|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: B&L optics vs European optics???
|
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-13-2013 12:09 AM
Baush & Lomb has probably been the staple of the domestic motion picture industry for decades. Even though there have been other optical suppliers( Buhl, Sentinel, etc.) B&L has pretty much dominated the Projection field. This brings me to my topic, I was a Licensed Firearms dealer for over 21 years and along with firearms I sold a ton of rifle/pistol scopes,binoculars,spotting scopes ,etc. Now B&L scopes and other related optics I would classify as above average but putting them up against other American made scopes like Leupold,Shepherd and a couple other mainstream mfgers. I would give them a step down as far as precision optics go. Now again when I rate a Top American Scope and related optical products like LEUPOLD I would have to give them a step down when compared with the european made Scopes(mostly German made) Swaroski,Kahles,H&R,Zeiss, to name a few.
Comparing Scope Optics is like you going to the eye doctor and looking at the eye chart. as you go farther down the chart where the letters become smaller your eye strains to see the letters and your focus goes out of kilter. The same with Scope optic comparisons. Now a superior made American scope like Leupold may be able to keep precise focus up to line 10 of a 1 to 12 line focal chart. However when going to lines 11 & 12 the optics start to detoriate and the line goes fuzzy. Now the European scopes I listed above can all go to line 12 and keep perfect focus and resolution with the same size and Power scope(i.e. 3.5x 10 50mm AO).
Now I know at least 2 of these companies make Lenses for the European Motion picture industry,
BAUER, PHILLIPS, just to name 2........Now what I'm getting too , Are the European Optics showing a Superior quality image than our domestic made B&L optics when showing the same release print film. I'm not here to knock american made products but if Zeiss can supply me with an anamorphic lense say for a Simplex XL than I'm probably going to buy that lense verses a B&L even if it cost me more. I'm only using zeiss as an example because if you go into almost any hospitol operating room in the country where micro surgery is done your going to see ZEISS Products. I also know that Zeiss made or maybe still do Motion Picture Products.
I can only concur that if these companies make these high quality optics for the firearms industry and related optic products, than what they make for the motion picture projectors /cameras,etc. surely has to be as Fine and superior to what B&L supplies to the industry. just my humble opinion!!! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-13-2013 12:02 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Furthermore, applying the quality of a manufacturer in one industry does NOT translate into another
Couldn't agree more. Philips is a case in point: their medical imaging technology is considered world-leading, but most of their consumer electronics products are overpriced and of so-so quality. And if I were in the market for a $300m high-speed passenger train, I'd certainly consider Hitachi, but not for an HVAC split unit.
I don't believe that I ever used a Bausch and Lomb projection lens. Throughout my time in the booth, Isco/Schneider dominated, with some older and, shall we say, lower rent houses having 1960s vintage, light-sapping Taylor-Hobsons or GKs. Maybe B & Ls were never exported to Britain in significant quantities.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Wyss
Film Handler
Posts: 80
From: Basel, BS, Switzerland
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 11-18-2013 03:46 AM
Friends, if I may let me explain that lenses can be too good for a given print.
More detail: Gigabitfilm 40, the (black-and-white) film with the highest available resolving power today, introduced to cinematography in 2002 as 35-mm. film and in 2005 in the 16-mm. format, has clearly shown the limitations of taking and delivering lenses, both as reversed originals and as positives on Eastman or Orwo stock from negatives. But—with what we (used to) show in the theatre is quite inferior on the film side. Colour dye clouds, grain, all the weaknesses of the trade.
CinemaScope uses almost the full film advance in picture height, so coming with the smallest enlargement factor of all 35-mm. 4-perf formats on a given screen. Picture image steadiness errors are least magnified. In spite of that the rather “bigger” CS productions tend to come as fourth-generation prints to cinemas, the camera negative taken as the first generation. Why then should one attempt at showing the grain orgies with fantastic lenses? IMAX 70-15 prints were almost all second generation. Trichrome Technicolor 35-mm. prints were third generation (camera separation negatives, imbibition matrices, copy).
In the silent era many theatres had a relatively long throw, a not so large screen and therefore a relatively long focal-length lens on the projector. With focal lenghts of 4" or 5" three- or four-element lenses produce a good picture, of course not that finely corrected like what we are now used to. Prints in the 1920s were still rather second generation although heavy duping is known since 1893. So it is always the question what one wants to offer on the screen, cutting-edge sharpness and high resolution or perhaps more lulling, seducing action. I must say that I don’t want to see the imperfections of filmmaking. Modern seven-elements multicoated lenses can be cruel.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-19-2013 10:21 AM
quote: Simon Wyss
Prints in the 1920s were still rather second generation although heavy duping is known since 1893.
However, a lot of the gain in image resolution was then lost through the practice of tinting and/or toning. By the mid-20s, tinting at least was applied to almost all mainstream feature film footage, and some scenes were toned as well, with resolution-destroying dyes. Only newsreels were typically shown in 'raw' b/w.
That having been said, I agree totally with your point about modern lenses creating an authenticity barrier when viewing older films. I have seen nitrate prints from the '20s to the '40s projected with modern Isco/Schneiders that have short focal distances and small apertures, and am often astonished by how much image detail is in there that contemporary audiences simply wouldn't have seen. They also reveal how abysmal quality control was in the IB printing process. In particular, I remember seeing an original release print of The Jungle Book at the NFT in the late '90s: it was virtually unwatchable, with fringing and misregistered dyes all over the place. In 1942, with a 200-foot throw to a screen that was only 20 feet across, an auditorium thick with tobacco smoke and 1940s optics in the lens, it probably looked a lot more tolerable.
The light source is another authenticity destroyer: xenons have a significantly higher colour temperature than carbon arcs, so we're not getting an accurate impression of the grading when we see pre-1960s prints shown with a xenon light source.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic