with close couplers, if necessary).

So, at this point, I would give the edge to Schneider on compact anamorphics and ISCO the lead on full-sized models. Compacts should only be used where absolutely necessary anyway, they are always an inferior design to a company's full-sized models. The compacts are handy for short focal lengths were vignetting could result on lens turrets. Schneider's ES models also gets the picture out of the lens without vignetting pretty darn well. The one exception to this rule is ISCO does have three ultra-short Blue-Star integrated anamorphics (down in the 45mm range).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-21-2005, 06:47 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
watch out for Schneiders from before 1993 or so...they absolutely sucked...very piss-poor focus uniformity.

Steve,
Actually Century Precision can tweek thid vintage stuff to perform pretty darn good. According to Dwight Lindsay alot of the problem was caused by sudden pressure changes when they were shipped. This caused the front and back element groups to go just slightly out of alignment.... and it only takes a fraction of an arc second(1 arc second = 1/3600th of a degree!) to cause poor resolution on an anamorphic lens.

Another thing we should all get straight. The engraved scale adjustment on an anamorphic is not really a true focus adjustment. Its really an astigmatism adjustment [thumbsup]

.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-21-2005, 09:49 PM:

Mark,

They can improve the quality of the image but it still isn't a great lens and inferior to ISCO's anamorphics of any era.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-21-2005, 10:54 PM:

On the "history of anamorphic lenses" topic, I have a question about mine: they are labelled "Norelco Anamorphic Kiptar 2x Isco-Gottingen" and were purchased new in 1970 for a screening room installation (they focus down to 17'). They are black with silver accents on the locking ring and are used with B&L prime lenses.

What's the general consensus on these? Do they suck? How do they compare to the B&L anamorphics from the 1950s and 1960s (which far too many theatres are still using daily)? I have never seen this particular type of lens elsewhere and assume that they were not popular for some reason (expensive? poor quality?).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-22-2005, 09:22 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
They can improve the quality of the image but it still isn't a great lens and inferior to ISCO's anamorphics of any era.

Agreed! But they can turn an unusable anamorph into a pretty good one. I've run into a few of these lenses still in service today.... yuck!

I once had the good fortune to show a comparison of a Schneider and B&L anamorphic(same back up lens)to Dwight Lindsay. The B&L whihc was a very exceptional one was ton better than the Schnelder was... he was blown away to say the least and at first thought the higher resolution lens was his.... of course all those problems are behind them and their anamorphic lenses are dam good today.

Mark

Scott,
The only thing for sure I know about them is that they are not multi-coated. They are just Flouride coated.

Mark

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-23-2005, 03:41 PM:

I use a red Isco f=80mm and the BlueStar anamorphic attachment.
Because I have some problems with the weight of the lenses in
the Victoria 5´s lens turret (amongst other problems with that
machine to get a sharp image) I asked Isco if their new red
compact anamorphic was any good, compared to the red/blue combi-
nation that I have. They told me it was even better. Anyone who
has seen it with his own eyes?

Thomas

Posted by Joshua Waaland (Member # 287) on 05-23-2005, 05:05 PM:

I am glad someone started a topic on this. I need to get new flat and scope lenses for a short throw. I will be at approximately 20 foot throw. Screen size will be four foot high by ten foot wide max. Here are my problems:

1. I don't have an inkling about anything to do with lenses or the terminology.

2. My experience as a projectionist with lenses consisted of manually changing between lenses or flipping a switch on the turret.

3. I have tried using all the lens calculators and can't figure out WTF they are talking about.

4. I am not taking physics until fall of this year so I know absolutely NOTHING to do with optics. [Confused]

5. What is a prime lens and are all scope lenses the same? I have a turret on one projector and I heard I will need a (magnacom?) lens.

I desperately need help finding new lenses and with the influx of lenses on ebay lately it would be nice to take advantage of the lower prices while I have the chance. Please help! [Eek!]

Sorry to hijack your thread Alan.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-23-2005, 05:38 PM:

I have compared the compact anamorphic of ISCO's to the red/blue ISCO (Ultra Star PLUS with Blue Star)...anyone that would tell yo that the compact version is better is flat out WRONG and does not know the product and I don't care if they do work for ISCO. The compact anamorphic is their same design of decades ago, it isn't as sharp or as good with contrast or as good with colors.

I'm amazed that you would have any focus issues with an Ultra Star Plus with a Blue Star...it is a tough combination to beat. See if your lenses are perpendicular to the gate and that the lamphouse alignment is perfect....it all affects focus.

Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 05-24-2005, 12:52 PM:

Steve,
The lens combination that I have (the red/blue) was suggested
to me by mr Glenn Berggren at the CinemaExpo Amsterdam a couple
of years ago. That´s why I was a bit surprised to hear the combi
was better. Unless, ofcourse, Isco has made a brand new one.
I´ll ask Isco again this year at the Expo.

The focus problems I have, is probably not caused by the lenses.
It´s very hard to align a machine (Victoria 5) with nothing to
really start from. Everything is adjustable, and the curved gate
has no fixed parts. To get a sharp picture, I guess I´ll have to
replace the machines and not the lenses.

By the way, do you know how much more light efficient a 1-blade
high speed shutter is compared to a coventional 2-blade?

Thomas

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-24-2005, 01:59 PM:

Hi

The more a designer tries to make a lens for all people for all uses, the higher the cost. The thread was started by Alan who has a very nice small screening room with a scope screen about 3.5 ft high. In that context, I answered the question. An anamorphic designed for peak performance in all screens at all distances would be very expensive indeed.

Now what I am saying is, it looks like the designers of compact Super Cinelux had small screening rooms in mind in the design. On the optical bench with the lens set at 15 ft, astigmatism is fully corrected meaning no astigmatism with about 100 l/mm in both directions using an ISCO Cinelux Ultra as the prime. I would venture to guess that with the blue and red anamorphics set at 15 ft, astigmatism would not be fully corrected.

I also bet at 50 ft the red and blue anamorphics have fully corrected astigmatism but the compact anamorphic would not fully corrected. His is typical of all lenses. Lenses have a design peak and they also have a level of good performance around that peak. The issue is where that peak is located. The larger anamorphics with lots of tick marks in the 300 250 200 ft range might peak at 100 ft. With the compact anamorphics with four tick marks at 10 ft 15 ft 30 ft and Infinity, 15 ft would be most likely the aim point for the design.

So use the compact at 50 or 100 ft and sure not so good. Use that $3000+ Blue Star anamorphic at 15 feet with a peak point design of 100 or 50 ft and watch that lens not be so good and not worth the money.

Even a $100 Nikon enlarger lens has a performance sheet saying what the image range is. It is from 2X to 20X magnification with a peak performance around 11X or 11x14 print form a full frame 35mm.

Larry

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-24-2005, 05:22 PM:

quote: Larry Myers
I would venture to guess that with the blue and red anamorphics set at 15 ft, astigmatism would not be fully corrected.

Actually I have used them on dailies running with about a 15 foot throw and it was the cinematographer of that film that remarked that a projector anamorphic as good as the camera anamorphic is now a reality. Indeed it does focus fully corrected at 15 feet.... so good its startling [Cool]

. That is part of the reason its a 6 element lens and partly what you are paying for, but all in all it performs miraculously at any distance. So I would consider it a fully corrected lens able to maintain that correction within its design range.

Mark @ CLACO

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-24-2005, 05:59 PM:

Again a flaw in using the optical bench for projection lenses is that you don't take into account the for and aft motion of the film itself. The optical bench is presumming a flat plane...good for camera lenses...even enlarger lenses...it has been proven...not good for projection lenses. Just to ad into the mix...since sound on film...the film doesn't even pucker symetrically.

I do buy into that the Schneider compact anamorphics were designed to do well in short throw screening rooms though. I've had incredible results with 50mm primes and short throws.

Then again...with a mere 22-foot throw on a Blue star...absolute pefection was had too (with less pincushion distortion).

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-24-2005, 07:04 PM:

Hi

Blue stars may very well be fully corrected at close distances. These are very expensive lenses. My point is, why pay for a very expensive lens designed to be all things to all people when your primary interest is a 4 foot high screen in a 10 foot room.

If the compact Super Cinelux is fully corrected at 15 ft and so are the Blue or Red lenses at this same distance, what is the difference? Fully corrected is fully corrected. I very much doubt that a lens with a tick marks running from 300 ft to 10 ft in 25 ft segments would be fully corrected at 10 ft.

As for the projector running, depth of focus is depth of focus. It's the same for all lenses at any one f stop. The calculation is ((f-stop X f-stop)X wavelength)x2) or ((2x2)x.500)x2 for 4 microns. All f2 lens have 4 microns of depth of focus at it's diffraction limit. Since the film is way softer then the diffraction limit, 1000 lines per millmeter, the film could move maybe 200 times that distance or 800 microns or twice the thickness of a human hair without a problem.

Larry