Owen A. Davies

Does anybody here happen to have any insight on what lenses (Baltars, Cooke, etc) were often used by Kurosawa in the early life of his film career? I’m thinking of through the 50s and 60s. Yojimbo, Throne of Blood, Seven Samurai, Stray Dog, etc. Any insight would be much appreciated. Thanks.

13 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Personally I think 2.39:1 is about as wide as you can go before it becomes too wide. It already limits the choice of compositions, and requires a good eye to frame an entire story interestingly without wasted space at the edges. It favours landscapes and groups over individual shots or tall objects for instance. A good composition in 2.39 is pretty exciting though.

2.39:1

These days, in modern viewing environments where the width is fixed, 2.55:1 would just seem less tall rather than wider.

2.55:1

The Widescreen Museum site is a great resource for info on all things widescreen. Here's a good page on the evolution of widescreen aspect ratios and why they chose those ratios:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cinemascope_oar.htm

Best answer I've gotten on this thread thus far. Thanks as always Dom! I have no idea how this topic devolved into this giant argument about something else entirely. 

I haven’t been able to find any footage whatsoever taken with the B&L Baltar line of lenses created exclusively for Super 16. I wanna know the quality of these lenses and if they stack up to regular Baltars as well as how they compare to something like the Cooke Kinetals (also vintage lenses created for 16mm). Primarily looking for the 17.5mm and the 15mm. Let me know what you guys have. Thanks!

Pretty general, but I just want to keep this question intentionally vague. What are your opinions on 2.55:1 vs 2.39:1? Which do you think is "better"? When would you use each when? Which do you think should've been the Cinemascope standard format? And all around, just what are your general thoughts on the two?

On 6/10/2022 at 10:30 AM, Simon Wyss said:

You won’t like this. Series II and III were made in times when people cooperated, you know what that is? They worked together, hand in hand. The Kinetal line of 1959 is from a different time. Humanity was already on the ever accelerating social downchute, first of all, however, no longer respecting the other. Believe me, I am one of the damned generation (1958 to 1972), I know about BS and how it’s sold.

So, although older than the Kinetal the older series can perform better because they were made more carefully. Simple as that

If I'm not mistaken, thew few ones I see floating around are eBay are Baltar lens cells, not fixed focus lenses. Meaning I could adapt them to a helicoid for cameras with a shallower FFD and focus them by that means. Is that correct? I'm aware the lens cells have no internal focusing capabilities on their own. 

I’m aware this is a rare item, but I a few of these have been bouncing around these forums here and there the last few months. I currently have two purple Kowa 8Z lenses in fantastic condition which I would be more than willing to trade to anyone in exchange for this thing. Kowa’s a re lighter, easier, more practical, and give more coverage in shooting anamorphic. I’m filming a short in the vain of "The Robe” (1953) so this lens would be a fantastic fit. Let me know if anyone has one, knows someone who has one, or is interested. Thanks!

42 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

What do you base that claim on?

Literally visual comparison tests that I’ve done myself. There is a substantial lack of definition, sharpness, highlight detail, and focus fall off present in the Cooke Kinetal lenses opposed to the Sii Panchros. Additionally, there is a good deal of chromatic aberration present around the edges of the Kinetals which isn’t found in the Sii Panchros. 

19 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

The Bausch & Lomb Baltar formula is a Zeiss Biotar variant, Merté’s six-elements design of 1927. Zeiss made it as f/2.0 and f/1.4. Wollensak, dependent on Bausch & Lomb’s optical glass manufacture, built the f/1.5 Velostigmat from 1928 on. Meyer had the Kino-Plasmat f/1.5 since 1926. So there were a number of six-elements double Gauss lenses on the market after the first asymmetric Planar descendant that is named Opic, 1920 (f/2.0). The symmetric Zeiss Planar is from 1896.

A 15 mm Baltar is a wide-angle system for 16-mm. film. It was a surprise in its time because wide angles used to be three- or four-glass. The value today will be estimated by the image it delivers and that depends mostly on whether the lens is bloomed or not.

You say the 15mm was designed for use in 16mm. Was the make of the same quality of the rest of the Baltar line of lenses? Or was there a design compromise for the smaller format? For instance, there’s a big difference between the Cooke Speed Panchros and the Cooke Kinetals. Is this 15mm Baltar a different make?

From pretty much all of the rehoused Bausch & Lomb Baltars I see floating around out there (both regular and super) the list of focal lengths always seem to range from 18mm upward. However, I do know from various eBay listing and other photos that a 15mm B&L Baltar lens does in fact exist out there. What information is there on this lens? Why is it that it’s never lumped in with all the other rehoused lenses? Is the glass of the same quality as cinema standard Baltars? How much would it be worth as just a lens cell itself? Any information would be highly appreciated. Thank you. 

I have an Arriflex 16M which has a significant portion of its shutter mirror chipped off. How much would it cost to get the mirror replaced and who out there does this servicing?

I’m curious what key visual differences exist between these two lines of lenses and have only found so much info online. I know the Baltars date back to the 1930s whilst the Panchros I believe came to be around the 1920s. But how do these lenses, their impression, and their delivered image compare? 

19 hours ago, Robino Jones said:

The only way for you to know how the film is is to try it. Even when someone tells you it was stored properly you don't really know. 

As @Pablo Cruz Villalbasaid - buy a roll and shoot tests at 50, 25, 12, 6 and see how it looks. Make sure you slate all this so you know what you're looking at.

50asa stocks hold up really good - same with black and white stocks- all lower speeds extend well when properly stored. the higher you go the worst it gets but then it's also cool because of the funky look you can get.

I have a lot of frozen 5248, 5247, 5293 and they all look stunning 2 stops over, the 47 is also nice +1 stop only. I shot snippets of all my expired batches and cataloged the results in a spreadsheet so I know what to shoot at when I take out a can from the freezer.  I also have really badly stored 500T 5298 that looks very cool even though it's totally blasted. Fun as an effect for special projects.

Excuse my ignorance in this matter, but do 5247, 5248, and 5239 also extend to 16mm film, or do those codes only refer to 35mm stocks? 

11 hours ago, Pablo Cruz Villalba said:

I would recommend buying just one and making a test at ASA6. I usually overexpose 3 stops very expired vision stock. However EXR is older ?

Whilst that is true, it was my understanding that the lower ASA the stock is the slower it decays. I’ve been told that the oldest can of EXR 50D should decay slower than the newest can of Vision1 200T.

I've been seriously considering working with this stock in an upcoming project of mine. I may be able to get access to a good deal of film which has been stored in a dark, dry, temperature controlled closet for the past twenty years. I know that's not as good as a freezer, but I'm wondering how affected the film will be. My question is simply, do you guys believe it is worth it? How do you believe this stock will hold up compared to something like Vision1 200T if I overexpose two stops? Does anyone have any footage taken on this stock they wouldn't mind sharing? All in all, is the gamble worth it? Thank you. 

I have an Arriflex 16M which has whatever standard four pin motor that camera usually comes with currently attached to it. I MAY be able to purchase an Arriflex SR3 motor off of a friend of mine in great condition for cheap. I believe the SR3's motor is five pin, though I'm not positive. Would it be feasible to have my 16M serviced to work with/have this motor attached to it for sync speed? I know the camera itself would still make tons of noise, but I'm planning to do a kind of "Spaghetti Western" ADR of the dialogue regardless. Let me know your thoughts as well as who could possibly do such as conversion if possible.Thank you.

I have an Arriflex 16M which has whatever standard four pin motor that camera usually comes with currently attached to it. I MAY be able to purchase an Arriflex SR3 motor off of a friend of mine in great condition for cheap. I believe the SR3's motor is five pin, though I'm not positive. Would it be feasible to have my 16M serviced to work with/have this motor attached to it for sync speed? I know the camera itself would still make tons of noise, but I'm planning to do a kind of "Spaghetti Western" ADR of the dialogue regardless. Let me know your thoughts as well as who could possibly do such as conversion if possible.Thank you.

What was the widest lens you were able to use with that thing without any vignetting. 

Just bought a 400ft foot spool of expired Kodak Vision 2 200T film off of eBay to use for my Super 16 camera only to realize the film is double perf. I went to read the canister to see if I missed that detail before buying only the come to the realization that I never once saw film being labeled as single or double perf on any canister or cartridge before. Is there any way to tell what you're getting before you buy your film? (Off third party sites like eBay that is).

I've been able to find a lot of technical specs and information regarding this lens across the internet, yet I'm unable to find any actual footage of this lens in action at all. I can look up it's filter thread diameter size, but not it's bokeh. I can find it's T stop, but not its contrast. I can search up the height and weight of this lens, but not the look it produces. If anyone has any video/additional info regarding this lens's look, I would be very appreciative. Thank you. 

Does anyone have any further info on this lens and the question at hand? Thank you.

11 hours ago, Pablo Cruz Villalba said:

I think that if you want to shoot 100ft your most viable choice in the market are Canon. Incredible cameras. If you want to shoot 25ft go for a zenit quarz. It's unlikely to find the other models easily in ebay.

Are there any cameras you know of that would happen to accept 400ft magazines?

11 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

The Pathé WEBO M is a horrible construction, at least for the one who attempts to service it.

Arriflex DS-8 unobtainable

Meopta are service friendly, cheaply available, can be upped in optics, D-trajectory claw leaves film in same position as projector. Lateral film guidance ought to be improved, a technician should be able to do that. Large finder view. An article in German language on the Admira 8 G is downloadable from my website.

The little Avrora deserves a little more attention. You have only little horizontal parallax between finder and lens.

What I dislike about the Canon is the arrangement of the spools at the bottom.

Thank you for the info. I was thinking of trying to nab a converted Bolex H16, and I think that’s what I’ll go with.

3 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

It was the engineer F. W. Planert who converted Pentaflex to DS-8 from around 1970 on. https://zeissikonveb.de/start/kameras/pentaflex-8.html. I have no idea how many of these exist.

Not too sure if you would have a good idea, but what would you say the best one for film registration would be? An obvious choice would be the Arri, but I've heard the Pathe model from the 80s was another top contender. 

I’m aware that there are modified Bolex H16’s going around as well as the professional Pathe DS8 camera. But in terms of ergonomic performance, modernity and ease of use, as well as quality of film registration, which would you guys consider to be the best model out there on the market? 

P.S. I’m also aware of Pro8mm’s prototype Ultra Double Super 8 camera, but I’m talking about options currently available on the market.

On 1/11/2022 at 7:24 AM, Mark Kenfield said:

And be absolutely sure that you want to shoot 500 ISO stock outdoors in the daytime. Unless you want to stop down the lens a lot and work with a very deep depth of field, the amount of ND you're going to have to put in front of the lens, is going to make looking through the viewfinder really hard.

It's difficult even with 250D at times.

I've always been a fan of deeper depth of field on smaller format cameras, so I planned with that exact notion in mind. Adds more detail and draws attention away from the grain in an effective way in my opinion.