8mm Forum: cinemascope lens for sale

This is topic cinemascope lens for sale in forum 8mm equipment for sale/trade at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001570

Posted by Joseph Morrison (Member # 304) on February 06, 2012, 02:12 PM:

Yup, I have a lens hanging around that I have never used...its labeled "Benoist-Berthiot S.T.O.P. 8098 Cinemascope. Seems to be in nice shape, no scratches....no idea what projector it fits. Can email photos to anybody interested.....$60 shipped in the US.

Posted by Gerald Santana (Member # 2362) on February 06, 2012, 03:43 PM:

Joseph,

Please hold it for me...send me a picture please...

[Smile]

Posted by Joseph Morrison (Member # 304) on February 06, 2012, 06:04 PM:

Hey All, until Gerald confirms, consider this still for sale if anybody is interested....

And having just heard from Gerald, I can indeed say that it is still available.

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on February 06, 2012, 09:44 PM:

What is the thread diameter where it would attach to a prime lens?

Posted by Joseph Morrison (Member # 304) on February 06, 2012, 10:39 PM:

Bill, well, I don't know. The rear element is about 3/16 shy of an inch in diameter, but there is about 3/8 of an inch of bare sleeve around that rear element before you get some outer threads to do anything with.

Posted by Joseph Morrison (Member # 304) on February 08, 2012, 02:40 PM:

Lens is now out with someone for testing.....

Posted by Bill Brandenstein (Member # 892) on February 08, 2012, 07:35 PM:

Wow, that's REALLY small. Its barrel isn't long enough to be a prime lens + scope, but the combination doesn't make sense to me (not seen that many scope lenses, I guess).

Please post what you learn! Maybe we can all learn something!

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on February 08, 2012, 09:06 PM:

It doesn't look like it will work with my Elmo ST1200. matter of fact, it doesn't look like it will work with anything! Which is probably why it hasn't sold yet. Even at the that low price. [Wink]

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on February 09, 2012, 12:58 AM:

If it's an actual 2x lens, it will work with any small diameter lens, on any projector, providing you can build a lens holder.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 15, 2012, 07:51 PM:

Hello Joseph,the lens you have looks very much like the original
cinemascope lens that was sold with the FUJI single 8 P1 & P2
Cine Cameras back in the early '70s and was used on the camera and for projection.The lens and camera received much praise at
the time from "Mr Widescreen" himself,Tony Shapps who ran the
"Widescreen Centre" in the UK for many years.

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 16, 2012, 07:53 AM:

Coming back on this subject I seem to remember it was called
the "HYPERGONAR" Cinemascope and was just for 8mm as if
used with 16mm I think there would be to much "cut off" but
for the 8mm gauge the lens was excellent and gave very good
results.I can't recall anyone having any problems with this little
lens which is very well thought of even now.I have a similar lens in my collection but compression on that is 1.5 and gives me
2x1 screen size and pin sharp image.This lens I suppose would
be similar to the KIPTAGON-ISCOMORPHOT 'scope set up that was available some years ago.

Posted by Joseph Morrison (Member # 304) on February 19, 2012, 09:47 AM:

Thanks for the additional info Hugh, that helps to know. Makes sense too...there was a guy here in the Pittsburgh area who was a big promoter of the Widescreen stuff, so its possible he brought the lens to this region.....

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on February 19, 2012, 01:17 PM:

Hugh, do you know where and what lens holder would go well with this lens? Coming to Pasquale's point, do you think it will work with an ST-1200?

Posted by Jon Addams (Member # 816) on February 19, 2012, 02:05 PM:

It should work with ANY projector providing you have the proper mounting holder for it.

Jon

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on February 19, 2012, 08:37 PM:

In this case, the proper mounting could be duct tape?? [Confused]

Just kidding [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jon Addams (Member # 816) on February 19, 2012, 10:11 PM:

You would be surprised Pat as to what you can use to hold a scope lens in front of your flat one.

People become very creative so they can watch wide screen movies -
A stand and clamp comes to mind, so would a couple of wooden blocks, a milk crate...

...and the list goes on. [Big Grin]

Jon

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on February 20, 2012, 06:17 AM:

In reply to Akshays question I was fortunate that my late Father
was a very skilled Fitter & Turner and manufactured various
fittings for me to use in cine like a fitting to take the very small
'scope lens like Joe's that was sleeved to fit over the Eumig lens
but fit inside the Elmo's.There was a place over here in the UK
that made these things but I'm sure they've gone now.Surely
camera shops carry stocks of "stepping rings" etc.At a push you
can manufacture sleeves yourself using plastic tubing from your
local plumbing or hardware shop.or just make a stand.

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on February 21, 2012, 01:48 PM:

All pretty helpful guys. Thanks!

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on February 22, 2012, 02:07 AM:

The lens arrived today. All that talk of him not working with an ST-1200 and the requirement of a lens holder seems futile in hindsight. He went straight into the ST-1200, like he was made for her.

.

Does anyone have a nice little short on scope for immediate sale? For now all I can see is,

Posted by Jason Bognacki (Member # 2982) on March 07, 2012, 11:52 AM:

Check your PM Akshay just sent you a message.

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on March 10, 2012, 11:42 AM:

A match made in heaven. I wish him all the happiness [Wink]

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on March 10, 2012, 04:22 PM:

Akshay, I'm not sure about an ELMO 1.1, as I don't have one at the moment, but that scope lense will definitely not fit into an ELMO 1.0 lense. Just so you know [Smile]

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 10, 2012, 04:41 PM:

quote:
He went straight into the ST-1200, like he was made for her.

Akhshay, how did you put inside the original lens holder...

and I saw a sort of ring outside the cope lens, what is that...

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on March 10, 2012, 07:05 PM:

Guys, the scope lens just slips into the 1.3 lens frame (if it's okay to call it that). Worked okay with my Lawrence of Arabia trailer, but is a bit loose. If I ever find a scope feature, I can hold it in place with cotton. Very fortunate for me, and am grateful to Joseph Morrison.

Winbert, you mention a ring but the lens is just one piece as the picture shows. All fits in nicely.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 10, 2012, 09:43 PM:

So you don't use the original 1.3 Elmo lens in this set up instead The light straight to the scope lens? Pls confirm

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on March 10, 2012, 10:22 PM:

I did use the 1.3 lens, Winbert. The scope lens sits in front of the 1.3 lens in my set-up. This works because I watched the trailer of Lawrence of Arabia four times already.

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 12, 2012, 05:01 PM:

Akhsay, thanks for your reply.

Since I have measured my 1.3 lens is around 5 cm (= 2") from the front ring to the main lens, so did you say that that the length of this scope lens also around that? as shown on the pciture?

Secondly, if you want to zoom in or zoom out the main lens, is the scope lens also turning? how then you handle this?

ps: btw, Perry has several scope films at very affordable price. Did you buy ?

cheers,

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on March 12, 2012, 09:08 PM:

The length of the lens, you call it x, is around 1.7 inches.

Yes, the lens does turn as I focus the 1.3 lens already on my ST-1200. In fact, while watching the trailer of Lawrence of Arabia I had to hold the lens in place. Since the picture was great, all I have to do is keep it in place. One thought was to stuff cotton, or wrap wire around the lens and tie the other end of the wire to some secure place on the projector. Let's see.

This morning I did write to Ian for some scope features. Now am thinking I may not get what I asked for since I chose some obvious ones. I guess he won't reply if the features I asked for are sold, right?

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 13, 2012, 07:16 AM:

1.7" inch, I think it is ver small lens, even the smallest lens I have ever seen. Good luck to get films from Ian

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 13, 2012, 12:31 PM:

I would be very careful Akshay,as it is so easy to dislodge your
little lens and damage it,I would seriously consider either buying
or making a proper mount,remember accidents do happen and
it would be a shame to have it broken.

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on March 13, 2012, 01:03 PM:

Winbert and Hugh, your observations are very astute. This is possibly the smallest cinemascope lens in the world made by Oscar winner Henri Chrétien himself. I got to know this last week when I had someone wanting to purchase the lens from me. I don't have the best sources to confirm this but it could be close to the truth.

I must care for this lens.

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on March 13, 2012, 07:14 PM:

There was someone trying to sell his own lens on Craigslist for $1900. He claims he has one of only 15 in the world ever made and also the only one in the USA. ???
That lens was designed for the Fuji P1 and P2 cameras and are rare.
Is it worth what he is asking? Probably not but with Ebay.. you never know.
Here is the post:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pho/2888223187.html

I guess it was so rare he had to lower the price.
[Embarrassed]

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 13, 2012, 08:38 PM:

My opinion, in creating widescreen image there is no point anymore to use a scopelens nowadays as the resolution of video is already very high (HD). Just use crop frame (up and bottom) you will alywas get the widescreen (as his picture sample)

Akhsay, one last question.

Have you ever try to project film with this scope lens at maximum zoom? please give a try for me.

Did you find the picture was vignetting?

ps: vignetting is the condition where the projection cannot make a perfect square but instead on every corner there are some black spot resulting the light projector hits the scope lens.

Here is the picture to show the vignetting:

Let me know.

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on March 13, 2012, 09:31 PM:

Alan, I did see that ad last Thursday. Further research and I found that on the second of March the same lens sold for nearly $1000 on ebaY (France). I received an offer of $300 for it. Oh! The guy selling the lens on NY Craigslist offered me $25 for mine. He said mine is "destroyed looking."

Winbert, I will do what you requested soon. Am itching to watch my Lawrence of Arabia trailer for the five-hundredth time anyway!

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on March 14, 2012, 04:19 AM:

The guy on Craigslist "offered" his lens for my Kowa 8z as a trade if I 'threw' in some cash on top of it. He also sent about 6 emails saying he had "cash' if I could find the same lens as yours and he could pay up to $100 for it. Sounds like a hustler to me.
Good luck with the scope films. I really like Scope films. It is the movie experience at its best!
Also for filming if you use a scope lens is still has a certain look you can't get with a standard lens. Have you seen lens flare with a scope lens? It reminds me of a Spielberg effect. Its hard to recreate that with a standard lens. I'm sure that you could use filters but I haven't looked into it. Its just cool!

Posted by Akshay Nanjangud (Member # 2828) on March 14, 2012, 12:03 PM:

What is lens flare, Alan?

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on March 14, 2012, 12:05 PM:

Lens flair is what happens to the light when it hits the camera lens. Here is an example:

http://vimeo.com/35883894

Posted by Jon Addams (Member # 816) on March 14, 2012, 12:05 PM:

quote:
"I really like Scope films. It is the movie experience at its best!"

Absolutely!!!

Nice find Akshay [Big Grin]

, I hope you enjoy it for many years to come.

Jon

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 14, 2012, 12:44 PM:

Alan, that flare can absolutely be done with a filter.

Scope lens is no longer use in nowadays shooting/cinema because film can be easily cropped into 2:1 or to whatever the ratio that director wants.

Now get your digital HD camera and cropped the result with up and bottom bar, will you see the different? I don't think so.

I think it is more to sentimental (exotic) feelings when shooting or taking picture with a scope lens.

ps: Akhsay don't forget to test the lens with vignetting please.

cheers,

Posted by Seb Farges (Member # 3004) on March 24, 2012, 07:57 PM:

I'm an happy owner of the baby hypergonard found for few euros on Ebay last year, perfect on 50mm on my GH2. I also had another one found in a super 8 shop in Paris last month and sold it on Ebay (I'm the "one" in France [Wink]

). Believe me, it worth any penny. For the moment it's on a Canon FD 50mm lens, and I'm going to try it on 40mm voigtlander classic. I tried it on pancake Holga plastic lens and was able to focus very very closed. On the Canon minimum focus distance is around 1m50. I hope I will have the same result on the Voigtlander, I suppose it's a question of flange distance... Here is some movies with it :
http://vimeo.com/album/1834786

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 25, 2012, 07:00 PM:

Coming in on this discussion on the little Hypergonar,I think that
the idea that there were only fifteen of these in the world is a bit
fanciful to say the least.Common sense dictates that the factory
making these things couldn't possibly set up their machines to
make a mere fifteen and be cost effective.Of such tales are legends born.There will be hundreds of these little lenses floating
about out there,because remember stills photographers were
buying these lenses.Some of them were even using the early
"fisheye"lens that were for use as door viewers! As for this idea
that any electronic medium is superior to 35mm slide film is
and I'll say it BALLS.The contrast on film is far superior to anything digital can come up with,I've seen far too many of these digital pictures,and they all have one thing in common
they're flatter in tonal range and contrast than a witches tit.
Anyone that thinks digital is superior to film should consider
a trip to "Specsavers".

Posted by Seb Farges (Member # 3004) on March 26, 2012, 01:44 AM:

here is a comment from alan, an english anamorphic specialist, on my baby hypergonard :
"you have the smallest hypergonar lens ever made and one of the last designs of the great french man.
Professor Henri Chrétien signed over the rights to his fantastical optical invention Hypergonar to Twentieth Century-Fox in 1952,he was legally bound not to develop commercial scope lens or work with any other studios.
or sell the optics commercially.
this beauty was the only tiny amateur cinemascope lens he could legally make and could only be sold in france and her colonies :sad:
it was made for amateur standard 8mm film cameras.
his friends at the Société technique d'Optique et de Photographie (s.t.o.p).
at first said it was impossible to scale a cinemascope lens down to this size,and make a usable system.
Chrétien went too work and made this tiny gem a beauty.
a work of genius.
in the late 70s early 80s a supply of spare lens where found and and added too fuji single 8 plastic pocket size film cameras
many of these lens would have been thrown in the dustbin in the late 1980s with the standard 8 and single 8 cameras,with the rise rise of video : ( so are now quite rare.
i am glad the lens has gone home too france.
as it was made in paris : )

only the links from my tired mind..
the information was gathered before the internet : )
many years ago,when kodak was as big as apple is today : )
i was a home movie cine shooter mainly super 8 and 16mm.
your lens is a Mathematical Marvel with calculations worked out on an abacus.
he probably did the theoretical and drawing work in a dark room deep within his villa away from the harsh light of the Côte d'Azur.
i believe it was one of the last things he designed before his death.
do not drop it,it will crack and you will here not a thud but a Chrétien groan.
whatever the french is for another one bites the dust.
you may find an engraving on the lens saying not for commercial sale,something like that.
this was part of the hollywood deal that restricted his later work."

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 26, 2012, 02:23 AM:

Bonjour Seb,

I understand long time ago when the resolution was still low stretching picture with an anamorphic lens was the only way to keep the resolution high...but now with BluRay disc ..... Please explain briefly here, why videographers are still using anamorphic lens while in fact the picture resolution with today`s HD is already high enough.

Cannot we take in normal 4:3 and crop up and bottom like most domestic camera nowadays...

With all due respect, through your vimeo I don`t see any different your shooting with other people using cropping techniques.

Posted by Seb Farges (Member # 3004) on March 26, 2012, 02:48 AM:

Dear Wimbert,

shooting in anamorphic is not the same at all than crop techniques. 1st the rendering of the lens, special bokeh and anamorphic horizontal flares. The organic result transform our digital shot in cinema aesthetic. 2nd the focal is 2X the horizontal view, it means that the 50mm focal I'm loosing with the 2X GH2 micro 4/3 factor is coming back with the anamorphic lens. And 3rd cropping is cutting the frame. With the anamorphic I have all the frame available.

Seb

Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on March 26, 2012, 07:37 AM:

Merci beaucoup Seb

Still it doesn't get me with today's high-end camera people are still using it other than ecsotism feeling when streetch and unstreetch the picture. I can still get the point in the case of people are shooting with super 8mm films because a millimeter on each frame does really matter to the quality of picture.

CMIIW, today's movies are no longer shot in anamorphic. The presentation is (it can be 16:9 or 2:1 or whatever) and it is done in the projector booth by cropping the picture. I don't think nowadays anamorphic lenses are still used in cinemas.

Ps: since the era of BluRay, film with anamorphic features is no longer available too.

My 2 cents,

Posted by Hugh Thompson Scott (Member # 2922) on March 26, 2012, 12:57 PM:

The reason people still use the Anamorphic lens is quite simple
Winbert IMPACT.When you can project your film or video the
full width of your living room that kind of makes people sit up.The amateur 'scope frame is wider than commercial 'scope
as you know being 2:66x1 as opposed to 2:33x1.
Cropping film or whatever else you're shooting on means less
information being recorded and thus leading to a slight degradation in image.Try pulling the zoom back on your lens
when projecting so that the picture overlaps the screen and
that is more or less the effect you get when cropping your image.A good example of this would be when Leone made his
"Dollar"trilogy in Techniscope,which only used half the height
of the frame,so when altered for std 'scope projection, the
image was not as sharp as a normal 'scope print.Of course as
we know, the reason Leone did this was because it gave him
greater depth of field in filming.As I have said before, the ideal
solution is to ditch the zoom lens and use a Prime lens,that is
a lens of fixed focus which has less elements involved that
"steal" the very light you wish nto put up on the screen and
give a much clearer picture.All The 16mm machines are all
sold with prime lenses because of better resolution.The set up
sold by Walton Films for their 'scope projection was the Isco
Kiptagon Iscomorphot and that used a 20mm prime lens.
Coming in on the belief that there are only fifteen of these
little lenses in existance,I come back to my previous comment
that to set up the machinery,not to mention the wages of the
men involved making them,would not be commercialy viable
because I remember these things selling for around the fifty
quid mark,which at the time would have bought you a 4x400
col/snd feature,and the Widescreen Centre,had loads of them for sale along with the Centascope et al.I'm pleased Seb has
one but somehow,the idea that just because the lens was the
first doesn't mean it could be put against some of the other top
of the range anamorphics.Remember that when the first 'scope
film "The Robe" was being made,some of the scenes had to be
very carefully done as the lens was not yet perfected.It is a
miracle little lens but the advances in lens manufacture and
the German Isco company,these lenses would well out perform
the original pro lens.

Posted by Alexander Vandeputte (Member # 1803) on March 26, 2012, 01:56 PM:

Winbert, people are still shooting anamorpic widescreen! In fact the all new Alexa camera with a 1:1,19 sensor is specifically designed for anamorphic photography. Currently two features are shooting with this system. One is the new Bond movie and the other one (that I can't disclose here, sorry) is a big European production from wich I saw footage last week and I can tell you that real scope is something totally different then cropped widescreen. It is not about the 'flare thing' but about a fundamentally different image and this has to do with the fact that you use the full image of your prime lens.

Posted by Olivier Ryard (Member # 3050) on April 26, 2012, 09:54 AM:

Hello,

I'm looking for a small anamorphic lens such as the Berthiot Cinemascope 2x to shoot a short movie with a set up as discreet as possible.
That kind of lens would be perfect.
If anyone has one for sale, please contact me.

Thank you,

Olivier

Posted by Seb Farges (Member # 3004) on April 26, 2012, 10:03 AM:

Olivier I'm about to sell on of my two tiny scope lens. YOu can PM me at sebfarges@me.com

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2