Owen A. Davies

People have told me these lenses were produced in just about every major lens mount between the 30s and 50s, but I have honestly never seen any Bausch & Lomb Baltars or Cooke Speed Panchro Series One lenses in an Arriflex Standard mount. Do these even exist? And if so, how rare would they be to come across? 

• (1x) Kodak Vision3 50D 7203 [SOLD]
• (1x) Kodak Vision3 250D 7207 [SOLD]

Hello. I am transitioning towards 35mm and will be selling off a good deal of my excess Kodak 16mm film stock. 

I keep all of my film ziplock sealed and stored carefully in my freezer, away from heat, light, and moisture. Whilst I cannot speak to the condition the film was stored in prior to acquiring it, I can assure you it was kept with extreme care whilst in my possession. All of the film is single-perf other than the 100ft spool of EXR 50D.

All shipping and handling costs are to be covered on the end of the buyer. All sales are final, no returns are accepted. Pictures of the canisters are in the link below. Payment is accepted via PayPal, Venmo, or Cashapp. 

https://imgur.com/a/Tc2zEyN

400ft canisters: $120 per canister 

• (6x) Kodak EXR 50D 7245
• (3x) Kodak EXR 100T 7248
• (3x) Kodak Vision 250D 7246
• (1x) Kodak Vision2 500T 7218

100ft spools: $50 per spool

• (10x) Kodak Vision2 50D 7201
• (1x) Kodak EXR 50D 7245 DOUBLE PERF
• (1x) Kodak Vision3 50D 7203
• (1x) Kodak Vision3 250D 7207

You can either comment on this post or PM me directly if you have any questions, or are interested in buying the entirety of the film altogether. 

13 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Some of the dates in that article, as well as on Cooke’s website, are not correct. After a lot of research I dated the first 18mm Cooke Speed Panchro to 1954, a few years after Angenieux released their 18.5mm in 1951. 

What about the original Bausch & Lomb Baltar 25mm T/2.5? I had thought that that lens was floating around in the early 1930s

In what ways do the Angenieux 18.5mm or the 18mm Cooke S2 differ from each other visually?

On 8/23/2023 at 5:31 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

Up until the 30s, the widest focal length generally available for 35mm movies was 32mm. The more common focal lengths were 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm. In the early 30s Zeiss broke that barrier with a 27mm Tessar, then in the mid 30s a number of companies released 24 and 25mm cinema lenses, the most popular being the Cooke 24mm Speed Panchro. So when Toland filmed Citizen Kane in 1940 it was a relatively new thing to have such a wide angle in movies. Even though its influence was phenomenal, for a number of years after Citizen Kane most films still stuck to longer lenses, only using something as wide as a 24mm for occasional establishing shots. 

In 1951 Angenieux released an 18.5mm which ushered in a period of more wide angle use, followed soon after by the 18mm Speed Panchro released in 1954. Around this time there was also the very wide bug-eye lens made for Cinerama which was the widest angle of view ever seen in movies at that time. The Series III 18mm Speed Panchro released in the early 60s was an improvement on the earlier version, using an aspheric element and finally providing filmmakers with a wide angle lens that had virtually no compromises compared to longer focal lengths.

In the late 60s, the French firm Kinoptik released their 9.8mm Tegea, expanding the view of cinema cameras even further, a lens famously used by Kubrick in films like A Clockwork Orange and The Shining.

See this post for more details about the history of wide angle lenses in cinema:

 

To my knowledge (and I may very well be wrong) there was both a 25mm Bausch and Lomb Baltar as well as an 18mm Taylor Hobson Cooke Speed Panchro that existed and was being used in the 1930s. 

FOR SALE: ~ Arriflex 16M Filmmaking Bundle: ~ Price: $799 ~Payment accepted via PayPal, Venmo, or Cashapp ~ Location: Winchester, MA 01890 ~Insurance, customs, and shipping costs are all to be handled on the buyers end ~All sales are final This bundle includes a fully functional and tested Arriflex 16M motion picture camera for shooting 16mm as well as an accompanying carrying case and a number of other shooting accessories. Cosmetic condition is good, though there is one snag. As pictured in the imigur link, there is a mark on one of the two shutter mirrors on the camera, meaning the image in the viewfinder will be partially obscured. This has no effect on the actual captured image however. Message me if interested. Thank you. Items Included: ~Arriflex 16M Camera Body ~ One 500ft magazine ~ Arriflex Motor ~ Carrying Case ~Offical Arriflex Handle with Camera Activation switch ~ 3x Camera Lens Mount Caps ~Lens Hood. A link which provides images of the listing is provided below.

https://imgur.com/a/kzqGjzU

FOR SALE: ~ Kowa Prominar Anamorphic with Amber 16H and Purple 8Z Projection Lenses ~ PRICE: $1,799 ~ PAYMENT METHOD: Paypal, Venmo, or Cashapp ~ STRETCH: 2x ~ FOCUS: Double Focus ~ CONDITION: Very subtle marks on one of the Kowa 8Z lenses. Has zero bearing on image quality. Lenses are all in all in fantastic condition. ~ LOCATION: Winchester, MA 01890. USA ~ SHIPPING: Will ship internationally, though all shipping costs, insurance, and customs payments are all responsibilities of the buyer ~ CLAMPS: Comes with Redstan clamp ~ All sales are final This is an accumulation of glass and accessories which a friend of mine used to shoot anamorphic over the years which I’m now gonna be selling off. Included are two Kowa Prominar 2x anamorphic projection lenses (one 16H with amber flares and one 8Z lens with the much rarer purple flares), both in fantastic cosmetic and practical condition with no scratches, fungus, or separation. In terms of visual quality from anamorphic projection lenses, this is the best you can get. All sharp as can be. Dually included is one set of Redstan clamps for mounting diopters or etc to the projector. Images are provided via the imigur link below. 

https://imgur.com/a/evWuFVZ

This is not referring to aspects such as white balance or decade produced. I’m referring to aspects more along the lines of sharpness, dynamic range, color, color separation, highlights, halation, shadow details, and resolution. Are there any explicit differences between stocks caused by the differences in film speed?

I have access to a set of Mitchell Standard Mount lenses which I am currently attempting to use with a 2-Perf Techniscope 35mm camera (I do not own this camera yet, nor have I chosen one at this time). The three most common mounts for 2-Perf Techniscopes cameras on the market are Arriflex Standard Mitchell BNC, and Mitchell BNCR. I have spoken to a camera technician who has made it clear to me that it is impossible to simply "adapt” any Mitchell Standard lens to fit an Arriflex BNC, or BNCR mount without a complete rehousing of the entire lens itself. 

So my question is this: which of these two options would cheaper/more feasible for achieving what I want? Converting a Mitchell Standard mount 4-Perf 35mm camera to 2-Perf Techniscope (if that’s even possible)? Or conversely rehousing this set of Mitchell Standard mount lenses in order to be able to fit either an Arriflex Standard, Mitchell BNC, or Mitchell BNCR mount? Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your insight as always. 

So I'm aware that the K-3 takes 3/8" screw sizes, but the hole you would use on the K-3 to screw the tripod into is very shallow, and often leaves to the camera sticking upward with half of the screw left still available. This leads to the camera feeling pretty insecure and wobbly. Has anyone had a particular amount of success pairing a specific tripod (cinema tripod obviously) with the K-3?

Does anyone know if the T stops were ever measured for the Krasnogorsk's primary lens, the Zenit Meteor 17-69mm. For the sake of metering, I'd love to know how much actual light the lens lets through. I haven't seen any info on this posted anywhere. Thanks. 

Let’s say that I’m shooting a project on 2-perf Techniscope and I’m limited to the use of three prime lenses. If I wanted a wide, medium, and a closeup, which three focal lengths would you recommend? I’m leaning toward 25mm for my wide angle seeing as it’s the wisest lens I can use out of my selection. If I were to use a 25mm for my wide, which focal lengths would you recommend for my medium and my closeup? The focal lengths at my disposal are 25mm, 30mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm, 75mm, 100mm and 150mm.

What are the key differences that can be found in overexposing a faster film stock vs simply shooting a slower film stock. Let’s say I have a roll of 200T and a roll of 50D. I shoot the 50D at box speed, but with the 200T I overexpose by two stops. To state the obvious, of course I will have a brighter, more blown out, and overexposed image for the 200T. But if I were to bring the footage into DaVinci and correct the scan to resemble a standard exposure, what kind of visual difference between the 50D and 200T can I expect?

So I'm well aware that the general rule of thumb is to overexpose expired film about one stop per decade it's been expired. But in my experience shooting film the last two years, that rule is only about half of the truth. While how the film was stored also has a big say, generally I've found that the stock's ASA has a bit more influence on how the film should be exposed as opposed to just the age. Kodak EXR's stock is roughly 25-30 years expired now, but if anyone in these forums has worked with the stock in the past five years, I'd love to hear how you went about exposing each speed of film and the results you got. Do you think EXR 5293 200T could hold up with 2 stops of overexposure? Do you think EXR 5245 50D could hold up with 1 stop of overexposure? Let me know what results you guys have gotten and maybe some video links. Thanks.

I realize that many experienced cinematographers may view this is a somewhat redundant or pointless question (though in my view this forum is best for getting great answers to these kinds of questions), but what would you say the visual, technical, financial, and practical differences would be between shooting something anamorphic on 16mm as opposed to on Techniscope. The difference in frame size would be (17.976mm x 7.49mm) vs (22mm x 9.166mm), and I'm also wondering how much or how little such a change in negative area would affect the image. Thanks. 

I rewatched both Pulp Fiction (1994) and The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) recently and picked up on something that's got me really stumped. Both films were shot using Kodak EXR film, with Pulp Fiction being on 5245 (EXR 50D) and LOTR being on 5293 (EXR 200T). Additionally, Pulp Fiction was shot 3-Perf anamorphic whereas LOTR was 4-Perf and cropped to 2.39 widescreen (24.89mm x 10.41mm). This in turn should've significantly reduced the image quality for LOTR seeing how it was also on a faster speed film. Yet Pulp Fiction, being both shot with Super 35 anamorphic and a very slow film speed, looks as if it was released 20 years prior to LOTR. You can see this in the overall color and detail present in the film stock. It just looks rougher and more harsh, as if it were from the early 80s. Why is this? I've included a dropbox link below with some visual comparisons. 

https://www.dropbox.com/t/RuRflbIZyvFlrdfW

If anyone has any visual examples of the product of pushing film a stop or two in the development process I'd love to see it. Can't find a lot of examples online regarding motion pictures and I would like to see the effect it has on the image. From what I hear it is more contrast, more grain, more saturation, darker darks, and lighter lights. I would prefer clips or screenshots of film exposed at box speed and then pushed in development on top of that, but beggars can't be choosers. I'm wondering if the pushed film look could achieve an image that resembles what a lot of the stock in 60s and 70s films looked like. Rich blacks and, rough detail, and a nice contrast. I'm also wondering if pushing film in development has the potential to make a 35mm film stock resemble more of what 16mm would look like with its roughness and character. Let me know, thanks. 

@Dom Jaeger @Uli Meyer @Tyler Purcell I really appreciate the info and will keep my eye out for converted 4-perf cameras as opposed to originally made Techniscope ones. I'd also like to ask whether or not you know of any Techniscope converted cameras with either a Mitchell Standard, Mitchell BNC, or Bell & Howell Eyemo mount that are currently in circulation? Thanks for your help. 

I see a lot of cameras listed as "2-perf” but I can’t see a ton that are specified as Techniscope or not. Does anyone have a list of all Techniscope cameras produced or at the very least a general knowledge of one’s in circulation? Thanks. 

I know Mitchell has a deeper FFD than Arri, but I’m still not sure if the conversion is possible seeing as how Arri standard lenses protrude deep into the camera whereas Mitchell lenses don’t. Let me know if this adaption is feasible 

1 hour ago, Robino Jones said:

Love my CP16R - just installed a tap on it. They're not so expensive and pretty quiet depending on the mag you use, there's 2 styles: "Mitchell" and "PLC-4" made by Cinema Products, in my experience the CP mags are quieter.

I use an Angenieux 9.5-57mm zoom and also a M42 adapter to mount 35mm still lenses using the original CP mount. Also got a Angenieux orientable viewfinder. 

Ken Hale still sell batteries(couple other camera stores as well) and new belt kits. Having opened the camera several times - it's not so complex. 

I don't regret buying it one bit - only positive things. Bought it when film camera prices were getting really expensive and an AATON was out of my budget. Loading is a little tedious but once you get the hang of it it's super fast.

Visual Products can install a PL mount to it but been happy with my zoom/m42 adapter combo. 

 

 

Did you buy yours from Visual Products?

19 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The quietest sub 10k camera is the Aaton LTR. You can get one for $6 - 7k range, super 16 no problem and they're very quiet. There is a really nice SR on eBay right now for $5600 I believe. They're pretty quiet as well and the Arri B mount is a good lens mount, lots of options. The Aaton mount on the LTR's is kinda nice because you can go to Nikon, C and B no problem. However, it's hard to find the adaptors these days. 

Stay away from the Eclair's and the CP16's. They are very cool cameras, but they are A LOT older tech and it's better to get the more recent, more widely used tech than stuff that is rarer. Parts are the key and there are a lot of Aaton's and SR's around. 

While I'm going to be looking in the under $10k price range, I'm absolutely aiming for cheaper. This isn't gonna be a professionally funded production by any stretch of the imagination, and my entire aim is to find quality for cheaper. I'm more than happy to use old tech that meets my requirements if it's a few thousand less expensive. Right now the three cameras that seem like my most probable options are the Eclair, CP16, or the Kinor. What are your issues with these cameras?

32 minutes ago, Heikki Repo said:

Older ones: Arriflex 16BL, Auricon. 

Newer and expensive: Aaton LTR, XTR

What about the Arriflex 16M as opposed to the BL? Are they roughly the same noise caliber or no?

I’d like to know what the quietest 16mm cameras there are out there. Something under $10,000. I’ve heard a lot about the Eclair models, Kinor cameras, and the CP-16 but I’m wondering what other options there are. Super 16 not required. Thanks.