Best 16mm film stock for testing lenses

[Bill Munns]

I'm looking to bench test resolution of an array of C mount lenses and wanted recommendations on the film stock which hopefully has resolution higher than the best lens so lens resolution can be studied.

 

One area of the tests is comparing Kodak lenses that focus (like a 25mm Ektar) as compared to a 20mm Anastigmat (which has no focus, comes standard on a Kodak Cine Model E type camera) and test a standard 25mm that focuses and fits a Kodak Cine Royal (has a weird two pin "M" mount twistlock configuration) against a 25mm Ektanon which doesn't have a focus ring and has an intriguing depth of field indicator coupled to the F=Stop setting.

 

It seems in theory that a non-focusing lens has less elements and thus less optical surfaces which might cause lower resolution (obvioully how well polished the glass is could be a factor, but I'll get to that later if I can).

 

So I'm looking for recommendations on film stock with the finest grain. Can be B&W or color, any ASA, just so it's wonderfully fine grain. I'd even consider lab stock, if that would be finer grain and work with it's probably real slow ASA.

 

Thanks for any ideas or suggestions.

 

Bill

[Charles MacDonald]

I'm looking to bench test resolution of an array of C mount lenses and wanted recommendations on the film stock which hopefully has resolution higher than the best lens so lens resolution can be studied.

Thanks for any ideas or suggestions.

Bill

 

Of hand the new Vision 3 50D has got to be close, I think Kodak is claiming their best sharpness ever - and this is after the debut of the EKTAR 100 Still film.

 

This non-focusing lenes were the low end of the line in teh early cameras and are often triplets. The focusing lenses were aimed at a higher price point and so may have better optical correction.

[Bill Munns]

Charles:

 

Thanks for the film suggestion.

 

On the non-focusing lenses, they caught me completely by surprize (never knew they made them, until my first purchase arrived and I inspected it)and I can see the argument that they were simpler (and thus cheaper) as well as see the prospect that with fewer optical element surfaces, less loss of sharpness. But the Kodak Cine Model E doesn't strike me as a cheap line camera, and looks almost like an Arriflex S16, taking a 100' daylight load. Some of the magazine cameras seem cheaper, but that's just a perception, as I haven't done any research along those lines yet. What I have found was a description that the Ektars, when introduced, were considered the "top of the line" Kodak lenses for 16mm. I want to bench test them to see for myself which resolves sharper. I figure a bench test is better than a guess any day of the week.

 

I right now have 3 of the 20mm non-focusing Anastigmats and hope to get two more (oddly, I get them by buying the camera that they come standard on, because I can't find a seller of the lens alone)so I can test 5 lenses and see any variance of quality. On the 25mm Ektanon, I've only found one so far (a fluke I found on Ebay)but will test it against several 25mm focusing Ektars.

 

Will be intriguing to see what the test results are.

 

Bill

[Guest Christopher Sheneman]

Any EXR filmstock from the earlier 90's, preferribly non-refridgerated sitting in an outdoor metal storage shed in - Oh wait- did you ask what's the WORST 16mm filmstock to test lenses with? Oh ok, right- no, I don't the answer then.