Topics

Cooke Panchro 152

 

Can some explain to me why?

Its very specific focal length, so what was the reason.

Michael


Michael Sanders
London Based DP.

+ 44 (0) 7976 269818




Richard Bradbury
 

It’s a 6” lens. What’s now called the 203mm is an 8”.

Richard Bradbury
Focus Puller
London

On 4 May 2018, at 08:19, Michael Sanders <glowstars@...> wrote:

Can some explain to me why?

Its very specific focal length, so what was the reason.

 

Ahh! Obvious really.

Thanks Richard and Paul Clements who emailed me directly.

Michael


Michael Sanders
London Based DP.

+ 44 (0) 7976 269818




On 4 May 2018, at 08:24, Richard Bradbury <rjdbradbury@...> wrote:

It’s a 6” lens. What’s now called the 203mm is an 8”.

Richard Bradbury
Focus Puller
London

On 4 May 2018, at 08:19, Michael Sanders <glowstars@...> wrote:

Can some explain to me why?

Its very specific focal length, so what was the reason.
_._,_._,_

Art Adams
 

Occasionally I'll call for lenses in inches. I only do it with my older assistants, and their eyes get real wide. It's fun. :)

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area

Mark Kenfield
 

It's really interesting that they've gone metric with focal lengths, but outside of Continental Europe (the UK use imperial lens markings, right?) everything else lens-related is still imperial.

Cheers,

Mark Kenfield
Cinematographer

0400 044 500

On 4 May 2018 at 19:11, Art Adams <art.cml.only@...> wrote:
Occasionally I'll call for lenses in inches. I only do it with my older assistants, and their eyes get real wide. It's fun. :)

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area

Mitch Gross
 

For everyone who used to come at me with cockamamie mathematical theories about focal lengths, I would pull an old Filmo out of a drawer and show them the lenses. Focal lengths in my collection were 1”, 1 1/2”, 2”, 4”. I particularly liked the 1 1/2”, because it wasn’t engraved as 1.5”. Very Imperial.

Mitch Gross
Cinema Product Manager
Panasonic Media Entertainment Company
New York