Webster Colcord

I shot a roll for fun with my Filmo Superspeed, 128fps on a spring motor. No editing. Processing and scan by Cinelab Boston Lens: Angenieux 17-68 with dogleg finder, Skylight filter Stock: Kodak 500T 7230

@Frank Wylie Do you know if it's possible to adapt Mitchell mount lenses to a J.M. Wall mount, or vice-versa? I know that both use screws, but how different are the mounts? Sorry, my cameras are in storage at the moment so I don't have easy access to compare. I know the flange focal distance is *almost* the same from the Mitchell standard to the "new" Wall.

Maybe someone can answer on a related topic, as I found another one of these lenses - is this what it looks like, a dual mount for a BNC and a standard? It's pretty obvious that the larger four flanges (one of which, looking at another photo that I didn't upload here, has a notch) is the BNC mount, but I am not quite sure what I'm looking at with the smaller mount on the end, with what looks like screw holes (I have not bought this lens yet and tried to fit it to anything).

@Pavan Deep was selling a couple of them

Whatever happened to your lens, Patrick? I saw one of these for sale on Ebay about a year ago, dogleg finder but specifically for a BNCR, it said.

This is a more illustrative picture of the Nato rail. It needs to have that slot in it, for the screws that hold it into the Bolex mount.

Just to chime in here; the official Bolex rails are sometimes hard to come by. I figured out how to rig normal lens support rods to a Bolex without using a cheese plate. The key was a Nato rail, attached to the Bolex with M6 metric screws. All cheap SmallRig components. The Nato rail I got was 7cm long, but I would go for a slightly longer one.

I picked up a Super 110 (cheap!) after someone recommended it and it's a fantastic camera, I'm surprised they don't get mentioned more often. Simon, are all Europeans known for being open and direct? Surely not the British, right? I mean, when a Brit says the lovely-sounding phrase, "With all due respect"; he's about to lob a huge insult at you.

I just used Google translate. I have a good friend over in Germany who could translate it, if you want - I'll put you in touch with him.

All the information is there, thank you! Indeed, it's odd that the black anodized turret is so weakly mounted.

I just got my hands on a GIC and I'm happy with the 16fps - but I'm just now doing my first test shoot with it. I am guesstimating that the exposure time will be about 1/30th, but I think the shutter angle is smaller than 180 so maybe it's shorter?

Hi Phillip, I sent you a message, please check your inbox. - Webster

Thanks Dom!

I'm curious about the mount on this Canon 12-120MM C-16? Any idea what this is?

There's very little info on the Super 8 wiki about them: http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Pentacon_Pentaflex_8 But the brilliant Marco Kroger posted this video https://youtu.be/HKN97YfmtAc ...and there's a link to a super informative page which is where the reflex diagram appears to have come from: https://zeissikonveb.de/start/kameras/schmalfilmkameras/pentaflex 8.html

He also posted a diagram of the reflex system.

Attached is an image of the Pentacon from Chosei.

Erren, I'm close to you in the San Francisco area. Would love to know where you're sourcing your film stock - 8mm is rather hard to find. Here's an image of an H8 RX4, a beautiful machine. But something I didn't know until Chosei Funahara pointed out recently on a Facebook post, there's one 8mm camera with a spinning mirror reflex - the Pentacon Pentaflex. They made a 16mm version that can be found rather inexpensively on eBay, but I'm not sure how rare the 8mm version is or if it's the only spinning mirror reflex 8mm camera.

H8 RX4

I asked this question recently to a couple of pros and they said to store your lenses on a shelf. That's not always practical, of course, so I ordered some of the desiccant to keep in my pelican cases.

Rex IV, Super 16 conversion by Jean-Louis Seguin. MST motor with a piece of tape on top to keep me from accidentally throwing it into reverse when the motor is going forward. I have a pretty full set of Switars but I am experimenting with a couple of video lenses: a 17mm Xebec, and a 12.5mm Computar (which in my experience is actually a pretty good little lens).

IMHO, it's got a lot more of a solid and engaging plot than "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly", which at times barely makes any sense. Plus he had a higher budget and those shots of the town being built around the train are amazing. Henry Fonda is a great bad guy too, and Jason Robards is in top form. Also, they're wrinkly, sweaty, and oily. Like leather - they been in that sun a long time.

Autodesk makes a photometrics application that does just that, but it's meant for architects/engineers to design the lighting in the planning phase of building construction. Actually, I think there's several applications including Autolux and Revit and I'm not sure which one would be best in terms of cost/ease of use/customization for film lighting. My wife is a lighting engineer and does exactly these kinds of calculations, but for construction. Let me ask her if it's hackable and I'll get back to you.

I agree with what you said Phil. I would add though, as a VFX worker myself, the issue I have with these kinds of conversations - akin to the "Practical vs. CG" discussion - is that all of the VFX industry is treated as "one entity" in the discussion, without regard to the specific talents of a given team. The de-aging that the team at Lola FX (which was set up specifically to do de-aging work as a spin-off from another VFX house, Hydraulx) did for Michael Douglas in Ant-Man is impeccable, and I'm thinking that if you had the late Dick Smith available to do the age makeup in Prometheus, it would have been equally as flawless. Even though the tech brings everybody's level up, the stuff is still really difficult and skill/talent makes the difference. Also the Irishman comparison is not really fair, as choices are made on shows like that to go for a certain look. So they may have tested the technique used in the "deep fake" video and decided against it for creative reasons. It kinda gets into the territory of "Cats" - it's not the VFX teams' fault that the work gets laughed at for the wrong reasons, those choices were made at a higher level.

I love those so much!