my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Which anamorphic is better? (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Which anamorphic is better? Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-20-2005 02:55 PM                        I have been using a gold Isco Ultra MC and just picked up a Schneider Super Cinelux MC off ebay, new. Looks completely different with no flare at the end and focuses down to about 7 feet. Both are working great but any advantages to the newer Schneider over the Isco. Thanks!!  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 05-20-2005 04:17 PM                 Hi Alan Did you get that Super Cinelux compact MC from the guy in Pittsburgh? I purchased several myself and yes I assure you these are much better then the ISCO Ultra MC's. I have not tried to get the focus down to 7 ft but the tick marks say 10 ft so 7 ft is not unreasonable. I am not sure what prime lens your using but if you go Super Cinelux all the way with that Rebuilt Devry XD of yours, the picture should look better then excellent. Now all you need to do is find someting printed on Kodak Vision stock. Larry [ 05-20-2005, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-20-2005 04:44 PM                        Hi Larry Yes thats the guy/lens. Its a nice compact lens and focus is great. I even have a super 8mm projector close to the wall in another room ( 6 feet throw) and while the lens is at its min max it focuses perfect for that. I was just wondering because its so small and compact if it had any shortcomings. Thanks!!!  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 05-20-2005 05:23 PM                 Hi I put it on the optical bench it it looks great. Only problem is the focus is very shallow. That means it's almost impossible to get a really good focus say at 17 ft when the tick marks are 10,15,20 and so on. I had to put it on the bench, take a resolution target set out at 17 ft and then focus it. So focus is very tight. If it's even 1 foot off, say at 16 ft and 18 ft, it becomes very Astigmatic. So I would stick with tick mark focus points for now. Larry  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-20-2005 06:05 PM                     Actually if you have not seen the ISCO Blue Star HD(5 element) and HD Studio(6 element) anammorphics you ain't seen a good anamorphic! Mark  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-20-2005 06:30 PM                        Thanks Mark Every time I spend additional money to improve my system its to find out theres still something better. Now you've peaked my interest in one of those. Im guessing its hard to come across a used one?? Do they focus down to a short throw? Thanks!!  |  IP: Logged Don Furr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 509 From: Sun City, Ca USA Registered: Nov 2002 posted 05-20-2005 06:54 PM                     I totally agree with Mark. I've never seen any lens focus as sharp as the Blue ISCO. I run a pair of them at an Atlanta screening room and I'm always amazed at the razor sharp images. It's almost too real  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 05-20-2005 06:59 PM                 Hi Now we are getting in the issue of better. Remember lens designs may be different because of different uses. I get the sense the compact anamorphics such as the Super Cinelux MC's are really designed for smaller screening rooms meaning that they are fully corrected at about 15 ft with good correction between 30 to 10 ft. Not something for a large theater. The color coded anamorphics are more or less designed for a larger theater. So the use of a large theater anamorphic lens in a small screening room may mean astigmatism may not be fully corrected at it's prime use distance. The lens could be fully corrected at 50 ft with good correction from 20 ft to 200. So someone dealing with rather large theaters, meaning 50 ft throws or more, might hate that 15 ft fully corrected compact anamorphic or at least say the color coded lenses are better since the compacts are no where near fully correction at 50 ft. Really, you can't tell much about a lens unless you get it up on an optical bench. Then it become very clear exactly what the lens designer had in mind. Larry  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-20-2005 11:25 PM                     quote: Larry Myers Really, you can't tell much about a lens unless you get it up on an optical bench. Then it become very clear exactly what the lens designer had in mind. Larry, Then you need to get an ISCO Blue Star HD Studio and see what that designer had in mind..... No, I can answer that one easily..... The very best! Optical benches are really somewhat superficial and are good for doing some generalized tests and in doing assembly adjustments..... but you n eed to test a cinema lens under actual conditions to really judge it properly. One of the best tests of a projection lens is probably the Schneider test film, since its a negative it might be considered more of an acid test. The Blue Stars pass with flying colors. My experiences with compact and standard anamorphics is that they generally introduce at least some pincushion distortion, of which the exact amount depends on the working distance and they generally don't focus perfectly flat at any usable distance. The Blue Stars take care of all that and do it exceptionally well. I would not hesitate to say that these will do as good or better than the best camera anamorphics made today. I've always considered the compacts just a general purpose anamorphic that was designed mainly for projectors with turrets. They can be good but still don't begin to approach the Blue Stars capability. Mark  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 05-21-2005 07:57 AM                 Hi Now distortion is another matter. Not exactly easy to tell distortion on an optical bench. Most people that talk against using optical benches never have used one. So yes, some of the higher price blue and red anamorphics may have better correction for distortion. Generally speaking, not one lens will do all things. What I am saying is. It looks from what I see on the optical bench, the design of the Super Cinelux MC compact anamorphic to focused around a 15 to 20 ft presentation. Something you would expect in a small screeing room. It is true though, because of it's compact design, distortion may not be fully corrected. Larry  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-21-2005 09:02 AM                     quote: Larry Myers Now distortion is another matter. Not exactly easy to tell distortion on an optical bench. Most people that talk against using optical benches never have used one. When I worked at Canon USA repairing lenses we had several optical benches but more importanatly we had a lens projector and darkroom to perform some of the adjustments in. In using the lens projector it was easy to see and actually measure the resolution in lines pairs per mm and the amount of distortion in a given lens.... excepting extreme wide angle lenses.... which threw such a large image that they went way past the test chart. It would have been interesting to test anamorphics this way and I'm sure that ISCOO, Schneider and others are equipped to do it this way. Even so actual testing in a cinema is still the better route since you hahvea the added efects of focus flutter, heat, and lens mount mis-alignment. All of these affect what the lens will ultimately do on screen. Mark  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 05-21-2005 10:24 AM                        Im not so concerned about geomitry distortion. The black boarder on the screen should mask that. My personel preference is to have a lens that offers the best contrast and sharpness. If the blue and red are better at this then I want one. I am impressed with the little Super Cinelux over the Ulra. To me this is what I was looking for and im perfectly content but knowing something better is out there has me questioning should I try one. Thats what I get for reading this forum...its costs me money:) Larry I took your advice and changed out the Kollmorgen for a nice Isco Ultra as my primary and what a difference. Combined with my new anamorphic it has greatly improved the image.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-21-2005 02:52 PM                     An optical bench is a nice tool but it doesn't tell the whole story in film projection. The film is not stationary during projection. It is pumping in and out. It fact, it has been shown that the position of the film that we focus to is when it is most puckered. (High speed photography experiments were done to show this). Both the ISCO Cinelux Ultra MC (later known as the Ultra MC) and the Schneider Cinelux anamorphic (compact) are 4-element anamorphics. I can believe that the Schneider has the edge on ISCO in the near field. It is a very good lens. However, watch out for Schneiders from before 1993 or so...they absolutely sucked...very piss-poor focus uniformity. Another issue even with current Schneiders is that they do not have a 2:1 expansion....they are a bit wide and it varies with the prime lens. Then again, you are comparing Schneider's 1990s lens to an ISCO design that goes back to the 60s Kiptar designs. Since the late 1980s ISCO had the ISCO Ultra Star Anamorphic MC lens, a 5-element that is significantly better than Schneiders in both focus uniformity and less distortion to the picture. In the late 1990s, ISCO brought out the Blue-Star anamorphics, a 6-element design that is just simply the best anamorphic lens, period. Less distortion, sharp corner-to-corner and no chromatic abberations. If you are working with Schneider anamorphics, you are working with 3rd best, at the most. ISCO has discontinued their Ultra anamorphic (why have 3 levels?). I have used Blue Stars on short throws (22-feet) and long throws (110-feet) and they shine every time. Where Schneider is doing better in anamorphics is on their "integrated" designs. ISCO is still using their old design, even when coupled to their newer Ultra Star PLUS (red) lens. Schneider has their compact anamorphic attach the same way as the full-sized models...they screw on (with close couplers, if necessary). So, at this point, I would give the edge to Schneider on compact anamorphics and ISCO the lead on full-sized models. Compacts should only be used where absolutely necessary anyway, they are always an inferior design to a company's full-sized models. The compacts are handy for short focal lengths were vignetting could result on lens turrets. Schneider's ES models also gets the picture out of the lens without vignetting pretty darn well. The one exception to this rule is ISCO does have three ultra-short Blue-Star integrated anamorphics (down in the 45mm range).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-21-2005 06:47 PM                     quote: Steve Guttag watch out for Schneiders from before 1993 or so...they absolutely sucked...very piss-poor focus uniformity. Steve, Actually Century Precision can tweek thid vintage stuff to perform pretty darn good. According to Dwight Lindsay alot of the problem was caused by sudden pressure changes when they were shipped. This caused the front and back element groups to go just slightly out of alignment.... and it only takes a fraction of an arc second(1 arc second = 1/3600th of a degree!) to cause poor resolution on an anamorphic lens. Another thing we should all get straight. The engraved scale adjustment on an anamorphic is not really a true focus adjustment. Its really an astigmatism adjustment . Mark  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-21-2005 09:49 PM                     Mark, They can improve the quality of the image but it still isn't a great lens and inferior to ISCO's anamorphics of any era.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.