Jump to content

Nicholas Kovats

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nicholas Kovats

  1. And then there is the far cheaper ultrawide non-anamorphic solution called UltraPan8. They are re-manufactured Bolex 16mm cameras with 8mm transports. Two variations. They both utilize the full 16mm width of Regular 8mm or Double Super 8 film with an 8mm pulldown . Aspect ratios are 2.8 and 3.1 respectively. The WYSIWYG viewfinders see the full ultrawide gate. The smaller and "cropped" Cinemascope 2.4 aspect ratio can be inscribed in the viewfinder. The fairly common ultrawide Angenieux 5.9mm retrofocus lens is an excellent match for the formats. I also had a PL adapter machined for my personal UP8 2.8 R8 camera. Many examples. We have built approximately 16 to date. 1. UltraPan8 2.8 R8: unslit Regular 8mm - no anamorphics - aspect ratio = 1:2.8 (wider than Cinemascope) "Icebike" - https://vimeo.com/119718851 "mayday" - https://vimeo.com/92484795 "bikepolis" - https://vimeo.com/87991485 “my memories of her are missing - https://vimeo.com/27905787 "At Times I Meditate Nothing" - https://vimeo.com/39417454 "LOW “Just Make It Stop” - Chromoflex UltraPan8 - unofficial" - https://vimeo.com/84740721 “Limitless”. Music video. Music by Rozalind MacPhail https://vimeo.com/81306448 "I Felt Your Pulse" - https://vimeo.com/42810630 2. UltraPan8 3.1 DS8: unslit Double Super 8 - no anamorphics - aspect ratio = 1:3.1 (wider than Cinemascope) "UltraPan8 3.1 inaugural footage" - https://vimeo.com/81306448
  2. I use to have the dimmer 10x viewfinder which switched out for the higher magnification of the more rare 13x viewfinder. I also wear glasses to correct astigmatism and other attributes but rarely wear them against the viewfinder as the diopter range is sufficient with my naked eye. There may be a few craftsmen left that could fabricate a custom diopter that might also correct for astigmatism. Perhaps a friendly optometrist might be be able to help.
  3. Such sonic commercial dreck. I would rather listen and watch badly synced post dubbed German punk Super 8 circa 1983.
  4. Great work, Ben. I have shot alot of footage with my Bolex UltraPan8 2.8 R8 camera and Angenieux 5.9mm Retrofocus lens. Checkout my winter ice bike film where I pushed V3 200T 2 stops (800 ASA) in the lab. The resulting footage was not color-corrected in post regarding the rink (sodium?) lighting. I shot wide open at T2.0/2.8. I think the Angenieux 5.9mm held up. No stabilization. I was skating with my Bolex and chasing cyclists. I would like to have this footage re-scanned at higher resolution and bit depth to bring out even more detail as the original scan was a 3.5 K image sequence 8-bit jpeg.
  5. Did not know this. Impressive!
  6. Jean-Louis Seguin may have them at bolextech@gmail.com.
  7. I am not sure about the XLR 4th pin but it may be redundant. Its been awhile since it was made for me. My pic is a simple overhead, i.e. https://bit.ly/3cwLNUO
  8. This forum will not allow me to upload the picture I took of my custom cable as it exceeds the maximum size allowed. I am not surprised this forum is dying. An engineer at work utilized the wiring diagram in the manual to put together a custom 4-pin XLR to 5-pin DIN cable. The 5-pin DIN connector came form the originally supplied Fairchild cable.
  9. It has since been disassembled but this is the Bescor 12V 4.5A NiMH battery pack I had purchased and used for my testing, i.e. https://www.adorama.com/bonmh54xlrat.html
  10. Nice see to your work, David. Are you still working on your Super 8 prototype design?
  11. What is the "sync sound Leicina camera project"?
  12. No cropping. That is the actual gate. Same with the WYSIWYG optical viewfinder which also has frame lines for the more modest Cinemascope format if one desires.
  13. The Bolex UltraPan8 fromat utilizes the full 16mm width (unslit) of Regular 8 film stock in conjunction with the classic 8mm pulldown, e.g.
  14. Dismissive remarks aside... this is a mind blowing work that is a testament to a very painstaking and detailed 35mm craft involving multiple exposures via contact printing, i.e. http://www.resettheapparatus.net/corpus-work/outer-space.html "Outer Space is – together with L'Arrivée (1997/1998) and Dreamwork (2001) – part of Tscherkassky’s “CinemaScope Trilogy,” which draws on fragments of Hollywood films. It utilizes footage from The Entity (S. J. Furie, 1981), a psychological horror film, in which the female protagonist is pursued by an invisible ghost. In Outer Space it is no longer an unknown entity against which the woman must struggle, but that portion of the filmstrip that is normally unseen when film is projected – the “outer space” of the film’s image, consisting of the optical soundtrack and its perforations. Outer Space is a camera-less film, entirely created in the darkroom by means of an archaic contact copying process. Tscherkassky explains the method: “I place a strip of unexposed 35 mm film on a piece of cardboard that measures 15 by 100 centimeters. The filmstrip itself equals 48 frames in length, which comes to two seconds of projection time. The raw stock I use is orthochromatic – since it is desensitized to red light, I can work in a darkroom dimly lit by a red bulb. The unexposed film is held in place by small nails with which the cardboard is outfitted. I place one meter of found footage on top of my unexposed film stock. The nails of the cardboard protrude through every fourth perforation hole, so I can keep track of the frame lines: 35 mm film has four perforation holes per film frame, each pair of nails holds one frame in place. Subsequently I copy the found footage onto the raw material by exposing it to light. After copying details from 48 frames of found footage, I repeat the process several times over again, exposing the same single strip of raw stock to several different strips of found footage. In this way, I can mix details from entirely disparate sequences and each individual frame becomes an intricate optical collage. Parts of Outer Space include up to five multiple exposures” (Tscherkassky 2012)."
  15. Simon, I am in agreement with the heavier cameras. When did Paillard-Bolex shift their "190 degree shutters" to the current mixtures of 133 (effective?), 144, 180 degree shutters. A tad confusing to keep track.
  16. " "Cine-Technical Papers 1976-1992 by Dennis Couzin" "Notes on Optical Printer Technique" (1983-1987), 32 pages. https://sites.google.com/site/cinetechinfo/
  17. Well, Derick, you lucked out with some tremendous detailed responses from three experts in the field. I understand the attraction to the Beaulieu but the Bolex is one heavier robust battle ready simpler camera for the masses and inglorious film students. It just works and can be serviced so much easier than the more fragile Beaulieu. Does your Bolex have the 10x or 13x viewfinder? The 13x viewfinder significantly improves the Bolex experience. It's not a lightweight alternative to the spring motor but have you heard of Tobin "digital' motors for the Bolex?
  18. Utterly fascinating. I now see the genesis of Arri's movement.
  19. You asked for participatory advice then collectively dismissed us as sheeple absent practical experience? Good luck with your search for an obligatory peanut gallery that can validate your alleged superiority. Over out.
  20. Your right, i.e. "Optional Arri standard/Bayonet lens mount upgrade $250.00" http://www.duallcamera.com/services/index.shtml
  21. There is only one direction for this type of adapter as the M42 FFD is less than the Arri PL FFD, i.e. M42 FFD = 45.46 mm (camera mount) Arri PL FFD = 54 mm (lens mount) Replacing the K3 M42 hard front with an Arri Bayonet is not trivial nor inexpensive. It would be less expensive to purchase a used Arri 16mm camera with an Arri Bayonet mount, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri_bayonet "...SB (only one turret), ST/B (only one turret), M/B, 16BL, Arriflex 16SR, and Arriflex 16SR2 (early models)." Les Bosher might be able to assist you with your desired hard front, i.e. http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/ under his CAMERA CONVERSIONS tab. Good luck on finding another filmmaker who has undertaken this type of conversion.
  22. No direct usage with the following links. I rejected my newish K3 sometime ago as a reliable camera. It kept jamming with simple load tests. Some specialized M42/PL Mount adapters that may work in conjunction with an Arri Bayonet/PL Mount adapter. Careful. Only specific PL/Bayonet lens will work especially if the rear element protrudes deep into the adapter. You do not want to hear a spinning mirror crunch. As in Rolling Stones's "Shattered". https://www.rafcamera.com/m42-lens-to-arri-pl-mount-adapter https://araxfoto.com/accessories/pl-m42_adapter/ Nicholas
  • Create New...