Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Good Deal On A Used Panatar, Shipping Extra!

This is topic Good Deal On A Used Panatar, Shipping Extra! in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=001229

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-07-2002, 08:44 PM:

Check this one out. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1379621842
They never cease to amaze me these days, and I've thrown out more of these than I could ever count!
Mark @ Claco

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 09-07-2002, 09:11 PM:

And for over a grand you don't even get this valuable extra...

No thanks, I'll pass.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-08-2002, 06:46 PM:

Brrrrwhahahahahahaaa! Oh, but it's an "antique"! Ebay is brimming with people who think something like this is priceless, when it's actually worthless.

I remember an old theatre back home that was bought by the city, and they built a government office inside. A nice old, nothing special, RCA booth remained upstairs. The guy in charge of the place thought it was worth thousands! He would hear of nothing less than $35,000!

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 09-08-2002, 06:52 PM:

Yes it is amazing though that a lot of those panatars sell yet the Hilux val which was a better lens (as was the 264) don't

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-08-2002, 07:00 PM:

No Mark, you should save them in case ISCOVision ever catches on, thus thwarting Glenn Berggren's dreams of selling everyone new lenses and world conquest.

Posted by John Schulien (Member # 215) on 09-09-2002, 02:58 PM:

I bid on one of those once and was outbid for a closing price of about $60.00

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-09-2002, 06:20 PM:

Those lenses were the brainchild of Robert Gottschalk who started the Panavision company with that lens to solve the projectionist's woes for a single lens that would address the many competing anamorphic ratios in the '50s. The Panatar used movable prisms to vary the "squeeze" ratio instead of a cylindrical lens as in the other systems. His system provided a far superior image compared to others of that era. The Fox and Bausch & Lomb lenses of that day were (and still are) crap...soft and full of distortion....and suffer from the "fat-face" symptom especially in short focal lengths. The Panatar and it's successors were in fact used as a taking as well as a projection lens and made Panavision.

Originally Gottschalk owned a camera store in L. A. and worked with Jacques Cousteau on the refinement of the aqualung compressed-air regulator (SCUBA) and underwater photography. Even though he eventually sold Panavision, he headed-up the company until his murder in 1982 by a jealous gay lover.

While I didn't work for the company in the Panatar days, I did participate in the development of the Panaflex camera (electronic design) and the super-sharp, low-light level lenses and developed the 1st video-tap and video playback system for "instant dailies" that are now common place.

Those lenses are not worth much today, but they are great for showing different anamorphic ratio films without having a library of lenses. And, as someone pointed out, that VALUABLE mount is as scarce as hen's teeth.

>>> Phil

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-09-2002, 06:51 PM:

The "fat face" syndrome that Panavision liked to tweak CinemaScope's nose with is a function of the taking lens ONLY and is a result of the squeeze ratio dropping when focusing closely. (Less squeeze on photography with constant unsqueeze on projection = CinemaScope "mumps".) AFAIK this was a defect only in the earliest B&L CinemaScope camera attachments, not the all-in-one block lenses.

I don't think Panavision ever made a prismatic camera lens for 35mm but they did make them for 65mm cameras for 1.25 squeeze ratio Ultra Panavison 70 / Camera 65. Ironically the projection attachment for U.P. 70 used conventional cylindrical optics.

Panavision's big advance insofar as maintaining a constant squeeze ratio on close focusing was their invention of counter rotating diopters within the lens.

I think many are going to take exception to your comments about the quality of B&L Scope lenses. Obviously times have changed and optics have gotten better and better but many of the projection attachments were and are excellent.

As for the camera lenses if they are so bad then you might be surprised to learn that no less than Industrial Light and Magic used them to shoot certain 4-perf anamorphic special effects shots. You need look no farther than that fat ILM coffee table book about special effects as they appear in some photos.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-09-2002, 08:06 PM:

Wasn't Tak Miyagishima of Panavision the primary designer of the Panatar lens?

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

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-09-2002, 09:12 PM:

Yes,
Tak was designer of at least the Camera 65, and later lenses. Don't think he collaborated on the projector lens though. The Camera 65 lenses were the very first anamorphic camera lenses to use the counter rotating diopters quite a time before they were sandwiched in for 35mm squueze glass.

As far as B&L camera lenses go they are actually quite good. They do suffer from non-linear squeeze though out their focus range as do Todd-AO 35 and other anamorphics without any diopters built in. Panavision holds the patent there! The thing about the integrated B&L camera lenses was the fact that they did not cause the "anamorphic Mumps" as did the earlier B&L Cinemascope camera attachments(cylindrical and prismatic). The amount of squeeze does vary but never goes to any extreme nor outside a minimum of 2 to 1 compression, or a bit higher at close focus. This was B&L's way to lessen the "Mumps" effect. A bit more than 2 to 1 but never less than 2 to 1 through the focus range. I have a set of B&L camera lenses on E-bay right now that I have shot with and I can attest to the sharpness they are capable of.
Mark @ Claco

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-09-2002, 10:02 PM:

Phil said,

quote:
While I didn't work for the company in the Panatar days, I did participate in the development of the Panaflex camera

Phil, you don't look old enough to have done that. I'm not doubting you, it's just that you look to be about 24 years old.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 09-10-2002, 12:29 AM:

Several years back (at the dawn of anamorphic DvDs') I used a Super Panatar on the front end of a Sharp Data grade LCD projector. It blended the pixels quite well. Almost, to the point of invisibility. It's a light hog though and reduced contrast but, when the projector was tweeked to the lens the results were very satisfactory.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-10-2002, 01:22 AM:

quote:
Phil, you don't look old enough to have done that. I'm not doubting you, it's just that you look to be about 24 years old.

That's got to be an old picture. I don't know if it's modesty or what, but Phil Hill hasn't mentioned his stellar glory days in Formula 1 racing. That 58 LeMans he drove with the Ferrari team was a piece of work, & I say that even as someone who was pulling for Jaguar. Jaguar *still* had the better cars, though.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-10-2002, 02:38 AM:

Hey Brad,
Can I too send in my baby photo to replace the present one....? I think everyone here should do this.
Aren't we supposed to be REAL people here with REAL photos of what we look like today? Why the disguise for Phil? Or did he crash the Formula 1 and this is known as plastic surgery 101? Will the real Phil Hill please stand up?
Mark @ Claco

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2002, 08:46 AM:

Some links to the three Phil Hills

Here's the famous race car driver:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/drv-hilphi.html
http://www.gptours.com/downloads/2002/ferlamex/
Phil Hill
http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/phill.htm
http://www.philhill.com/
Phil's Used Car Sale $6.5 Million

Other incarnations of Mr. Hill:

_____________________________________________________________________

AGFA-GEVAERT LTD
27 Great West Road,
Brentford,
Middx.
TW8 9AX
Tel: 0181 231 4310 Fax: 0181 231 4315
Major suppliers to the Motion Picture and Television industries of Polyester based colour Print Film and Optical Sound Recording Film.
Contact: Phil Hill

_____________________________________________________________________

Iwerks Entertainment is strengthening its ability to deliver quality entertainment attractions with the promotions of Phil Hill to vice president of engineering and Don Stults to vice president of operations. In other news, Bruce Palmore has joined as vice president and controller, with TJ Majauskas the new director of financial planning.

_____________________________________________________________________

Will the real Mr. Hill please stand up?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-10-2002, 11:23 AM:

The race car driver can't be the same guy. Even if it is an old picture, it doesn't look that old. Maybe it's Phil Hill "junior", but the fellow in the picture is but a child by comparison.

Okay, Phil, what gives?

------------------
Better Projection Pays!