Robert Daniel Martin

Hey Jarin-- that is an epic post. Major thanks for making a concise comparison to all these different Cooke and Baltar series. It's incredible to think this thread still grabs attention 2 years after posting. I've personally become very partial to a warmer, soft yet detailed look-- those attributes may sound contradictory, but the effort to achieve that soft and classic shimmer while combined with a presence of an organic microcontrast (not edge-to-edge sharpeness), is a worthy endeavor. For my last short film, State of the Game, I rolled the dice on a set of Cooke s4 with uncoated front elements, (while also using ProMist filters) and the results are very distinct. Curious to hear if you think the look is at all reminiscent of any of the above lenses you mentioned or if this resulted something entirely different. Shoot me a message/I'll send you the rest of the film if you'd like. Lastly, have you happened to have tried out the new Pancro/i Classics? If so, do you think they are ultimately closer to the series 1 or 2/3? Maybe they'll even release a Pancro Classics SF edition haha (you never know). Nonetheless, I do think they will eventually release some wider focal length in this new lineup to basically match the total range of the S4s. Who knows. Robert.

Hey Jarin-- That was an epic post. Really appreciate the time and commitment to getting this concise roundup to all these old glass comparisons between the Cooke and Baltars series. Fascinating to see this thread still pick up viewers now 2 years later. I have tended to become very partial to a warmer, soft, and yet detailed look. ~ perhaps that sound contradictory, but the effort to attain that silky shimmer yet combined with a sense of micro-contrast (not a clean edge-to-edge sharpness throughout) is an exciting endeavor. My final short, State of the Game, which Iwas completed finished up

Hi Ignacio -- So one point of clarification-- do you mean to say that this nickname of "Super Speed Baltars" were choosen and applied to this given set of lenses because the same style and mechanics from the s35 format Super Baltars were used to rehouse these early 70s still photography lenses from Nikon/Canon? In other words, they do not have the same look and coatings as the original Baltars lenses of the 1930s (used in the Hollywood classics of Casablanca and Wizard of Oz) OR as the Super Baltars of the 1960s (used in the God Father Trilogy) because these so-called Super Speed Baltars are simply not Bausch and Lomb Glass ??? please correct me if I am getting confused- I haven't been keeping up on this for quite some time. Regardless, It would be nice if their was an option on the market of true Bausch and Lomb glass which was used for the FF/VistaVision format 2nd question: I was under the impression that the original 1930s Standard Baltars had a focal range of 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 75, 100, and 152mm all at f2.3 I see your rental collection doesn't have the 20mm but an even wider 18mm and at an even faster T2 - Where did this wider focal length come from?? Is it really a Bausch and Lomb Standard Baltar or is it a Cooke Panchro Series 1/2 or a more modern Lomo Prime from the 60s which has also been commonly been used to color match? Very interested to know. And on that note to wrap things up on the Bausch and Lomb end of things-- it seems that a great deal of rental houses are conflating and/or mislabeling the names of their Bausch and Lomb lens sets.... some places call them the "Standard Baltars" or just the "Baltars" but with either case, they are obviously the "Super Baltars"... which makes the distinction (focal length range/aperture speed) between the two sets in question (1930s Standard/orginals vs the Super Baltars) all the more confusing. The original set is still quite a mystery and it is very annoying to see rental houses citing their super Baltar sets as equivalents to the same type of B&L's that were used way back a good 20-30years earlier then the Super Baltars

a double confirmation. Total victory and clarification. Thank you sir

Wow this is great news. So this equal crop factor for both height and width isn't just happening at 2.55 -- this same equal result will occur for other aspect ratios chosen for this format conversion/comparison combination? So if I wanted to shoot for 2.35 or 2.40 the same result would occur? But the crop factor would just be a different measurement since the cropping is further into the 2.66 capture thus resulting is even less of a crop factor measurement then 1.286x??? Great finding sir! Yes-- I realize now that I have had a long held incorrect understanding. Take this example: I thought that if you shoot with spherical lenses on say... either 3 perf s35 or RED Weapon 8k res on the 16x9 mode BUT framed for 2.40 (and then cropped in post but adding the mask to match what was framed--- you were not retaining the same height field of view as when shooting in 4:3 4 perf film or 4:3 digital using anamorphic lenses So say you use a 50mm anamoprhic and the camera is framing from the ground, up, a 6 ft tall from head to toe... but then if you put on that 50mm sepherical it wouln't be head to toe, it'd only capure a cowboy shot while also cutting off some of his head/headroom when you put on that mask So but what you are saying is that if you choose the proper focal length (in my case a 39mm) then the exact same composition would be attained after putting that mask onto the 2.40 mask in post onto that 16x9 mode image? Change aside in depth of field inherent in the focal lengths, the composition is exactly the same. Nice....

Also here is some math I did for this specific camera: - Dividing the height of the pixels of the 16x9 mode by the pixel height of the taller 3:2 FF mode to find the crop factor the camera uses 3240 / 3840 = 0.84375 is the crop factor going from 3:2 to 16x9 - multiply this crop factor by the original 24mm height to get the sensor height the camera is using in this 1.78 16x9 mode 0.84375 X 24 = 20.25mm 20.25mm is still larger than 18.16mm in 4:3 4perf. This is a good start! - Then now do the same to find what the sensor height is that you retain after adding the 2.55 letterbox mask in post by dividing the pixel height of 2.55 by the larger uncropped pixel height of 1.78 16x9 2260 / 3240 = 0.69753086 and then multiply by X 24 to get the mm height 0.69753086 X 24 = 16.74mm ~ So to use the 16x9 mode and then add a 2.55 letterbox mask in post (or just crop the stills outright) results in a shorter vertical sensor height than the original 18.16mm film format... in other words 36x16.74 is too far of a crop --going into a smaller format then the 23.16 x 18.16mm's height for starters which results in less Vfov captured in camera? Or Not? Alternatively: If I shot simply 1.50 stills on the 3:2 mode and then added a letterbox or outright crop (after doing the same math steps) it would be 36x14.12mm to get 2.55 Aaa so to get the VerticalFOV is impossible using either a 3:2 or 16x9 mode spherical lenses but to attain the HorizontalFOV is entirely possible? Please clarify Yes, my whole MO is to match both the width and height field of view. I can get the width by using the proper crop factor multiplier (please provide) to discover correct spherical lenses equivalent. And in my case, I am not looking for a virtual 48.3056mm width -- it'd be a tad but shorter (what measurement exactly?) because I'd already be pre-cropping the width in camera on a 36mm sensor size. In addition, are you saying that if I shoot stills in 3:2 mode or 16x9 mode, and add the appropriate 2.55 mask in post (to either one of these), they do retain the exact same vertical field of view height that is captured with anamorphic lenses on a 4:3 4 perf negative even with adding the mask? In other words, 36 x 16.74mm (16x9 mode) and 36 x 14.12mm (3:2 mode) are the exact equivalent to the vertical field of view captured in camera as is attained in the 23.16 x 18.16mm original film format? So the the physical mm height of these two digital negatives are shorter then 18.16 but they capture the same Vfov just onto a smaller printing area. Please confirm And yes, I did just basically ask the same question in three different ways haha but I just want to make sure we're not mixing our vocab up with coming to an incorrect conclusion that the 2.55 perspective I am going to create by adding these letter boxes, will also result in the same VerticalFOV retained on screen for viewers, when perhaps it is not. Sort like how we all know 2.40 masked spherical shot images are not the same Vfov as a 2.40 anamorphic shot images are when shrunk into a 16x9 container Cool-- we're at the finish line

One clarification: Since 2.55 is not as wide as 2.66, and therefore as less HorizontalVOF (because the sides are cropped off a bit to get from 2.66 to 2.55), I would no longer want to work with the uncropped squeeze factor of x1.3418222. Makes sense but then why would I squeeze more using x1.4 to find my new equivalent focal lengths to see the same field of view of a 2.55 ? Wouldn't it be opposite ~ less of a squeeze than 1.34? Ex) 25mm anamorphic goes to 18.6mm spherical lens with a1.34 squeeze.... but then goes even wider to a 17.85mm focal length using 1.4 squeeze. So the equivalent focal length would be not as wide to gain the 2.55 Hvof in this precropped methodology- correct? What would be the proper new squeeze ratio?

Been studying your posts -- please point out any false statements or contradictions below so I can get this squared away. I'm just going to read downwards to build a conclusion. Regarding the VFOV height perspective of an image on traditional 35mm negatives: I always thought you do capture a taller height/VFOV in camera when shooting with scope lenses because instead of 3 perf s35 or 2 perf techniscope, the camera is now printing on the taller full 4 perf aperture of the negative? So therefore, inherently a normal 50 spherical lens would not be capturing/printing a taller image since these flat lens are not used in conjunction with the silent aperture 4 perf 4:3 mode -- So in other words, when we watch a film in 1.85 or even 1.78, their VFOV, though a taller looking perspective then 2.55 / 2.40 / 2.35 films fit into a 16x9 container, are not actually as tall, since the Field of View captured with that 50mm anamoprhic lens is printing onto an additional 4th perf and therefore taller negative. Please confirm? Now- when working on a physically larger (wider and taller) negative of a FFVV 3:2 camera (like a canon 5D or the Cine cameras mentions above): I now understand that either the spherical or anamorphic 50mm lens would and does capture/print the same VFOV height, even taller to begin with, because 24mm is obviously taller then the 17.5mm of 35mm negs. Please confirm. It is worth noting that the sensor does crop in (doesn't use the full available height of the sensor) when turned to 16x9 mode for still photos.... I wonder what this mm height actually is then in this mode, since it could help when exactly approximating what new height the camera is working at so as for us to compare that to the 17.5mm film standard 16x9 stills are 5760 × 3240 while the 3x2 stills are at 5760 × 3840 I don't know what the math equation for how to figure this crop factor out. Please advise Ohhh-- So then lets figure that crop factor above with 18.6mm instead then, yeah?? So I am presuming the 18.6 is the uncropped 2.66:1? They cropped the sides (not the height) to get to the original cinemascope standard of 2.55 and I presume are still keep cropping off the sides to get to the new standard of 2.40 and 2.35?? ~you don't crop height when having shot with anamorphic-- this only occurs when shooting with spherical to attain the same perspective.... So apologies, but where did 17.5mm come from? Is that the uncropped 3 perf height of 1.85 or is the 2.40 / 2.35 or something else?? A virtual 48.3056mm x 18.16mm --- aaa yes, an 8:3 image. Dearly wish it were easy and this crop factor was natively available on a camera to start with: Medium format cameras like the Fuji GFX50s are just short on the horizontal end at 43.8mm x 32.9mm... but then of course the height is even larger. This camera does have a 65:24 mode which is 2.71 -- this the closest I've found to my 2.66 uncropped ~2.55 ideal....but for an $5000 upgrade and a different crop factor arithmetic now to compare to 4 perf 35mm it is just getting to be an alternative hassle. So as for my question above regarding the 3:2 to a 16x9 crop on the FF canon 5D (and while using FF lenses for that matter): the VeriticalFOV is a mystery to me. Again, I do understand that normal cinema 35mm lenses (either flat or scope) when put on a larger sensor of FFVV, will provide the exact same height) but the fact I am using FF lenses in the first place, is now giving me an arithmetic blind spot. Okay I gotcha -- I definitely had my focal length equivalents incorrect since i'm on a larger shooting format to start with. So here is the breakdown if I were to get a set of say...Cooke xtal express anamorphics for the film, and I wanted to get used to those focal length horizontalFOV, but while using a FFVV still camera (the canon 5D3), with FF spherical lenses--- 25mm Cooke Anamorphic -->18mm FF spherical 35mm --> 26mm 40mm --> 30mm 50mm --> 37mm 75mm --> 55mm 100mm --> 75mm 200mm --> 150mm Mmmm so this is why they make x1.33 anamorphic adapters for the dslr world. I've only found one x2 adapter out there but I'm stumped when finding any, regardless of 1.33 or x2, that fit my front thread size lenses of 82mm.... I use a tamron 24-70 and various zeiss ZE primes https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1195991-REG/slr_magic_slra50_2x77rfwm_anamorphot_50_2_0x_with_rangefinder.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1413511-REG/sigma_slra65133x_anamorphot_65_1_33x_anamorphic_adapter.html -- Lets go down a quick rabbit hole regarding tools for me to directly fix this problem but still usingmy same FF camera: I've noticed that these adapters, when used on a 16x9 mode turn the image into 2.35 when it's a x1.33 type-- This would be useless for my intentions because that doesn't capture wide enough HFOV.... or is it a tall enough VFOVfor my ideal framing of 2.55??? Or both? The top one, though x2 squeeze for using on 4:3 mode, it doesn't fit onto the front of my lenses...it states: "It mounts to lenses with a non-rotating front and a front thread diameter of 62mm. SLR Magic recommends that the Anamorphot-50 2.0x be used with lenses that have a front element that is physically no larger than 50mm in diameter." Also, "Supports focal lengths between 35 and 100mm for APS-C and MFT format sensors, and 70 to 100mm for full-frame format sensors" --- only being able to use my 70mm FF lenses and above seem pointless because it hardly covers my Cooke rental package range... So... what a waste. And this one isn't compatible to fit on my lenses anyway. For the bottom choice: the specs actually state the 82 is a rear thread and that it's only up to a 65mm front thread.... it was designed for the fuji zooms lenses... but those are for apsC format lenses.... --Goodness maybe I should just buy a ApsC camera??... but ehhh that sensor's negative is 23.5mm×15.6mm.... So its's 3 perf s35 and fundamentally unable to capture the same aspects of the bigger 24.1528mm x 18.6mm 4 perf film format used when shooting anamorphic.... So now we see this is my current conundrum: even if I try to do it natively on a smaller format DSLR and get an adapter-- it's still not quite the same and then those adapters are on apsC lenses, they can't support the widest anamorphic focal length of 25mm anyway.... they top out at 35mm. I'm a wide angle user-- and if i can't quite get to the widest of 25mm equivalent on apsC or even close to that on FF, then what's the point. ummmm I think my ideal solution and the answer to all the confusion I seek, is right here, but it needs to be unpacked a bit further with your help. Aaaa for starters, lets stick with the 5Dmark3 at 2.55 which does 16x9 stills at a lesser resolution of 5760 × 3240. And lets avoid cropping the top/bottom in post to a further 2.66 -- At 2.55 it would be 5760 × 2260 So then what would be the the effective sensor area used for 2.55 on the FF? So you're confirming that when I add a 2.55 letterbox atop this still photo or simply crop its top and bottom off to 2.55 outright, when using a 16x9 crop mode on a 3:2 sensor, it will retain/output the exact same height of a 35mm 4 perf neg?? Do please confirm-- because if so, my workflow is giving me what I want to accomplish in the realm of my virtual larger sensor method approach.

David-- I'm glad you've jumped on this thread. While I've got you here, I am very curious as to what tool you would use to go location scouting for a shoot in 2.55:1 What I mean is, what camera or tool is best for a director to go location scouting and be able to take stills and video clips of shots and compositions in this anamorphic aspect ratio? Doing so, I can create a lookbook with material in this aspect ratio ahead of time. Using Magic lantern on my Canon 5Diii I have uploaded and use a 2.55 custom crop mark overlay when shooting stills and video in 16x9 mode. However, I then have to now create a workflow in photoshop to add a 2.55 letterbox atop all these stills to recreate the look in-camera for the final images. I'm shooting with spherical full frame lenses and using the equivalent focal lengths to get the same HFOV of the anamorphic counterpart (so I use a 12mm flat lens to represent the 25mm ana scope lens and so on) but I know shooting stills and video in this 16x9 mode, even on a physically larger sensor of 3:2, does not allow the camera to see the same VFOV height that a 4:3 sensor provides when shooting anamorphic. So I would like to be able to get that in camera and compose for it. Yet using my same workflow, even if I shot in the 4:3 crop mode on the 5diii or even on the native 4:3 mode of a medium format Fuji camera, or something-- adding a letterbox atop or even simply cropping them to that ratio will be cutting off the height of the top and bottom (of which I want to retain) to great a widescreen image perspective out of a 1.33:1 image size. So I suppose what I am asking-when a director or DP goes into the field way ahead of time for scouting, and wants to be able too see that true 4:3 height of anamorphic images ~ the uncropped 2.66 field of view -- What tool should I use to do this?

I'm a huge fan of the Panavision DXL2 RED Monstro DSMC2 and or the Sony Venice version but I'll need to shoot a number of sequences at night with only practicals. Generally speaking-- I'm referring to a cinema camera with the ability of handling extreme circumstances. (No Canon's!) So what is the predecessor Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera? -- the camera they used on Collateral Or I should say, "What is now the best low light camera on the market that is able to similarly see into the dark, shoots at least 4K, and has a 4:3 anamorphic x2 squeeze mode? Some sort of Phantom or newer Viper? Or perhaps the Venice or Monstro DSMC2 can already do the job? Please advise

Yes, for me 2.55:1 has always felt the most balanced- and of course, most epic :) hmm so in other words, right now in the digital cinema realm to attain the highest resolution and capture the uncropped 2.66 for a 2.55:1 presentation it would be: a) RED DSMC2 MONSTRO at 6K in 4:3 with x2 sqeeze b) Sony Venice at 4K in 4:3 with the x2 squeeze c) Alexa mini at 2.8K in 4:3 mode - d) Alexa LF???? perhaps-- sort of confusing at this point which sensor type and which resolution would result. - And of course the Panavision DXL2 comes in the either rental flavor of the Venice or RED as well.... which either of these two options seem to be the best choices at the moment ~panavized digital cinema Any other options?

David- great to hear from you! hmm i'm going to have to digest all that further, but nonetheless, what I affirmatively want to do is capture 2.66 in camera because I want to frame for 2.55 and then crop off the sides and retain the full height in post to present the image as such. So basically what I believe they did in regards to 'Presented in Cinemascope' for La La Land... which was in fact shot on 35mm film I don't know of a digital film camera which has the native aspect ratio to capture 2.55:1 in camera... if there is one then do let me know. I certainly will not use the 6:5 anamorphic aspect ratio for a precropped image option like what is available in the Sony Venice. No 2 perf shooting for me! For reference what is the uncropped aspect ratio that you are referring to of 22mm x 18.59mm and 20.96mm x 17.53mm? what would it be for 2.55:1? Regardless, what does the 'and Ana 2x' in 8k option refer to on the RED DSMC2 Monstro when it comes to the aspect ratio of the digital negative in camera?

Referring to the RED DSMC2 MONSTRO camera On there website I have noticed in the specs section they have an option of '2x ana' under the 8k resolution. What does this mean? What is the uncropped aspect ratio and this captures in camera for this 8k resolution setting? https://www.red.com/DSMC2-BRAIN?quantity=1?sensor=1 Also see the highest resolution option that lists a 4:3 mode is at 6k for then setting it to 2x anamorphic squeeze. (Note the 1 minute mark) So what is the difference between these two options and what are the digital sensor dimensions for both? Do either record the uncropped image at the exact dimensions of traditional 4 perf film at 24.89 x 18.66 with a diagonal 31.10??? I have noticed the Sony Venice is not actually an exact digital sensor equivalent at 4k.... it is 24.3 x 18.3 It'll be great to see the comparison of specs for this RED versus the Venice, since basically what I am trying to figure out is what camera (if any) grants the exact 4:3 digital equivalent when cropping in via the digital sensor, as well as which provides a highest resolution. So these are the two factors in play for my considerations... I just want to make sure I am really capturing the true height and width field of view in the original film format, in camera of a digital sensor, when using x2 ana lenses. So whatever is the closest to 24.89 x 18.66 will be ideal This all does make me wonder why Sony and/or RED did not simply match the original format dimensions from the get go... since it's entirely possible to create that exact crop dimension when working down from a larger VV sensor, right?

I've done some more research and completely agree. What I've decided to do is simply use what I already have and shoot with my spherical lenses and frame for 2.55 in 16x9 mode. I'll double the width for the horizontal field of view by using a 12mm for mimicking 25mm anamorphic focal length and so on an so forth. SO then for when shooting, all I need is to get a hold of some custom crop mark overlays for the camera, which are allow to be used via the ML hack. Anybody out there already in possession of a 2.55 and 2.20 guide frames please do link here or make a quick one for download if you will be so kind. Every single time I attempt to edit the ones I already have in apps like Paintbrush, they upload into the camera fine but then the overlay doesn't show up (the black letter box masks are invisible) effectively displaying no cropmarks at all.... big headache. Ideally would have a clean and then a rule of thirds grid version for both 2.55 and 2.20. Then on the post side, I simply need to find a very efficient way to overlay a permanent mask letter box mask onto the uncropped 16x9 images with an app that can apply it in a batch format with a sort of quick apply/quick edit function. The best suggested app to do this is greatly appreciated (also if you have a link to a tutorial that would be great) Basically the Preview and Photos apps only have traditional crop functions... but I don't want to crop the photos, I much rather overlay a mask to these photos with a transparent center (so the original photo behind it will still be visible and Then I can practice resizing and repositioning if need be--- it's the same approach as is easily done in Avid using a 2.55 mask over across the entire timeline (which I will do with the video footage) but Also want a work around with stills. It's all good practice and I'll simply adjust my framing by taking a few steps backward to get the desirable vertical height in camera while looking at the LiveView displaying the 2.55 mask What do you think??? I does seem strange to me that there isn't some sort of tool that DP's and Director's use, which can PRINT, the compositions, with no crop factors/format differences to take into account, while out in the field doing these sort of scouts. Obviously director viewfinders are great but I'd like some sort of device which will take a frame grab of these viewfinder shots. On an aside, I was looking at the new Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera about come out at $1200, which does have the proper sensor size for 4096 x 2160 (4K DCI)-- this is an almost perfect option... but it's micro 4/3's.... to say the least, I don't want be out in the field, and have to do the math conversion of micro 4/3 sensor crop factor conversion using my 35mm lenses and then in addittion do the sepherical to anamorphic horizontal conversion: nightmare. I did discover that medium format still cameras like the FujiFilm GFX50s which do shoot in 4:3.... but from what I understand, the large option of 8256 x 6192 does exceed the image circle of normal 35mm lenses and thus the need for medium format lenses?.... or if not, the normal focal lengths of these 35mm lenses do change via some sort of equivalency equation? I was thinking, 'hey I could use this and set it to the small pixal setting of (4:3) 4000 x 3000 or use the (16:9) 4000 x 2248 to avoid the crop factor conversion when using my normal 35mm lenses BUT.... I still don't get to upload custom crop marks in camera like is possible via ML cameras and creating 16X9 container images off of 4:3 container images is a sort of extra step when creating and reviewing stills on widescreen latops and Imac displays... huh, what's a filmmaker to do?

Hello I'm going to be making a feature film presented in 2.55 cinemascope via x2 anamorphic lenses on either the RED or Sony Panavision DXL2's. In other words, I'll be capturing 2.67 in camera, framing for 2.55 on set, and then resize/crop in post for the final 2.55:1 cinemascope presentation on a 4K DCP. Exactly what they did in La La Land and then in the original 1950s films like Rebel Without a Cause. My creative goal is to find/buy and use the best tool for locations scouting that grants me the ability to go around finding compositions, composing shots, and taking stills and video of the beginning/middle/end of a shot like a photographic storyboard/picture book. To do so on a DSLR, I need a custom crop of 2.67:1 (or even 2.55 will work) in-camera, and while on a sensor mode that replicates the same vertical height 35mm lenses capture in 4:3 mode when shooting on digital or film. Since x2 anamorphic lens adaptors like SLRMagic run about $1,500 -$2,000 and are only compatible with longer spherical focal length between 50-80mm, this approach is worthless since I wouldn't be able to attain the horizontal field of view in the wider anamorphic focal lengths of 25mm, 35mm or 50mm when attaching using my spherical 12,18, and 25mm primes. .... and I will mostly be using these anamorphic lenses in the actual film. What I am trying to figure out how to work properly is use a 35mm FF DSLR to compose shots using my spherical primes to compose the equivalent HFOVs, but to somehow also shoot on a custom crop in a 4:3 mode to make sure the sensor is utilizing the same vertical height that is captured in 2.67 anamorphic. Currently.... I'm using a Canon 5Diii with Magic Lantern. which grants a in-camera custom crop of 2.67 when set to HD resolution at 1920x720 aspect ratio. I'm also using the experimental build which reduces the RAW files down to 10bit in order to make the LiveView display totally usable without any lag during recording. So this works great for the video side of things... though I am under the impression this is still not the equivalent vertical FOV which is captured in-camera before cropping the 2.67 image... since this custom HD crop is being derived in the 16x9 mode... Please confirm my suspicion? If so, is it then safe to say that no tool, when shooting in 16x9 mode, whether custom crops straight out of camera or not (or when capturing uncropped 1.78 or even 1.90) are still not capturing the same (taller) Vertical FOV as an uncropped 2.67 image derived from 4:3 x2 squeezes??? Regardless-- for some very silly reason, even when in video mode, the 5Diii doesn't have a function to take a frame grab at the same custom crop. This is so dumb! In stills mode, you can frame photos using the same custom overlay crop marks available in movie mode (2.67 and even 2.55) but the camera will again always take an uncropped picture. In other words, I've got the proper video aspect ratio covered (at least for a16x9 mode) but i'm stuck taking photos in 1.66 (3:2) or in 1.78 (16x9) or 1.33 (4:3). And there are no custom crop options at any resolution for when video is set to 4:3. Do I need to buy an external recorder like an Atomos or some other brand??? However, if the these external recroders don't give an options to take frame grabs/snap shot stills, then they would be useless. Please confirm or deny. Or perhaps one of the blackmagic cameras will provide my needs and so i'll just sell my 5D in exchange for one that has these avialable functions of stills and video in the aspect ratio and crop factor/shooting modes I seek. Please confirm or deny this option is viable. Bottom Line: I don't want to spend countless hours going through hundreds 16x9 or 4x3 photos, picking the bests ones, to then use some application to overlay a custom 2.55 letterbox created for the proper pixel dimensions of the stills, and then finally re-frame each picture one by one. So basically--- I really need a better workflow, a different tool, and more expert advise on the best way to location scout for a project with a final exhibition format of 2.55:1 cinemascope. I like to take photos, find shots, review them later and come back to them as reminders to show the DP, and eventually implement them into the film when come production months down the line. - I don't need to take the anamorphic characteristics of DOF into consideration for these location scout exercises just yet. - Resolution of the acquired stills and video footage do not matter (though knowing what the final pixel dimension is of a de-squeezed and uncropped 2.67 footage is on the Panavision Sony's and RED's cameras will be-- as well as what is the 2.55:1 cropped image on a 4K DCP are good references if anyone happens to know) - Phone apps are NOT an accceptable solution. I simply want to truly capture the same field of views vertically and horizontally but with using spherical lenses on some sort of device or system at the consumer or prosumer market level. Let me know how the pros do it and what my work around is for my creative goal thank you!

VV ehh? Great info. And yes, I believe on a posting here Aguilar did state theses so called Super Baltars were comprised of two different brands to compose the entire set... (need to confirm). Nonetheless it can then be stated that these are not officially Bausch and Lomb's which were widely distributed throughout the industry. In other words, their a sort of parallel example of the Cooke Technovision's or JDC Xtal Expresses anamorphic lenses. If these were automobiles, it's like how Shelby created Shelby Cobras out of Mustangs haha One piece of context -- when did this Super Speed Baltars come out (before the Super Baltars)? Or should I say... are their origins derived from modified retro glass ~ to be included in this catalog of discussion? Regardless, this company isn't US based and this is the only instance of seeing this set, therefore I wouldn't catagorize them as being readily available per say. Agreed to Series I Though it's rather odd that none of the rental houses specifically state they are a set of Series I- rather they use the far too general and unspecific euphemism of labeling them as 'Cooke Panchros' or 'Cooke Speed Panchros' and call it a day. Final clarification on these- with their smaller image circle, may you provide confirmation of the coverage area if a set of series I were used? For 35mm - do they cover 3 and 4 perf? For digital - do they cover the sensor size of 5k, 6k, 8k RED Helium super 35??? Great info on this Technicolor Panchros -- with this now discovered incompatibility, they're out of the running. Agreed. And sad. The test footage and stills from Bjorn's B&L cinemascopes are incredible. Frankly, some of the best looking footage I've ever seen on the RED... and i'm a huge fan of RED. Well basically, finding and pairing his lens/sensor combo is exactly what I'm looking to utilize, thus prompting this entire journey of research/discovery/forum posting etc etc. 'unearthed and rejuvenated' -- I do wonder what businesses, auctions and resources Bjorn and others are using to unearth and acquire these relics of the past. ...And with this round it is pretty well summed it up.

So to review....below are the original/retro cine lenses per each format that have disappeared from circulation, have yet to be rediscovered, rehoused, and made available for present day use A.) 35mm Spherical: - Special Technicolor f1.7 Cooke Panchros (one source cites them as having been modified into the x1.5 Anamorphic VV lenses for Technirama) - Cooke Speed Panchro Series I (The B&L Standard Baltars have appeared at a single rental house) B.) FF VistaVision Spherical: - Canons - Leitz - Schneider - Leica full-frame rangefinders - VistaVision High Speed #1 (VVHS1) (the Cooke Double Speeed Panchros have reappeared but a complete set is currently unavailable) C.) 35mm CinemaScope x2 Anamorphic: - B&L Series II &/or Blue Series E (have resurfaced with Bjorn's 1 1/2 personal sets but are not yet rehoused or available for direct rental... he should do this... or from any other rental houses) - Technovision Anamorphics (purchased by Panavision yet no recent test footage or listing on their website or other rental houses) (The Cooke Xtal Express Anamorphics are considered available yet have still yet to be given a website citation from a rental house) D.) 35mm FF VV x1.5 Anamorphic: - No information whatsoever of any make/models aside for the citation of about the technirama films.... of which only two were ever made. E.) 65mm Large Format Spherical: - B&L (for the 1920s Fox Grandeur format) - Lomo (for the Soviet Unions version of 65mm) - Todd-AO's (The cooke taking lens was either a Cooke Speed Panchro or DuoPanchro and later made with Canons) --- And for sake of completeness I did just come across the B&L Super Speed Baltars... Any info about these? Are they basically Baltar Series III? Standards -> Super Baltars -> Super Speed Baltars ... or is this just another blasted euphemism? https://harmonicarental.com/material-cinematografico/lentes/superspeed-baltar/ Also can anyone confirm which spherical lenses from the 60s/70s were coated to match the original Standard Baltars? I can seem to retrieve the source... some rental house were packaging Baltars with I think either Lomo's or Kowas CineProminars to cover the wider and telephoto ranges. Please clarify- thanks!

Thank God that's now cleared up. Rereading my previous post, I can now see the errors very clearly. As reference, it's videos like the one below, which give a visual to the image capture area with anamorphics on digital sensors of 16:9 and 4:3 (the equivalent to 4 perf 35mm) that makes things rather confusing. I now know that the Ultra Panavision Panatars are the only large format 65mm anas of their kind (at least that are retro glass), But they derive a wider 2.76 then the 4:3/4 perf canvas of 2.66 In other words, 2.66 is not a standardized exhibition aspect ratio and 35mm anas lenses do not provide the same field of view or image magnification/image circle as large format scope lenses. It is also worthy to note that according to this video, when shooting with scope lenses on digital 16x9 sensors, the native uncropped aspect ratio is actually 2.00 StararoUnivision.... But it's not capturing the true height of x2 scope lenses on 35mm 4 perf and/or 4:3 sensors... in other words, this is just a happy coincidence yet not the real thing when it comes to Stararovision (which usually is shot with spherical lenses anyway) Hawk does seem to be now entering into the filmmakers consciousness more than ever. Admittedly I haven't a clue which (if any) landmark films used their glass, what the general look/approach they have to lenses, or what the company is all about. Regarding the FFVV Cookes: are the Double Speed and DuoPanchros ('Duo' for double) one in the same? Doubtful since this rental house list them as Large Format... https://www.lafilmboutique.com/rentals This house does have a set of Double Speeds. The only rental house based in the US I've found thus far as an option for FFVV retro cooke glass. This glass is extremely promising but they're missing the 28mm and we have yet to find word on if a wide angle 18mm was ever made and or what the word is on a 40 or 50mm focal length. Certainly would like to see footage. This does lead me to my lens format type question: 'Standard Format'? lenses = 35mm (what is the designation officially called?) Full Frame lenses = VistaVision Large Format = 65mm Medium Format = ??? It feels appropriate that Medium format lenses should be used for the VV format since it's negative size is between standard 35mm and Large Format 65mm.... but all these Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses are being used for the biggest negative format of Imax..... on the face of it, this seems rather silly. Please clarify! Ooooo B&L large format lenses. I'm intrigued. Can you dig up some info on them - what make and model/focal length range/when the came out? And finally regarding the 35mm spherical Standard Baltars: I remember reading somewhere that a certain line of either Lomo's or Kowas CineProminars that came out in the 70s or early 80s which were purposed to match the color hue and warmth of the Baltars but with the added benefit of added focal lengths? The one big knock on the Standard Baltars for me is the lack of an 18mm wide angle. So finding an adequate matching lens to supplement these retro lenses would be a game changer. However... about that warmth look of the Baltars: it seems to be pretty dramatically inconsistent when viewing the few lens tests online. Here are the Standards (this look pretty contrasty and nice: Then here is the Supers (looking even warmer then Cookes): But then here are the Supers again (looking very sterile and unappealing): These do appear to be pretty big variances...

Ohh good to know. Then perhaps the Gladiator DP in this video was mistake about the Xtal Express lenses? http://cookeoptics.tv/b/masterclass-John-Mathieson-choosing-lenses-1.html As linked above, the only technovision Anas lenses that I have come across with what appears to be retro housing, is this set... which is an italian rental house. primes: www.d-visionitalia.com/en/rental/lenses/anamorphic/ Zooms: http://www.d-visionitalia.com/en/rental/lenses/anamorphic-zoom/ Q1)Has anyone else seen a set floating around on a rental house website or even test footage??? That would be a great help. Q2) I suppose I must be getting my history mixed up. I was under the impression Joe Dunton (who invented the modified anamorphic Cooke's (dubbing them the Xtal Express) was in fact a founder and/or collaborator with Technivision. Might as well bring this up since we're in the hunt for these technovision lenses that PS Technik has engineered a modern glass FF VV 1.5 squeeze anamorphic set dubbing them none other then "Technovision Classics".... but they this is a german company and the footage of the lenses does NOT look promising at all. Thanks guys for introducing branding confusion to consumers with lenses that don't look like the original set in question at all :) https://ascmag.com/articles/p-s-technik-technovision-classics https://www.pstechnik.de/en/shop/cs-zoom-1-5x-anamorphic-35-70mm/a-1857/#videos __________________ Since Dom's clarification that the series III 18 and 25mm Cooke Panchros image circles were enlarged to cover the entire 4 perf 35mm neg (silent aperture... not VV) this of course transitions to a new question... Since we've been speaking about the first ever lenses (the most vintage a lens gets) for each given formats, I do want to inquire about what the original FF VV lenses used on films like: The Searchers (1956) https://shotonwhat.com/the-searchers-1956 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049730/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec The Ten Commandments (1956) Vertigo (1958) VV Format: (35mm 8 perf 1.5:1) = A sharper 35mm image + A wider full frame field of view (taller image) 1.96 (full container) Masked: 1.66 1.85 2.00 The make/models of Vintage VV lenses have been hard to come by... I've read they were adapted and re-mounted “Leica full-frame rangefinder” camera lenses and then there were the VistaVision High Speed #1 (VVHS1) lenses. Can someone shed some light~confirm/expand up this? _________________ Essentially, those modern PS technik's linked above are both VV FF AND anamorphic at x1.5 ~in other words, this is the Technorama format. Delrama anamorphic front mirror adaptor + spherical lenses FF VV lenses (which were sure enough rehoused/modified Technicolor Cooke Panchros!!! HUH... Well what do we know... perhaps this is why these lenses aren't floating around by sellers or at rental houses already rehoused? Anyway, these lenses had a single focus pull system. Pretty cool (I'm getting excited!!! Where are these guys at????) Technirama Format: (35mm 8 perf 5:1 + x1.5 squeeze) = The sharper 35mm resolution of VistaVision + the same anamorphic field of view of CinemaScope native aspect ratio: 2.20 (I believe so) Masked as: 2.55 Noteworthy film: Spartacus (1960) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/spartacus-2-1960 Great info. The timeline was fuzzy for me and I was under the impression the B&L Blue E Series came out before Panavision's Panatars. Regardless, those B&L 2nd/3rd editions the bjorn has (he also does have some E series) are the one's that were originally in question. I cannot wait to see how small they get after the rehousing process. I want to shoot with old cinemascope lenses in 2.55 for my next film (thus all the research) It's gonna come down to either an epic original set like his, the Xtal Epress, or an original technovision set (hence the Apocalypse Now research) The other feature will be spherical (either standard/super baltars, Cooke panchros, or in either standard vintage FF VV lenses... the technirama style x1.5 VV is still on the table at the moment (pending the outcome of this research) That is a great find about the Double Speeds actually being FF VV. there you go, you're answering my questions ahead of time! haha More missing history of Cooke lenses being recovered.... they apparently did have VV lenses back in the day. I hope some rehoused sets get into circulation soon- has anyone seen test footage?? That would be huge... I don't think the DuoPanchros were FF. They are listed as Large Format. But again, I've only seen that single focal length... I definitely don't want to make assumptions because it would defeat the entire purpose of this thread, yet this may indicate which cooke taking lenses were the hidden formula to the Todd-AO lenses... We need to find another Bjorn out there to acquire a set and get them working. Honestly, if there were ever a set I would take a loan out for an go crazy on purchasing it would be the original Todd- AO's. Dom- you're not Bjorn, but I presume you're in the know: whom did he acquire all those individual lenses from? Is their a certain resource/method the gear heads on these boards are finding all these rare lenses from? I did some digging for the Standard Baltars. This is the only rental house and test footage I could find. Despite the videos...mood and tone... they do look very promising all things considered. http://beholdoptics.com/standard-baltars.html Thanks for the confirmation on those anamorphic Todd's.... I suspected as much. They don't look that great either. Great clarification on the Panavision B Series anamorphics. From my understands the (A)uto Panatars are the A's... this is what generated the initial confusion and presumption that films like Sound of Music, Lawrence of Arabia, and 2002 Space Odyssey (all in large format 70mm) were actually shot with anamorphic lenses. They are not... They're FLAT spherical and the native aspect ratio (before cropping) on 5 perf 65mm negs derives the 2.20 aspect ratio. (My favorite ratio of all time). I suppose since the field of view in those films are so epic and wide and because the Panatars (and B series) are anas, I always presumed they were shot in this format. But that is not the case... Please clear this compatibility questions up once an for all: Q1) 35mm sphericals don't cover the image area of vertical running 5 perf 65mm negs- corrrect? Q2) You need to use Large format spherical (that's were Todd-AO's came in) for this 65mm 5 perf format- correct? Q3) In general, the widest aspect ratio derived with Large Format lens/65mm neg combination is the 2.20 field of view - correct? Q4) So... If i'm tracking correctly, here is where I catch a snag: modern 35mm anas (ex. Ziess master anas and such) as well as the original cinemascopes do not cover 65mm negs- please deny or confirm. IF not: I was under the impression the Auto Pantars were also standard 35mm anamorphics since they were made for 35mm cinemascope films after all and yet... how could this be since they derived the uncropped 2.76 ultra panavision format when used with on 65mm neg. I think I have fundamental confusion that there are standard ana lenses and then Larger Format 70mm anas? If there are not two types then it is correct to say all x2 squeeze anas do cover 65mm negs and derive the 2.76? We're closing in!

...Wow. It's unbelievable. Those are in fact the Rebel Without a Cause lenses.... I read the entire thread. Thank you Robin for the heads up! Facts of note that I have discovered (of which have been nagging up to this point) 1) Many people nowadays conflate the make/models of rehoused Baltars, simply labeling all of them as "Super Baltars" when in fact, the "Standard Baltars" are the original Bausch and Lomb 35mm spherical lenses. Standard Baltars= 25, 30,35, 40, 50,75, 100mm Super Baltars= 20, 25, 35, 50, 75, 100mm with a bit faster f stop 2) So it was in fact the Standard Baltars which were the taking lens for all the original cinemascope films. regarding Björn's specific set, it is a bit confusing as to whether or not his lense are of this taking lens/adaptor nature or if they are in fact the short-lived Blue Series E anamorphics. Even if they're not, who cares?!? These are the real deal CinemaScopes! On that note... 3) The Bausch & Lomb anamorphic Blue Series "E" lenses were the competitors to the Auto Panatar Compact Anamorphic Lenses. These are the two oldest and original all-in-one anamorphic lenses to ever be used... and would love to make my first feature with :) - The Panatars are now back in the panavision rental catalogue. The B&L Blue Series E had around 20 sets made.... They are sure to pop up rehoused sooner than later. Truth be told I love the thread, but goodness.... ugh.... shooting with VS angels on commercials? They didn't teach that in film school! I can't wait to see the finished product and the footage, but I'm not in the market for throwing down $8k-$15k per lens in addition to the costs of rehousing. I can't wait to be there but to splurge on all the vintage glass I'd ever want, but until then, I'll see you all at the rental houses :)

Hmmm... I hope that is not the case... I did come across this modern lens when researching telecentric lenses... maybe this sheds light on it? Still don't understand what the implications of needing/wanting Anastigmats formated lenses and if all lenses nowadays actually are Anastigmats and have just dropped the labeling from the lens barrels simply to avoid confusion or not. Please confirm. ohhh a smaller image circle for Series I certainly does make them less appealing. Yes, I do love the fact that they are uncoated. Having used uncoated S4's, I have become a major fan and this makes the Series I appear rather appealing. Perhaps they will even release the new Classic Panchro/i sets as uncoated versions as well... The only downside I foresaw of series I in my initial research was in fact that they didn't include an 18mm. It is my favorite focal length. Good to know about the image size of series III all match that of the 18 and 25mm from series II... I suppose one must simply check to confirm that the proper combination does compose the rehoused set when renting and purchasing ex) it should be 18/25 from either series II or III along with the other focal lengths all from series III.... checking this is a bit of a hassle, though it is great to know they will all match in sharpness and color rendition. Bummer that they are not able to cover FF and simply the 4 perf range of the entire 35mm neg- Thank you for catching this error. However this does make me wonder which such lenses were used on VV films like Giant and The Searchers. In other words, what are the oldest/original make/model of FF VistaVision lenses used for cinema? Hmmm yes, the Super Baltars. They have a stunning contrasting and a very warm look. Even warmer then Cookes. I've done additional research and have found similar findings. And it is worthy to note the original cinemascope films were quite contrasty/saturated. https://www.camtec.tv/bausch-lomb-super-baltar-tls I've seen plenty of rehoused sets available for rent.... I presume you are referring to an attempt to create a custom retro-style anamorphic set incorporated into a single housing? mmm That would be as close as it gets to the old look but with none of the mumps/distortion problems. That would be a real winner! Really great information. Great to see a link of the original lenses. The letter/angle of view markings of A 37°, B 48°, C 64°, and E 128° are a strange way to go but good to know. Wonder if they ever did make a 'D' lens? I certainly have yet to see these lenses listed for rental thus far online but it is exciting to know that they exist and to see pictures of them... in my opinion, these could be the best lenses ever made (the Sound of Music Blu-ray is out of this world stunning). To wrap it up I suppose this is a good a time as any to inquiry about the Cooke DuoPanchros: https://www.lafilmboutique.com/product-page/30mm-cooke-tls-duo-panchro-large-format I've only yet to see them rehoused in this single focal length of 30mm... the DuoPanchros appear to be Large Format (for 70mm)... not FF VV. Could these be the mysterious modified Cooke taking lenses that were the basis for the Todd AO (Sound of Music/Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 Space Odyssey) that is in question?? This is the only Todd-AO FF lenses for rent I could find... it does say they are Cooke Panchro based. Though the housing looks far more modern then the links you gave... Are these authentic or rather just a modern inspired by set of the original series? http://www.lensworksrentals.com/cineovisiontodd-ao-anamorphics/

All things being considered, that means there could be at least 50 sets of these special Technicolor Cooke Panchros that were made - That's a pretty good number. So does anyone know where they all ran off to? Could this be a case of Technicolor having controlled (and still do control) circulation and they're all sitting in a a bunch of pelican cases in a backroom storage unit at technicolor in LA? Heck, this could be like how the Panavision Panatar lenses were dusted off and grabbed from the back-corner and are not the hottest lenses around. If not a controlled circulation, there must be some owners or rental houses out there with these available to filmmakers... Regardless, can someone still confirm if telecentric lenses with beam splitting prisms are compatible with modern single chip digital sensors in the first place anyway? Furthermore, I have seen word, though have yet to see a rental page of a set, of Vintage Cooke double speed Pancro 1.3X Are these actually them but simply remounted and rebranded? What are theses things? There are also the so called "Cooke Double Speed Panchros"... but the f stop rating doesn't seem to be faster then any other given Series II/III Panchros.... https://www.truelens.co.uk/cooke-double-speed-panchro Hmm... first off, lets confirm if Apocalypse Now was shot with Xtal Express lenses because that film doesn't show any signs of close up mumps or distortions on the edge of the frames making characters look thinner. I would have presumed if Panavision had corrected these problems with their own all-in-one anamorphic lenses in 1958, than by the mid 1970s, Hollywood still would not be using adapters to achieve the x2 squeeze? But if so, i'm assuming then it was a set of spherical Panchro series III... but then combined with what adapter ~ What make/model and was it front or rear? I have come across these Technovision lenses for rent... Are these the Xtal Express ~ What the heck or these?? http://www.d-visionitalia.com/en/rental/lenses/anamorphic/ http://www.d-visionitalia.com/en/rental/lenses/anamorphic-zoom/ Ohhh?? So this goes back to the question of what was the name of the first available series of Panavision lenses that did correct these mumps in 1958? --- A needed clarification: when referring to the spherical taking lens method does this refer also to the use of adapters which required duel focus pulling OR was it were these the first of their kind (for lack of a better term) all-in-one anamorphic lens systems of their kind that where rebuilt/rehoused from the ground up? From my panavision research, it appears the C series are the oldest they list on their website for rental but they came out a decade later in 1968. https://www.panavision.com/products/c-series-anamorphic-prime-lenses-0 What are the B series? Panavisions website doesn't even list them. And hey, if there is a series B and C... wouldn't that imply there is an initial A series???

Intent: This post seeks to inform both historical, technical, and specific Cooke Lenses used on certain films of personal interest for the purposes of future projects. Thus, the numerous questions are to attain a starting by based of an accurate “frame of reference” when moving forward in choosing lenses to create a baseline image. In addition, when referring to “the Look” of a particular film, it goes without saying that filters, diffusion, LUTs, color palette, production design, HMU, films stocks and processing, affected the look of these films... so let’s avoid that divergent discussion. After extensive research of the three sources below, attaining answers to my questions have been spotty at best. Sources: http://www.musitelli.com/site/files/Cooke_Histoy_Book_by_FDTimes.pdf https://www.cookeoptics.com/t/history.html http://cookeoptics.tv/cooketv.nsf/b/index.html These five films span cinema history using various shooting formats and lensing systems (of which I am seeking information on) to which created stunning visual presentations. Let begin: The Wizard of Oz (1939)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/the-wizard-of-oz-1939 I think it’s safe to say that this masterpiece was shot on the Cooke Telecentric lenses for Technicolor… INFO: “It became evident the provision of a beam-splitting prism behind the objective in the Technicolor 3-strip camera made it impossible to use the wide angle objectives available at that time. The problem was to provide a lens of short focal length and wide relative aperture having the long back focal distance necessary to clear the prism whilst maintaining the high standard of definition expected from a Cooke lens. The most notable feature of these lenses, however, is the inclusion in the 30mm design of what might be called the inverse telephoto principle, whereby the back focal length is considerably longer than the equivalent focal length.” Q1) Will these lenses work on modern digital sensors. (Alexa, Red, Panavision DXL2) and/or film cameras using modern film stocks?? I want to find and use them. Either or viable shooting format will work for me… Q2) Why have these lenses seemingly disappeared?? They are referred to as, “Special Cooke Speed-Panchro Lenses” with an amazing F 1.3! There are numerous rental houses with rehoused Cooke Panchro’s but I have never seen a set of the Techinicolor Panchros. I’d be willing to even buy a set of these lenses and rehouse them… yet how could countless sets have dropped out of circulation?! Does anyone know of a rental house in the US (or seller) with the original Technicolor Cooke Panchros? Q3) In researching photos of these lenses, I have also discovered what are known as the Cooke anastigmat for technicolor lenses BUT at f2…. Are these it but a later model or are or they something else? Admittedly, I do not understand or know what “Anastigmat” means. http://www.kevincameras.com/gallery/v/movie_len/cooke/technicolor/ Casablanca (1942)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/casablanca-1942 I am presuming this film was shot on the Cooke Speed Panchros Series I since the Series II came out three years later in 1945. As referenced above. The Panchros have had a resurgence with combining rehoused Series II/III into a single rental/purchasable set. According to the sources, Series I are uncoated and rehoused versions of the Cooke Series O f2.0 OPIC lenses introduced in 1925. The Pancros were officially released in 1930. The Cooke Speed Panchro f/2.0 Series I were offered in 11 focal lengths: 24, 28, 32, 35, 40, 47, 50, 58, 75, 100 and 108 mm Q1) Does anyone know of a rental house with a set purely of Series 1?? I have yet to find this option or even see test footage of the original series I. Same goes with a set of Series O OPIC lenses: these could also be rehoused into a set with PL mounts. Where have these original Series O and I lenses disappeared to?? The 1945 Series 2 came in 6 focal lengths: 18, 25, 32, 40, 50 and 75mm. The Cooke Speed Panchros Series III came out in 1954 with specifically the 18 & 25mm having a faster f1.7, and larger image size to cover Vistavision. Source: “Both the 18 and 25 were of reverse telephoto construction and also released in the mid-1950s” Q2) In other words, it appears these two focal lengths for FF VistaVision use the same design principle as the Technicolor Special Cooke Speed Panchros… So did we just confirm the question above that the Technicolor Panchro’s are compatible with modern cameras? Also, do the rest of series III, or even series I, II and technicolor/Series O’s have the ability to cover the 8 perf 35mm neg and/or a digital 8k FFVV sensor??? Source: “In 1960, Director of Photography Russell Metty, ASC, used Cooke lenses with a Delrama anamorphic adapter to film "Spartacus" in Technirama. The 35mm negative was converted via Panavision printer lenses to a 70mm print.” Q3) So what it the delrama that provided the x1.5 squeeze which was in combination with a set of spherical FF VV Cooke lenses?? If so, then what were these original VV Cooke lenses??? Q3) Why would rental houses be combining Series II/III to create a single set? This seems haphazard when at least the series III 18 and 25mm have a totally different image magnification/coverage area compared to rest. Please confirm and/or correct the assumption that these two lenses will capture and different look/feel to the rest. I haven’t located a source revealing the rest of the series III were released in a larger matching FF VV capture size as well… so then generally speaking, do the Series II/III’s have an indistinguishable look to? Source: The newly released Cooke Panchro/i Classic, T2.2 “recreates the same look and feel of the original, with the advantage of modern glass, mounted for today’s cameras.” Q4) Regarding coverage/image magnification and overall look, are these new Panchro/i’s most akin the Series I, II, or III? Source: “By 1955, nearly every 35mm film camera in use throughout the world was equipped with Cooke Panchro, Speed Panchro or Super Speed Panchro lenses.” Q5) My goodness what is happening— convoluted Branding issues?? When did only Cooke Panchro and then a Super Speed Panchro come in? Okay, when physically holding them in your hand, what names are actually etched into the front barrel of the lenses of the three series… or are there in fact five series? Heheh Rebel Without a Cause (1955)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048545/technical?ref_=tt_dt_specA new era! It was shot in CinemaScope at 2.55, yet I cannot find any information as to which brand/make and model of lenses were used – not sure if even Cooke’s or something else. All I can gather is this film, like East of Eden, were ‘presented’ in anamorphic. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048028/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec But… you can tell the lenses (or perhaps the anamorphic adapter utilized) are much different between the two films. The latter, Rebel, has far less edge distortions. Q1) Were these first ‘Anamorphic’ CinemaScope films using actual anamorphic lenses or something like a “Delrama anamorphic adapter” attached to spherical lenses? If so, were they attached in front or behind? Plus, with these adaptors, focus had to be pulled simultaneously on both at the same speed?? Q2) I would love to use whatever the actual lenses were on “Rebel” on a modern camera BUT if it were not a real anamorphic, then I suppose that’s out of the question. Therefore, are the one or two first ever released adaptor-free anamorphic lenses for 35mm film coverage— And therefore, the first one from Cooke? Sound of Music (1965)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059742/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/the-sound-of-music-1965 A new era: This was shot on large format 65mm film. This film is touted in both webpages and videos as being shot on Cooke lenses... https://www.cookeoptics.com/t/filmed-with-cooke.html http://cookeoptics.tv/b/spotlight-f**k--the-numbers-geoff-boyle-spotlight.html Q1) So why has it never publicized which stunning set of Cooke’s were used? In fact, there is NO HISTORY on any of these three sources regarding FF, anamorphic, or large format Cooke image capture lenses from 1950-70s. I’m doubting in 1965 they were using some sort extender adaptors for large format? Which large format spherical primes and/or zooms were used for this 70mm film? Shotonwhat does state it used the Todd-AO camera aperture and anamorphic camera aperture. This seem like a contradiction… like 2001 Space Odyssey and Lawrence of Arabia (which used the Super Panavision 70 camera format… which is the same) I am pretty sure this film did not use anamorphic lenses Q2). This brings me to my most amateur question but which may or may not factcheck my hunch: Do the vintage anamorphics from the 60s/70s have the ability to cover the entire 5 perf 70mm film format? If so, are these x2 squeeze lenses still squeezing x2 or is it reduced to 1.5 (like when using 35mm 8 perf FF VV) or reduced x1.3? If the squeezed are reduced… how so? Apocalypse Now (1979)https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec https://shotonwhat.com/apocalypse-now-1979 I believe this film was shot with Cooke lenses as is referenced in these Cooke produced videos and Shotonwhat lists as Technovision lenses with an anamorphic camera lens aperture. http://cookeoptics.tv/b/masterclass-John-Mathieson-choosing-lenses-1.html I’m fairly certain Apocalypse was shot using the Cooke Xtal Express Lenses. Please confirm. Q1) This begs the question, what the heck are the Cooke Xtal Express made by Technovision and what are is the Cooke anamorphic set of which they modified to create these? Q2) This does suggest Cooke did have an anamorphic series during the period in question, So what were the different series/makes/models available and why have then gone unspoken of and missing from circulation to rental houses today? Q3) I read these were the favorite lenses of Vittorio Storaro, were made and/or converted by Joe Dunton at Technovision, but now the Panavision Paris gobbled them up and are the sole rental house for these sets—Hopefully not true. Where can one rent these in the US? Conclusion: There you have it: The murky and forgotten history of Cooke lenses in the eyes of today’s emerging filmmakers in the digital era. As a Cooke enthusiast, filmmaker and consumer wanting to get hands on the glass used in these five films – Please do help! Use of these lenses (Technicolor Panchros, Panchro series I, original CinemaScope anamorphics, original 70mm large format spherical Cookes, and the 1970s anamorphics like the Xtal Express) will guide in the ability to weave classic looks into the current and future image capture formats. Let the discussion begin...