Brad,
Do you still have this available?
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-15-2010, 12:47 AM:
I swapped my reflectors tonight to see if i could get better light with the same bulb same projector.
This would tell me if i had an alignment issue or a twisted reflector.
The light i was getting was ok but never as evenly spread as one would want. The light was darker in 2 opposing corners and i could never fill it without messing everything else up!
It is now brighter and the dark corners bright as ever!
I waited a long time to do this because i was already using the better mirror with less flaking from heat damage but this flaky mirror has a cooler color temperature and very even light!
It seems much brighter!
I still need to run film but i am bursting with joy from these results!
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-24-2013, 05:14 PM:
It has been 952 days since the last post.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-24-2013, 05:14 PM:
For those who have followed this thread,in the interest of keeping it complete and relevant.
Near perfection was achieved on this Simplex XL but in 2012 I bought a 1997 era PR1014 head and decided to swap it out. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
What a dumb move that was!
Anyway some things I have learned.
1.If it's not broke but near perfuct! Don't fix it or swap it out!
2.Many of the issues we had with the 50s era XL was to do with the inconsistency of the Simplex lens holders.The ones I have are all very different from each other and will change the perpendicular alignment lens to gate.
If I had the alignment tools I would have had an easier time. With the newer XL head I right away got a softer picture and it was harder than expected to get it to the level of perfuct the old head was putting on screen.
I had to swap out gate parts and the entire lens assembly. I also put in a rebuilt shutter assembly.
We are mainly digital now but kept our 35mm projectors in place.
This has made it harder to see the results of any changes I make because I don't get to see what different movies look like the next day.
You get to know a specific film and then you change something.Then you see what that film looks like after the changes. Not anymore unless I stay all night running my films or trailers over and over.
3. Not all lenses are the same even if they are the same exact brand and focal length. I have 3 Isco Ultrastar HD full size anamorphic attachments that each focus differently. One will focus perfect side to side and middle but top and bottom are weak.
Another does top to bottom perfect with side to side weakness.
This is without changing anything else.
This is also very subtle but can be seen.
That's all I got for now. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-24-2013, 09:42 PM:
SuperSimplex and E-7's knew how to run film in an excellent way. The XL was a needed inprovement for the company, but got lost in this department.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-29-2013, 12:20 PM:
I have seen many good and bad examples of the Simplex XL with curved gate at the plexes over the years. This is on flat and curved screens.
I have noted that these screens were all 3k bulbs or more with prime back up lenses usually under 95mm.
In my case...110mm prime with a 32 foot wide scope image on a flat screen.
Very little downward slope angle and close to centered horizontally.
I sometimes wonder if a curved gate works against me using only 2500 watts of Super Lumex brightness?
I get that the curved gate should help any situation but more so beyond 3000 watts.
So could the curved gate or the amount of curvature be a problem under 3000 watts?
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 05-29-2013, 03:01 PM:
I've seen 3K lamphouses behind flat gate XL's issuing out great results on the screen in long throw houses. It's just that the curve gate 'stretches' the film to prevent focus drift when the heat of the arc or lamp distorts the film when the frame is in the trap.
The trick with flat gate units is to build the upper loop a bit higher where the film is entering the trap dead straight in with no curl at the very top of the trap where the curl of the loop is nowhere close to the top of the gate rail. This is what gives the steady image .. along with the machine running tons quieter.
Anything of a higher wattage would need the water cooled trap version.
Nothing wrong with a Super-LumeX behind an XL as long as bulb focus is correct.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-29-2013, 04:01 PM:
My bulb lamp house align is fantastic.
I don't have a turret so most issues come down to the Simplex lens holders I have because they are far from perfect.
I have a couple like new one's on order and maybe another Ultrastar HD anamorphic lens. Hoping to stumble on the right combination.
I have my flat gates still but I don't want to go back to them.
I don't plan to go back to my old XL head because it's now on the other projector.
Posted by Jonathan Bodge (Member # 4072) on 05-30-2013, 09:01 PM:
Interesting discussion. I for some reason have always liked the look of a straight gate. I remember walking into a cinema in North Hampton Mass and the picture blew me away. Come to find out it was a Brenkert BX60. At one point installed an XL straight in Montauk NY and what a great picture.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-08-2014, 09:40 PM:
How often have others of you found alignment issues on a curved gate non turret XL? What methods have you used to adjust for these issues?
1.Gate to film misalignment.
2.Lens to gate misalignment.
Just wondering if there is anything I have not tried.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-09-2014, 08:22 AM:
Mostly the two rods get bent. That moves the shoes out of alignment side to side. Don't bend them back, shim the shoes.
This is not a problem with a straight gate since the solid part of the gate is the part that holds the aperture. Bent rods don't matter; they only hold the spring which is self aligning. louis
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-09-2014, 10:09 AM:
Could you be more specific about the rods? I'm not getting it. Maybe it's just the term rod.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-09-2014, 12:10 PM:
The rods Louis refers to are the pins or shafts the actual film gate slide onto and is then held tightly in place with two big nuts.
These rods determine the straight align of the film against the trap but the original design had the trap determine the alignment.
This may be a weakness of the xl after the curved gate was introduced because it relies on those two rods for precision alignment.
I have found the lens reducer's or lens holders to be less than perfect as well.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-09-2014, 07:09 PM:
Oh, those shafts. I've never seen these be a problem. I close the gate and then tighten the knurled gate nuts. Kind of self aligning that way.
As to the lens bushings, they are awful but not the real problem with uneven focus, it's more about being somewhat eccentric, but rotating them does not cause any out of focus, just the picture shifting around.
The issue I don't care for is the gate stop being all over the place and the curve in the intermittent tang that hold the shoe being off the proper radius.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-09-2014, 07:50 PM:
Sam if those shafts are bent,wouldn't your self align upon gate closure in fact be a tic off affecting side to side focus?
On a curved gate that is...
My lens holders have been around the block and perhaps dropped or ground down with a grinder because they all perform differently.
I have many and continue to buy them.
I have one xl head with a bunch of issues in the focus assembly such as the threads on the focus knob shaft.
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 01-09-2014, 09:07 PM:
I don't recall having many issue with XL's. I even own one, but it's not being used
on a large screen and I've never had focus issues with my particular set up.
BUT- - back in the 1970's I worked at one venue that had the 35/70mm version
of the XL and I was never happy with the image steadiness or edge focus.
I've heard that their 35/70 machines were not engeneered very well, and to
make matters worse, the theater it was at had a huge screen and a short throw,
which only maginifed the imperfections. It was especially bad in the winter
time when keeping things in focus for the first reel (on each machine) during
the first show required constant attention until the lamphouse (one of those
huge Ashcraft rotating carbon models) warmed up everything up.
I actually had two marks on the focus knob labeled "hot" & "cold" LOL!
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-10-2014, 08:28 AM:
In the "before-Strong" era, all 70mm XL's were fully built as 35mm machines and then sent to Howard Straight (sp) to be converted. This, according to Howard. I knew him well during his on again, off again relationship with the "boys from Omaha."
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-16-2014, 01:11 PM:
What I was most interested in exploring and this is mostly directed at Louis,Steve,Mark and Tony...when using your alignment tools and finding lens to gate is off.
What methods do you employ to get it aligned?
Ive heard of the Kinoton tools for instance?
Steve Guttag once mentioned the analog soundtrack prevents the image from being centered exactly between the perforations.So the image is forced off center and lamp heat will pull the film unevenly.
Has anyone seen the result of this? I think I have but I am not certain.When I get the best corner to corner and center focus,if I study just left or right of center I see softness in one small area. I wonder if this softness is that very issue?
This is walking up very close to the screen.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-16-2014, 05:28 PM:
If you check older SMPTE Journals, the uneven focus due to the optical soundtrack offset has been reasonably well documented. Glenn Berggern has published a bit on this.
As to getting things aligned. The Kinoton light projector is really to get the reflector in perfect alignment, not the gate/lens mount relationship.
For vertical/horizontal...a laser is your friend but before you can pull out your red-dot machine...you need to make sure pitch and yaw are right. For that, Schneider made a great kit that used a dial indicator and some precision ground lens plugs. you mount the lens plug in the lens mount, put the supplied plat in the gate where the film would run (it is 35mm wide)and then start measuring from corner to corner. Shift/shim parts as needed to get everything equally spaced. Once you have that...take a laser and bore-sight it down the centerline of the aperture...then all of the way back to the center of the reflector...you now have established a true centerline from lens, through the aperture to the middle of the light source...while the laser is in there, put a fixture that will simulate the anode of your lamp stem and get the anode support dead center on the laser so it is at the right height. Then use the Kinoton light projector to adjust the reflector to bounce the light back exactly. While one can do an okay job with just the laser, it will never take into account all of the imperfections in the reflector that the actual light will bounce off...The Kinoton device will. You'll see the interference pattern and can center it very easily. When you're done, you'll be amazed at how much more even your light is and how much better focus will be when you have the light going through the optics and hitting the screen rather than bouncing all over the place and being directed at strange angles everywhere.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-16-2014, 08:58 PM:
I hope to get those journals one day. The Kinoton light projector too!
Perhaps I should just try harder to get a Kinoton.
In the meantime I do have lamp alignment that is super bright to the point of flicker. Round black circle in the middle of the screen with lens out. Capable of four corners dark evenly with scope lens in.
Just can't believe how stubborn this newer PR 1014 head is regarding a great sharp picture on both formats.
I should have kept my old Simplex head in place because it really did respond to my fine tune adjustments.
This PR 1014 just trades one issue for another when I make adjustments ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Can you feel the despair ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-17-2014, 08:34 AM:
The issue continues to be that the film plane is not quite 90 degrees with the optical centerline.
I would also agree that the center of the picture on the film and the optical centerline may or may not be the same depending on the vintage of the Simplex.
The "bent" rods I was referring to are best left alone. It is possible to shim the film trap shoes. i use Pepsi/beer can strips between the shoes and their carrier. Try one side, if worse, move the shim to the other side. If better, but not enough, add another thickness.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-17-2014, 02:19 PM:
Thanks Louis I have been shimming the gate shoes for a couple years since you first mentioned it on this thread.
It worked great on the old xl head but this PR 1014 head doesn't play ball.
For instance.
Lets say I got my lamp alignment great and four corners dark evenly is achievable with a bright even picture when lamp focus is backed off(Super Lumex 2500 watt)
I start with test film on scope. Study it and then rotate lens 180 degrees and decide which of the two evils to go with.
I shim the gate shoes for maximum even focus. Then I switch to flat and it wants the opposite shimming for better focus. ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Then I will loosen up the lens holder(reducer) and rotate the scope lens to a different position and start all over.
It's never very good.
Sometimes it's a decent focus between lenses but flat will be off center to far right or left and no amount of rotation of the lens holders concentric action will fix it so it's back to the drawing board.
I do adjust the front right left of the lens assembly to make flat and scope agree horizontally.
If fact everything anyone's ever said in this thread has been tried(except using those specialist tools) and worked on the old head.
I have 3 sets of scope lenses(Ultrastar HD) and 7 lens holders.
My only solution is to adjust for one format at a time before a show. Then undue the shimming adjustments when I need the other format. It works but that's a lot of work and not realistic if I were running lots of film.
I guess it's lucky we went digital when I got the PR 1014 head! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-17-2014, 02:57 PM:
Use the scope backup lens only to eliminate one of two variables (the anamorphic.) It needs to be razorsharp corner to corner FIRST. Only then will lamp alignment be a factor.
Once scope backup is good, then test with flat. Both should agree.
The reason you have gone in circles is that you are chasing two (or more) variables at the same time.
Lens alignment to the gate is always first. Louis
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-17-2014, 04:54 PM:
Ok Louis Ill give that procedure a more thorough try.
Do you believe in having any spacer between the prime and anamorphic?
Ive gotten vague answers about that or some say yes and some say no.
Prime = 110mm
throw = 87'
screen width =32'
Ive tried spacers in the past but in the excitement of running around in circles chasing multiple problems,not sure what the differences were?
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 01-17-2014, 06:46 PM:
I agree with Louis about going back and testing with just the scope and flat prime lenses.
Note the footage marks on the scopes are important but not all that accurate.
I don't think spacer tubes are needed or matter at all at this long focal length.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 01-18-2014, 06:35 AM:
Spacers don't matter unless you are at short focal lengths. Special fittings are used then to get the lenses closer. Otherwise you lose your corners. Louis
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-20-2014, 01:37 PM:
It's hard on the eyes to look at the 35PA test film through the prime lens only. It's so bright and hard to make out fine detail from the booth. I have to walk right up to the screen.
I see some pumping at the top and bottom and travel ghost (tiny bit)at the top and bottom moving towards center. I installed a rebuilt shutter assembly. Could it be bad anyway or can the intermittent be part of the problem.(picture is steady)Also sanded and painted shutter blade flat black.
Depending which lens holder (reducer) I use,I get different problems with focus. One gives me good focus except the bottom of the screen. Another gives me top and bottom softness if middle is sharp.
This is the same crap I see with the anamorphic on by the way.
I have 4 different prime lenses 7 lens reducers and 3 Ultra HD anamorphic's. I only spent 2 hours on this last night,trying just a couple different prime lenses and reducers.
Let's just consider for a moment the soft at the bottom system.
How would you know if the issue is gate shoe assembly , lens assembly or reducer (assuming lens is fine)?
Lets say I shimmed and tinkered for even sharpness on the prime lens. How on Gods green earth am I going to loosen up the lens reducer,get the anamorphic back on,tighten the lens back in the reducer without anything changing?
I know I could mark everything first but once it's back together, you only have two positions which the anamorphic can sit in the projector. The odds of everything being exactly the same after the scope is back on seems slim.
Some of these lens reducer's have trouble gripping lenses tightly or the projector lens assembly can't grip the reducer OR you can't get the lens reducer into the lens assembly! ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Are these parts this bad new on new installs? Do I just have bad luck buying used parts?
Would I be better off with a turret head?
Keep in mind that my issues are small here(except this travel ghost nonsense) ! I am mostly being super critical since I am the last man standing in this city of mine playing with film. I want to do it justice.
Also...with everyone so used to complete sharpness at all times with Digital Cinema (one of it's strengths), any focus issue or travel ghost like smearing seems to stand out more than ever.
Even a few specks of dust seem more offensive than it used to but that's what filmguard is for!
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-13-2014, 01:58 PM:
Ok and we're back!
This might be premature but I may have figured out where I've gone wrong with my newer PR1014 head.
When I first got it I swapped out many part's that were newer from my old XL head.This can be a problem if your not careful because not all parts are identical from different eras of the XL.
The gate parts were something I noticed and adjusted immediately but only today did I look more closely at the gate trap!
It has clear cosmetic differences.The important one which may have caused me problems.Problems I didn't realize I had.
In particular the way the gate shoes contact the flexible straps!
When gate tension is set correctly,shoes cup the intermittent sprocket just right.Gate shoe runners were not in close contact with straps at the bottom of the gate!
This is what I saw upon close inspection.
So I switched back to the original gate trap and saw much closer contact with straps at the bottom of gate.
I can't check for results on screen for about 10 hours but pray I'm on to something! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
My luck is not good though.Just bought a iconic Blue Star anamorphic and had to send it away to Century optics in Van Nuys because something is rattling around inside and focus is worse than my Ultrastar HD!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-13-2014, 03:59 PM:
Yeah...but on the up side. You'll get it nice a clean and set up on an optical bench to perfection so it is likely to be better, when all is done, than an off-the-shelf one.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-13-2014, 04:13 PM:
Yes and I just got a very pleasant phone call from lens tech John Sioringas from Century Optics saying he found the problem and it's a matter of a single element.
A very reasonable price to fix it too!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-13-2014, 09:16 PM:
John is excellent too.
Posted by Frank Bolkovac (Member # 6201) on 03-16-2014, 10:20 PM:
Might be a form of travel ghost if there is a hole somewhere in the shutter's cut off blade.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-19-2014, 06:32 PM:
No holes in my shutter blades.If fact I've repainted them a perfect flat black.
I have solved almost every focus artifact except for one. This one issue used to be subtle but now looks worse.
With the top/bottom/center and sides sharp I have a soft area just left of center. If I focus this I lose top/bottom a bit.
I've taken louis's advise and am working the problem with just my prime lenses (5 of them) and they all show the same thing.
I've had my Blue Star repaired and it's on it's way back to me.
I want to get this thing right before I install it.
It's frustrating because it's so close to being great.
I think the film is bulging in towards the lamp in that spot.
Why? Too much heat? Intermittent out of align?
The gate has brand new straps/gate shoes and is adjusted perfectly as I can get it.
I have been careful to work one problem at a time but now I'm stuck.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 03-20-2014, 10:31 AM:
Have you tried moving the inner lateral guide roller out of the way with the target film running? You can do this with a little stick or screwdriver. This might help if the film is being pinched.
Also, I would move one of the so called studio guides away from the film a bit for the same reason as above. Worth a try.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-20-2014, 12:09 PM:
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-20-2014, 12:20 PM:
Hi Sam!
It's a curved gate so no studio guides but I was thinking the lateral guide might be a culprit and yes I did move it to release pressure off the film.
Problem is from the booth it's hard to see how much that helped.
That lateral roller can only be in so many positions where it will still turn freely and do it's job.
I do have an update on this.
It's fixed!
I spent the last week carefully adjusting my reflector to bulb relationship. The super lumex reflector has a threaded rod at the top of the mirror mount which allows forward and back adjustments. This is similar to moving the bulb yolk up or down.
Without the alignment kits or lasers I was having a hard time getting this relationship spot on.
I figured out a way using straight edges placed across the reflector and bulb and eyeballing a 90 degree angle in true hillbilly with a purpose fashion!
It worked!
I should have invested more time earlier on this particular point but I thought I had it close enough based on the incredible brightness I was getting.
All four corners darkening evenly and so on.
I believe it was off just enough to give me great light but shooting off in every direction and causing concentrated heat to that area of the film.
So the bottom line is bulb has to be perfectly centered and square with the reflector.
The lens assembly is also off and requires shimming but that's easy compared to eyeballing the bulb/reflector.
Trying to achieve lens to film alignment without the bulb/reflector alignment perfect is where I was going wrong.
As Louis said "chasing two or more problems at the same time.
Once I had the lamphouse right the gate and lens assembly adjustments are a piece of cake.
I receive my Blue Star anamorphic back from Century optics in a few days but my picture is so good now, you could paint this Ultrastar blue and tell me it's the actual Blue Star! I might fall for it.
The lesson here is bulb/reflector = lamp house. Only then do you have a lamp house worth aligning to your projector.
Thanks Louis,Steve,Sam,Mark,Tony,Gord and God!
Now I can get to work on my left off center projector!
Piece of cake.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-20-2014, 02:45 PM:
Glad that worked. EVERYTHING needs to be on optical center, and when it is, it really really works. Hard to believe that a picture could be that good! Louis
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-26-2014, 11:48 AM:
I got the Blue Star lens back from Century Optics. They fixed the rattle but when I displayed my test films it was still not great. I can see it's better but it still performs below my 3 Ultrastar HD lenses. If it was 75% before then it's 90% now. I don't know if I am missing something but I spent 4 hours on it last night and in the end my old Ultrastar HD easily out performed the Blue Star.
I need to take a few days rest from it.I will write Century Optics and see what they say. They did tell me it's the hardest lens of all to work on.
Otherwise I'm $950.00 poorer on this and have a pretty Blue paper weight to show for it. Not sure what to do?
I don't think I've missed anything.
I have the Ultrastar HD back in place looking excellent with a showing of T2 on Friday so I'll take a break from it till after that showing and give it another try.
I'm exhausted and need a vacation!
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-26-2014, 06:25 PM:
Uncouple the anamorphic. Put only the prime lens in and focus it. Do not change this setting.
Hold the anamorphic in front of the prime lens and adjust only the anamorphic distance setting until focus is good. This may or may not occur at the distance that corresponds to your throw. It doesn't matter if the picture is good. Louis
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-26-2014, 07:37 PM:
I'll try that Louis.If your suggesting my distance setting is off?
I got very good at adjusting that 20 years ago. Film Tech method or my preferred method of focus knob,distance,focus distance until they converge. That's what I spent so much time doing last night after making sure the prime lens by itself was optimum.The thing I didn't do was hold the anamorphic in front and adjust distance...I went straight to attaching it to the prime.
Even if this way you suggest is better,I think it could be.I still think the Blue Star is mis-aligned inside. I hope to be proven wrong. It would be great if this issue is caused by the Blue Star being very finicky before it shows what it can do.
I would expect a better lens to be easier to adjust though...
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-27-2014, 03:12 PM:
Keep in mind people that the adjustment on an anamorphic projection attachment IS NOT a focus adjustment in the true sense. It is actually an astigmatism adjustment. If you approach it for what it really is then it may be easier to deal with.
Mark
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-27-2014, 04:44 PM:
Indeed Mark!
Anyone out there find making these adjustments on a Blue Star anamorphic more difficult and picky than a lessor anamorphic?
Century optics has made some suggestions such as sending the Blue Star and 110mm prime lens back to them and they will focus match them together. Which is what is done to a integrated lens.
Does that sound like a dream solution or a compromise to the Blue Star or the prime?
That's a deep question!
Wow! Just after I posted this ,the forum took on a anamorphic stretch!? I kinda Like It!
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-27-2014, 11:20 PM:
OK here is a major update!!
I focused the prime lens by itself and then held the Blue Star up and turned the distance ring(astigmatism) through it's range.
It's not even close to focusing! I mean way off on another planet.
I tried the same thing with an Ultrastar and no problem.
John from Century Optics said this to me in an email.
Hi Victor,
When you sent us the "Blue Star" you just sent us the anamorphic section of the lens, the prime
was not included. At this point to check it you could attach another prime lens of good quality to the
Blue-Star anamorphic and re-check the image. If that does not improve the image, then send me the
Blue-Star and the prime lens you are using with it.
The Ultra Star HD lenses have the prime lens built into the rear of the lens, along with the anamorphic
section of the lens. They are matched and focused together into one lens.
I would have called you about this but lost or misplaced your number.
Best Regards
John Sioringas
I then answered telling him that I had the full size Ultrastar attachments and not the integrated all in one type. I said I use the same Ultra MC 35/70 110mm prime for everything.
Not heard back yet.
Anyway I was shocked that prime by itself was in focus,then holding anamorphic up and it's whole range of adjust barely changes it. It's a big blur. If I turn the focus knob a couple of turns it will converge into a decent focus.
The plot thickens? Or is it thinner?
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 03-28-2014, 03:54 PM:
Anamorphic won't refocus a lens that is already out of focus. I think something might have become disturbed in transit. John Sioringas is a good man and the lab does great work. Louis
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-28-2014, 04:28 PM:
I agree Louis.
I believe everything will get worked out.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-28-2014, 06:27 PM:
I just had a fascinating long phone conversation with John.
He was telling me about working with NASA on special lenses!
He also said it's not necessarily correct that all anamorphic lenses will focus on the prime when it's in focus by itself.
He told me not everyone agrees with a curved gate design necessarily either. Over 3000 watt lamps perhaps.
Anyway I will be sending the prime and Blue Star back at his insistence.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-04-2014, 04:40 PM:
On Tuesday May 6 I should receive the Blue Star anamorphic back from Century Optics.This will be the second time they went through it but this time they had my 110mm prime with it.
It was confirmed that my prime lens was perfect and any issues are with the Blue Star. They said the Blue Star was being stubborn in producing a sharper image.They did detect a hint of softness.
I'm hoping they were able to solve it but anyway no charge this time.
Fingers crossed.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 05-07-2014, 11:22 AM:
I got the Blue Star back again and this time it looks fantastic!
I could see it right away! Not had time to fine tune but I am very relieved to have a Blue Star lens as opposed to paper weight!
John Sioringas is the man!
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-07-2014, 02:31 PM:
I was hoping for that response. John has not lost his touch!
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-01-2017, 10:51 AM:
It has been 1028 days since the last post.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 03-01-2017, 10:51 AM:
Louis you were very correct about me running around in circles chasing more than one problem! While trying to install take up reel belts on my SH-1000 sound heads...I discovered motor to coupler to gear box mis-alignment which has been causing vibrations all this time. Mark Gulbrandsen just instructed me how to get it aligned.
With the vibrations gone...so went my light blur artifacts on the test film! It's super clear now!
I would have invented light speed quicker than fix this the way I was going.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 06-05-2017, 09:07 PM:
I have since perfected the motor to gearbox alignment,the projector runs very smooth and super quiet.It was a problem that started a few years ago and got worse very slowly,so I didn't realize or notice until it got obvious like a freight train.
Some of the bolts were less than tight for many years.
This inspired me to start from scratch aligning the lenses for flat and scope. It was very easy to see what was what compared to the old days when I was dealing with motor vibrations and not aware it was so key to solving the visual artifacts on screen.
The results I have now are beautiful. The other issues covered in this thread were real but the motor vibrations exaggerated some of them. Of course,if I fixed a particular issue,the vibrations effects were always still there.
The top tip here is to get your motor to gearbox alignment smooth and perfuct!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)