Discussion:
Arri 16BL Angenieux 12-120 vs. 10-150
(too old to reply)
Rolls
2004-05-29 04:50:28 UTC
Permalink
What would it take to replace an Angenieux 12-120 with a 10-150 inside the
Arri lens blimp? Are different parts required to seat these lenses or can
the blimp seat either lens?

George - Houston
Robert Morein
2004-05-29 20:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolls
What would it take to replace an Angenieux 12-120 with a 10-150 inside the
Arri lens blimp? Are different parts required to seat these lenses or can
the blimp seat either lens?
George - Houston
It would not be a good idea to perform this conversion.

Although the 10-150 appears sharper on paper, it has much more flare.

This may not mean much to you, but flare level is much more important than
sharpness in determining the usability of a lens.
Flare is the level of "junk light" that hits the negative in a manner
uncorrelated with the image.
It reduces saturation, while the high specular components of flare create
nonexistent blobs, streaks, and overflows in the image.

The 12-120 is, overall, a better lens.

If you're interested in quality, you might consider the 15-150, which is
exactly the same externally as a 12-120, but a bit slower and optically
considerably cleaner. Because it has Super-16 coverage, it provides a
standard-16 image with much less edge falloff than the 12-120 or the
10-150. It will require no adaptation to fit your camera.
Rolls
2004-05-29 22:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Morein
Although the 10-150 appears sharper on paper, it has much more flare.
Hmm. Had not heard this before. Am interested in the wide angle end of the
focal length range. How's the 9.5-95 for overall quality?

George - Houston
Sylvan Morein
2004-05-30 02:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolls
Hmm. Had not heard this before.
Unfortunately Rolls, my sick son Bob thinks he's an "expert" in
everything. He does have a box of Éclair parts, and they may amount to a
couple whole cameras. He can't however figure out how they go back
together. Taking any "advice" from Bob is not reasonable, Rolls.

Here's a summary of the sad history of my son Bob.

Unfortunately, Bob can NEVER admit he's been beaten, or he's wrong. He
spent 12 years in college trying to write a thesis that was totally without
any scientific merit. When Drexel got tired of his bleating about not
giving him a degree, he sued them. And even after he was proven IN COURT to
have been wrong, he insisted on appealing to the Supreme Court in
Washington.

And to this day, still believes that THEY are wrong, too!

So you're not going to change him, god knows his mother tried and it killed
her.



Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS


PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein

Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS
--

Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm
Post by Rolls
Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer
PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.
The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
Post by Rolls
"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."
An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.
Post by Rolls
A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.
Because no one gives a shit about a 50 year old loser.
Post by Rolls
But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.
Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Post by Rolls
Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.
A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.
Post by Rolls
In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.
An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.
Post by Rolls
Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.
Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
Post by Rolls
That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.
The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.
The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.
But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.
Daddy throws more money down the crapper.
Post by Rolls
His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.
"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."
It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.
Post by Rolls
Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."
No shit sherlock.
Post by Rolls
The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.
The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.
My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.
Post by Rolls
Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.
Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.
Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.
Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.
As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.
Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.
Post by Rolls
In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.
The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.
Post by Rolls
He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.
So Morein fucks up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then fucks up again! Brilliant!
Post by Rolls
Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.
Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.
Post by Rolls
Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."
So much for political machine judges.
Post by Rolls
The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.
Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.
Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.
Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.
Post by Rolls
"I had to seek closure," he said.
Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.
Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Post by Rolls
As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.
FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED
Post by Rolls
But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."
Rolls
2004-05-30 04:47:07 UTC
Permalink
Hey! Sounds like a colorful life. The difference between high school and
college is that you get twelve years to finish college. Took me a while to
finish two degrees but I also managed to squirrel away enough cash to be
able to live off of 40% of the net interest, with the exception of health
care costs. With every one-second tick of the clock I get a micro-raise.
So I can live off the fat of the land, so to speak, while I work on at least
one ten minute color/sound film. A long deferred project is seeing the
light of day.

Peace, y'all ...
Robert Morein
2004-05-30 02:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolls
Post by Robert Morein
Although the 10-150 appears sharper on paper, it has much more flare.
Hmm. Had not heard this before. Am interested in the wide angle end of the
focal length range. How's the 9.5-95 for overall quality?
George - Houston
The 9.5-95 is absolutely terrible.
In order of overall optical quality, from best to worst, the ranking is:

15-150
12-120
10-150
9.5-95

Notice that the wider the lens goes, the lower the quality. In those days,
it was beyond the state of the art to make a good wide-angle zoom. All zooms
do their worst at wide angles, but these lenses are particularly bad.

These lenses were used for newsgathering. They have the following problems:

1. The lens focuses by moving the front group. This is the most primitive
arrangement.
2. The front element is flat, descended from the original Gauss design,
which is 300 years old!
3. The lenses have a high element count, but are not multicoated, although
afew later runs had a two layer coating.
4. The types of optical glass available were limited. In particular, they
didn't have lanthanum glass.

The first improvement Angenieux made when they obtained access to a computer
was to figure out how to curve the front element. By adding a degree of
freedom to the optical design, using better glass, and multicoating it, they
were able to substantially improve the performance of the lens, except for
closeup work, where all zooms tend to fall apart badly. If you ever spot one
of these -- and the only giveaway is the curved front element and a
slightly different T-stop marking, it might be worth acquiring, if
reasonably priced.

Canon ripped off the venerable design, and added a pure fluorite element.
This is a much better lens, improving on the performance of a non-computer
designed lens simply by using a single element with super-optical
properties.

Zeiss, starting with a clean computer slate, introduced a zoom which focuses
by moving an INTERNAL group. This lens, the T3.3 10-100, was the first
modern 16mm zoom, and inspired the designs that followed it. The image at
closeup doesn't fall apart as badly as an old Angenieux.

Modern Angenieux designs have nothing in common with the ancient ones you
contemplate, and are top-notch.

It is perhaps a natural newbie tendency to want to face the subject with the
most awesome piece of glass possible, intimidating art to follow. However,
the reality is that for a given amount of money, the best optic is one which
doesn't stretch the resources available. A Cook 9mm or 25mm that you can
hide in the palm of your hand will outperform any of the old Angenieux
lenses handily. The reason is simple: it only has to work at one focal
length, and the light passes through just a tiny amount of glass. Remember:
glass isn't transparent, it's NEARLY transparent. Every mm light travels
through glass has an unavoidable effect.
Rolls
2004-05-30 04:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Thanks. Interesting background. You're right, I realize it's a "newsfilm"
camera. It's gonna gobble up a mile of 7239 before too long (before that's
discontinued) & I'll get enough variety to stress test the optics for future
reference.

A friend makes an excellent point that lots of technically excellent footage
shot with the latest and greatest Panavision equipment isn't necessarily
that memorable. You can go broke chasing technology while "old" gear that's
still serviceable can still produce quality results within its design
limits.

* * *

What's the procedure to unseat the 12-120 from the 16BL lens blimp and
replace it with one of the other B mount zoom lenses? Anybody know? That
was the original question; i.e., whether any parts, tools, etc. are
necessary.

;-)
Robert Morein
2004-05-30 06:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rolls
Thanks. Interesting background. You're right, I realize it's a "newsfilm"
camera. It's gonna gobble up a mile of 7239 before too long (before that's
discontinued) & I'll get enough variety to stress test the optics for future
reference.
A friend makes an excellent point that lots of technically excellent footage
shot with the latest and greatest Panavision equipment isn't necessarily
that memorable. You can go broke chasing technology while "old" gear that's
still serviceable can still produce quality results within its design
limits.
* * *
What's the procedure to unseat the 12-120 from the 16BL lens blimp and
replace it with one of the other B mount zoom lenses? Anybody know? That
was the original question; i.e., whether any parts, tools, etc. are
necessary.
;-)
I'm sorry I can't answer that question, but with respect to "Panavision",
that isn't what I was recommending at all.
Primes of the same vintage, which can be found modestly priced from time to
time on eBay, are far better than the zooms you contemplate. Still, you have
a problem with the blimp, which makes that impractical.

When optical design was done by manual ray tracing, it wasn't possible to
design zooms with the same degree of optimality as primes. The Angenieux
zooms you contemplate have 14 elements, while a typical prime has five.

The one piece of useful info I can give you is that the 15-150 is exactly
identical to the 12-120 externally, so the rings will line up. The other
lenses are larger, and AFAIK would not fit in the blimp.

BTW, "Sylvan Morein" is a forgery by Brian L. McCarty.

Best of luck with your project.
Rolls
2004-05-30 14:35:46 UTC
Permalink
I do have three sets of Ektar and Angenieux fixed focus lenses in a 10mm to
150mm range "C", "S", "R" mounts for various "old" cameras. They're all
"cheap" by comparison to today's equipment. Wonder how many film students
are ready to spend $30K for an A-Minima?

Loading...