Bausch&Lomb CinemaScope Baltars.

[Björn Benckert]

I just bought these of from Ebay. I really like B&L Baltars and also I love old anamorphics so I figured these must be the lenses I always dreamed of... :thumb:

Now I try to find more info. I figured there must be more focal lengths of these. I learned as much as they where used on one of the first Cinemascope films, "The Egyptian" which premiered in the 50´s and from looking at that film on youtube it looks like the lenses used preformed rather well, not much fishbowl and it looks almost to rectilinear to be true.

Then also I don't know what mount is on them. I assume it´s some sort of Mitchell mount but it does not look like BNC-R or BNC but the flange seams to be rather easy to replace so my idea is to put PL mounts on them and add a 19mm lens suport.

First check if they even give a picture worth struggle for off course but then also refurbish them, one look like and old dried out meat loaf and the other looks like it fell of a tank or such. But I think if sand blasted and painted they would possibly look better than new. Seams also to be some of the most sturdy anamophics ever with the housing and the way they made the focus / iris system. I was thinking to just add better gears on those wheels and make a T bone so I can have the focus motor applied to it.


Any one have any experience of these? Or know what mount it is, I would be very thankful if you could fill me in.

I don't have the lenses just yet they are on their way with DHL as we speak.

[/url]s-l1600-8 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url]s-l1600 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr[/IMG]

s-l1600-6 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

more pics here:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskS4NcU1



And here is a link to "The Egyptian": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjPfurh8zoA

 

[Nick Morrison]

WOW. I'd send them to Visual Products. See what Paul can do.

 

[Björn Benckert]

WOW. I'd send them to Visual Products. See what Paul can do.

You mean send them away and let somebody else have all the fun, trying to fix them?

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

Keep us updated.

that does look like meatloaf

 

[Nick Morrison]

You mean send them away and let somebody else have all the fun, trying to fix them?

Haha - well, if anyone knows what todo with them (that isn't Dan Sasaki), it's him. He's also just such a nice dude, and has seen EVERYTHING.

Have fun with these!!!

Are you going to rehouse them?

 

[Björn Benckert]

Haha - well, if anyone knows what todo with them (that isn't Dan Sasaki), it's him. He's also just such a nice dude, and has seen EVERYTHING.

Have fun with these!!!

Are you going to rehouse them?

I have not even touched these, but I see nothing wrong with the housing they have now. The gray one I think looks like the best housing I ever seen so I don't think I will change it if its not needed. But might need some new paint...

As I understood from reading the ebay add these where the first ana´s that actually was not a lens with a loose front element but instead a housing with lens and front element inside.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have not even touched these, but I see nothing wrong with the housing they have now. The gray one I think looks like the best housing I ever seen so I don't think I will change it if its not needed. But might need some new paint...

As I understood from reading the ebay add these where the first ana´s that actually was not a lens with a loose front element but instead a housing with lens and front element inside.

WOW - cool. Get your point about the housing. Those look like tanks. Can't wait to see footage!!

 

[Dan Kanes]

R

R

The meatloaf one is probably sound blimped to keep the "rattle and hum" of the old cameras from coming through the lens like a loudspeaker.

 

[Christopher Probst]

I figured there must be more focal lengths of these.

Off the top of my head I know there were the following focal B&L Cinemascope lengths:

35mm f/2.3
40mm f/2.3
50mm f/2.3
75mm f/2.8
100mm f/2.8
152mm f/3.5

Then also I don't know what mount is on them. I assume it´s some sort of Mitchell mount but it does not look like BNC-R or BNC but the flange seams to be rather easy to replace so my idea is to put PL mounts on them and add a 19mm lens suport.

It has been done so it's certainly possible!

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I vaguely recall converting 3 of these to PL years ago....

 

[Björn Benckert]

I vaguely recall converting 3 of these to PL years ago....

Thats comforting to hear. It would be a bit of a bummer if it was some sort of mount that could not be reworked.

Off the top of my head I know there were the following focal B&L Cinemascope lengths:

35mm f/2.3
40mm f/2.3
50mm f/2.3
75mm f/2.8
100mm f/2.8
152mm f/3.5

It has been done so it's certainly possible!

Thanks Probst, very good info. and seeing it infront of an alexa very much means that they can be used for more than paper weights


I jumped on these quite quickly as a while back I was lurking around on EBay and found some old Pana anamorphics that where poorly advertised. Don't remember the price but I think it was about 15k for three of them. So as it was difficult to understand what it was I went a bit slow and right when I was about to transfer the money to the seller contacted me and said Panavision just bought them all. Later I realised that those where very likely to be some of those 70mm anas that Tarentino used. So when I saw these I just jumped on them. Then got a bit nervous that I bought something that was of absolute no use. So that alexa pic really does comfort me. May I ask where the picture is from?

 

[Nick Gardner]

I had been eyeballing those for a while ;-) glad you got them. They should be interesting.

Congrats,

Nick

 

[Christopher Probst]

Bjorn

If you can get those PL'd I think they may be fantastic looking on a modern digital sensor. Look at Hateful 8 and more specifically Rogue One. For me, one of the nicest aspects of vintage lenses is not a hard flare, but veiling flare affecting contrast. Rogue One used that aspect to wonderful effect I think.

As for where the pic came from. It's part of a thread on cinematography.com

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=65410&page=1

The poster (apparently in Australia) noted that he had 3 of them PL mounted.

 

[Mark K.]

R

Bjorn

If you can get those PL'd I think they may be fantastic looking on a modern digital sensor. Look at Hateful 8 and more specifically Rogue One. For me, one of the nicest aspects of vintage lenses is not a hard flare, but veiling flare affecting contrast. Rogue One used that aspect to wonderful effect I think.

As for where the pic came from. It's part of a thread on cinematography.com

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=65410&page=1

The poster (apparently in Australia) noted that he had 3 of them PL mounted.

Wow, thanks Chris (and very cool purchase Bjorn!). It sounds like they have a set of these PL mounted, at one of my local rental houses. I'm off interstate next week. But I'll try and check them out for you when I get back and gather some photos.

 

[Nick Morrison]

For me, one of the nicest aspects of vintage lenses is not a hard flare, but veiling flare affecting contrast. Rogue One used that aspect to wonderful effect I think.

Love this.

 

[Bill Totolo]

Love the focus/iris mechanisms.
So, how do you mount a matte box?

 

[Björn Benckert]

Love the focus/iris mechanisms.
So, how do you mount a matte box?

I assume it would just clamp on the font. Or sit rod mounted infront. one good thing with those housings I guess is that the fronts does not spin. The second good thing is that there is no real need for a FF

Think it´s actually quite smart how they done it. having an axis sticking out on both sides like that for focus is in a lot of ways easier to put motors on etc than normal lens /barrels / gears that travels and are quite sensitive to dust etc. Where as these looks as sturdy as an UV housing. Will see when I get them, possibly then I think different

 

[Dan Kanes]

If you decide you want to sell these later please let me know - I would like to call "dibs"

 

[Marc Wielage]

I just bought these of from Ebay. I really like B&L Baltars and also I love old anamorphics so I figured these must be the lenses I always dreamed of... :thumb:

Now I try to find more info. I figured there must be more focal lengths of these. I learned as much as they where used on one of the first Cinemascope films, "The Egyptian" which premiered in the 50´s and from looking at that film on youtube it looks like the lenses used preformed rather well, not much fishbowl and it looks almost to rectilinear to be true.

I actually worked on the 4K restoration of The Egyptian for Fox over at Lowry Digital (with colorists Rick Taylor and Greg Hamlin), and it was a beautiful movie. The lens distortion was pretty hideous, and that was just a characteristic on how things were in 1954. We could have theoretically fixed the gross "funhouse mirror" distortion, and it was discussed, but I think Fox opted to keep it as it was originally seen in order to be historically accurate.

I don't think the lenses would be useful for anything today except at a museum, but you could try the Motion Picture Technology group on Facebook. The American Widescreen Museum might also be a good contact for you:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

 

[Björn Benckert]

I actually worked on the 4K restoration of The Egyptian for Fox over at Lowry Digital (with colorists Rick Taylor and Greg Hamlin), and it was a beautiful movie. The lens distortion was pretty hideous, and that was just a characteristic on how things were in 1954. We could have theoretically fixed the gross "funhouse mirror" distortion, and it was discussed, but I think Fox opted to keep it as it was originally seen in order to be historically accurate.

I don't think the lenses would be useful for anything today except at a museum, but you could try the Motion Picture Technology group on Facebook. The American Widescreen Museum might also be a good contact for you:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/

Cool. You don't know any where that film can be seen in better than Youtube resolution. I only seen low res stuff of it but to me The Egyptian does not look much more distorted than anything shot on the latest cooke ana´s or such. You mean that the picture would be so bad that it could not be of any use? Seams odd that Panavsion would use them if thats the case.
I think a lot of times people are looking at ana distortions and such and think its a bad thing. Personally I like most of the quirks that comes with it, especially on the wide end. For references here is a frame from the HAWK-C 35mm that I used to have. Some say those are the best ana´s money can buy and still it´s pretty freaking far from being a straight shooter... That wall on the other side is straight in real life but in the lens it bevels a whole lot. its easy enough to shoot a grid and rectify it perfectly but then it simply does not look good especially when panning and stuff, then the beveled stuff look much better. But to me the Egyptian looks not so beveled, I think for the most part they stayed away from the wide lenses and shot very closed down on slightly longer glas and also only used the academy part of the neg so I think if shooting full frame like the below with them there will be a lot of blacks on the side and then some blur and then picture atleast on the 50mm. the longer lens I think can have more coverage if they did not sleeve it in the front to cover for flares. Possibly I can remove the barrel in the front and get more coverage.

A004_C001_0616LI by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/hxgWpJ

Edit:

And here is the Hawk 50mm in FF will be interesting to see how it compares to the Baltar 50mm.

A004_C005_0616YK by Björn Benckert, on Flickr