Michael Lehnert

After participating in a Kodak customer clinic regarding the camera this summer, I was fully expecting to see some news about it by now. Delay or wavering about the product was really not something I gathered. Instead, I now get newsletter and sales promos on the dedicated email address I use for correspondence with Kodak regarding the new Super 8 camera. That is weird, and frankly disappointing. Just yesterday, I got two Kodak newsletters on that dedicated email address, telling me about the fantastic Kodak Ektra smartphone, and where to buy it. /sarcasm

Given that the focus issue you had was a pretty basic first-steps set-up issue, namely to adjust the diopter lens of the viewfinder, it may well be that the black dots you now see through the viewfinder may be an equally simple issue. As you know, the camera has a fine-grain ground glass instead of the usual split-image rangefinder solutions. That ground glass can be retracted when not needed. To some, the grain texture of the ground glass can look like black spots covering the entire viewfinder image. Try retracting the ground glass and see if the dirt persists. If so, then it's not the ground glass. So the question now is where the dirt is actually located. How sharp does it appear? Does it change when focusing or using the macro control? That will help you determine where in the optical system the dirt is located, so that you can remove it.

Huh? Any lens with such a working wide angle lens attached will go from 6-7mm down to 4.5-5mm. The laws of optics are usually brand-agnostic :rolleyes: . To pick the right working configuration is frankly self-evident, isn't it?

Why don't you check out this post with downloadable documents here in the FAQ, which provides a detailed discussion of Super 8 production cameras. Maybe it will help with your decisionmaking.

THE TOP CAMERA MANUALS How to Operate the Top Four Production Cameras ~ a white paper and pictorial guide comparing and explaining features, operations, and maintenance ~ Following on from the overall Top Camera Guide and the how-to Super 8 Works… posts above, here's a post providing two downloadable PDF documents, in white paper and pictorial guide versions, that discuss the features, operations and maintenance of the top four production cameras for the Super 8 format. These cameras fall into two categories: the Beaulieu 4008 ZM II and the Leitz Leicina Special which have interchangeable vario lenses; and the Bauer A 512 and the Nizo professional, featuring non-interchangeable vario lenses. All these cameras provide outstanding optical capabilities and possess camera-mechanical excellence that qualifies them for uncompromising projection and broadcasting purposes. Not only do they cover all the usual features expected from any "high-end" camera, they also offer truly unique and special functions. If you want a "top-of-the-market" camera for shooting either in the traditional "Ivan's Method", or contemporary "Santo's Method" of a digital post chain (see above), your quest to choose the right gear should start with considering these four production cameras. The results from shooting with these production cameras show appreciable differences that set them visibly apart from the follow-up group of "high-end" cameras: a discussion of those, e.g. the Canon 814/1014-generations, Beaulieu 6/7/9008-series, and Nizo and Bauer sound cameras – all mostly built during the "Super 8 zoom war", around commag sound and with XL feature – will follow later in a separate post, as they are much more complex to assess. However, the white paper (though not the pictorial guide) contains a review of the Nikon R10 with Nikon Cine-Nikkor 1:1,4 / 7-70mm as a bonus. The attached texts were originally published in Chris Cottrill's magazine Super 8 Today, authored by myself. As I retain copyrights, I think its time to move them into public domain. Check out the now defunct magazine, and consider buying some back issues, as it's a true treasure trove for any Super 8 filmmaker. If anyone wants to discuss this, either PM me or better start a new thread in the Super 8 sub-forum. Please DO NOT reply with posts in this pinned FAQ-style thread, as they will be removed! Thanks, /-Michael -- Download: S8_Cameras_(Pictorial_Guide).pdf S8_Cameras_(White_Paper+Bonus_Nikon_R10).pdf

6mm would be the ideal wide angle for Super 8. The top production cameras by Beaulieu, Leitz, Bauer, and Nizo have that as the shortest focal length of their built-in or interchangeable vario lenses. A 5mm prime, or indeed a 6mm or 7mm vario setting on any lens with the Schneider Kreuznach Superwide / Ultrawide Lens Type I/II/III or Type Nizo attached would get you down to 4.5mm - 5mm. But you would have to expect distortion in your shots that may be unacceptable if you don't look for that kind of aesthetic on purpose.

That's great to hear! My brother owns a Konvas 1M 35, more for fun that actually shooting with it, as that's done with Arriflex, too. The Konvas is so freakin' sturdy, it seems indestructible. We wondered that you could mount it on top of a Energiya rocket, and it would probably survive lift-off and re-entry. ;)

True, the 1965 launch of the 16 BL, two years ahead of the 16 Pro launch, was a big upgrade wave from earlier Bell & Howell and Arriflex 16 St camera stock. I was more talking about the relevant years 1968-1973 when the BBC went full-on with Éclair-Debrie, coinciding with the ownership and on-shore manufacturing "Made in Ealing" of Éclairs by Harry Saltzman (of James Bond 007 fame) during those years. The acquisition of the firm by Saltzman actually lead Jean-Pierre Beauviala to leave Éclair (confining it to a slow death through non-innovation with Coma and Lecoeur retiring) to set up Aaton – and ironically buying back the debris (no pun intended) of Éclair in 1986. From what I heared from retired industry people in broadcasting, a natural respect for national manufacturing and supporting local businesses run by multimillionaires trumped making the best choice in terms of technology and innovation. :mellow:

The camera is self-lubricating! The transport mechanism is in a sealed capsule to void the need for lubrication. There should be a yellow sticker saying "Aucune Lubrication", which is French for "no lubrication". I know that the owner of my camera did not do any lubrication on it for 30 years, and when I had the camera checked by Paul Dresel in Baden-Baden (who is now retired) after purchase, he did no lubrication either. The problem will rather be that an IC on the electric platine or motherboard in the Electronic Control Unit goes bust. That will mean you would have to have it serviced by an electrician rather than a camera mechanic. The circuit diagram should help.

Thank you, you are too generous. I am just happy that someone else is interested in this camera. It's so underrated, it's almost ridiculous. Yes, I agree that it is a quintessence of it. Aaton/ACL may be lighter, but is far more precarious in engineering. Eclair NPR may be sturdier and simpler, but it's noisier and as heavy. Arri SR is a pain to have on shoulder. The only negative for me is the sheer weight of the electronic control unit. Today's technology would allow this to be far more miniatuarised, and if I had the money, I would ask an engineering firm to design a matchbox-sized version of the ECU to clip on the camera body. Most people say that the other two negatives are that it is Normal 16 only, not Super 16; and of course that you can't change magazines half-way through the roll and have to cut the film. But that has never been a issue for me. It's what psychologists call an 'imaginary need', like with electric cars having to have a Diesel-like 1000km range "before being acceptable", while most people drive like only 30 km a day max anyway. Servos and rubber coupling being intact sounds very good already!

Yes, Dom, I do, and it's the one 16mm-camera I will never part with, ever :wub: . It's such a magnificent piece of engineering, and very simple to operate if you started your filmmaking on far more complex Super 8 cameras and thus don't expect a camera to merely have an On/Off switch, 24/25 toggle, and Run/Stop button. Sure, many of its in-camera production features are obsolete nowadays due to the digital post chain, but still. With only around 150 units made, ⅔ in the standard configuration, ⅓ in the Pro 100 configuration through enabling it to run at 24 Volt, and a handful of each equipped with the Commag module, it's also a pretty rare camera. I would think most of those produced have survived to today – people who own it or search for it know what it is. In fact, the guy who sold me his for peanuts (at the dawn of the 'HDTV' video revolution) came back a few years later and wanted to buy it back for his 2K productions :lol: . Stefan Neudeck's webpage on the Bolex covers the basics, but it should be noted that it is a simple copy-grab and German translation of David W. Samuelson's book Motion Picture Camera Data, published by Focal Press in its Media Series. I have the 1995 edition, and it still features the Bolex alongside most cameras up to the mid-1980s (including many Super 8 production cameras). I would wager that the first edition of Samuelson's from 1979 already features the Bolex 16 Pro. Thanks for letting me know about Carlson's. As Samuelson's has been my primary go-to book for all cine-film cameras from Super 8 to 65mm, I admit I never looked left or right, so I didn't know about that book :unsure: . Will check it out. A few years back, Hans Albrecht Lusznat went online with his website, and it's an outstanding resource, giving the development history of the Bolex 16 Pro an appropriate feature spot. That article is also far more accurate and detailed than Ulrich Vielmuth's piece for Schmalfilm and Smallformat 1/2007. Lusznat also published a scan of Gerhard Fromm's Sammelblatt on the camera, from his series of detailed data sheets irregularly published in Germany's industry magazine Film & TV Kameramann. It's the best German manual short of the original by Bolex. I didn't think anyone would be interested in this camera anymore, but following on from Vitaly's request, I may as well put everything online what I hold in digital data file formats on my side. I have lots of other paperwork on it in English and German, which would be time and cost-prohibitive to scan, but maybe what I can put online right here helps a bit? Bolex 16 Pro and Bolex 16 Pro 100 - English-language Manual https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ama1LN1dsVsKgSR4qlxouZc9i_OP Bolex 16 Pro and Bolex 16 Pro 100 - German-language Manual (© Gerhard Fromm) https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ama1LN1dsVsKgSUtbFsGXBj2BTOQ Bolex 16 Pro and Bolex 16 Pro 100 - Trilingual electric circuit diagram https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ama1LN1dsVsKgSaYZhknPFfB29VC Bolex 16 Pro and Bolex 16 Pro 100 - German-language History (© Hans-Albrecht Lusznat) https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ama1LN1dsVsKgScg9nfyCYwbM6ju Bolex 16 Pro and Bolex 16 Pro 100 - German-language Newsletter featuring Gunter Sachs (page 1) https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ama1LN1dsVsKgSu6iCDplhSxg8pF Bolex 16 Pro and Bolex 16 Pro 100 - German-language Newsletter featuring Gunter Sachs (page 2) https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ama1LN1dsVsKgSlYqCCQuO98Dnft No, No, No! This urban myth and false propaganda needs to stop. The camera was not developed or produced by, with, from, or under anything from Arnold & Richter. Bolex-Paillard opened its R&D lab in Munich in 1961 specifically for this camera because that location was a leading industry cluster and talent place for most things filmmaking. Munich was not merely ARRI. That would be like saying that because BMW's R&D lab for autonomous cars is now located in Silicon Valley, it's upcoming self-driving cars are made "under the auspices" of Tesla or Google. Head of Development Angelo Jotzoff came from projectormaker Frieseke & Hoepfner, Chief Developer Georg Thoma came from industrial engineering firm Deckel Maschinenbau. Thoma would later get the Oscar for developing the fluid head for Sachtler. The body was produced by Alcan in Nuremberg, the magazines by Bayer Leverkusen using its Makrolon polycarbonate (of NASA Apollo fame), and the viewfinder system came about in partnership with Rodenstock. The camera's development was from 1961 to 1967. Final assembly of it occurred from 1967-69 in a Bolex-owned building in Munich-Leopoldstraße, from 1969-71 in a bigger Bolex-owned plant in Munich-Ismaning, and from 1971-72 in Yverdon at Bolex's HQ shortly before Bolex-Paillard went bust. Not because of the Bolex 16 Pro as some claim but because of its other office equipment, electric, and consumer product divisions being unprofitable: Bolex got caught off-guard by the electric typewriters by IBM and Olivetti, Japanese-made transistor and optical systems, and never understood the Super 8 market. Final sales stopped in 1974. The Bolex 16 Pro and Pro 100 was one to two decades ahead of its time when it came out in 1967, and for the ultra-conservative mindset of most camera operators in the 1960s and 70s in Europe, it was simply an incomprehensive piece of technology straight out of a parallel universe. Openly nationalistic procurement practices by broadcaster and studios also left Bolex out in the cold in most European countries like France, Italy, Britain, and even ARRI-land Germany, despite its deliberately Munich-based location. By just looking at what ARRI had in R&D and sold at the time of the Bolex development years from 1961 to 1967 (Arriflex 16 BL and 35-series), any claim that the Bolex 16 Pro was an ARRI product but in name is simply untrue. In fact, Joachim Gerb is on the record as saying that the design and construction of the Bolex 16 Pro was more than an inspiration for his Arriflex 35 BL development team and the product brief he set out when development of it started in 1966, presented to the public only in 1972! Placing my 16 Pro and 35 BL next to each other and comparing them thoroughly, that's fairly obvious. And the deliberate engineering of the coaxial BL magazine or the positive locking bayonet so not to infringe on Bolex' patents another. ARRI has a notoriously reactive corporate culture, and most if its camera milestones in the second half of the 20th century were a reaction to company-threatening forays by Mitchell/Panavision, Eclair/Aaton, and this Bolex 16 Pro. The fact that ARRI has outlived all of its competitors shows that ultimately success is a marathon run, and cannot be secured with superb innovation from Hollywood or Grenoble alone, but also builds on deep industry links, placeholder management, and the right timing. ;) :)

Sent you a PM, Vitaly. /-Michael

Nick Collingwood did some cross-processing with 500 T through E6 and posted the results in this thread over here, check it out. Sound cartridges were more vertical than the silent cartridges, alright, but overall, their proportions and packaging were actually squarer than silent carts. To fit in any Instamatic cartridge, this graphic concept packaging would have to be quite big in size, and contain lots of empty space. Maybe space for some development chemicals in-box? I wouldn't get too carried away with hopes for reversal made by Kodak. The proposition simply isn't there to make this a viable commercial product.

This is indeed Kodak's official rebranding effort proposal, with the new Kodak logo bearing the company name in vertical script also appearing on the new Kodak Ektra digital camera phone. BUT this is most definitely an error on the designers' part, to make 7203 a reversal film. The error coming probably from a shallow desktop research on Super 8. Nevertheless, this is great design and packaging for the relaunch on Super 8 in parallel to the new Kodak Super 8 camera, nicknamed the new "Kodak Neomatic Model 2016", and discussed HERE. I hope they go forward with this. Very "on trend", very "Impossible Project", very "Jetztzeit". B)

The Roman numerals are indeed just for numbering the items on sale, because they do this on all cameras as well where I,II,III makes 0 sense ;) Nizo sold as accessories three close-up lenses, "Nahline NL I" to "~NL III", where the Roman numeral denoted the factor and fit to specific cameras, S56 and S560. For the final generation of cameras, the 561 and 561 macro, those lenses were renamed NL 8001, 8002 etc.

I am not sure what you mean with "I,II,III" versions. I may be able to help if you let me know where you read that. The Nizo 561 was only sold in 1975. From 1976 to 1980, macro was added to the lens and the camera became the Nizo 561 macro. If it does not state "macro" in the sales listing and above all in print on the front plate of the camera body, then it's not the one with a macro-feature lens. I have met people who in the heat of an eBay battle accidentally bought the wrong camera without macro capability. Happy hunting, and check out the forum here for posts on the cameras, features, tricks... The Search feature here is the gateway to the best resource on the Web. :D

First of all: awesome stuff :D Nizo S56 and S560 do not have macro capability. If you want to go for a production camera, I recommend the Nizo 801 macro or Nizo professional. For practical effects, the Bauer A512 is also a good proposition, as it covers all the features of the Nizo cameras mentioned above, including 54 fps and a variable shutter, plus also a variable intervalometer and long-time exposure feature which should come handy for practical effects. It also has a 6mm wide angle focal length, and the lens is superior to the Nizo stock. You should also consider the Beaulieu 4008 ZM II with a Schneider Beaulieu-Optivaron 1:1,8 / 6-66mm (C-Mount) with Beaulieu Reglomatic. The camera goes up to 70 fps, and the lens has a 6mm wide angle, plus a very handy telemacro feature available at any focal length. These three production cameras are better suited to what you want to do, but they are probably beyond your low-figure budget. So: check out the Nizo 561 macro HERE, the last of the 56er-type generations Braun produced, which may just be the best of both worlds for you.

Thank you for this! Excellent movies. Clearly lots of effort went into their making. Also great composition to make the comparative shots technically meaningful, in terms of motif, color palette, contrast, mix of still and moving objects etc. I agree that - viewing the YouTube sample at 720p – the image is softer than it should be. You can get visibly better resolving power with Kodak 7203 through your Schneider Beaulieu-Optivaron 1:1,4 / 6-70mm (C-Mount) with Beaulieu Reglomatic. I can also see the much sharper frames at the beginning and ending, as if the film would briefly loop out or pop into the right planar position in the camera's transport mechanism. I suppose you used different cartridges, so pressure plate issues in that one cartridge can be eliminated. It may be that this relates to the Wratten/Clear removal, but this is too soft to be caused by this only, I think, based on my experience with non-gel'd 4008 bodies. Frame stability is also not great overall with your 5008 S. The transport mechanism is in need of some TLC, as you can achieve much more stable frames (and I hope you forgive me saying that you need to be a bit more careful loading the cartridge into the camera B) ). So it may be that a variety of factors around collimation and transportation come into play that cause the images to be sub-par to what can be achieved with your set-up. Before people flood in and start saying stuff like "It's only Super 8, whatdayawant, ditch precision, embrace being slovenly" – an approach that I don't subscribe to – can I ask where you did the digital transfer and on what machinery? Just to eliminate any cause on that side? The softness is also persistent independent of codecs or scaling to different sizes?

Almost 5. The focal length multiplier from Super 8 (diagSuper8 [1:1.33] = 7 mm) to Full Frame 35 (diag24x36 = 43.3 mm) is actually x 6.19 Or x 0.16 the other way round.

I havn't a clue. Dedo Weigert in Munich sold them, like in 1995, I remember. Tiffen and Lee (#130) offered them, in 50cm x 50 cm sheets. The last set I bought was from a Chinese optical company on eBay, but that too is over a decade ago. Occassionally, Paillard slot-in filter gels show up on eBay in a complete set, which includes a Clear, but it's a bit of a sacrilege to break them up. Behind-lens gels on the Beaulieu are better than their bad reputation, and with the resolving power and aesthetic immanent to Super 8, even with a 2K scan, it's not something to get too hung up with I Think. One of my 4008 bodies, a B body, still has them. I won't replace them there. I use that body when it's the best tool at hand for what I want to ahoot, But I admit all the other bodies have had them removed and supplanted by front filters, during Ritter or Björn or Dresel TLC jobs. And I agree with you, with color grading in post, you really can do without corrective filters likemthe Wratten 80 or 85.

Thank you, that obituary totally passed my by. How sad. Really? I wonder why?

I think you will struggle to find a glass filter replacement with the same optical thickness of the gelatine filters that Beaulieu used, both Wratten 85 and clear. Having to cut glass down to the miniature size you need for fitting it into the filter frame holder adjacent to the guillotine shutter mechanism may simply be quite uneconomical (too expensive) over just doing a re-collimation. Ritter Film + Videotechnik in Mannheim, the former Generalvertretung of Beaulieu in Germany in the pre-Wittner days, routinely removed the gelatine filters during regular TLC jobs from the 2/4008- and 3/5008-series from the late 1980s onwards, and replaced them with screw-in front filter lenses. Re-collimation was part of that job. Higher optical quality and lower threats of gelatine degradation through aging were stated as reasons for that, but that was a bit of an exaggeration. You never got rid of the suspicion they wanted to sell you those B+W filters after the fact of removing the gels ("had to be done, monsieur"). At this stage, re-collimation or re-inserting gelatines (which are readily available in reasonable sizes to cut down yourself - have done it myself) may be the best way forward.

One of the "classics", Why I Miss Santo is easy to find in the forum. Just go to the Search field in the top right of the page, click/tap to search 'forum' rather than just 'topic', and you can find it listed in the search results. Jump straight to it here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=16669 A good discussion, both on the banned user known as Santo, and Santo's Method (read about it here) which has, a decade on, become standard industry post practice even for occasional shooters. It will also form the base procedure for Kodak's new one-stop buy-and-develop solution out later this year. In the end, technological advances, reduced costs, and greater accessibility made Santo's post-chain ideas normal. Having said that, his rhetorical assertions and apodictic attitudes were challenging for many here. Insulting fellow users with silly memes wasn't helping his cause. But everything he posted was a great read, for sure.

Luigi, user name issue is fixed B) . Hope you purchased the Zeiss Ikon Moviscop, and if so, can feed back on your experience with it here in this forum. /-M

Hey, no problem :) Sign in to your account on this website, then click on your appearing name 'mbaarviao' in order to have the drop-down menu appear. In the drop-down menu, select and click/tap on 'My Settings'. A new webpage should load with a sidebar on the left-hand side. In that sidebar, select and click/tap on 'Display Name', fourth from the top. Then another new webpage should load, showing you two entry fields: 'Enter your full real name:' and 'Password'. Type your full real name Xxx Yyyy into the first 'Enter your full real name' entry field, and confirm by typing your password. Click/tap on the button 'Save changes' et voilà, that's it. Note that changing your display name will not affect your log-in details, so you will log in with whatever log-in name you had (either mbaarviao or an e-mail address or a passcode or whatever) and whatever log-in password you had. What matters here is that people use their real first and last name. Old rules die hard. ;)