Converting Bolex-H-16 to super 16mm

[Jordan Kernke]

How much does converting a Bolex H-16 REX 3 to super 16mm cost? And does this camera take 400ft of film or what is the film capacity? 

[Frank Wylie]

http://www.bolexcollector.com/cameras/h16rex3.html

The Rex 3, unless it was modified to take a 400' motorized magazine, takes 100' daylight spools.  There were factory and after market mods that would install the 400' magazine, but unless it has the saddle installed, you are limited to 100" loads.

This is just my opinion, but take the crazy amount of money used to convert a camera to Super 16mm and have a simple viewfinder mask at the same aspect ratio installed.  Then take the bundle of money left over and buy enough film to shoot a good sized project.

When you have it scanned, you can hard matte the image anywhere in the full 16mm frame.

This obsession with Super 16mm is baffling to me.  Sure, back in the early 1980's when the format came out, it was a good alternative to shooting 35mm because the infrastructure and resources to do blow-ups at a relatively reasonable cost was in place.

Not there anymore!

With the quality of modern 16mm color negative stocks PLUS the virtual inability to obtain a S16 to 35mm blowup (both in lab availability AND in staggering cost) makes the cost of conversion and use highly questionable.

Yes, you do get a very small increase in image quality, but at what cost? 

You can wind up with a super 16mm camera that is beautiful and no money to shoot.

If you absolutely MUST have a Super 16mm camera, buy one already converted and proven to work properly.  The money you save in buying a proven camera will be substantial compared to possibly having a botched conversion and no camera.

Having never been independently wealthy, I never had the luxury to debate the issue. 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Frank Wylie

[Jon O'Brien]

It's easy to say for me, as I've had my fill of Super 16 and can sit back and bask in that glow of at least having had an opportunity of trying it several times, but I must admit I agree with Frank, above. I'd not bother with it, and just have a simpler life with regular 16mm. That is, unless you are seriously shooting a feature movie, destined for cinemas, and you have to shoot it on 16mm, or bust. Only then can I see a justification for the extra fuss of Super 16. These days regular 16mm with a high quality scan looks wonderful.