Jump to content

Logmar Rockhopper S16


Allyn Iwatsuru
 Share

Recommended Posts

Makes one wonder what would have to happen to get Arri to put the 416 back into production (lacking enough vendor demand, I assume multiple dumptrucks of money might convince them?). I wonder if they're even set up to do a camera like that anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Premium Member
6 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

Makes one wonder what would have to happen to get Arri to put the 416 back into production (lacking enough vendor demand, I assume multiple dumptrucks of money might convince them?). I wonder if they're even set up to do a camera like that anymore

Oh Arri would never do it. However, it would be straight forward to reverse engineer the majority of the camera and make a new one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 1/30/2022 at 5:36 AM, Pavan Deep said:

I think here a simpler version of the ACL will be popular, a camera that is small and can accept different sized magazines and that can take c mount or Micro 4/3 lenses

Are you referring to the ACL or a hypothetical camera that is similar to an ACL? As far as I've been able to figure out, I don't think there is a way for an ACL to take Micro 4/3 lenses. I would absolutely love a super-16 camera that could take those lenses. Would open up my projects to a lot more possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raymond Zrike said:

As far as I've been able to figure out, I don't think there is a way for an ACL to take Micro 4/3 lenses. I would absolutely love a super-16 camera that could take those lenses. Would open up my projects to a lot more possibilities.

One would need to remove the C-mount & TS-mount and shave a bit off of the front in order to install the m4/3 mount.

IMG-20220411-224403-HDR-3.jpg

 

IMG-20220411-224455-HDR-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2022 at 11:36 PM, Pavan Deep said:

....ideally want to use smaller and cheaper lenses. I think here a simpler version of the ACL will be popular, a camera that is small and can accept different sized magazines and that can take c mount or Micro 4/3 lenses

The big TS-1 mount flange with C mount in the centre on the ACL has FFD=17.526mm, and the Micro 4/3 FFD=19.25mm.  Difference=1.724mm. So not much space for the mount adapter to exist, or anything else (like the lens itself) protruding behind the Micro 4/3 flange. Unless it fits inside the C mount port, or that port was enlarged.

ACLs have a really compact oscillating mirror system that allowed the designers a more compact camera body and a lens mount adapter system that builds from that big TS-1 mount quite close to the film plane. If re-inventing a film camera I don't know if you could get much more compact than that.

Personally, I love the idea of optical view finders, but even if trying to replace that, I'm assuming there will still be a mirror and a ground glass/fibre optic/sensor...so space required for that image, or to relay it somewhere else.  

Gregg.

PS: I'm unfamiliar with Micro 4/3 and had to look up their FFD on Wikipedia. If I'm in error,  just correct me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heikki,

You posted at the same time as me. Good "show and tell" with the mount and body. Would the machining break through to the inside of the body? A bit of skilled work to do this, and then one is committed to the adapters to Micro 4/3. Which are are available...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heikki Repo said:

One would need to remove the C-mount & TS-mount and shave a bit off of the front in order to install the m4/3 mount.

How far are the Micro 4/3 lenses protruding behind their mount flange. The pics online look like there's no protrusion. What might be useful,' to consider mods to ACL, would be 3 view dwgs or solid model showing gate, body, TS-1 flange with C mount and mirror.  Let's talk about that on the Eclair sub-forum.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been playing with this idea for some time. As you guys mention it is perfectly doable. Some lenses may protrude, but I think there is enough distance for that. According to the specifications of the MFT mount it fits fine on the port of the ACL. Things get a little more complicated if you want to re-center the image for a S16 camera, because the M43 mount sits tight on the place were the ACL mount is.

This should not be complicated at all. I have a working 3d printed prototype on a different 16mm camera and it basically can be used on any camera if the FFD allows it. I've been trying to contact manufacturers to do some modifications to lenses that would make them work with film cameras too.  The piece can be precisely machined and then adjusted by a technician, not a big deal. The problem is everybody like the ideas until you try to sell the actual product. People just want .stl files to print the stuff for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ruben Arce said:

The problem is everybody like the ideas until you try to sell the actual product. People just want .stl files to print the stuff for free.

Yes, that's exactly the issue @aapo lettinen has mentioned a couple of times - there are lots of people who like to kick the tires, but don't actually want to buy anything.

Anyway, I'm intrigued as in "I might be interested in pursuing this and paying". The front I have in the photos is an extra one so testing m4/3 would not cause damage that's difficult to repair.

The main benefit would be the larger quantity of (modern) lenses designed for a smaller frame size being available. Lenses for 16mm tend to be either vintage and/or very expensive. 

So, if you have some estimates of the cost, please let me know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from mechanical issues, another problem would be controlling the iris. Your mount would have to make provisions for the electrical connections, and some sort of controller would have to be built that could send (at least) iris commands to the lens since most of these lenses no longer have a hardware iris ring.

It's not rocket surgery, but it takes up space in an inconvenient place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ruben Arce said:

The problem is everybody like the ideas until you try to sell the actual product. People just want .stl files to print the stuff for free.

5 hours ago, Heikki Repo said:

So, if you have some estimates of the cost, please let me know!

Me too! I totally intend to buy if a micro 4/3 adapter ever were made. It would open up a lot of possibilities. Venus Optics 6mm/7.5mm/10mm T2.1, DZOFilm 10-24mm T2.9, Vazen and Sirui anamorphics, Voigtlander 10.5mm/17.5mm/29mm f/0.95, etc. Besides all these lenses being dramatically cheaper than any PL alternatives, they’re also developed with the smaller format in mind, so hypothetically, they would be considerably sharper on super-16 than most super-35 lens. Plus the benefits of faster lenses and wider focal lengths.

Okay, I don't have pro levels of money to spend, more so “prosumer.” I just spent a sizable amount on a B4-to-PL adaptor, so I’m not averse to high adaptor costs. Although of course it is always nice to spend less 🙂 (plus I assume this adaptor wouldn't have a glass element which is usually what causes the high cost of some cine adaptors).

I’ve definitely seen some interest for such an adaptor online, and considering the dramatically rising price of Super Speeds, it’s very appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think an adapter per se is possible. The idea that I have which is a concept a lot of people know and that I have proved with other cameras is to replace the entire mount. As Raymond said there are a lot of possibilities when it come to lenses designed for the M43 format. Some of those lenses like the DZO Film zoom ones are parfocal and beaufifully constructed among others. I wouldn't mind having a permanent M43 mount on my camera. Even when the C mount offers lots of possibilities the M43 would be a game changer. As mentioned before PL mount lenses are scarce, expensive and even when they compare to or surpass modern lenses they were built 30 years ago or more. Lenses that cost $500 today can look better or at least the same as lenses that cost $80k 30 years ago.

No glass is required. The FFD is very close and it goes in the right direction, but an adapter is not possible because of the close distance. The M43 mount is still protected by a patent, but that is not a big deal. There is a workaround for that. Also there is no need to have electronics involved when there are tons of great manual "cinema" lenses for the format.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M43 is in a sense a modern version of the c-mount: highly adaptable, simple, made for smaller formats. I'd still want to maintain compatibility with PL lenses (I have some PL glass already and also for scenarios when I can rent Ultras), but there are a number of M4/3 to PL adaptors out there (don't know how reliable they are). I wonder if my Les Bosher PL adaptor would still work after the hypothetical conversion? Maybe with some shims. It's a very interesting concept!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, it would be almost a non destructive modification. As Heikki pointed the port would have to be widened, then replace the existing mount with the modified M43 one. You could always go back to the original mount. With the array of adapters in the market for M43 I don't see a reason to go back, but it would be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Heikki Repo said:

One would need to remove the C-mount & TS-mount and shave a bit off of the front in order to install the m4/3 mount.

Any chance you can measure the thickness of the TS-1 flange, the flat part where the mounting screws go. I know the outer thread is raised and I think the C mount may be deeper than the  thickness. I don't know what your machine shop skills are like (measurement). If you need suggestions let me know.

Then we would have a better start point for guessing about material to machine away.

Accurate drawings I believe are the key with projects like this. Then guesswork is almost gone.

Gregg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Gregg MacPherson said:

Any chance you can measure the thickness of the TS-1 flange, the flat part where the mounting screws go. I know the outer thread is raised and I think the C mount may be deeper than the  thickness. I don't know what your machine shop skills are like (measurement).

Unfortunately I don't have a tool that would allow me to take exact measurements from the port area. However, here are some approximate measurements (with a non-exact measuring tool):

- Port diameter without the C-mount - 2.85 cm

- C-mount when installed takes from the port diameter 2x1mm

- C-mount depth - 3 mm

- Front depth, thickest part around the port - 2 mm

That would mean that the TS-1 flange on the flat part is 1 mm.

Anyway, these are very rough measurements...

Edited by Heikki Repo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So to chime in on this micro 4/3rds to c mount or film cameras in general… it can be done very simply but with some restrictions, I did it here with a Meike 3.5mm https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/88096-converted-meike-35mm-m43-to-cmount-for-bolex/#comment-550370 It’s very very very crudely put together but it works. The major problem one might run into is the flange distances of both c mount and mft are so close in comparison the mft rear lens element has to fit in the cmount thread barrel. The next lenses I’m looking into modding are the Laowa 7.5mm cine version and Vazen 28mm anamorphic. I started with this fisheye because frankly it’s super cheap so worth the risk and there aren’t many fisheyes out there for c mount. The Laowa is a moderately priced lens but that vazen is quite expensive. I would like to rent the lenses and take measurements but I don’t ever seem to have the time and it’s down a long list of things I need to do in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...