Topher Ryan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRI#Projectil..._missile_effect Click the video link within that entry to see metal objects crushing bricks in the MRI room.

Make sure all of the doctors and techs know exactly what you are doing. People have been killed by oxygen tanks becoming projectiles coming straight into the tube. BE CAREFUL. Be explicitly clear with all the staff in what you want to do. You can do a google search for some of the accidents.

Could you see the perf-side edge of your image with either of those? It seems that the plate guarding the pulldown claws might be in the way of that edge. But with the correct angle it might just squeeze by. I'm guessing it's the "prismatic focus"? listed on this page: http://www.bolexcollector.com/accessories/view40.html I guess it makes sense that some of these same hurdles have already been crossed for rotoscope setups with the Bolex. Did you make a semi-permanent setup with the backlight? In other news: I was running some old film through my Bolex at 8 fps with no pressure plate at all. It seemed to handle this fine. Do you think this would wreak havoc on the perfs at 1 FPS or slower? This will be a stationary camera running VERY slow, so I think some of the film guiding features could be sacrificed. I guess I might need some form of pressure plate to be sure the image plane is consistently flat against the gate. Speaking of magnets, something magnetic coming from top and bottom posts, leaving the center open, would be interesting and possibly save space. It might tend to bounce, but in this application, everything will be well at rest during the critical moment. What are some other non-bolex cameras out there with a 1:1 shaft that I might feel less guilty about hacking up? I can almost see a straight shot through the back of my H16, but not without significant casualties. That cheap security-issue M5 is sounding better and better. I've got to remember that once I start cutting holes and doing irreversible damage to the camera, I'm probably better off using a projector, steenbeck, or optical printer... Not giving up that easily though!

All this talk about the trouble of back lighting one of these rigs, with the limited space and all, I've had the bass-ackwards (or "round front") idea of lighting through the lens port (or modified lens). BUT this would require a mirror behind the gate BETWEEN the film and the sensor. I don't know much about the quality of mirrors available for photographic applications, but does this completely defeat the purpose of "scanning", to add a mirror between the film and sensor? Does anyone with knowledge of the big-boy scanning units know if mirrors are ever allowed to "break" the path between film and sensor? How much room is there in the Mitchell? The 16mm Bolex I'm working with might not even have enough room back there for a mirror to "see" full-frame anyway. I can see why some people use optical printers and projectors for the film-transport, but I think it's way COOLER to use a camera! (Since I would be looking in the base side, here's Mr. Tobin's take sharp side and soft side: http://www.tobincinemasystems.com/index_files/Page676.htm )

This thread posted yesterday shows some results with fairly optimal backlighting (canon flatbed scanner), scanned neg and then flipped and color adjusted in photoshop: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=37662

I'd love to see these results. I'm 100% with you that this sort of scanning is attainable, and moreso by the day with the advances on the digital and post-processing side of things. The film transport bit has been there for decades, the consumer sensor market is pretty much there now, someone just needs to marry the two in a low cost solution. HD scans are out of reach for most low-budget shooters and SD one-light telecine leaves MUCH to be desired. I started a thread in the Bolex subsection asking about which camera to use for a scanning rig, but it quickly turned into me just rambling on about about my bolex rig brainstorms. I don't know if you guys venture over there much so I'll link it here in hopes that I can get some feedback or criticism... http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=37666 Thanks

Another bit of brainstorming after a little sleep: My first thought upon seeing JKcamera's 90 degree viewing prism was to bounce the backlight off of something similar. But my thought this morning is that if you have trouble fitting backlighting in the pressure plate area, why not send light in from the front where you've got plenty of room. What a novel idea, light entering the front of a camera through the lens port... Anyway, then you would mount your digital camera at ninety degrees and shoot from the side into a modified version of that viewing prism. Then you could take the elements out of an old c-mount lens and fashion your backlighting/diffusion etc into a screw in housing with ready-made aperture control (the lens housing). Someone in the 35mm discussion of DIY scanning rigs suggested that you could use a firmware setting or hack to lock up the DSLR mirror and keep the shutter open, then control your exposure by flashing your backlight. Well, since we are sending light in through the front and using a timelapse motor the amount of light of light for each frame would be controlled just like shooting a timelapse normally. I am picturing the lighting locked inside an old lens housing, light tight... If there was issue pointing the DSLR into an area surrounded by shiny, reflective metal you could create a matte to block all of that out, perhaps by purchasing a second side door and cutting it and adding whatever other little mods would be needed. Then again, shooting in from the side you introduce a mirror which is just one more thing between the sensor and film to detract from image quality. Are extremely high quality mirrors hard to come by? I don't know much about photographic mirrors, it may be less of an issue than I think. Oh, and one more image flip in post, but that will obviously all be automated.

Another lead... It seems like this fellow might know how to make this work: http://www.jkcamera.com/accessories.htm Check out the 90 degree viewing prism, for his optical printer, that goes in place of the pressure plate. I know you probably don't want film moving against that, but it gives me hope that he could produce and sell custom pressure plates for this application. Looking around that site, Jkcamera certainly seems poised to make this idea a reality... (at a great price, please ;) ) Does Mr. JK post here?

For your back lighting space consideration: Rex V pressure plate If you can't get some kind of LED solution right in there, I reckon you'd be forced to use a mirror... For anyone who's never tried it, that pressure plate assembly comes out in seconds with no tools, just unscrew that lower post by hand.

I'd encourage anyone with advice or experience, however negative it may be, to contribute to this idea. I think it would have big implications for Bolex owners as well as low-budget film shooters in general. The technology is all there, getting better and more affordable by the day. The various pieces just have to be put together. Film Transport: We already have great scratch-free intermittent movement and have for decades BOLEX DSLR's: -The sensor resolution and timelapse post-workflow is already there. (you are basically shooting a time lapse of your processed film) -I think DSLR's will soon move away from mechanical shutter/mirror very soon, which will fix the problem of shutter/mirror mechanism wear Machine Vision: Another possible option for imaging sensor -- already used by many telecine rigs An entire industry of miniature backlighting solutions -- as far as quality of light, LED may not be ideal, but for size and heat characteristics it seems hard to beat. http://www.moritexusa.com/products/product...d=26&plid=1 Some info I've gathered from the 35mm and Super 8 sections of the site: Paul Bruening scanning 35mm neg with his Mitchell - shows promise for scanning neg and inverting in post http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...c=30502&hl= Freddy Van de Putte's super 8 machine vision rig- http://www.super-8.be/s8_Eindex.htm http://www.vimeo.com/1533163 Anyway, like Chris said this is an idea waiting (if not already) cracked. Let's put our heads together...

Appreciate the tip. According to http://www.bolexcollector.com/faq.html that is the "H16 J". I haven't found any pictures either. When you say it is easier to convert to super 16 do you mean also re-centering the mount, or simply widening the gate with no reflex stuff to worry with? I know that mount re-centering isn't necessary for a scanning rig, but I would also like to use the camera to shoot time lapse. I can't find much info on converting and then re-centering the mount on an M4 or M5. I may be wrong, but it seems that a turret might be easier to shift a few mm than the solid front mount on the M models. If I do go the "M" or "J" route, convert to super 16, and shoot with a pan-cinor viewfinder-style lens, are there any frame lines? I have no experience with that type of viewing system. Feel free to correct any butchered terminology. Thanks

I've been toying with the idea of making a DIY film scanning rig. For the film transport, I have considered using a Bolex with timing controlled by a Tobin TTL motor. This could be synced up to a DSLR/macro in time lapse mode or a Machine vision camera. My question here is which model Bolex might be best suited to this. I know I need the 1:1 shaft to use the Tobin time lapse motor, so that narrows it down right away. 400 ft. mag option is preferable, but not absolutely needed. My only experience with a Bolex thus far has been my old non-reflex model. Just today I realized that if I get a reflex model (late serial rex-4 or 5 for 1:1 shaft) I will be shooting the film plane through a beam splitter, right? This is certainly not ideal. How difficult is the beam splitter to remove and later replace? I would think this must be done with care and precision as to not change the effective FFD. Anyone have experience with this? I would want to be able to take the camera off the rig and replace the beam splitter and still shoot with it. The other obvious mod will be the rear pressure plate, cut and back-lit. I will get a spare to hack up and preserve the original pressure plate. On my non-reflex H16, I tried moving the center pressure plate spring to the top screw and adding a smaller spring to the bottom. This retains pressure and opens up the center of the plate to back light mods. I don't even know if the late model pressure plates have similar spring tension... The idea is to use readily available parts that can still be used for their original function (TTL, Rex-5, DSLR, Laptop, External HD, etc.). The main difficulty, as I see it, will be engineering the backlighting/ pressure plate area

Correction: 75 fps for the HD motor on the ACL. Thanks again to Jason for getting that website up: http://eclair16.com/eclair-acl/motors/

The ACL (with heavy duty motor) can crank up to 70 fps, whereas the NPR maxes out around 40. The ACL is significantly lighter and smaller (option for 200' or 400' mags with some motors) and would feel a little closer to the digital cameras the new generation is used to. But the ACL doesn't have the variable shutter and generally isn't regarded as being as reliable as the NPR. There are more things to avoid when picking out an ACL versus the NPR. Really, I just think that people coming from a digital background want something smaller and lighter, which is understandable.

Anyone have more specifics on their process? Stocks etc... I was thinking they used a reversal stock that has since been discontinued, but I may be thinking of an another film.

I'm not sure I understand the connection between delicate, scratch-prone stocks and light leaks. Unless it were somehow an issue of thickness as well as fragility with the new stocks. Were these two separate issues that came up in talking to Kodak? I have heard the bit about the new, more sensitive emulsions and scratching, but nothing specific to the Eclairs. I was surprised to learn that Les Bosher doesn't modify the film path even when doing super-16 modifications to an NPR (don't know about the ACL). It says something about the original engineering of the film path and contact points, that he would trust it not to scratch the edge emulsion. Hopefully he is taking into account the latest and greatest stocks in this advice. I know that others, including Bernie O, do modify the NPR rollers and such, but perhaps this is a "better safe than sorry" approach. Which is understandable, considering the production costs that can be riding on a scratch free super 16 negative. I say all that assuming that the ACL film path is comparable (if not improved), to the NPR's earlier design. But that is a big assumption on my part. My guess is that a clean, well maintained/serviced/lubed ACL does just fine with vision 3 500T. Now, here is where I'll step back and let people reply that actually know what they're talking about...

Well, I figured this had already been posted, but couldn't find it in the archives, so I thought I'd share: http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=9809067001 Kinda neat to see the little mods he did to his cameras. I always found myself pausing grey gardens when the brothers got caught in a mirror.

I'd love to hear how this goes on the bolex.

Will, where within the camera would I do the drilling? If I remove the optics at the viewfinder/eyepiece will I have a straight shot in toward the obstruction, or is there more work to be done toward the front of the body?

Speaking to an Eclair tech years ago, I believe he said that the internals of the NPR weren't designed to run more than about 40 fps, so it would not be recommended. BUT, if you find a way to do it, let me know. As we know, these old cameras do many things they weren't designed to do ;) Since the ACL was recommended above. Can anyone tell me if I could put the heavy duty 75 fps motor on an ACL 1?

Also, did you feel bad killing all those people?

As to your viewfinder question, see http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...mp;#entry267242 I am looking for a viewfinder mod for my K3 as well, so let me know if you find anything. What lens mount do you have on your K3 and by what means was it re-centered?

They are big and heavy and all new cameramen are wimps.

This makes me very sad. And to think this news is how I find out that Roger Deakins has a website and forum. I really hope he gives it another go. As someone said, a few more moderators could really police it for him, and I'm sure plenty would volunteer for the job. There are plenty of forums across the internet that, by nature, attract more flamers/trolls than a cinematography forum. With a handful of moderators working for free, they do pretty well at banning and deleting offensive posts and users. Though, with that being his personal site, I can see how one bad guy could really frustrate his efforts. Get the moderators to help out approving new sign-ups as well, and IP block for the bad guys, and I think he would do pretty well. A big THANK YOU to all of the professionals (and amateurs), here and elsewhere, that give freely of their time to educate!

Can you offer any advice on the backlighting and pressure plate modification? I would be content to just get a workable system going for reversal at first, to avoid the trouble of negative coloring discussed above. LED's have been mentioned here and to my knowledge will be small (good), and cool on the film (good). Would LED be the route to explore? What lighting technology to the top telecine machines use?