Is this a Bolex Body or a clone?

[Al Debruin]

I recently picked up an unusual 16mm body that was thrown in with some lenses I bought, it looks something like a Bolex H16 that has been modified for some reason.
The base has some kind of resin cast onto it to make it flat and 2 extra tripod mount holes added, one 1/4" and the other 3/8". I tried swapping a few parts from an H16 and they fit and look near identical. The viewfinders have widescreen masks/overlays so I'm assuming it was used with anamorphic lenses.

Has anyone seen anything like this or have any idea what it is and what it could have been used for?

 

[Al Debruin]

 

[Al Debruin]

After doing some more digging this appears to be some variation of the Bolex H8, 8mm and not 16mm.

[Simon Wyss]

Correct, a modified old H-8. Ultra 8 means image full width between hole rows, regular height, film never slit.

[Nicholas Kovats]

Can you possibly take a close-up photo of the gate from the front of the camera? While backlighting it with a diffused light source? This appears to be a modified H8 camera that crops the 2-perf 16mm wide 8mm film stock. It may be related to to historical camera engineering projects by the famous UK Widescreen Association. 

Can you count the number of teeth on one of the sprockets? Is the aperture (film gate opening) 8mm or 16mm wide? This is an example of a modified Bolex H8/H16mm camera that exposes the 16mm width of 8mm film stock with a 1:2.8 aspect ratio., i.e. 

 

 

  

Edited February 16, 2023 by Nicholas Kovats

[Al Debruin]

On 2/16/2023 at 6:49 PM, Simon Wyss said:

Correct, a modified old H-8. Ultra 8 means image full width between hole rows, regular height, film never slit.

Would that mean it would shoot Super 8mm film?
Google doesn't bring anything up when I search for Ultra 8 which is a bit peculiar

[Al Debruin]

23 hours ago, Nicholas Kovats said:

Can you possibly take a close-up photo of the gate from the front of the camera? While backlighting it with a diffused light source? This appears to be a modified H8 camera that crops the 2-perf 16mm wide 8mm film stock. It may be related to to historical camera engineering projects by the famous UK Widescreen Association. 

Can you count the number of teeth on one of the sprockets? Is the aperture (film gate opening) 8mm or 16mm wide? This is an example of a modified Bolex H8/H16mm camera that exposes the 16mm width of 8mm film stock with a 1:2.8 aspect ratio., i.e. 

  

It's definitely been modified for widescreen, the gate is widescreen but only 10mm wide, the reels are 16mm though. The sprockets have 8 teeth on both the top and bottom whereas the H16 only has teeth on bottom of the sprocket.
I'll post some pics just now.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Al Debruin

[Al Debruin]

@Nicholas Kovats here's some pics:

[Al Debruin]

What would the point of this widescreen modification be, I would have thought using an anamorphic lens to squeeze widescreen onto a traditional film frame is the most elegant and economical way to produce widescreen footage?

CinemaScope was released in the 1950s, would have this been before that or was this more an enthusiast/diy endeavour to be able to shoot widescreen footage without the cost of what I'm assuming was hellishly expensive anamorphic gear?

[Frank Wylie]

I doubt the modification predates 1950, but the camera might.

I assume they modified a projector to show this footage as well and that the camera had to use "C" mount lenses to cover the extended frame, over the typical "D" mount used on R8 cameras.

[Al Debruin]

10 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:

I doubt the modification predates 1950, but the camera might.

I assume they modified a projector to show this footage as well and that the camera had to use "C" mount lenses to cover the extended frame, over the typical "D" mount used on R8 cameras.

It looks like its an H8 body, which uses C-Mount lenses.
It appears there are H8 dedicated lenses that use C-Mount and are otherwise identical to a comparable H16 lens but have a slightly shorter shorter flange distance on the mount.
That is something that I have not been aware of, would those lenses be marked as such so you don't confuse them with H16 lenses?

[Al Debruin]

15 hours ago, Al Debruin said:

It's definitely been modified for widescreen, the gate is widescreen but only 10mm wide, the reels are 16mm though. The sprockets have 8 teeth on both the top and bottom whereas the H16 only has teeth on bottom of the sprocket.
I'll post some pics just now.

I measured the gate a bit more accurately now with a vernier and its around 3.7mm high x 10.3mm. The dimensions of 16mm film is 10.26mm wide x 7.49mm high so this body must be designed to run 16mm film and maybe they managed to fit 2 widescreen images per frame. Going by that it would appear this body should probably be a modified H16

It appears the H16 body I have has been converted to super 16 hence the single row of teeth on the sprockets and the modified body is still running std 16mm.

[Al Debruin]

More digging and the H16 is probably not Super 16mm but just single perf 16mm, the one side of the sprocket with no teeth has some brassing so it was probably modified at some stage. Initially I thought the brassing was really unusual because the amount of film you'd need to run to cause that amount of wear through chrome would be rather extensive and the body otherwise doesn't look overly worn.

[Dom Jaeger]

The camera serial number dates it to 1952, but who knows when it was modified.

It has 16mm sprockets, but they will run double 8mm film, since that is essentially 16mm film with extra perfs. The curious question is whether the mechanism has been modified to advance only an 8mm frame height per exposure. That would have also required a specially modified projector. The other alternative is that it’s simply a 16mm machine with a heavily cropped aperture, allowing the resulting film to be run in a 16mm projector with a similarly cropped mask. 

The H8 reflex uses C mount, but that is a totally different camera. You can identify the H8 RX lenses by their unique focal lengths - 5.5mm, 12.5mm and 36mm - which you won’t find in Kern C mounts made for 16mm.
 

 

[Al Debruin]

11 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

 The other alternative is that it’s simply a 16mm machine with a heavily cropped aperture, allowing the resulting film to be run in a 16mm projector with a similarly cropped mask. 

 

 

You wouldn't even need a mask for the projector because the letterbox would be baked into the exposure - outside the letterbox would be pitch black. That may be the answer because it would work well albeit with lots of "wasted" film when shooting.

When did anamorphic lenses first start being used with the H16 cameras, there doesn't seem to have been many lens options in that regard?

[Dom Jaeger]

According to Bolex Collector the Bolex anamorphot system was first introduced in 1958.

http://www.bolexcollector.com/accessories/filter50.html

[Doug Palmer]

Intriguing Al,  have you looked to see if the claw pulls a full 16mm stroke or for the 8mm frame height ?   This camera to me does look possibly an H16.  Although the spool spindles are for double 8mm spools ?  Another possibility is an H16 modified for 8mm pull-down.  I believe several people in the Widescreen Association had this done: name Pan-16.  So saving 50% on 16mm film.

[Al Debruin]

11 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

The camera serial number dates it to 1952, but who knows when it was modified.

I just realised you are probably using the serial off the film door?
That door doesn't look original, it looks like it has the same morrocan leather that came on the H16 and it is quite worn, whereas the rest of the body has vinyl leather and is not very worn.

[Al Debruin]

33 minutes ago, Doug Palmer said:

Intriguing Al,  have you looked to see if the claw pulls a full 16mm stroke or for the 8mm frame height ?   This camera to me does look possibly an H16.  Although the spool spindles are for double 8mm spools ?  Another possibility is an H16 modified for 8mm pull-down.  I believe several people in the Widescreen Association had this done: name Pan-16.  So saving 50% on 16mm film.

I'll compare the claw stroke to an H16, the spool spindles are different to the H16 I have but maybe that's just a revision change. The method that the Widescreen Association used, were they using an 8mm pull down to get 2 widescreen frames per 16mm film frame and if so did they do some shutter speed modification to ensure the frame rate was still correct?

Do you have any links to more info about the Widescreen Association, google doesn't bring anything up.

[Doug Palmer]

4 hours ago, Al Debruin said:

I'll compare the claw stroke to an H16, the spool spindles are different to the H16 I have but maybe that's just a revision change. The method that the Widescreen Association used, were they using an 8mm pull down to get 2 widescreen frames per 16mm film frame and if so did they do some shutter speed modification to ensure the frame rate was still correct?

Do you have any links to more info about the Widescreen Association, google doesn't bring anything up.

Pan-16 cameras have their cam movement modified to give a half-pulldown. So you get 2 letterbox frames per normal 16mm frame.  I don't know what happened to the shutter speeds etc.   Tony Shapps who edits AV Concepts will know all ?  http://tony@shapps.com

He used Pan-16 a lot, maybe still does !  I can remember his impressive shows of Pan-16 on a curved screen, using a modified projector. He was a leading light of the UK Widescreen Association.

[Doug Palmer]

For some reason when you click on that one his son comes up instead !  (MP Grant Shapps)

Maybe contact via https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tony-shapps-bb259626?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

[Al Debruin]

40 minutes ago, Doug Palmer said:

Pan-16 cameras have their cam movement modified to give a half-pulldown. So you get 2 letterbox frames per normal 16mm frame.  I don't know what happened to the shutter speeds etc.   Tony Shapps who edits AV Concepts will know all ?  http://tony@shapps.com

He used Pan-16 a lot, maybe still does !  I can remember his impressive shows of Pan-16 on a curved screen, using a modified projector. He was a leading light of the UK Widescreen Association.

I checked it now and the claw stroke is definitely much shorter on the ultra than on the H16.
When set to 16fps going by the speed of the take-up spool spindles the Ultra looks to be running at half the speed of the H16, which would indeed point to it being setup to capture 2 letterbox frames per normal 16mm frame.

That is quite an ingenious method to achieve both widescreen and better value for money in terms of film costs, why didn't it take off to any degree, were any cameras released by the established brands or otherwise commercially using this idea?

The Ultra's body serial points to it being made in 1945, it's pushing on 80yrs old, what magnificent machines to be so long lived and durable!

[Al Debruin]

It seems these cameras are a hybrid built from parts of an H8 with H16, that would explain the 2 different serial numbers on the body and the confusing mix of H16 parts that don't match other parts.

I found the info below courtesy of a post from @Nicholas Kovats
"UltraPan8 is a native 2.8:1 spherical ultrawide film format utilizing
hybrid Bolex H8/H16 cameras.

1. The format uses 2-perf R8mm film that is 16mm wide and the 1/2
pulldown of the 8mm gate.
2. Running time is doubled relative to standard 16mm filmstock as
there are 80 UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40.
3. Standard 16mm optics provided full coverage optically centered.
4. The "imaging" area is increased by 90-100% Relative to 8mm/S8 film."

What film would it be using, what is "R8mm film that is 16mm wide"

[Al Debruin]

Here's a little clip showing the format:

 

[Todd Pinder]

3 hours ago, Al Debruin said:

What film would it be using, what is "R8mm film that is 16mm wide"

8mm film that is not slit