my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Sankor v/s Iscco Optic and Schnider (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Sankor v/s Iscco Optic and Schnider Ravindra Desai Film Handler Posts: 10 From: Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India Registered: Mar 2004 posted 04-03-2004 07:13 PM                    What would you go for: Sankor, cheap with relatively shorter life or Iscco and Schnider, expensive with relatively longer life. Do the latter lens have that much extra quality worth the added expense? Ravindra.  |  IP: Logged John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 04-03-2004 07:16 PM                     Positively, go with ISCO or Schneider. No question about it, it's really that simple.  |  IP: Logged John T. Hendrickson, Jr Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 889 From: Freehold, NJ, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 04-03-2004 08:06 PM                     John is correct. No contest.  |  IP: Logged Dan Lyons Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 698 From: Seal Beach, CA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 04-04-2004 12:25 PM                     quote: Sankor, cheap with relatively shorter life or Iscco and Schnider, expensive with relatively longer life Lenses have a lifespan? That's news to me. Unless you fry it, scratch it, or drop it, it shouldn't change. danny  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 04-04-2004 01:03 PM                     Optical glass, like all vitreous material, is amorphous, which is neither solid or liquid. Stain glass over the centuries will vary in thickness due to gravity...and this glassy state allow you to score and cut glass by disturbing the surface. So if you want your projection lenses to last...remember to rotate them at least every 1/2 millenium  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-04-2004 01:05 PM                        With old lenses, the glue that holds the glass elements in place disintegrates and discolors. This results in unsharp images due to "separation" issues. Look at old B&L CinemaScope lenses for an example of this; some of them will be perfectly clear and sharp, while others will not focus properly at all. My understanding is that lensmaking technology has improved since the early 1980s and that the glue that is used now is much better and doesn't disintegrate like the old glues did. I'm sure that Steve G. or someone else will explain this fully. I haven't seen the new Sankor lenses, but I agree with everyone else that new ISCO and Schneider lenses are top-notch. If you can possibly afford them, don't mess with anything less. If you can't, then you should probably buy good, used B&L (or similar) lenses and start saving cash to upgrade later.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-04-2004 01:30 PM                     Scott, The cement used before the advent of modern UV curable adhesives was made from Canadian Balsam sap. This is because after it is refined it has very similar optical characteristics to good optical glass. In fact many of the finest optics ever made have element pairs cemented together with Balsam. The down side is that Balsam, like any sap, can actually burn and turn to a brownish color if subjected to high heat over long periods of time. The fact that most old projection optics are still usable is a good clue as to how good Balsam was as an optical cement. Modern cements are optically clear and curable by subjecting it to an exposure of UV light. This is actually an advantage as it allows lens pairs to be re-cemented quite easily and you have quite a bit of time to achieve proper alignment of the pairs of glass. I've used this type of cement on a number of occasions to repair projection lenses in which the Balsam had burned to a brown color. Getting the pairs apart is not that hard either.... Sometimes baking them will soften the Balsam makong easy seperation of the pair, or soaking them in a solution of MEK will also work its way inside the pair by dissolving the Balsam. As to the B&L scope lenses turning to a yellow color.... this is due to certain rare earth flourides that were mixed into the glass compound. On occasion you will still find one or two of these anamorphics that are still sharp as a tack. I had one once that was so sharp it even had the president of Schneider Optics fooled! Steve K. probably remembers this lens. The new Sankors are still junk by comparison to anything Isco or Schneider turns out. The best way to ruin the performance of several hundred thousand dollars of nice projection equipment is to go ahead and install Sankors in them (I bet Gord disagrees though). Mark  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-07-2004 05:22 AM                        Well, not to rain on the Schneider/ISCO parade, I specified ISCOs for a new install and the client's budget committee kicked it down to my second choice which were Schneiders. Then, to my shock and horror, I come to find out that they actually changed the order to Sankors and completely cut the lenses for two formats -- the scope anamorphots and the sphericals for 1.37. I threw a fit, which the budget guys just snickered at. We still need to rent when we book scope or pre-1953 titles, but here's the strange, yet eye-opening and very surprising thing that I discovered: the Sankors looked damn good! Even I had to admit it. Yeah, yeah, I know...."good" compaired to what? and by what technical testing? Well, by no techical testing....I am only talking about a "subjective" evaluation....you know, the normal people (not us) standing around looking at various films and saying that the picture just looks good to the naked eye. What I mean is, I look at the picture, even as close as ten feet away and I don't see any color fringing, no halos around bright objects, as good contrast as I have seen with our spanking new Schneiders in another theatre. The test patterns look sharp. In other words, practically speaking, when the picture is on the screen, no one, not even me, says, gee, that picture sure looks bad. In fact, the client commented on how sharp and what a "good" picture the new lenses projected. I couldn't very well say, yeah, but you should see how bad they look under a microscope. Unfortunately, this pretty much puts the kabash on my foot stomping, demand that they put aside funds to eventually buy ISCOs to replace the Sankors. They say, "You're just nit-picking -- the picture looks great; and besides, we can't afford your nit-picking." Reluctantly I have to agree with them. Is it the BEST image that the best lenses could produce? Most likely not; but if the differenct between an ISCO and the Sankor can only be perceived under test conditions and not by an audience, then maybe the budget guys have a point. What I am finding is that the client as well as the audience sees a image that they find perfectly acceptable and meets their expectation of what a very good picture should look like. I have a hard time arguing that that is not good enough, especially since we still have to rent lenses for scope and flat 1.37. The one last bastion that I will stand firm on is that they get ISCO anamorphics (if there is a God, please let it be that Sankor does not make anamorphics).  |  IP: Logged Erick Akers Arse Kicker Posts: 201 From: Dallas, TX, USA Registered: May 2001 posted 04-07-2004 05:51 AM                     Frank, Sankor makes anamorphics, so I guess you may be outa luck!  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-07-2004 06:55 AM                     Frank, You go lucky...I've too seen the "modern" Sankors and one didn't need any microscope to perceive you could never really get them into focus. And, one would predict, the anamorphics (yes they make them...in different colors too) we notably worse. So you found a couple of sizes that work...big deal...Sankors still suck...and the average person can actually still see the difference that Schneider/ISCO make. The Schneider/ISCO thing did not come about by accident...there are tons of KOWAs and Sankors out there...and in isolated circumstances, one could say they are good enough but one shouldn't bet their reputation on them. On a recent installation (not by us)...the customer complained of their lack of sharp foucs with their lenses (looked like ISCO Ultra-Stars but were really Sankors). He gave us the focal lengths and we brought some ISCOs...even mere ISCO Ultras (we are talking 1970s, early 80s lenses)...it was like night and day. There were, however a couple of focal lengths that did indeed look fine with the Sankors but it wasn't the rule. Steve  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 04-07-2004 08:30 AM                    Maybe someone can lend Frank an ISCO or Schneider of matched focal length and a couple prints of a good looking trailer so he can run a split screen side by side comparison.  |  IP: Logged Ravindra Desai Film Handler Posts: 10 From: Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India Registered: Mar 2004 posted 04-07-2004 09:42 AM                    In continuation to this discussion, how much do screen, mirrors contribute to the picture quality? When do we saty the light is good (to the nacked eye)? When the yellow turns white and when the blue is really brilliant.....what are the most common things one should notice? Ravindra.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 04-07-2004 10:00 AM                        Anything in the optical path between the film and the viewer's eyes can affect image quality: lens, port glass, any mirrors (periscope), and screen. Although most people only focus (pun intended) on resolution, image contrast and color are also very important. Poor quality lenses and port glass often have significant flare, reducing image contrast. Dirty optics can likewise kill contrast: Conquering Contrast Killers Seven Deadly Sins of Projection Screen Luminance A stained or damaged screen is a constant distraction to the audience, and a dirty screen can waste light or change color temperature.  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-07-2004 11:48 AM                     We just got new lenses. Some of you may remember the pictures I posted of our old ones: When I priced out new lenses I didn't even mention to the boss that there were cheaper brands out there. I just told him, "These are the lenses we need." Those old lenses were replaced with brand new ISCOs. Let me tell you! The difference is like night and day! If you have crummy, old lenses you should replace them. The money is WAY worth it!  |  IP: Logged Daryl C. W. O'Shea Film God Posts: 3977 From: Midland Ontario Canada (where Panavision & IMAX lenses come from) Registered: Jun 2002 posted 04-07-2004 01:35 PM                        Is that an HBO clock?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.