I saw Janusz talk on Saving Private Ryan about having his lenses prepared without the protective light coating in them in order to increase flare and the other funny stuff you see in that film. Is this possible to achieve something similar by stripping something like an FD prime of its coating or doing something similar? Anyone tried?
Removing a lens coating
- Thread starter Revsta
- Start date
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Yes it is possible to strip a photography lens of its coating or coatings... but there are other factors besides lens coatings for some of those side effects.
First of all, if you decide to remove the coating... you will want to have this done by a professional. I don't know how or why anyone would want to try a DIY lens coating removal, but it's probably an expensive trail and error process to discover. In most cases, if you cannot afford custom built lenses, cinematographers who want a certain amount of flare and the additional non-coating effects, may use older lenses that were not coated or treated with modern coatings. This of course can introduce other effects upon the image such as slower speeds or less sharpness, so perhaps using a modern lens and custom stripping of the coating may be what the situation calls for.
The other factors I referred to earlier, in regards to getting those 'effects' Kaminski was after includes factors such as number and order of optical elements. The reason the lenses are coated are for reflective and contrast purposes, primarily. Therefore different builds of lenses can either be more or less 'problematic'. I'd imagine a zoom lens would have more probability to exhibit the otherwise 'problem' effects you desire, as there are many more optical elements in which light could bounce around or flare... but then again, that is just an example as it very much has to do with the types of lens shapes and order... so it wouldn't be a stretch to think that a ziess professional zoom uncoated would have less 'negative' effects as a sh*tty uncoated 35mm prime. Each uncoated lens will have it's own degree of 'undesired' effects... so choosing the right lens could be more then simply fullfilling the non-coated prerequisite.
There are other ways of achieving very similar effects, without stripping lenses of their coatings. Perhaps using optical flats and/or a flexfill like system could get some minor ghosting and/or reduction of contrast. As for flares, it is most likely best to remove the coating as that would not be as simple to replicate in other approaches.
First of all, if you decide to remove the coating... you will want to have this done by a professional. I don't know how or why anyone would want to try a DIY lens coating removal, but it's probably an expensive trail and error process to discover. In most cases, if you cannot afford custom built lenses, cinematographers who want a certain amount of flare and the additional non-coating effects, may use older lenses that were not coated or treated with modern coatings. This of course can introduce other effects upon the image such as slower speeds or less sharpness, so perhaps using a modern lens and custom stripping of the coating may be what the situation calls for.
The other factors I referred to earlier, in regards to getting those 'effects' Kaminski was after includes factors such as number and order of optical elements. The reason the lenses are coated are for reflective and contrast purposes, primarily. Therefore different builds of lenses can either be more or less 'problematic'. I'd imagine a zoom lens would have more probability to exhibit the otherwise 'problem' effects you desire, as there are many more optical elements in which light could bounce around or flare... but then again, that is just an example as it very much has to do with the types of lens shapes and order... so it wouldn't be a stretch to think that a ziess professional zoom uncoated would have less 'negative' effects as a sh*tty uncoated 35mm prime. Each uncoated lens will have it's own degree of 'undesired' effects... so choosing the right lens could be more then simply fullfilling the non-coated prerequisite.
There are other ways of achieving very similar effects, without stripping lenses of their coatings. Perhaps using optical flats and/or a flexfill like system could get some minor ghosting and/or reduction of contrast. As for flares, it is most likely best to remove the coating as that would not be as simple to replicate in other approaches.
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Ah come on, just take some Emery paper and sand em down.
I guarantee you get a real special look that way.
Frank
I guarantee you get a real special look that way.
Frank
z
Yeah, just remove the multi-coating from the optics and re-collimate and re-assemble the lens, there are a bunch of chemical solvents/surfactants to do the job. They are on the list of "What not to clean your lenses with". Some of these prime lenses you speak of never shipped with any coating or single-coating - coating lenses was mainly a bigger fad when color reversal film was introduced.
EDIT: Ignore the following line as its in error:
(due to the fact that the CMY and reversal had their dyes at different distances to the flange focal plane).
Yeah, just remove the multi-coating from the optics and re-collimate and re-assemble the lens, there are a bunch of chemical solvents/surfactants to do the job. They are on the list of "What not to clean your lenses with". Some of these prime lenses you speak of never shipped with any coating or single-coating - coating lenses was mainly a bigger fad when color reversal film was introduced.
EDIT: Ignore the following line as its in error:
(due to the fact that the CMY and reversal had their dyes at different distances to the flange focal plane).
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
Care to further explain how the coatings are related to film emulsion layers? I was under the impression it was mainly for flare reduction, which in turn protects the contrast and reduces the change of ghosting images.
Last edited:
Actually no.
.Its the design of the lens and glass dispersion rather than the coating/multi-coating that is responsible for delivering the correct color to the correct emulsion level and now CCD layers.
Coating/MultiCoatings single atomic purpose was to defeat reflections.
But multi-coated lenses became most ubiquitous and popular in 1970's when a lot of reversal film was being shot since it shows off the lack of coating
way better than black and white.
Post edited to correct a combined run-on statement about reversal film emulsion and multi-coating.
Just a small foot in mouth problem on my behalf - between color rendition vs. chromatic aberration and film emulsion.
Last edited: