Bausch&Lomb CinemaScope Baltars.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I'm in the process of getting a set of Bausch & Lomb Standard Baltars rehoused in PL mount. I already have several focal lenghts (40-50-75-100mm) and their performance is very good for vintage glass, similar to that of the S2/S3 Speed Panchros, at least on charts. So if you can do very good anamorphics with a front element and an old Cooke prime (many anamorphic sets have done this, J-D-C, Technovision, Panavision, Todd-AO 35, etc, etc), it sure should be possible too with Baltars. Problem is, from the 1950's and early 60's CinemaScope anamorphic films that I've seen, that the distortion at the edges is not very well controlled (people and sets look thinner in that parts of the frame, whereas other anamorphic lenses have more linear barrel distortion) and close-ups in the center of the frame should be avoided due to the infamous anamorphic mumps, which were the biggest fault of the original CinemaScope lenses and was solved by Panavision with their early sets of lenses and new anamorphic elements in front of the prime lens, making the B&L CinemaScope lenses obsolete by the mid-60's.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I'm in the process of getting a set of Bausch & Lomb Standard Baltars rehoused in PL mount. I already have several focal lenghts (40-50-75-100mm) and their performance is very good for vintage glass, similar to that of the S2/S3 Speed Panchros, at least on charts. So if you can do very good anamorphics with a front element and an old Cooke prime (many anamorphic sets have done this, J-D-C, Technovision, Panavision, Todd-AO 35, etc, etc), it sure should be possible too with Baltars. Problem is, from the 1950's and early 60's CinemaScope anamorphic films that I've seen, that the distortion at the edges is not very well controlled (people and sets look thinner in that parts of the frame, whereas other anamorphic lenses have more linear barrel distortion) and close-ups in the center of the frame should be avoided due to the infamous anamorphic mumps, which were the biggest fault of the original CinemaScope lenses and was solved by Panavision with their early sets of lenses and new anamorphic elements in front of the prime lens, making the B&L CinemaScope lenses obsolete by the mid-60's.

Aha.
I don't mind distortion and with 8k helium behind its a n easy one to sort. and make a normal node map to compensate. I understand back then it was huge issue as optical printer was as advanced as VFX and post could get. But today thats not much more than adding a lut for color such. Almost all our work is anamorphic and rectifying and bending images back happens almost daily. So not so worried about that. More so about them being uberly soft or gloomy or such.

I did a couple of PL mounts for Baltars a few years back and I actually think I have a few mounts left. Tried to sell them here a while back but think jumped on them. The baltars I had, and especially the 20mm, was very gloomy wide open, needed to be stopped down a stop or two before looking ok if hit by light. But these two anamorphics are 50 and 70 and at those lengths I remember the baltars being really nice and sharp even though they got quite a bit of chromatic stuff going towards the corners. Also the 35mm was rather good and as I understand the anas are simply those lenses built into a housing together with their front elements.... And you are probably right those fronts most likely had some odd shit going as if not that would have become more of a standard.

The cool thing is when I get them I can put them on the helium and shot exact same frame as with those HAWKS I have and then we will know the difference. I could even do a Baltar to HAWK normal node distortion plug making them bend just the same.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I don't mind distortion and with 8k helium behind its a n easy one to sort. and make a normal node map to compensate. I understand back then it was huge issue as optical printer was as advanced as VFX and post could get.

Are you sure you know what you're getting into? The problem with determining a fix for the "CinemaScope Mumps" is that it changes based on distance and angle of view: the horizontal squeeze changed depending on how many feet you were from the camera AND how far to the left or right you are. I think it also changes somewhat depending on exposure. This is not a simple "take this pixel and push it this way" kind of problem.

You would be much, much wiser in my opinion to take a good 1960s or 1970s anamorphic lens -- one that could open up a lot wider than F5.6 -- and find a way to use that. The 1950s Bausch & Lomb lenses were terrible and made bad pictures. It's not a problem if you can light the set at 1500 foot candles and can live with the distortion. You can always degrade a modern lens to simulate a "vintage" look, but it's a lot harder to take a degraded lens and try to fix the inherent problems in its design.

I have taken the tour through the machine shops of Dan Sasaski at Panavision and Denny Clairmont at Clairmont Cameras, and the amount of engineering needed to align, maintain, and fix great cinema lenses is astonishing. This is non-trivial work -- it requires incredible precision and vast knowledge.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Bjorn is pretty much an FX wizard (among other things) - I'm sure he will at the very least get a kick out of messing with these lenses.

I'm only saying this Marc, because I admire both of you guys and would hate to see anyone take the message the wrong way.

I was looking at these for a while too and decided against them At the time because DPs of the time generally disliked them - so if 1950's guys didn't like them, I can't imagine they would be that great for me personally now, whereas Cooke panchros are still Cooke panchros, and some people love and others hate Baltars.... but you never know.

I heard these were the basis for the first Panavision Anamorphic camera lenses but with added compensators that fixed the whackness

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Björn,
The set that I'm getting rehoused is not a set of the more common Super Baltars (20-25-35-50-75-100mm), but a set of the older "Standard" Baltars (25-30-35-40-50-75-100mm). The "standars" or "non-super" Baltars were the original generation of Bausch & Lomb lenses specifically designed for cinematography. They were BNC mounted, and when the reflex viewer was added to the Mitchell Cameras, the BNCR (R for Reflex) mount was introduced and the original Baltars became obsolete, as the back of their mount would hit the reflex mirror of the camera. According to Jorge Díaz-Amador's excellent site, this happened circa 1967, but I've seen a 1965 catalogue of the then new Super Baltars. Anyway, the original lenses that 20th Century Fox used with CinemaScope were 1950's Standard Baltars, not Super Baltars, which came out in the 60's.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Björn,
The set that I'm getting rehoused is not a set of the more common Super Baltars (20-25-35-50-75-100mm), but a set of the older "Standard" Baltars (25-30-35-40-50-75-100mm). The "standars" or "non-super" Baltars were the original generation of Bausch & Lomb lenses specifically designed for cinematography. They were BNC mounted, and when the reflex viewer was added to the Mitchell Cameras, the BNCR (R for Reflex) mount was introduced and the original Baltars became obsolete, as the back of their mount would hit the reflex mirror of the camera. According to Jorge Díaz-Amador's excellent site, this happened circa 1967, but I've seen a 1965 catalogue of the then new Super Baltars. Anyway, the original lenses that 20th Century Fox used with CinemaScope were 1950's Standard Baltars, not Super Baltars, which came out in the 60's.

Amazing history lesson here.

I've been reading some back issues of American Cinematographer, and Gordon Willis mentions shooting both Godfather movies on "old lenses", Baltars in particular. He didn't mention Supers. I wonder if he meant yours? The older Standard variant?

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Perhaps someone could chime in and shine a light on this issue, I've always wondered that too. Quite recently (I believe it was on the American Cinematographer issue about Willis' career) Coppola said that about 90% of "The Godfather" was shot using a 40mm lens, which was, according to most sources, Willis focal lenght of choice. But there was no 40mm Super Baltar lens, so other sources claim that he mixed Super Baltars with their japanese counterpart, the Kowa Cine Prominar spherical lenses, which have a 40mm lens. But then, these lenses weren't old lenses in 1972, as they were around for less than 10 years (Master Primes came out in 2005 a none of use would consider them old lenses don't we?). So did he used a set of Standard Baltars? I've seen some of these lenses converted to BNCR mount on EBAY, so that's possible. They could have also used them in BNC with BNC mounted cameras. The cover of that American Cinematographer issue shows a picture of Willis in black leather jacket together with Coppola and Michael Chapman, who was his camera operator on the first "Godfather" but not on the second, and the lens may be a standard Baltar or a Cooke S2/S3 (camera is an ARRI 2C), but definitely it's not a SUPER Baltar to my eyes and neither a Kowa!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Lemme scour my issue for photos. Its from 1979.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Love that picture !

One of my friend's dad was Michael Chapman's (aka Chappy) key grip for many years.

Although I never got to visit a set with him (my young friend did, told me a few stories, and never developed the same interests I did). I would have to credit some of his stories, pictures, and American Cinematographer magazines laying around their house for inspiring me to join our craft!

So cool!

 

[Marc Wielage]

I heard these were the basis for the first Panavision Anamorphic camera lenses but with added compensators that fixed the whackness

Yeah, Robert Gottschalk of Panavision was the optical engineer who kind of reverse-engineered the CinemaScope lenses, figured out all the problems mathematically, then built a much, much better lens around 1957. From Wikipedia:

Another innovation of the era secured Panavision's leading position: the Auto Panatar camera lens for 35 mm anamorphic productions. Early CinemaScope camera lenses were notoriously problematic in close-ups with an optical aberration that was commonly known as "the mumps": a widening of the face due to a loss of anamorphic power as a subject approaches the lens. Because of the novelty of the new anamorphic process, early CinemaScope productions compensated for this aberration by avoiding tightly framed shots. As the anamorphic process became more popular, it became more problematic. Panavision invented a solution: adding a rotating lens element that moved in mechanical sync with the focus ring. This eliminated the distortion and allowed for natural close-up anamorphic photography. The Auto Panatar, released in 1958, was rapidly adopted, eventually making CinemaScope lenses obsolete. This innovation earned Panavision the first of its 15 Academy Awards for technical achievement. Soon the screen credit "Filmed in Panavision" (as if Panavision itself were a widescreen format) began appearing on motion picture screen credits.

To me, the Bausch & Lomb lenses are just historical relics, interesting things to sit in a case in a museum. For production in 2017, I think there's a hundred other lenses out there that would be a lot more useful and far less trouble. Cookes are well-known, parts exist, and there's a dozen places around the world that can repair and align them.

 

[Ilya O.]

Nick, Ignacio, that should be Bausch & Lomb's old 40mm Baltar.

The Baltars lineup was 25-28-32-40-50-75-100-152 (f-stop varies 1:2.3 to 1:2.7).
It was made to compete with COOKE's first Panchros, but actually never succeeded

Just look at 75mm Baltar's resolution across image field diagram, it resembles me Rosher Kino Portrait 75mm f2.3 lens (of Petzval design, made by Astro Berlin specially for portraits):

Both lenses have rather sharp center and gradually go to complete blur at the edges, which is very cool for 3d effect portrature work.

And now Baltar 75mm vs first Cooke Speed Panchro 75mm:

They decided to take a revenge and at 1963 B&L presented Super Baltars (20-25-35-50-75-100 mm all f2.0)
So there were no Super Baltar with the focus of 40mm.

Here you are Super Baltar BOOK (with text layer):
NEW SUPER BALTAR PROFESSIONAL MOTION PICTURE CAMERA LENSES
Title page:

 

[Björn Benckert]

Are you sure you know what you're getting into? The problem with determining a fix for the "CinemaScope Mumps" is that it changes based on distance and angle of view: the horizontal squeeze changed depending on how many feet you were from the camera AND how far to the left or right you are. I think it also changes somewhat depending on exposure. This is not a simple "take this pixel and push it this way" kind of problem.

You would be much, much wiser in my opinion to take a good 1960s or 1970s anamorphic lens -- one that could open up a lot wider than F5.6 -- and find a way to use that. The 1950s Bausch & Lomb lenses were terrible and made bad pictures. It's not a problem if you can light the set at 1500 foot candles and can live with the distortion. You can always degrade a modern lens to simulate a "vintage" look, but it's a lot harder to take a degraded lens and try to fix the inherent problems in its design.

I have taken the tour through the machine shops of Dan Sasaski at Panavision and Denny Clairmont at Clairmont Cameras, and the amount of engineering needed to align, maintain, and fix great cinema lenses is astonishing. This is non-trivial work -- it requires incredible precision and vast knowledge.

No not sure of anything and I´m not trying to beat panavision or Claremont cameras on their game. I sure the anamorphic distortion is not really changing with distance to the lens, that would not be possible, but focus makes it a variable. So close focus pincushion different than when focusing on infinity and so on. But again, my expectations are reached if I get any picture out of these. Not looking to reach perfect.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Bjorn stumbled on this April 1977 article in American Cinematographer, that briefly mentions the evolution from your lenses to Panavision.

Emedding here, full size.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

These are the original Cinemascope lenses. I think there were only about 20+ sets made. The difficulty is that these lenses are for rack-over film cameras. The design and housings cannot be converted to reflex or standard PL-mount. Furthermore the 50 and 75mm you have are first gen with classic anamorphic distortion issues like the "mumps". This was solved with the "blue" 75mm Cinemascope but by that time Panavision had already solved it in a smaller form.

For what it's worth I've mounted these lenses on a modern digital camera and they are beautiful but there is no way to realistically use them unless they are completely reengineered.

Good reading: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

 

[Nick Morrison]

These are the original Cinemascope lenses. I think there were only about 20+ sets made. The difficulty is that these lenses are for rack-over film cameras. The design and housings cannot be converted to reflex or standard PL-mount. Furthermore the 50 and 75mm you have are first gen with classic anamorphic distortion issues like the "mumps". This was solved with the "blue" 75mm Cinemascope but by that time Panavision had already solved it in a smaller form.

For what it's worth I've mounted these lenses on a modern digital camera and they are beautiful but there is no way to realistically use them unless they are completely reengineered.

Good reading: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

WOW. This is why I love Reduser.

Thanks Adrian!

Bjorn - only 20 sets were ever made!! Holy shit! Mumps or not, what you have in your hands are some of the rarest, most unique anamorphic glass out there - and these have HISTORY!!

I can only imagine what these lenses have photographed...

Can't wait to see what you do with these!!

 

[Adrian Jebef]

I believe Panavision acquired a number of sets. The anamorphic front elements are probably actually worth something in the right hands. Some of those elements were used in old Panny anamorphic lenses.

Here's a 35mm and 40mm original Cinemascope on a full-frame A7s. Again there is no mount so these lenses were "floated" for the test.

https://vimeo.com/131861337

 

[Nick Morrison]

I believe Panavision acquired a number of sets. The anamorphic front elements are probably actually worth something in the right hands. Some of those elements were used in old Panny anamorphic lenses.

Here's a 35mm and 40mm original Cinemascope on a full-frame A7s. Again there is no mount so these lenses were "floated" for the test.

https://vimeo.com/131861337

WOW. Looks amazing!

 

[Björn Benckert]

Thanks guys! So much cool info. Love that article and the lens test.

Adrian, I think that float test looks rather good. For being a 35 anamorphic I can only say thet the distortion is not that bad and also sharpness looks rather good. For some reason these anamorphics looks rather straight to me alot like back mounted anas can look. They dont have that much fishbowl/pincusion thing going it seams more of a none uniform x stretch.

What I done with other lenses is that I let the 3d guys at work mske a cad kind of cg model for the mount and then K got a guy that has a really good machine tooling shop. Then I simply mill away what needs to be removed of the original mount and construct a threaded Pl mount that is shimmed to correct flange distance. Then for these i for sure need some proper lens suport. But are you saying the back elements of these lenses can not be fitted into the mount cavity of a PL mount on weapon?

worse case I csn make them BNC or pana mount if the diameter of pl is to small. But that picture probst posted of the 35mm on rhe alexa kind of says that yes, you can fit them in PL no?

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Well I guess you can always attempt to cut away from the housing but it's a dicey operation. Since these were like original BNC mount (not BNCR) they were designed for the rear housing and elements to get very close to the film plane. There was no extra space needed to account for a reflex viewing prism. Using a mirrorless camera like the A7 will let you get a sense of where these lenses need to sit in order to function properly. Good luck.

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Since these were like original BNC mount (not BNCR) they were designed for the rear housing and elements to get very close to the film plane. There was no extra space needed to account for a reflex viewing prism.

When I bought my set of "Standard" Baltars I found that problem too, but Van Diemen is doing them for me and the lenses they have already finished seem to work extremely well. Other companies found the BNC Baltars too difficult to do the conversion.