NEO Super Baltars

[rand thompson]

NEO Super Baltars



https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/04/11/neo-super-baltars/


By Newsshooter

We take a look at the new NEO Super Baltar lenses at NAB 2019.

Read all our reports and reviews on newsshooter.com

 

[Nick Morrison]

Have to say that's pretty cool...

 

[rand thompson]

Nick



I didn't know Lens Manufacturers allowed outside entities to reproduce their lenses from the original blueprint. I thought there would by some type of copyright protection against it or something. Brian Caldwell is reproducing these lenses like a cake recipe.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Three things :

1. Brian has the original blueprints which were saved from destruction by their supposed caretakers (Bausch and Lomb corporation).

2. They had to be recalculated (Radius/thickness changes) for contemporary available glass types, as glasses can contain heavy metals which are no longer safe or ecologically healthy for use, which constitutes a variation on the design.

3. I could be wrong but the patents should be long expired on these.

These are really neat.

I’m partial to the set that actually looks like a Bausch and Lomb vintage lens aesthetic made for modern use.

 

[rand thompson]

Dan,


Forgot that the usual lifespan of a patent is about 20 years. According to the interviewee, that particular housing was one the more higher end housings for the Neo Super Baltars. He also seems to believe that they will be more for rentals. But hopefully individual consumers will have a chance to buy them as well.

 

[rand thompson]

Here's a test from 4 years ago by BrainBox Cameras of some Vintage Super Baltars on a Red Dragon 6K camera For example sake.



Super Baltars Vintage Cinema Lenses Overview and Tests





By BrainBox Cameras

Brainbox cameras gives an overview and shoots some tests on these classic hollywood cinema lenses.

Check out the 6K stills on our blog at www.brainboxcameras.com

 

[Björn Benckert]

Three things :

1. Brian has the original blueprints which were saved from destruction by their supposed caretakers (Bausch and Lomb corporation).

2. They had to be recalculated (Radius/thickness changes) for contemporary available glass types, as glasses can contain heavy metals which are no longer safe or ecologically healthy for use, which constitutes a variation on the design.

3. I could be wrong but the patents should be long expired on these.

These are really neat.

I’m partial to the set that actually looks like a Bausch and Lomb vintage lens aesthetic made for modern use.

I dont agree I say fuck that guy and dont buy his lenses.

Comparison,
If you start to making black plastic sunglasses, and you call them "NEO Wayfarer" and say that you got the original drawings from RayBan and that your stuff is same but better, not the same old coatings on the lenses and such but still... Thats a really shitty thing to do if you ask me.

I think you then should be sued, and you should not only be sued by RayBan but also by people that actually bought the real wayfarers. As these copy cats and thieves does not only hurt the original manufacturer but also the customers that honors the real deal. Real super baltars are sought after and people paid high dollars to get lenses with that name on their rentalhouse shelf and that should be respected. This guy infringe on all of that. I dont care if his lenses are shit good like master primes and and Leica summilux- C´s combined or shit bad, no matter what he should go and make up some other name for them, not ride on others investments.

Now, I dont own Super Baltars, I used to, if I still had them I would love to sue this guy to kingdom kong and I'm sure my case would be solid. As I doubt he bought the drawings the name, the logo, the lens design from B&L. If he did then yes ofcourse, I stand back. But more likely, he used the service drawings and figured that name stealing was ok if adding a "NEO" infront.

And Dan, when you write a post like this I cant help to think that it would be interesting if some company started to make "Neo Atlas Orions" that looked just like yours, and they claimed they improved the coatings and other stuff and sold them for half the price...

As I see it the IP theft and name stealing etc in this industry needs to slow down and the first step of that would be that the actual film community at least called people out when stealing. Sure its fine to go ahead and make copies of 60 year old glass that is no longer being manufactured. But then at least be creative enough to make up a new name for them that very much separates them from the original. Adding "Neo" in front does not cut it in my book thats riding on someone back, in a bad way.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

The ones that know the difference - can't be fooled.
The ones that don't...well, they don't care anyway.

 

[Björn Benckert]

The ones that know the difference - can't be fooled.
The ones that don't...well, they don't care anyway.

Agree, but I just think he should still be called out for what he does. Which is ripoff copies. If they where good lenses I'm sure they could fly under some other name.

Here are some B&L blueprints.

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:

NEW SUPER BALTAR PROFESSIONAL MOTION PICTURE CAMERA LENSES
Title page:
[/QUOTE]

 

[paulcurtis]

I dont agree I say fuck that guy and dont buy his lenses.

I think that's a bit strong and uncalled for. He has contributed *a lot* to lens design across multiple facets and AFAIK this is a passion project for him. No one is claiming these are identical to the originals.

If we're going to be pedantic about it, ALL lenses are derivative in some way shape or form and have been for decades. Most descend from the basic designs set out years ago. No one is up in arms about Lomo vs Cooke, which are blatant copies (Had both at one point). Or G35 vs K35 from Gekko. Or the myriad of rehouses going on all the time. Cooke themselves reinvent the same lenses with modern glass replacing old glass. (okay, it's still cooke...)

I don't often disagree with what you write...

cheers
Paul

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Here are some B&L blueprints.

Björn, these are not blueprints...at all...just fyi

BTW Personally I think the market can regulate itself...as previously shown there isn't really a substitute for the real thing...

if someone can/need/want to settle for the reproduction it's fine as long as well known before buying... (good or bad it's not important, because IT'S STILL DIFFERENT FROM THE REAL THING ANYWAY...)

Speed Panchros, Kowa anas, Super Baltars, you name it...simply can't be made anymore as once made...IT'S a FACT and in many lens tests has been shown that you can get close, but NOT identical to the originals...

My 2c.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I think that's a bit strong and uncalled for. He has contributed *a lot* to lens design across multiple facets and AFAIK this is a passion project for him. No one is claiming these are identical to the originals.

If we're going to be pedantic about it, ALL lenses are derivative in some way shape or form and have been for decades. Most descend from the basic designs set out years ago. No one is up in arms about Lomo vs Cooke, which are blatant copies (Had both at one point). Or G35 vs K35 from Gekko. Or the myriad of rehouses going on all the time. Cooke themselves reinvent the same lenses with modern glass replacing old glass. (okay, it's still cooke...)

I don't often disagree with what you write...

cheers
Paul

As I see it, Cooke can make lenses and call them the "Neo Pancro´s" as much as they want. But that does not mean I can. There is a difference.

And yes, possibly Cooke is copies of Lomo designs bu there is a difference: Cooke dont call them New Lomo´s.

I find it the same with rehousing, when people do rehousings and make false claims to what's in side or do not specify, well that is not right. If its a rehouse then fair is to call it just that. Celere lenses got called out on such point by Duclos. And I think thats fair.

Its actually not right to make rehousings and sell without permission from original manufacturer at all. But personally I actually think taking one product, refine it and when selling its clearly state: product X refined by Y is not all that bad Even though, if those that done the original get down on it I can fully understand them doing so.

Or is it ok to make NEO MasterPrimes just because every one would understand, no its not new master primes as Arri or Zeiss did not make em? Sorry but I think better practice would be to come up with some other name then. And your gecko example I assume thats rehoused canons and again, they claim they have the K35 look etc. But they dont say its the new K35.... I think thats different.

Making a lens from a drawing... with different kind of elements with other light index etc and say this is the "new" what ever lens you where trying to copy... No, its not right.

So possibly these lenses are super great and the guy that makes them super cool. But I find the naming convention simply flat out wrong.

Another example I saw here, someone doing rehoused Baltars, not Super Baltars. I think together with Van Damien and marketed them with a name think it was "Cinemascopes". Well as you might have seen I collected the real Baltar Cinemasopes and I paid a fortune to get those and another fortune to have them serviced etc and I don´t see why some dude selling spherical rehoused baltars should do so under a name that very much already taken.

 

[paulcurtis]

Another example I saw here, someone doing rehoused Baltars, not Super Baltars. I think together with Van Damien and marketed them with a name think it was "Cinemascopes". Well as you might have seen I collected the real Baltar Cinemasopes and I paid a fortune to get those and another fortune to have them serviced etc and I don´t see why some dude selling spherical rehoused baltars should do so under a name that very much already taken.

I followed your progress on that and 100% back the passion behind it all.

The Story behind these recreations:

https://cml.news/g/cml-glass/topic/...,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,14264710

From Brian himself if you hadn't read it. Like you he's passionate about Lenses and the notebooks were rescued as he describes.

No one can copy the originals 100%, the materials are different and so on. But i personally don't have an issue with part using the Baltar name (names like voigtlander have been bought and sold and are just a brand these days yet they are one of the earliest). If the whole optical formula is an attempt to do a version with modern materials and give props where they are due. I think if he'd designed a bunch of lenses and kept quiet about the formula then actually that would be a worse thing to do, no?

cheers
Paul

 

[Björn Benckert]

I followed your progress on that and 100% back the passion behind it all.

The Story behind these recreations:

https://cml.news/g/cml-glass/topic/...,0,0::recentpostdate/sticky,,,20,2,0,14264710

From Brian himself if you hadn't read it. Like you he's passionate about Lenses and the notebooks were rescued as he describes.

No one can copy the originals 100%, the materials are different and so on. But i personally don't have an issue with part using the Baltar name (names like voigtlander have been bought and sold and are just a brand these days yet they are one of the earliest). If the whole optical formula is an attempt to do a version with modern materials and give props where they are due. I think if he'd designed a bunch of lenses and kept quiet about the formula then actually that would be a worse thing to do, no?

cheers
Paul

If Brian bought the name from B&L then yes of course thats all fine, but I doubt thats the case, even if B&L does not make Baltars anymore I would recon the name alone is worth quite a lot... Something thats worth something, you usually can not just go take.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

What a hogwash. Baltars were designed with specific cinematographic goals in mind. These goals were meant to improve the art. And they did. As good tool should. All the "NEO" cr#p is about breaking the image and giving it a name. Cheap pathetic marketing tricks. And most here are falling for it. Lord save us from ourselves....

 

[Dan Kanes]

I would suggest everyone read the article if you’re up in arms or in some way upset by these.

This is a form of historic preservation, and I personally think it’s fantastic.

It’s a reproduction of a vintage design at the best possible execution- look at what is done with classic cars all the time - it would be worse if he called them something other than a Baltar.

My favorite thing is that they will really let the original designs sing because I’ve seen some rough around the edges Baltar rehousins with bad centration and degraded performance.

Baltars represent the peak of cinema prime lens design at their time and that’s really damn good - even today.

I would say everyone should calm down and give these things a try, they’re really good - better than a lot of faux-vintage concept stuff that is out there.

 

[rand thompson]

Didn't know so many had such strong feelings about this subject. Maybe Brian and others associated with this project will atleast reconsider due to viewing these and other comments and or direct contact to them. Surely these lenses could be rebranded so that they reflect the inspiration behind this project yet show the proper respect for the Bausch & Lomb Super Baltars Legacy.

 

[rand thompson]

Here's One more interview from Nab 2019.



NAB 2019: Caldwell Neo Baltar and Neo Super Baltar Lenses




By PVC Live

Brian Caldwell is also doing the Chameleon 1.79X Anamorphic Lenses.



Caldwell Chameleon 1.79x Anamorphics





By Newsshooter

We take a look at the new Caldwell Chameleon 1.79x anamorphics at NAB 2019.

Read all our reports and revies on newsshooter.com




Caldwell Chameleon




By Focus24tv

The new lenses from Caldwell anamorphic full frame lenses
www.focus24.tv

 

[James Darren]

I dont agree I say fuck that guy and dont buy his lenses.

With that logic, have you ever used any Tilta, DJI, Wooden Camera or SmallRig products?

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I dont agree I say fuck that guy and dont buy his lenses.

The patent has expired. What's the problem? Morally I see everything right with this project.

A similar project could be the recreation of Super Speeds. I think a lot of people would like that. The originals would always have a special value, regardless of new versions.

it would be worse if he called them something other than a Baltar.

That is a very good way of looking at it.