Sean McHenry

Will, drop me a line on where this place is if you get a few moments. If they have 16S cams collecting dust to just look pretty, I want to talk to them. ;) mchenryproj(at)yahoo.com will get you to me eventually. I'm not on the lists here as much as I used to be. Bought a 16S/B not long ago and I could use a good source for parts. Thanks, Sean

If you are more into experimentation and are doing this for the practice or for other experience, you can skip all the professional answers above but, you will not have professional results. I have had interesting results using a 1930s projector and an HD capable 24fps camera but, my projector is totally variable in speed and it allows me to match the shutter and frame speed of the video camera I am using. I simply shoot a smaller say 1' diagonal image onto a flat white board and set the video camera by trial and error. While this will be fine for an experimenter or for one to examine his shots and editing etc, it is in no way professional. If you want to go a slightly more professional route, send your processed film to my friend in Canada Justin Lovell (see his site at frame discreet) where he will be happy to talk to you about doing a standard def one light pass of your film to a supplied MiniDV tape for about $20 (check his current rates as they may have gone up) per 100' 16mm roll. While you are never supposed to project negative film, his process can indeed do negative stocks and he has been very gentle with my little experimental bits and pieces. He can also do reversal 16mm as well as 8mm and Super8, plus he's a good guy to know. IN the states a similar low budget deal can be found without the hassles of getting film in and out of Canada from the folks at MovieStuff. Hope that gives you a lower budget alternative. I have had one short come in second in an international festival using Justin's transfers from 16mm negative Kodak 250D and several other gallery screening short experimental things shown locally, on MTV Italy and in various small festivals around the US so it does work and looks fairly clean. His site has many great examples of his process. Best of luck, Sean

Hello, sorry you are in the position you are in, I know that must be hard. As for the gear, the Scoopic is a well regarded camera in the 16mm area and is still quite sought after. If it is in really good condition it will sell well on eBay or here in a more private sale. The lenses sound to me like "C" mount lenses. As for the rest, my knowledge is very limited but I saw nobody seems to have replied here publicly so I thought I would take a moment to do so. Please check both the forum comments on the Canon and the lenses as well as eBay for what these items might be fetching on the open market. I am not sure who one would check with in Chicago but there have to be some old school film places left there that would handle the Canon and let you know about it's condition as well as being able to look over the lenses for their total condition. They may make you an offer on the spot for good gear. Be sure to look at the forums and eBay before you go so you will have an idea what one might expect to get for these piece. That's about all I can offer on advice. I know I have looked at prices for the Scoopics and they vary but I too like the camera. Best of luck to you, Sean McHenry

Yikes. I paid just over $600 for the whole kit listed above. I guess it's what the market bares? Still, I was thinking like $5o or so, this is 1/10 of what I paid for everything else. I think I may make one myself for my test roll but if I have to go that high I guess I will to to make the kit whole again. I still can't believe someone lost that piece. What bugs me most is that someone probably tossed the original one that came with this camera out not knowing what it was when it was rediscovered. Sad. Thanks Glenn for finding that on eBay though. I had been looking but I didn't word the search correctly I guess. I had been searching for Arri or "Arriflex parts". s.

Hi all. Convert from Bolex Rex to Arri 16 S/B here. I just bought a seemingly decent S/B from an eBay deal. All seems good so far at what seems a decent price including the S/B body, a Cine60 belt, a 400' mag with Torque Motor. The belt has the built in charger and seems to be holding a charge and the camera and torque motor sound good so far. Also came with a slightly fungused (yeah, probably not a real verb) 12-240 B type. What I am looking for however is a missing part, well, two really. I am hoping someone on the lists here has these lying about... Missing: looking for the body top cover plate. It came with the 400' Mag but there was no top cover plate for when you want to run 100' daylight spools. Missing: Core adapter for the take up reel in the 400' mag. Now the core adapters I have seen on eBay (for ridiculous amounts at times) so I can likely find one there eventually but the top hatch? How can anyone loose that? I mean I can see how you could physically loose one but really, it's sort of vital in one's kit I should think. So there you have it. If anyone has these guys for a reasonable price, I'm listening. You can contact me direct for faster response here if you like: McHenryProj@yahoo.com Thanks all. The sick lens is going to be attempted to repair by any one of the shops I have contacted and the camera and mag will likely go in for a tuneup as well. Looking forward to using the critter. PS, before you scoff too loudly at the 12-240, have you seen this? http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=6342 Sean

Can anyone tell me what stock was likely used in the compilation film of "Aria"? I am looking to find out what stock was used in the Sturridge piece, the second segment of the film. I am wondering if it was a XX22 version, probably 35mm? DP was Gale Tattersall. Sean

Curtis, your best bet is to look up Moviestuff and take a look at Rogers sample frames, or for examples of various formats done with this gear, look up Justin's site at frame discrete and the blog has lots of samples of his transfers. I like to keep this part secret but hey, we're all family here - unless Justin and Roger have raised their rates, I have been sending Justin DVCam tapes to tr4ansfer to and he has been transferring 100' rolls for only $20 per roll. Same for Super 8 and regular 8mm. Roger prices the same way as I recall. Now mind you that is for Standard Def transfers to my tape stock. Prices subject to change, etc., etc. Rogers site is : http://www.moviestuff.tv/ Justin's site at Frame Discrete : http://www.justinlovell.com/ More of Justin's samples at : http://www.framediscreet.blogspot.com/ Justin is a heck of a nice guy and we have talked about a lot of things over the short time I have known him. His Super 8 transfers are amazing. Keep in mind hes a very active working shooter and in demand so if he can't get back to you right away, give him some time. He's been known to shoot in Europe at times and it takes him a while to get back in touch occasionally. Tell him I said hello and ask him about those fantastic Tshirts with the cameras on them. : ) Sean

By the way, as a (highly compressed for the web) glimpse of this system Justin uses, you can check out this little short I shot for the NIN online contest thing. Preface: I shot this on my old Bolex H16 non-reflex using really old, storage conditions unknown Vision 250D stock I picked up for testing. I desaturated it in Avid. There is a little of the natural uncorrected color in the outside shot at the end. The shots in color of the little girl were desaturated in post with a little Gaussian blur as well. Still, even in this you can see it came out pretty well. This was a direct conversion from negative film Justin did for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFt6144kHI You can see more of this process in another short and come to think of it, the open shot is in full natural color in this one - Chemical: http://sites.google.com/site/deepblueeditf...e/film-projects Other stuff on that site done in varying formats and various transfer methods including projection onto a sheet of paper and captured with a Panasonic DVX100 in 24p mode. Don't want to drag this off topic. The idea here is just to show you what can be done with a very similar idea using a projector as the gate mechanism. Sean.

Hasn't most of this system been somewhat worked out by the folks at Moviestuff? Using an LED source in a projector hooked to a computer that does frame by frame advance. Uses a magnifying lens to basically blow up the image of the open projector gate (Aeriel image) and capturing with a good quality (all the way up to a Red One if you want) video camera not as video but as sequential full frame grabs in RGB space. Software that plays back the sequential files at any frame rate to any tape device. Just the other day I had a short conversation with Justin Lovell of Frame Discrete and Roger of Moviestuff, the maker of the systems. Justin uses several of these in different formats, and who I have had several transfers done from Super 8, 8mm and 16mm color negative stock at Justin's place. Spoke briefly in emails with Roger about using a digital still camera with the system due to it's high pixel count. Seems to me a digital still camera already has many more pixels than HD so good stuff. The explanation I got was that there is still a limitation on the number of frames a DSLR can take as there is still the issue of the mechanical shutter. Yes, you can lock up the mirror but you still have a physical shutter. To get around that, you would need a digital camera without a physical shutter, an electronic shutter is needed, which leads right back to video cameras. Anyway, I always applaud ingenuity but you might want to see what all they have worked out and backward engineer to use a camera as the gate for your version. I believe there is a version out there I saw on retro thing that uses a Moviestuff system with a Red One as the pickup device. In fact, here's the link to that device. Blow up Super8 to 4k anyone? http://www.retrothing.com/2008/03/our-resident-re.html Even better link: http://onsuper8.blogspot.com/2008/03/red-o...mm-at-last.html Sean

Never mind. Just saw Justin in the credit on your footage. Love his work. Ask him about the T-shirts. : ) Sean

Check in with Justin Lovell. He has several "sniper" units and can do frame by frame TC of 16mm negatives. I have used him for some time with my 8mm and 16mm stuff. He has mentioned the possibility of doing these as HD. The method uses is that the camera actually provides an RGB still image that is stored sequentially on a computer which are essentially a full frame non-interlaced scan of each frame. The computer has a program that plays the still images out in sequence at whatever speed you want to tape formats. He may be building an HD based system or know of one up there in Canada. He's at Frame Discrete. Tell him hello and I say hello. I also used scans of my 16mm negatives on my cheaper HP scanner using a 35mm neg carrier scanner. Does a decent jopb to let me know if I have at least a decent image to bother sending it up to Justin or not. Good luck. Downloading your film now. Stills looked excellent. Sean

I am shooting something with my trusty old Bolex Rex in a month that might benefit from something wide enough to have a distorted view but not as wide as say a typical 180 degree type fish eye lens. I will be shooting some rather paranoid close ups of a woman's face and don't want to distort her too badly but to give it a distinct look. Any suggestions for cheap (the cheaper the better - it's a one time project) ideas for other effect lenses are welcome. I am well familiar with Guy Maddin's Vaseline on the clear filter style and love it so that is not out of the question. Other cheap tricks you folks may know of for distinct looks would be most welcome. Lenses available right now are the Rex 10mm, 25mm 75mm and the Ang 12-120 zoom. I do have some WA small video adapters that might adapt as accy lenses and will be taking a look at them tonight. Trying to avoid Avid tricks in editing if I can so I don't exaggerate the grain there. Thanks all, Sean

Cool stuff. Where the heck did the rod mounting plate come from? Mine just attaches to the lens barrel. I have been looking for a setup like this for a while for either the Cinetactics or the Lindhal. In fact, I proposed something adjustable but similar to a flat "L" shaped plate that would attach under a camera, have up/down adjustments in the front and a welded on 77mm or similar ring that you could use as a floating attachemtn for the Lindhal or other such lens mountable boxes. Easy to make but I have no machining tools here to do it. I am betting for us Bolex, K-3, and other users such a amount would sell a few, if not overpriced. I once asked someone to come up with a Cokin square lens shade with a simple hot shoe mount or some other mounted french flag on it. Also simple but no takers yet. S.

...and, when used up it actually says "exposed" in the window where the film is seen in front of the cart. Best of luck. Sean

There are quite a few of those little things, like, when we are very sick we go to THE hospital, a noun. When they get very ill over the water the go TO hospital, as if it were almost a verb I suppose. As the French say vive la difference? (Or something close to that) By the way, double plus sorry to hear of the passing recently of Mr. McGoohan. Wonderful bit of work you folks did there on the Prisoner series. OK, everyone back OT. I also rent (not hire out) my Canon 814XL-s but you might have to be in the US to make it worth while. Sorry folks. Sean :blink:

Hey Tom, I would like to see it. I have a Lindahl as well but the soft plastic mount seems threaded wrong. I'm wondering if the Metor has standard threads on it but the UV fro another camera seems to fit fine so I think the plastic mount is hosed. I saw some suppliers have metal adapter rings. Might be a better way to go. Post a pic if you will. Love to see the setup and hear how yours is working. I have the longer "vignetter" sitting on the shelf here. Similar Ebay deal I think. I don't know whey folks don't look harder at these for basic light control. I never understood why a matte box had to be so expensive. Sean

Well, it sure seems "good enough" is a real life question as far as delivery and display goes. Plasmas with low contrast ratios, LCDs with slow refresh rates, abysmal DSS and other supposed "HD" (highly compressed) content delivery that is terribly flawed - so what's the diff? Apparently folks out there in real life TV viewer land can't tell good SD from bad HD anyway. I can't believe how many folks tell me they have these great images off their DSS (used here a s a generic example of sat delivery of HD - not picking on them specifically) dishes and when you look at a shot of the sky I still see the gawd-awful banding, etc... so really, how is that a better image in the first place? What's the point of it all if the newest and best delivery methods and user displays are so bad you loose a vast percentage of the resolution, contrast range, etc? Yes folks, good enough seems to be a constant out there. And don't get me started on "is the content worthy" - reality television is apparently also "good enough" to pass as entertainment. Last comment - don't ask me about digital display in a theater either. Given enough time I could count the individual pixels on a theater screen one by one. Yes, I am still biased toward film but only if the content keeps up and the viewers demand real quality at the end user display point. I'm no cinephile or great film shooter but I do play with 16mm and the old Bolex and my K-3 as well as regular 8 and Super 8, both still readily available. It's fun after all the years in television I spent wasting away. S.

Thanks for all the great info B. I'll have to print this out and file it away. I know the whole field is rather complicated especially with all the different flange focal lengths of different cameras, slight variations in years, processes, coatings, etc and all that isn't helped by being 30 years old I suppose. Good stuff there. I have shot some test rolls with it on older film stock to check for focus and clarity issues. My eye isn't that critical as I am moving into more and more abstract stuff as time goes on so razor sharpness isn't something I am watching for at the moment. I really appreciate the info. Sean

You can't smoothly rotate the filters but, and this is sort of interesting, the filter holders are held in with Velcro to the front of matte box. You can reposition the filters and rotate them but this is sort of the downfall of front mounted boxes. On my Bolex for example, if I change focus, the front assembly rotates. Bad news for a pol or other rotation sensitive filter, like grads. If you treat your zooms like primes, that is pick a point and stick to it, less of an issue I suppose. Frankly I approached the Cinetactics folks about building some sort of universal stage that had a filter ring of say 82mm on it. Then it could float in front of the lens like a regular MB and not rotate when shifting focus or zoom. Seems simple enough, same as a rod system. In fact, if you can find a cheap rod system, maybe you could make up a way to attach their Motteblox to one. S.

I would suspect it is identical to this link and my first rolls in my Bolex H16. http://home.columbus.rr.com/deepblueedit/Balanced.htm It is the loop formers. If you forget to open them, when the drive gear turns it is forcing the film forward when it is supposed to be steady through the gate. The shutter is still open when the film begins moving and the blur from frame to frame happens. Try a roll and be sure you open the loop formers all the way. Still gets me from time to time. I pulled the beasts out of my K3 because the mechanism in those loosens up overt the years it seems (made of twine and a spring) and they never did seem to open fully automatically when the cover was replaced. Don't sweat it till you check to be sure you open the loop formers. I have had great luck with mine after being diligent about that. Sean

I goofed the info in the last post and it won't let me kill the post or edit for some reason right now - it should have said the following: Will do Jean-Louis. It is the same lens shown in the pics above. That's the one I bought for around $100. Seems in good shape but is missing the hand crank for the focus and the stick for the zoom found on all the others. There is a piece of black sticky foil covering the focus gear crank mount hole that looks almost professional in nature, like maybe they supplied the lens without the crank originally? The stick is for a faster hand held zoom and the crank is I believe just to mount the focus crank. Both have simple threaded mount holes and the ring for focus is geared on the front edge for zoom as I recall (lens is at home today) It is the same as the 12-120 shown here: http://www.bolexcollector.com/lenses/60angenieux.html I'll send you some real pictures of the missing area tonight direct. Thanks. I think I need to send this one to you for a check up too. Seems very smooth but won't hurt to have it gone over since these are still going for a lot of money on Ebay. Want to keep everything in good shape. Probably send the Rex1 off to Bernie for a look too. Likely needs cleaned, lubed and speed checked. Thanks, Sean

Will do Jean-Louis. It is the same lens shown in the pics above. That's the one I bought for around $100. Seems in good shape but is missing the 2 hand cranks found on all the others. There is a piece of black sticky foil covering the two mount holes that looks lamost professional in nature, like they supplied the lens without the cranks originally maybe. One is for a faster hand held zoom and the other is I believe for focus. Both have simple threaded mount holes and the rings are geared on the back edges for focus and zoom as I recall (lens is at home today) I'll send you some real pictures of the missing area tonight direct. Thanks. I think I need to send this one to you for a check up too. Seems very smooth but won't hurt to have it gone over since these are still going for a lot of money on Ebay. Want to keep everything in good shape. Probably send the Rex1 off to Bernie for a look too. Likely needs cleaned, lubed and speed checked. Thanks, Sean

I have been thinking of building some sort of universal mount thing for some time now for the "soft"matte box I bought for my video setup some time back. This is a really lovely piece of gear that holds 4x4 filters and attaches directly to the front lens threads. naturally this is an issue for zooms where the front threads rotate with focus/zoom. Still, it is probably worth looking into as the boxes are so inexpensive and fold flat for packing into a nice soft case. Mine came with a large french flag setup, 2 filter holders and a few various adapter rings. My Matte Box is the Cinetactics unit you can find here: http://www.cinetactics.com/StoreFront.bok I love it on my Sony DVCam video camera and am still looking for the adapters for using it on my Bolex Rex1 and my K3 as well as the various 8mm and Super 8 cameras I have. Some sort of adjustable up/down, left/right flat plate with rods type mount that would hold it out in front of any lens would be a super idea for an accessory for these. I asked their Engineer about it at one time and he said if there were enough interest they would look into it. You might let these folks know you are interested. I can find absolutly NO reason for a Matte box to run as much as they do, especially the Cokin. Stacking up a set of the Cokin lens hoods on their P mount might be a good start too but not sure if that would hold 3x3s. Last option for super cheap is to look for the Lindhal Vignettters. They are essentially matte boxes with rail systems and use adapter rings to screw onto the front of lenses like the Cokins, etc. They too will rotate with focus, etc but the one I have here was under $50 from Ebay. The Lindhals and the adapter rings can still be found new on the B&H photo site. Hope that helps. Anyone want to build some cheap universal mounts for these two boxes? I'll buy one. Last note, someone with a little time on their hands should easily be able to build a rigid french flag onto the front of a Cokin lens shade. Just another manufacturing thought. Sean McHenry

Wanted to resurrect this thread for a moment. The lens came in some time ago and while it does look used, seems to be in decent shape. It is however striped down. That is, it does not have the 2 cranks with it. I tried contacting Ang about parts but talking with them takes forever via e-mail and it's been a month or so since I asked my questions and have yet to hear about it again. Not blaming them, I know they are in the business of seeling newer lenses and I am sure this is not an important issue for them. Just wondering if anyone has any connections to the crank parts? maybe from a badly damaged lens? Sean McHenry

I have been thinking of building something similar for a while for the Bolex Rex1, K-3 and my Canon 814XL-s Super 8. Trouble for me is guessing on the right range of lens to use when held to the viewfinder. I can take getting extra around the image but I would want to see the whole frame, naturally. Anyone ever used a simple board type "spy" camera for this and if so, what range should I be looking for in a tiny zoom to see the whole frame in a Bolex Rex viewfinder for example? I would love to fly these cameras on my jib arm one of these days. Sean