I did not. I was not that brave. Plus, it looked like I would mess stuff up if I started stripping metal away and I wanted to sell them if I couldn't use them. Maybe I should have experimented with one of them... oh well. Next time :)
Has anyone looked at converting the mounts to BNCR or PL. Not a DIY conversion, but through a real lens tech shop?
BTW, I assume that what Clint found for the RED ONe applies to the EPIC/Scarlet as well?????
This is not a lens design problem, it's a money problem.. what you want done is a partial to full rehousing of the lens, to fit your modern camera.
If you can afford it, and you shop enough, there are technicians who can do this. however, it may cost you more than your camera.
RE: B&L selling the lenses originally, they had multiple camera houses as customers... who used to be able to afford machinists and techs who could make the mounts the house needed for their cameras.... that's why you bought "lens heads" VERY few owner operators bought them that way...
Let's also remember that major clients were the military and industrial imaging departments, who had people on SALARY to build mounts...
Update: This is a new adapter that ciecio7 is selling. This may be a valid option. I contacted the seller and he said that the "tube" is 40mm or 1.56" from the lens mount flange "ledge" to the bottom where it attaches to the Scarlet/EPIC. That should at least cover the shorter BNC mount lenses and may just cover the longer BNC mounts.
Now the hurdle will be getting him to send one to RED so that Jarred can give approval. Perhaps some encouragement from potential customers?
The seller has an excellent reputation for mount adapters.
Looks like the tube is wide enough for the BNC's.. seems promising for EPIC/Scarlet users. I don't see how this could work for my RED ONE, though. Let us know if you try it and what your findings are...
I never understood the desire to put a 50 year old mount lens on a modern camera. Does it give a cool retro look from the old glass? I was using BNCR cameras when I got started as an AC in the early 80's, and they seemed old back then. Granted the Panavision mount is just a variation of the original BNC mount and was basically a Mitchell movement with better glass.
There is a charisma and nostalgia with older glass that some of us desire. It's similar to how some people still desire using old polaroid cameras, not because the photos were super amazing or the engineering was better then, but simply because of nostalgia. For me, it's an aesthetic choice and mostly for artistic pleasure.
There is definitely magic in putting older glass on a super high res electronic camera. I still love my Mark 3 Superspeeds wide open on the Epic. The original Cooke Speed Panchros are very nice too. One of my biggest regrets was passing up a set when a tabletop director friend retired. They were the Century rehoused version, PL mount, nice spread out focus scales in bright yellow, and every single one had been modified for close focus. All actions smooth as butter. $6,500 for the set of six. And he was throwing in a (still lens modified) Zeiss 60 macro! At the time, it was too rich for my blood, plus I figured that it would be a vanity purchase and not a rentable set of lenses. BOY WAS I WRONG.
I was just thinking... the "old glass" conversation reminds me of (my imaginary) line in the sand regarding the Pro-35 adapter.
I would always size up a cameraman as a "video" guy when his comment was "We have such great Fuji and Canon zooms. I don't know why anyone would put that spinning, soft, wobbly piece of glass in front of such a nice sharp camera"
I would always size up a cameraman as a "film" guy when his comment was, "Oh my god that looks amazing! I want to use this all the time!!!"
Probably mine own biases at work, but as cinematographers we walk a line between tech and art. Personally if I am going to lean in one direction, I lean art. I'm not really about counting pixels or line pairs or steps on a grey chart.
I think there are lots of times where we want to use modern glass, and do justice to the person, landscape, or product in front of us.
I think there are some other times where we want to take our image to another place, and vintage glass can be a subtle (or not) method for this.
No right or wrong.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|