Jump to content


Photo

80mm anamorphic bas 4-16-01 softness


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 john price

john price
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 March 2008 - 11:47 PM

hi there,

I got an 80mm square front anamorphic a short while back and found that unless I'm stopped down to an 11 things look unsharp through the viewfinder. A 35mm wide open on the same camera looks razor sharp. I am wondering if anyone has experience with the 80mm. Are yours sharp at 2.8-4? The glass appears pristine so I am willing to send it away if there is an adjustment for this problem. I fear that the design of this lens is pretty complex and to make adjustments may be difficult/expensive. Any recommendations for a lens tech with experience tweeking 70's era lomo anamorphics?

thanks,

john price, toronto.
  • 0

#2 Steve Zimmerman

Steve Zimmerman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Other
  • Charleston, SC USA

Posted 24 March 2008 - 01:12 AM

I had a similar problem with my Round Front 75mm Lomo anamorphic lens. I would not focus well unless it was really stopped down. Even then it was weird. The lens needed collimating and the mount was shimmed up. The lens tech charged me $100. It focuses fine now, even wide open.

Edited by Steve Zimmerman, 24 March 2008 - 01:13 AM.

  • 0

#3 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 24 March 2008 - 01:22 AM

Yeah your lens probably has a problem. I'd send it off to either a Russian lens technician ( maybe Olex can do it or recommend someone who can) or maybe contact Slow-mo in LA:

http://slowmotioninc.com/

They know Russian equipment there and can repair lenses.....BUT they ain't cheap! :D
  • 0

#4 Steve Zimmerman

Steve Zimmerman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Other
  • Charleston, SC USA

Posted 24 March 2008 - 09:15 AM

I used Duclos lenses.
  • 0

#5 john price

john price
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 March 2008 - 09:08 PM

thanks...

I am now wondering if there are special provisions for collimating anamorphics vs sphericals... There was a shop in Toronto - Cineasst - that shut down and his bench was sold to a rental house in town... it came with many different mounts from PL to c and I am hoping that there might have been an oct 19 in the set... If there is the guys will check it for nothing... if not, I'll need to find a tech with a bench equipped with oct 19... and that probably means slow motion...

was your 75mm round front PL or oct 19 Steve? It would be really great to get the 80mm happening like the 35mm is. I am shooting a lot of hi con b+w at minimum focus and it's looking great... but it would be nice to have something longer!

john.
  • 0

#6 Steve Zimmerman

Steve Zimmerman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Other
  • Charleston, SC USA

Posted 25 March 2008 - 09:26 PM

was your 75mm round front PL or oct 19 Steve?
john.


It's PL mount. I just shot my first short test with my 3 lenses last week. Looked great through the viewfinder. Hope to do a 2nd test and then send the film off.

What high contrast stock are you using? Do you use Black and white film factory or another lab? Where do you transfer to video?

A friend of mine is interested in shooting a short in black and white, and I'm trying to convince him into doing it in anamorphic 35.

Steve Zimmerman
  • 0

#7 john price

john price
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 March 2008 - 08:58 PM

It's PL mount. I just shot my first short test with my 3 lenses last week. Looked great through the viewfinder. Hope to do a 2nd test and then send the film off.

What high contrast stock are you using? Do you use Black and white film factory or another lab? Where do you transfer to video?

A friend of mine is interested in shooting a short in black and white, and I'm trying to convince him into doing it in anamorphic 35.

Steve Zimmerman


I'm shooting on 2374 optical sound negative... processing in a g3 tank at home in D-19. I make a contact print on an ACME at the film cooperative onto 2302. Sometimes I'll hand develop the print, sometimes I take it to Niagara Custom Lab (the owner used to be a partner at B&W film factory) The major issue with the stock is that the edge ID is right in the centre of the frame. I get free short ends from a sound facility in Toronto and have found that the density of the ID varies from batch to batch. I shot a series of scope portraits in the snow recently and you cant see it at all because it gets 'hidden' if there's enough meat on your neg. The 2374 is fast relative to the other hi con stocks... i'm rating it between 50 and 64 and getting pretty amazing texture in the skin tones at 64. You could shoot 5369 but it's around 12 asa and has much less tonal range than the 2374. I have heard that the 5378 / 2378 has the ID printed on the edge but you'd have to track down someone at Kodak in manufacturing to verify... i find the sales reps have no idea as you are not 'supposed' to shoot the sound stock in camera. Also be very careful if you decide to shoot the 2374 as it is polyester and would easily destroy a konvas if you have a jam. I take extra caution when loading the mags and mounting them... inching the movement to ensure that things are flowing smoothly. so far so good...

If you are going to shoot scope b+w, and you are spending $$ for the production I would probably go with one of the neg stocks 5222/5231 and process with Alpha Cine in Seattle. I had some 16mm answer prints done there 15 years ago and have never seen better lab work since. I've never had anything processed in LA and there must be decent b+w there... but in Toronto I am a big fan of Niagara... I have found him to be much more consistent than the factory...

I contacted your lens people and they say they can handle oct 19... thanks for the tip.

John.
  • 0

#8 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 28 March 2008 - 05:42 AM

Hiya John,
I have a strong suspicion that this will be down to the rear prime lens rather than the square front itself.
See if you can focus just the prime properly on its own and that may give you a better idea of what is happening.

Sorry I can't be much more help as I'm all OCT-18 here.

Good luck! Sounds like you've been having loads of fun. :)

love

Freya
  • 0

#9 john price

john price
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 March 2008 - 08:16 AM

it's a one piece system... both elements are connected to the focus barrel so there's no tweaking one then the other... I think it's collimation some how... I'm going to give it to the rental house here if they have an oct 19 mount... if not Duclos says they have one so I'll give them a crack at it.

happy shooting,

john.
  • 0

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 28 March 2008 - 10:33 AM

it's a one piece system... both elements are connected to the focus barrel so there's no tweaking one then the other... I think it's collimation some how... I'm going to give it to the rental house here if they have an oct 19 mount... if not Duclos says they have one so I'll give them a crack at it.

happy shooting,

john.


Ah! I think I might know what you mean now! I thought I'd never seen an 80mm square front. I'm all OCT 18 here and the square front lenses in OCT-18 are a bit different, they actually come in two parts that lock together and are then focussed together. Kind of hard to explain.

It does sound like some kind of collimation issue.

I hope you find a solution. It sounds like you are doing some fun stuff! :)

love

Freya
  • 0

#11 john price

john price
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 March 2008 - 02:48 PM

yes, some of the 1M anamorphics have the squeezing element attached seperately... glad mine dont! but if you can get any anamorphic to focus and the light is right, the 35mm scope is fantastic. Leave the 4K, hard drives and computer jiggery pokery to the Red people... nice that a Konvas set up with a working set of anamorphics can cost less than the red camera viewfinder!

apples and oranges...

john.
  • 0

#12 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 28 March 2008 - 11:09 PM

Gotta LOVE those Commiecams! I have both the round front anamorphics (for my Kinor Rototvision 35C) and square front 2 piece (form my KSR-1) and I love them both! I actually am dreading the day when film actually catches up to Film (though I would bet it's still quite a few years off) there's such a tradition and magic with film.
  • 0

#13 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 28 March 2008 - 11:15 PM

That's video catches up with film....long day.
  • 0

#14 john price

john price
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 29 March 2008 - 12:54 PM

catches up?

i think that's the approach that has left Kodak in such a confused state... spending $$$ in research to make things 'better than video/digital'... offer more resolution... when it's the physicality of the material - warts and all - and the process of shooting that will always be different. Yes, the digital engineers will create plug ins to match any film emulsion ever produced but that's emulation... not the real thing... do you see all the musicians throwing away their instruments and mousing around with lap tops on a stage? for commercial work most of the ones I know do but for live performance the guitars drums and base are still on the stage. There seems to be no alchemy shooting digitally... you got a waveform monitor on set and an HD monitor... and what you see is what you get... when you fire up the Konvas loaded up with b+w high con and a funky old russian anamorphic, process it in a G3 tank (i really love the Apple reference... the Morse people should come back from the grave and sue for copyright!!) print it and pump 3000 watts on xenon through it and project it a hundred feet wide... that's magical...

I am never going to argue that one is better than the other... they are two completely different ways of making images...

happy 'film'ing in whatever format,

john.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Opal

Visual Products

CineLab

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Opal

The Slider

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS