Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

NEO Super Baltars

Floating Points - Reflections




By Jordi Ruiz Maso


https://vimeo.com/223919308




Info for the Camera and Lens used can be found at the link below:

http://jordiruizmaso.com/portfolio/reflections/


Technical Info
Camera: Red Dragon
Lenses: Super Baltar
Aspect ratio: 1:2.35




In late August 2016, Floating Points and his band travelled to the Mojave Desert to write and rehearse before the start of their US tour.
While visiting Joshua Tree National Park, they were struck not only by its physical beauty, but also by the sonic reflections from the rock formations; A unique combination of reverb, echo and phase shifting modulating the surrounding sounds of the landscape.
The band took advantage of this environment to write and record some new music at the base of some of these natural sculptures, documented in this film.
-----------------------------------------------------
A PLUTO and HAMILL INDUSTRIES Production
Directed by ANNA DIAZ ORTUÑO

Floating Points Band
SAM SHEPHERD, MATTHEW KIRKIS, ALEX REEVE, SUSUMU MUKAI and LEO TAYLOR

Director of Photography
JORDI RUIZ MASÓ, AEC

Recording Engineer
MICHAEL PARKER

Audio Mix
SAM SHEPHERD, JACK SUGDEN, JOE RUBEL

Colorist
CRISTINA PÉREZ

Graphism
MICHELE ANGELO

© Floating Points
 
Brian Caldwell said:
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the "Baltar" trademark expired decades ago. I don't have a contract, and don't need one. Only a handful of the lenses were ever patented, and these patents expired even longer ago than the trademark. I decided to use the names "Neo Baltar" and "Neo Super Baltar" to be transparent about what the lenses are, and to avoid treading on the toes of re-housing companies that like to engrave the names "Baltar" and "Super Baltar" on external metal parts when re-mounting antique lenses.

Just to be clear, the goal of my project was to faithfully reproduce the original lenses as accurately as humanly possible. Nothing was "improved". Aberrations are identical to the original designs, as is illumination falloff. As far as I know, no one else has gone to such lengths to re-manufacture vintage optics. When comparing these lenses to originals, the main difference is slightly greater haze in the originals due to numerous cleanings, resulting in microscopic scratches in the polished glass surfaces. So, what you get from me is effectively vintage glass as if it were new from the factory.

One thing I decided *not* to do was to melt my own glass to match the original B&L glasses. What I did instead was use the closest possible modern glasses and make very minor adjustments to the design to retain the original aberration balance and flare characteristics. I also used single-layer MgF2 AR coatings on all lens surfaces, just as B&L did. These adjustments are so small that if you overlay a cross-section of an original Super Baltar with a corresponding Neo Super Baltar its difficult to tell the two apart.
Click to expand...



BC:

Any way to modify your current designs to accommodate FF / LF ? I've got need for a 20mm Baltar that covers the larger format sensors.
 
Japanese Breakfast - Jane Cum (Official Video)





By Japanese Breakfast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqa-v9A3Ecw





Info for the Camera and Lens used can be found at the link below:

https://www.adamkolodny.com/jane-cum

Dir. Adam Kolodny
Production Co. House of Nod
Tech: Sony FS7 / Bausch and Lomb Super Baltar



Best of Japanese Breakfast https://goo.gl/Ce3c5Q
Subscribe here: https://goo.gl/RdoQwN


Official Music Video for "Jane Cum" by Japanese Breakfast from their album ‘Psychopomp'

Now available on Yellow K Records (North America) and Dead Oceans (Rest of World)
michellezauner.bandcamp.com/
yellowkrecords.com/

A House of Nod Production
Directed & Photographed by Adam Kolodny
Concept by Michelle Zauner and Adam Kolodny
Produced by Robert Kolodny
AD/Key Grip Andrew Stapp
Wardrobe by Stephanie Griffin
Art by Nick Corbo
Car Provided by Alex Bistromovich

Starring:
Michelle Zauner, Lila Patil, Gabriela Tully Claymore, and Stephanie Griffin

Special Thanks:
Larry & Terri, Chris Cazavilan, Brad Reeb, and Zach Sullivan.
houseofnod.com
Follow us twitter.com/houseofnodfilms
Like us facebook.com/houseofnod
Contact: info@houseofnod.com

http://vevo.ly/h0eJmT
 
Dog Food Mature

This video contains or implies explicit violence. It may not be appropriate for all viewers.




By Brian Crano


https://vimeo.com/109626933




Info for the Camera and Lens used can be found at the link below:

https://3gr.la/red-scarlet-m-x


Shot on RED Epic M-X + RED Scarlet M-X + Super Baltar Prime Lenses.



When a butcher loses his dog, his life starts to unravel.
written and directed by Brian Crano [briancrano.com]

starring Cory Michael Smith | Amanda Seyfried | David Craig [iamdavidcraig.com]

producer Michael Klein | executive producers Brian Crano | David Craig | Max Hurwitz

director of photography Adam Bricker [adambricker.com] editor Matthew Friedman

DOG FOOD was shot on location in New York and premiered at SXSW in March 2014. Subsequently the film played at thirty international film festivals, won best horror/thriller at Comic Con and was chosen as a Vimeo Staff Pick.

Subsequent film festival screenings in competition: Cleveland International Film Festival, Sun Valley Film Festival, Nashville Film Festival, Seattle Internaional Film Festival, San Diego Comic Con Film Festival (winner: best horror/thriller), Chicago Critics Film Festival, Athens International Film and Video Festival, Flickers Rhode Island International Film Festival, Latitude Festival, Telluride Horror Show, Raindance Film Festival, Puchon International Fantastic Film Festival, Lisbon International Horror Film Festival, deadCenter Film Festvial, Guanajuato International Film Festival, Sidewalk Film Festival, Mile High Horror Film Festival, Tyrolean Interpendent Film Festival (winner: best international short film), Provincetown International Film Festival, Atlantic Film Festival, Jameson Cinefest Miskolc International Film Fest, Corto In Bra International Film Festival, Little Rock Film Festival, Show Me Shorts Film New Zealand

for information visit dogfoodfilm.com
 
Last edited:
Adrian Jebef said:
BC:

Any way to modify your current designs to accommodate FF / LF ? I've got need for a 20mm Baltar that covers the larger format sensors.
Click to expand...

The 20mm and 25mm Super Baltars can't be modified for FF/LF. First because the illumination rapidly goes black beyond the bounds of S35, and second because the aberration correction would become crazy bad. However, I am working on a companion project to the Neo Baltars and Neo Super Baltars to develop what I'm calling Ultra Baltars, with a 25mm lens that covers FF and 35mm/50mm lenses that cover Alexa-65. These are designed from the ground up, but I'm using aberration targets based on the 75mm Super Baltar. Note that there is a completely different design philosophy with the Ultra Baltars than with the Neo Baltars and Neo Super Baltars, in that the Neo series are pure re-manufactures based on vintage designs, whereas the Ultra series are totally new lenses with carefully selected performance targets.

So far I haven't gone wider than 25mm with my Ultra Baltar designs, mainly because no vintage optics were as wide as 20mm on FF, which is equivalent to about 13.5mm on S35. However, if the demand is there I'm sure I could develop a 20mm ultra-wide with Super Baltar aberration characteristics. FWIW, many of the Baltars (40mm and longer) and Super Baltars (75mm and longer) already cover FF with no problem .
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the links to samples of work shot with Baltars, but that said the number of samples posted seems excessive. Just my opinion.

As for the Porsche analogy, that may be more apt than Bjorn realized given the so-called “Singer 911”. The product is not officially named as such because that would violate Porsche’s trademark. The vehicles are mid-80’s Porsche 911’s made to look like “vintage” ( pre-1975) Porsche 911’s but with modern upgrades. In essence, the automotive world equivalent of a “re-housed” lens. Or, a modern lens rehoused in a vintage look housing but with modern optical performance. Singer Auto is able to sell these and not violate any trademark / copyright because they don’t rebadge the vehicle as a “Singer” or as a “Singer 911” and since the product is built from an existing Porsche product Singer is only selling a modified pre-owned vehicle. Bringing it back to the Neo Baltars, if they were built from some element of an actual Baltar and sold AS Baltars it would less be potential infringement than if made from scratch and sold as “Neo Baltars”. That seems a bit backwards in that the “remakes” sold AS “Baltars” are on more solid ground infringement-wise than Neo Baltars ( or “Neo-Baltar” ) that more indicate that they are NOT Baltars. I do not know how much of the original lens needs to be incorporated into a re-housed lens to qualify as re-selling the original lens. TLS places their name and logo on the re-housed Baltars they sell, but are careful not to call them “TLS Baltars”. TLS refers to them as “Bausch & Lomb Baltars | TLS”. Would Bjorn be less unhappy if the “Neo Baltars” were branded as “Bausch & Lomb Baltars | Neo”? But would that be honest given that no part of the lens was made by B&L? What if he had used some original, non-optical part and marketed them as “rehoused”? That would be less than honest as well since the “rehoused lens” would not consist of any actual re-housing and would have no B&L Baltar optics. Thoughts? I am curious if consultation with a Copyright Attorney took place just to cya before branding the lenses as they are branded.


fyi- For the record, Porsche never produced a “Carrera 944” or a “944 Carrera”. The was a limited production 924 Carrera, but never a 944 Carrera. And in Porsche nomenclature the model number always came first. “944 Clubsport”, “911 Targa”, “911 Carrera”. Generally speaking, in Porsce-world “Carrera” was associated with the 911 up until the Carrera GT.
 
LEGO Legends of Chima, Inner Child



By Manuel Alberto Claro



Director: William Stahl
AC: Henrik Lyngbo
Gaffer: Jacob Østergaard

Shot with Alexa and Super Baltars
 
John David Pope said:
I appreciate the links to samples of work shot with Baltars, but that said the number of samples posted seems excessive. Just my opinion.

As for the Porsche analogy, that may be more apt than Bjorn realized given the so-called “Singer 911”. The product is not officially named as such because that would violate Porsche’s trademark. The vehicles are mid-80’s Porsche 911’s made to look like “vintage” ( pre-1975) Porsche 911’s but with modern upgrades. In essence, the automotive world equivalent of a “re-housed” lens. Or, a modern lens rehoused in a vintage look housing but with modern optical performance. Singer Auto is able to sell these and not violate any trademark / copyright because they don’t rebadge the vehicle as a “Singer” or as a “Singer 911” and since the product is built from an existing Porsche product Singer is only selling a modified pre-owned vehicle. Bringing it back to the Neo Baltars, if they were built from some element of an actual Baltar and sold AS Baltars it would less be potential infringement than if made from scratch and sold as “Neo Baltars”. That seems a bit backwards in that the “remakes” sold AS “Baltars” are on more solid ground infringement-wise than Neo Baltars ( or “Neo-Baltar” ) that more indicate that they are NOT Baltars. I do not know how much of the original lens needs to be incorporated into a re-housed lens to qualify as re-selling the original lens. TLS places their name and logo on the re-housed Baltars they sell, but are careful not to call them “TLS Baltars”. TLS refers to them as “Bausch & Lomb Baltars | TLS”. Would Bjorn be less unhappy if the “Neo Baltars” were branded as “Bausch & Lomb Baltars | Neo”? But would that be honest given that no part of the lens was made by B&L? What if he had used some original, non-optical part and marketed them as “rehoused”? That would be less than honest as well since the “rehoused lens” would not consist of any actual re-housing and would have no B&L Baltar optics. Thoughts? I am curious if consultation with a Copyright Attorney took place just to cya before branding the lenses as they are branded.


fyi- For the record, Porsche never produced a “Carrera 944” or a “944 Carrera”. The was a limited production 924 Carrera, but never a 944 Carrera. And in Porsche nomenclature the model number always came first. “944 Clubsport”, “911 Targa”, “911 Carrera”. Generally speaking, in Porsce-world “Carrera” was associated with the 911 up until the Carrera GT.
Click to expand...

The "Baltar" trademark expired back in the 1980's. B&L knew they were abandoning the traditional optics business, so apparently they also decided to abandon this particular trademark. So, there is no intellectual property, and infringement can't occur. In any case, I'm calling my lenses "Neo Baltars", and not "Baltars". I've also made a significant effort to explain exactly what I'm doing so that there is no confusion. I understand that many people will want genuine antique lenses, even if I'm able to re-manufacture them from scratch with 100% perfection. But I don't think there is any danger of anybody buying a Neo Baltar with the mistaken notion that it is a an antique lens that was built 70 years ago.

There is also a practical issue with what I think you are suggesting. For example, original Super Baltars in particular are basically hens teeth. They are extremely hard to find, and even beat-up examples tend to be way over-priced. Putting an additional requirement on my project that I should somehow include a few original parts just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not selling antique Baltar lenses to get stashed in museum cases - I'm selling lenses that are optically identical to the Baltars so that people can make images with them.
 
Forgot that the "Baltars" are being redone as well.



Lens Test: Van Diemen - Bausch & Lomb Baltar


I Believe Harmonica is Associated with Reduser Member Ignacio Aguilar

By Harmonica Rental Equipos de cine




Van Diemen - Bausch & Lomb Baltar Lenses (18-25-30-35-40-50-75-100mm, f2.3, PL Mount)
Shot on Arri Alexa Mini 2K 4444 Log C
AVAILABLE FOR RENT at movielenses.com / harmonicarental.com
NOTE: Baltars are lenses from the 1930's, not to be confused with the 1960's Super Baltar.
UPDATE Watch our flare test: https://youtu.be/yhN_gDwH3I4





Lens Test Van Diemen Bausch & Lomb Baltar vs Leica Summicron C




By Harmonica Rental Equipos de cine




Van Diemen - Bausch & Lomb Baltar Lenses (18-25-30-35-40-50-75-100mm, f2.3, PL Mount)
Vs. Leica Summicron-C (18-25-35-50-75-100-135mm, T2.0)
Shot on Arri Alexa Mini 2K 4444 Log C






Lens Test - Van Diemen - Bausch & Lomb BALTAR Lens & Flare Tests




By Harmonica Rental Equipos de cine





Shot on Arri Alexa Mini 2K 4444 LOG C - Graded to REC 709
1930's 18-25-30-35-40-50-75-100mm T2.3 Lenses, Fully Rehoused in PL Mount.
AVAILABLE FOR RENT at movielenses.com / harmonicarental.com
UPDATE Watch another test: https://youtu.be/8Bk1g0dW5Sw
 
Last edited:
“Migraine” filter test + Baltars



Test With Baltars and Super Baltars, They are not labeled other than by "Baltars"



By Fletcher Wolfe


https://vimeo.com/317531830




Quick (aka, not very well planned) test of Baltars, Super Baltars, Double Vision filter and split diopters for short doc on migraines.
 
It's really only 1 person complaining about the name - so who really cares? The majority of people probably don't.

Everyone who purchases or rents a set of Neo's will know what they are...
 
Brian, keep up your invaluable work!

Do not waste time here, Bjorn has gone crazy in his Neo Baltar blasphemy.
 
James Darren said:
It's really only 1 person complaining about the name - so who really cares? The majority of people probably don't.

Everyone who purchases or rents a set of Neo's will know what they are...
Click to expand...

If you like what Brian is doing, and I do, you should want him to be legally in the clear with the name lest the whole effort go kaput because of legal expenses and legal woes. If B&L can demonstrate that they intended to continue using the “Baltar” name at some point, they have precedent for infringement. It isn’t as simple as: look up trademark...see that it’s expired...woo hoo! That means I can legally use it.

Were it me, I would cover myself by seeking the blessing from B&L before I used the name. There’s a reason True Lens Service doesn’t use “TLS Baltars”.
 
John David Pope said:
Thank you for the response, Brian.

Out of curiosity, how might you feel were I to incorporate as “neo Caldwell Photographic”? Not trying to be cute. Well, maybe I am, but to make a point. Not apples to apples, I realize, since “Baltar” is essentially retired while Caldwell Photographic is active.

There is the legal aspect and the ethical aspect. Is it accurate to say that you will be profiting from the hard work someone else put into establishing a name? You had no part in establishing and building the name “Baltar” yet you are looking to profit from it, no?

I think what you are doing is cool. It’s only the naming thing that I’m on the frnce about. If you have not already, you might want to research what is known as “common law trademark”. ( essentially, trademark still belonging to someone despite their having allowed it to expire. ) I’m curious if you trademarked “Neo Baltar” or not. But maybe it’s none of my business. Unless I’m looking to sell lenses called “Neo-Neo Baltars”, that is.

cheers
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with unregistered trademarks. Both registered and unregistered trademarks can be abandoned, however. And "Baltar" as it relates to optics is definitely abandoned.

I think you're suggesting that it's OK for me to faithfully re-manufacture vintage lenses, but its not OK for me to let anybody know what those vintage lenses are. How about I call em "Ratlabs"?
 
Carlsbourg - Farmer





by JONAS+TOON


https://vimeo.com/186261115




Info for the Camera and Lens used can be found at the link below:

http://www.driesdc.be/carlsbourg/


Shot on Arri Amira and B&L Super Baltars lenses




Directed by Jonas+Toon
DOP: Dries Declercq
Camera Assistent: Ruben Appeltans
Sound: Bram Deryckere
Grading: Enak Cortebeeck
Music: Lieven Van Pee
Editing: Toon Mertens
Line Producers: Jonas+Toon
Produced by Dedsit
Producer: Mary An Callaert
 
so weird to me anyone would have a problem with this, Brain is doing something great and i wouldnt want them called anything different then what they are. especially as a dp needing a selling point to even use them professionally. that's where it matters.
Checked them out from Nic at NAB, really beautiful, inside and out!


Brian Caldwell said:
I'm familiar with unregistered trademarks. Both registered and unregistered trademarks can be abandoned, however. And "Baltar" as it relates to optics is definitely abandoned.

I think you're suggesting that it's OK for me to faithfully re-manufacture vintage lenses, but its not OK for me to let anybody know what those vintage lenses are. How about I call em "Ratlabs"?
Click to expand...
 
Brian Caldwell said:
I'm familiar with unregistered trademarks. Both registered and unregistered trademarks can be abandoned, however. And "Baltar" as it relates to optics is definitely abandoned.

I think you're suggesting that it's OK for me to faithfully re-manufacture vintage lenses, but its not OK for me to let anybody know what those vintage lenses are. How about I call em "Ratlabs"?
Click to expand...


Yes, of course it is okay to say they mimic Baltars. But, for me, incorporating “Baltar” into the name crosses a line. Your effort is reverential of Baltars. But the naming is not reverential. The name “Neo Balars” literally meand “New Baltars”. But the lenses are not Baltars. Old, new, or otherwise. The lenses are reproductions of Baltars. ( You’re reproducing, not remanufacturing. There is a difference. ) Bjorn can speak for himself, but I believe where he takes issue is the naming. You have affixed the name Baltar to a product that is NOT a Baltar. Maybe your position is that B&L let the trademark expire and you now own the trademark? And thus these ARE Baltars? Seems to me that a Baltar is a Baltar but a reproduction of a Baltar isn’t a Baltar. Just as a reproduction of an Omega Speedmaster Moon watch isn’t an Omega Speedmaster Moon watch. IMO, it would be unethical, regardless of the state of the trademark, to make a repro of the Speedmaster and brand it as a “New Speedmaster”. “Neo Baltar” says “this is a new Baltar”. But it isn’t a new Baltar. It’s a reproduction OF an actual Baltar.

I hesitated to reply. I don’t want this debate to become contentious. I’d rather it be productive and informative. I also don’t want to come across as a jerk. Or BE a jerk. So far I think the debate has been informative. I learned about common law trademark because of it. And I also learned that B&L is a Canadian company. Anyone know the origin of the Baltar name?
 
John David Pope said:
Yes, of course it is okay to say they mimic Baltars. But, for me, incorporating “Baltar” into the name crosses a line. Your effort is reverential of Baltars. But the naming is not reverential. The name “Neo Balars” literally meand “New Baltars”. But the lenses are not Baltars. Old, new, or otherwise. The lenses are reproductions of Baltars. ( You’re reproducing, not remanufacturing. There is a difference. ) Bjorn can speak for himself, but I believe where he takes issue is the naming. You have affixed the name Baltar to a product that is NOT a Baltar. Maybe your position is that B&L let the trademark expire and you now own the trademark? And thus these ARE Baltars? Seems to me that a Baltar is a Baltar but a reproduction of a Baltar isn’t a Baltar. Just as a reproduction of an Omega Speedmaster Moon watch isn’t an Omega Speedmaster Moon watch. IMO, it would be unethical, regardless of the state of the trademark, to make a repro of the Speedmaster and brand it as a “New Speedmaster”. “Neo Baltar” says “this is a new Baltar”. But it isn’t a new Baltar. It’s a reproduction OF an actual Baltar.

I hesitated to reply. I don’t want this debate to become contentious. I’d rather it be productive and informative. I also don’t want to come across as a jerk. Or BE a jerk. So far I think the debate has been informative. I learned about common law trademark because of it. And I also learned that B&L is a Canadian company. Anyone know the origin of the Baltar name?
Click to expand...



Yes, I actually don't think trying to copy 70 year old lens cells is a bad thing, on the contrary I like such stuff. But while doing it, I find it important to show some respect to the originals as they are still out there and very much in use.

Do a google search, and its quite easy to see that every respectable rental house on the planet got their set of rehoused or remounted Super Baltars, usually they rent them out with an additional name before or after, like "TLS Super Baltars" or such. But no matter their naming convention, hopefully all have one thing in common, original B&L cells inside of them.

So with that in mind, and again this is my opinion, it would be more respectable if those that actually bought into the real deal and paying those huge numbers could at least own the name "Super Baltars". Because as I see it, that name is not something that any of us, no matter how good we are at making lenses, just should be able to claim no matter what is, or is not currently a registered active tradmark etc. And having the drawing of a lens and not having the same minerals in the glas etc or the blessing of the original manufacturer is simply not, as I see it, reason enough to claim a commonly used name.

So dont take me wrong. The idea of making lens cells that somewhat mimic the cell of old lenses and has the same dimensions I think is great. Love the idea of being able to pick a housing from a choosen rehouse vendor and customized the engravings, mounts etc. Everyone probably have their preferences for good housings and to be able to choose is really good. So why no just call these Super Caldwell´s or something and let others be the judge if these are more likable than the originals. I think if they are even half what Caldwell promise they will still sell like hotcakes no matter if they got the word Baltar in their name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top