Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:56 AM
Posted 08 January 2008 - 03:20 PM
I'm still trying to determine a good lens for my Giannini. It takes the 1.5 inch barrel Eyemo lenses. I understand that Cookes were made for the Eyemo. Do I understand correctly that those are Taylor Hobsons? How clear are they? What are the clearest, sharpest lenses you've used on an Eyemo in the 50mm to 75mm range? Am I even barking up the right tree? Is the Eyemo one of those kinds of cameras were only barely adequate lenses were ever provided?
Bell&Howell used to the U.S. distributer for Cooke.
So the top of the line lens for B&H cameras were cookes.
The Debrie Parvo mount Cookes that Tisse bought to use on 'Que Viva Mexico' were purchased from Bell&Howell in Hollywood. That's mentioned in 'The making and Unmaking of Que Viva Mexico'
Cooke made various lens such as Triplets, Panfos, Panchros and Speed Panchros.
Pre-WWII lenses were uncoated, post war were "Filmo-coated".
The current fashion in lenses is for very sharp, contrasty lenses. In the 20s and 30s softer lenses with stacks of diffusion were all the rage.
You can be sure that the USArmyAirForce wanted sharp lenses for their bomb spotting Eyemos.
Then again lots of eyemos and their lenses got lots of wear and tear, if not actually getting the crap beat out of them.
Post war coated Speed Panchros (Series I, but they won't be labeled as such) ought to be the best Cookes in Eyemo mounts, provided they weren't used for pounding nails or stored in saunas.
B&L Baltars were made in Eyemo mounts. So quality lenses were made for the Eyemo.
Among the extras on the Criterion discs of DeMille's 'King of Kings' are 'out takes'.
Many of these are hand held Eyemo shots of set ups from the movie.
The slates say Eyemo and they're too shaky to be used in the movie, so it's a bit of a mystery as to their purpose. But the negatives are pristine, probably only printed once before and well stored.
The picture quality gives a good idea of the quality eyemo lenses are capable of.
Posted 10 January 2008 - 09:50 PM
If this is for your aforementioned 35mm scanner project, it seems to me you should be looking at a low-distortion, flat-field lens, like a good apochromatic process or (more likely) enlarging lens (El-Nikkor, Schneider Componon or Rodenstock Rodagon), something designed for flat, close-reproduction work rather than out-and-about shooting. Those lenses tend to be razor sharp, and something like that would be far easier to rig to the camera body, like on a sliding stage or macro bellows. After all, this would be a locked-down, fixed focus, stationary system, correct?
Posted 10 January 2008 - 11:52 PM
I will definitely give that some thought. I've got an old Omega D2 enlarger with a lens still on it. The bellows and lens board could work from it as well. I guess I can accept the fact that I'll never use it photographically again.
This camera is going on the recorder rig. I'm shooting the screen of an IBM DG5 LCD at up to 3840 x 2400. The Kinetta film recorder uses this monitor, from what I've heard. I know a guy who said he'd seen a roll shot from that monitor. He said it wasn't as good as the Arrilaser but, still, was pretty good. Better than a CRT image. Either way, if it's good enough, it darn sure is cheaper than an Arrilaser. I guess I'll find out the hard way.