35mm Projection with a washed out image. Main contributing factor?

[Jerry G. Axelsson]

Hello fellow friends,

I ran a 35mm show of "ODYSSEY" recently which has a compact anamorhic lens from 2000:s on a Kinoton projector.
The image had a bit of a washed out milky look. Not terrible but certainly not optimal for 35mm. The cinema has a short throw and a base lens of 55mm for Scope. Image about 8-9m wide.

Abother 35mm copy of "ODYSSEY" has been shown at another venue on a Philips projector also with a compact anamorphic from around 2000:s. Also 55mm base lens and a 9m wide screen.
Same tendencies with a somewhat mily image and lacking contrast. Same type of lens. A compact Schneider anamorphic with a relatively short focal length base lens.

Cinema nr. 3 ran one of the same prints from above of "ODYSSEY" with an ISCO Blue-star anamorhpic lens and a longer throw 105mm base lens. Image looked notably better as 35mm should look in terms of image quality.

My question is if compact anamorhics generally delivers a lesser image when it comes to Schneider ES Anamorphics OR if the short throw is a key factor in contrast degrade with a relatively large image?
I have seen red compact anamorphics from ISCO give a very nice image even with short focal length of 60mm.

What key components here would contribute to that slightly milky 35mm image which looks like fair DLP projection with greyish blacks?

In comparison I ran a 70mm print of "ODYSSEY" the day after. Looks amazing! Deep blacks, great colour and overall a great image. Longer throw on a DP70.

Any input in the matter would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[Marco Giustini]

When film was a thing, it was a rare occurrence to get a decently printed copy. And that was when film labs were fully active, employing competent people full time.

Now that we have one print every 10 months, I'm not sure the situation has improved. Granted, they probably have more time to print everything - one of the issues in the film era was that everything was rushed out of the labs.

Film can look great, if properly printed. It was rare then.

Film aside, the second offender is the auditorium. Bright interiors will reflect light back on screen, washing out the image.

Third offender, lens and porthole glass. A very good and clean porthole glass (such as Schott Amiran) will NOT show the image being projected on, or very faintly.

Fourth offender I can think of, the screen. A Silver screen on a short throw and flat frame will look awful and might subjectively be perceived as lack of contrast. OR, a white screen on a curved frame: the screen will reflect at 180 degrees, including on itself.

Fifth offender: overall brightness? I know, nothing to do with contrast but I feel that a low brightness image might be also perceived as lacking contrast.

[Tj Hopland]

Try a non anamorphic lens for testing? That should tell you if its something with that lens or if the issue is somewhere else in the system.

[Steve Guttag]

In general, low contrast is the result of stray light. That can come from within the lens itself. Generally speaking, Schneider has a more contrasty look to them (lower resolution, but higher contrast...to a fault). If the lens doesn't have good baffling (those ribs within the lens body to cut down on light scatter) or if there dust on the lens elements or anywhere in the light path, you'll get a lower contrast.

Without a doubt, a Blue-star will outperform anything Schneider ever made in terms of resolution and contrast. It can get whatever the film has on it. Schneider will also exaggerate the width of the image though the compact anamorphic should be well suited to the 55mm prime lens.

When looking at the target, look at the shutter ghost targets and you should get silky blacks with white squares in them.

image.png

TJ's suggestion of checking without the anamorphic attachment could reveal if the prime lens or the anamorphic is where the issues are coming from. I do not recall ever having an issue with the Compact Anamorphic (ES series or its predecessor) to have a contrast problem. Normally, I've used it for 16mm Scope but there are times when it was my best short on a very short EF.

Also, make sure your measurements are correct for the light. it should be 16fL 55cd/m². This has to be measured open-gate with a meter that properly averages the light over the full 48 (50) flashes/second cycle.

[Stefan Scholz]

You should have named the lens and compact adapter.
Schneider is not, what you want when projecting film. They are anything but contrasty.
I was shocked myself christmas, when runni ng a show on our Kinotones. Proctor A had a Schneider premiere lens, for 1.66 image. Looks ok and sharp. Going to B for the 1.85 clip and an Isco Ultra Star red, it was a different world.
This led me into further comparisons.
TH\he black Schneider Cine Xenons from the very last batch, identical to Isco RED are absolutely fantastic. Made without time pressure for delivery.
Red Iscos can be absolutely great - or very good, depending on time pressure during manufacturing, I assume.
Isco Ultra Star Studio is superb, but rare.
Schneider just seemed to have one construction, the 6 lens dual Gauss named Cine Xenon.
These existed with a front converter 1.03 to 1,1 x back lens, which also improved contrast visibly to acceptable. I assume it later evolved into the more common VP Variable ones.
Premiere is Cine Xenon with an adjustable aperture, not really great.
The anamorphics they offered are barely good.
Isco had the Blue Star, the only acceptable one, if we screen film today, which is a 6 lens attachment.
The Ultra Star Attachment, identical to the silver body last Schneider after they took over, is a very good choice, if you can't find Blue Star attachments. A 5 lens construction.
Anything else is 4 lenses, and the compact ones are basically 16 mm film attachments, which are prone to high distortions. Isco at least offers contrast.
Schneider anamorphichs are best in the glass recycle bin. They were really bad.

My comparison is only related to the 2000 years types, not to all the prehistoric ones from 1950 s to 1990s, which are mostly below any of the newer ones.

Years ago we had a test, which also included Sovjet block lenses, Chinese lenses from the 1990s, and the modern ones.
Absolute winner Isco Blue Star and an Isco 70 mm 8 perf lens as a prime. Worst combination: Sovjet Union 1968.

[Jim Cassedy]

Is it a change-over installation? Try swapping lenses. Or, as others have suggested,
try running a reel without the anamorphic adapter. I've also seen lenses that have
been overheated (ie: running white without film for too long) have contrast changes.
Even though they look OK, I think something in the cement that holds the lens
elements together gets very slightly fogged when overheated.

[Jerry G. Axelsson]

Stefan, to answer your question about specific lenses in one fo the 35mm venues. A custom made solution with ISCO ULTRA MC base lens and Schneider ES anamorphic from the 2000:s.
The other 35mm venue which also has suffering contrast has a compact Schneider anamorph. Do not know the details.

I have also found that red ISCO lenses in quite a few cases has the better image when comared to Schneider.

When it comes to ISCO studio lenses. Could someone elaborate on that a bit? What was special about that lens series?
I saw a red ISCO compact anamorhic marked STUDIO some time ago. Does that relate to that the base lens was stepped down from 2.0 to 2.4 with a step down ring in the base lens OR does that relate to a different type of lens series all together with higher quality?

[Steve Guttag]

The Ultra Star studio lenses were Ultra-Stars (gold with blue ring) with, I believe, 3 internal irises. This would improve edge-to-edge focus as well as improve contrast (less light bouncing around in the lens). As you noted, the extra irises (and they are internal and cannot be removed/added in the field) slowed the lens down to f/2.4.

Suffice to say, Stefan and my experiences often differ and the same is true with Schneider lenses. Around here, they were quite contrasty. Any of their anamorphics from the post-split from ISCO until their last generation of anamorphics (so, late-90s ish?) were complete and utter garbage. Their support screws for the lens elements were so weak, the elements would shift/rotate resulting in an impossible to focus picture. I keep one of them around just so I can throw it on the ground, periodically. As mentioned by Stefan, Schneider never went beyond 4-element anamorphics...and it shows. The quality of the picture out of them was notably inferior to ISCO by every measurable metric (and I mean, any of the three ISCO anamorphics, Ultra (4-element), Ultra-Star (5-element), Blue-Star (6-element).

Now, on compact anamorphics...ISCO really never developed them much other than a limited Blue-Star series on a few sizes (and with Ultra-Star prime lenses). They stuck with their 4-element compact design. One was also stuck with factory assembly on them. I had no problem with the Schneider compact and ES anamorphics, myself. I would and did mate them with ISCO prime lenses. Another fun-fact from the Schneider lens line up...the Super Cinelux lenses used the same rear diameter and threads for their short EF lenses (75mm or so and shorter). So, swapping prime lenses was easy...AND, for 16mm, you could go shorter and get it all to fit.

The Ultra-Star Plus (red) lenses did have the option for f/1.7 (remove the included ring), f/2.4 and f/2.7 (purchase and install the ring). They worked (the stop down rings) but I don't think they were as good a solution as the STUDIO lenses but were incredibly flexible. I used them all of the time to get a better balance between formats. The ultra-star Plus lenses were brighter than prior lenses, despite the same f-stop, and held corner-to-corner focus, however their inlet angles were such that aperture plate shadow was HUGE. You were not going to get a crisp edge with them as the lens will exaggerate the thickness of your aperture plate...so, it's a trade-off.

Lastly, Schneider's 100-150mm Cinelux-Ultra lenses could be unscrewed into two pieces. Schneider made f-stop rings for many (but not all) of them. ISCO did not, on their equivalent lenses. So, if you wanted a 130mm with an f-stop, Schneider was more hospitable, in that department. I never developed a preference in that size lens between ISCO and Schneider...they seemed functionally equivalent. Perhaps ISCO was more consistent from unit-to-unit.

[Jerry G. Axelsson]

Thank you for all for your insights.I will continue to look into the matter see which variables which might be contributing to these image characteristics.

[Tim Reed]

I can think of two times I was called to solve image issues that I found were caused by the port glass. One was the 3D wasn't working properly in a new theatre. Surprisingly, the contractors installed Solarite glass in the projection ports. The polarized glass was wreaking havoc with the 3D polarization. Another gave me trouble for some time. Drive-in with very long throw - digital image could not be focused uniformly. Found very poor quality port glass had distortions in it that muddied the image on screen.

[Marcel Birgelen]

IOne was the 3D wasn't working properly in a new theatre. Surprisingly, the contractors installed Solarite glass in the projection ports. The polarized glass was wreaking havoc with the 3D polarization.

The guy that installed that glass must have confused UV-blocking glass with sunglasses...

B.t.w.: I had a cracked lens once. The crack wasn't really visible when looking through the lens, but it caused massive internal reflections and chromatic aberrations.

[Tim Reed]

The guy that installed that glass must have confused UV-blocking glass with sunglasses...

It was a mess. There had been techs ahead of me who were replacing projector boards, trying to fix the problem. I just put the 3D glasses on, and closed one eye at a time... which revealed the port glass issue. I could see the full frames on the glass, but only part of them was making it to the screen. The owners couldn't believe it was that simple. LOL

[Brad Miller]

The Ultra-Star Plus (red) lenses were brighter than prior lenses, despite the same f-stop, and held corner-to-corner focus, however their inlet angles were such that aperture plate shadow was HUGE. You were not going to get a crisp edge with them as the lens will exaggerate the thickness of your aperture plate...so, it's a trade-off.

That's putting it mildly. Many people love them, but I will not use those ISCO red lenses. The most perfect aperture plate in the world still looks like someone stuck masking tape on the port window when using those lenses. Maybe some people can tune out a lousy aperture plate, but I can't. It's a massive distraction to the movie and completely unacceptable.

I also find it curious how many people keep praising the ISCO line. I've had 6 different late model Blue-Star ISCO anamorphic lenses and the Schneiders all produced a superior image to my eyes. I have definitely noticed that the Schneider anamorphics produce a very slightly wider image, but the LOOK of the final picture was just superior using the Schneiders. Richer colors and much blacker blacks. (Neither stood out as sharper.) And yes I made sure the optics were as close to "new" clean as possible, making sure to look at the elements from different angles to find any contrast-killing streaks.

[Steve Guttag]

Brad, I've done the shootout numerous times between Schneider and ISCO...with Schneider present and feeding lenses in...using the same projector, same test film...etc. At no time did Schneider ever perform as well by any measurable metric. They weren't brighter, they weren't sharper (typically worse), they didn't have better contrast (they did crush the blacks) and they don't hold color (they shift the image blue giving the appearance of brighter and higher contrast, but not to a meter).

With Schneider anamorphics, in addition to something other than 2:1 expansion (it really varies based on prime lens and that is true of all anamorphics), you get more chromatic aberrations and a notable hit in corner-to-corner resolution. If you put up grey bars as a target, ISCO would get your from black to white and all steps in between. Schneider would crush the grey levels down. You may find it more pleasing but it wasn't what was on the film.

The whole stupid 1:20 rule they developed was to limit people to what their lenses could handle on a curved screen. Their depth of focus just wasn't as great as ISCO.

It is also telling that, once ISCO was reacquired by Schneider, the ISCO line is what dominated. Just the unique Schneider stuff was still in production (variable primes, compact anamorphics...I don't think even the Cinelux Premiere survived the last round of Black and Silver lenses. The Ultra-Star Plus did as a black/silver...I forget if they called them Black-Stars (they did the Blue-Star's black/silver version). When they did that technicolor 3D thing...again, it was the ISCO line that was chosen.

But, I agree about the extreme fringing from the Ultra-Star Pluses. You really need velour with them. Duvateen will go grey too fast over time.

[Brad Miller]

I completely believe you Steve, I'm just saying that putting aside specific test measurements and just doing a basic A/B visual comparison, they simply did not look as good as the Schneiders on my comparisons. When the red line first came out I did a few tests using a turret and the same size lens and flipping back and forth with content film running, we all picked the Schneider. The red ISCO just looked "blah" in comparison. No that was not a scientific measurement, but it was enough of a difference for me to say "no thanks".

Based upon your regular praise for them here over the years I decided I must not have given them a fair shake in some manner and sourced a set for my screening room and put them in there. Focus was not as good, colors were not as good, contrast was not as good and holy cow the aperture shadow on those short throws I have to use to fill the screen was just absurd. Within 6 months I had more than enough and put the Schneiders back in, at which point everything was nice again.

For clarity I am not saying the ISCOs are bad lenses. They are definitely my second choice. That being said I don't know why our findings are so different, and I have zero doubt there is anything not completely accurate in your report, but when my eyes say "this does not look as good in comparison", I'll go with that as the deciding factor over a test measurement.