Fabrice Ducouret

On 4/17/2023 at 4:43 AM, Dom Jaeger said:

The take up should slip as the film winds on. If it’s too easy to slip, any obstruction in the magazine throat or in the loop could cause it to slip too much and not take up properly. Or if the take up spindle is sticky from dried lubricant the take up may not be turning properly. Run the camera with the door and mag lid off, using dummy film, and observe what’s happening. 

Ah, your comment made me rethink my loading techniques on the Kinamo...
I think that there were a couple of issues in how I was loading the film in the cassette (but of course I do it all in the dark) - I think one of the issues was that the film wasn't spooling around the core in a way that is perfectly flat, and that might have caused friction - another issue is that the film around the feeder core would expand like a spring and fill un the top part of the cassette and the last - but most significant issue is that the film wasn't secured to the take up spool properly enough and the take up spool wouldn't pull the film in properly as a result. 

I tried fixing all these issues and taped the film securely to the take up spool, and the camera has been running smoothly since...

On 4/15/2023 at 8:57 PM, Dom Jaeger said:

You don’t want to hand crank then, you want a spring motor camera.

The most obvious candidate is an Eyemo, super durable and steady.

Otherwise, for a really small package, look for a Kinamo. Just make sure it comes with the cartridge/magazine.

Ah Eyemo, good idea. Not reflex though. 
kinamo is what I have - unfortunately it gets jammed and I cannot understand why. The takeup spool spins at the same speed although its diameter changes as the film winds around it? When it gets jammed I felt in the dark with my hands and the film was messed up in the takeup spool for some reason. If I can figure out why it’s doing that I might be able to use it more but I’m quite frustrated…

On 4/11/2023 at 3:04 PM, aapo lettinen said:

This is the Konvas I have used the most for "street photography style" shooting scenarios. the hand crank is for reference and mounts in place of the motor mounting plate, I don't use it for actual shooting. as you can see the crank is position is very awkward for handheld shooting and you have great difficulties trying to hold the camera steady enough with one hand without having any kind of handle on the other side.

With the electric motor the ergonomics are actually pretty good because the motor acts as a handle to hold the camera and you can support it with both hands to keep it stable. Here is my favourite setup with 7.2v airsoft battery mounted with velcro pads, the rheostat electric motor, the 60m magazine with core adapters to use Western 2"  cores and with the cores can fit about 45 meters of film. I is the straight viewfinder 1KCP model with side latch magazines. The lenses mounted are 35, 50, 135 with the 135 possible to use with resting the camera on stable object. But quite often I just take the 35 lens only and leave the rest at home. You would likely use the 28/2 and 35/2 lenses most often with the camera. the 35 is much easier to find in good condition so I would start with that

This is definitely one of the solutions I am considering, even though I do not love the idea of depending on batteries, cf my other reply. But it is very hard for me to find konvas cameras for sale, especially since I would love to have the option to use batteries or the crank. Not sure what a good marketplace to look for one would be? 

On 4/12/2023 at 5:32 AM, Frank Wylie said:

If you want to emulate the so-called "hand-cranked look", you don't actually have to hand-crank the camera.

First of all, it's a misnomer if you are referring to the pulsing-density type of artifact of some surviving copies of Classic-Era Silent Films.  That is not a byproduct of irregular hand-cranking, but a function of how either the negative or positive film was processed on either a Rack and Tank or a pin reel developing system.

I have graded/timed over 600 features from the Nitrate era and can tell that when the camera original negative survives of a general release feature, practically NONE of them exhibit this fluctuating density unless we are copying a sole-source element of a print. 

In either method of film developing, the pulsing density is a result of higher developer velocity over the edge of the supporting rack or pin.  Anyone who has developed film in a darkroom is familiar with the problem of agitation/turbulation artifacts.  With increased agitation comes increased contact with fresh developer, thus higher density.  Sections of the film that are not over these pins or rank ends, do not receive the same amount of agitation, thus less fresh developer hits the film surface and produces slightly lower densities.  This results in a repeating pattern of higher density that is misinterpreted as irregular hand cranking speeds in a camera.

Think about it:  99.9% of silent, 35mm hand-cranked cameras were driven by a crank on a 8:1 drive shaft.  Every turn of the handle passed 8 frames through the gate;  two cranks a second were the baseline standard for cranking a silent film camera.

Now try to translate that to the typical 3 to 4 foot distance between pulses; it just doesn't make physical sense.

A favorite trick of mine is to take a section of a print with those pulses and loop it back onto itself to determine just how large the developing rack was that processed the film we copied.

So why are their so many examples of this pulsing in Silent Era Films that survive?

It's simple, so many only survived as release prints with the built-in density fluctuations and the artifact is propagated by copying these prints.

Why did so many prints have this fluctuation?  Like any time in motion picture history, the hierarchy of importance of cost and skill diminishes as you get farther away from the actual production of the original negative. 

Why didn't the negative have these fluctuations?  There are a number of reasons;  #1.  There was much more care taken with the camera original negative; often supervised directly by the camera person who shot it.  #2. There were specialized racks for developing camera original negative that could physically expand and contract via a screw or lever system during use to vary where the rack slat crossed over the film, thereby minimizing any density pulsations.  #3.  The gamma/contrast level of a camera original is typically lower than 1.0, minimizing relative contrast differences in exposure gradients as compared to base+fog.

The production may spend lavishly on actual shooting, processing of the camera original and everything else up to the release printing stage and then generally the emphasis on quality is overridden by the need/desire to economize making the exhibition media (i.e., the release print).

Need to make 50 or 100 prints in a week for a general release?  Guess what, the deadline will override the desire for ultimate quality control and then the parameters will be loosened to meet the deadline.  Prints will be churned-out and standards will be lowered to meet the deadline.  Fixed racks would have been used and the higher gamma (well over 2.0) of the positive developer, often combined with higher developer temperatures to speed production, would emphasize any density variations on the print.

Are there examples of fluctuating negatives?  Yes!  Some examples exist in very low budget features and 35mm home movies; rich people's home movies shot on unmounted, miniature hand cranked 35mm cameras like the Zeiss Icon Kinamo, but even there the camera weaves and bobs so violently that it is practically unwatchable.

There are also examples of rapid density pulses in negatives that must be attributed to pin-rack development.  These typically exhibit a violently pulsing image due to the closely spaced pins of the rack for the same reason as the long rack; overly enthusiastic agitation.  You tend to see this most often in VERY early actualities of 30 to 40 feet of length (1899-1902) when a full camera load could be processed on a single pin rack.

Anyway, this is getting too long and frankly, even the so-called "film preservation schools" still teach the "uneven cranking" meme to their students, so it's a losing battle in the end...

So, if you want the "hand-cranked" look, shoot with a spring wound camera or electric motor camera and look into processing your film with a rack and tank or pin-rack based developing system, use a high energy developer and agitate the crap out of the film. 

Viola, instant "Silent Film".

I am not trying to emulate that style at all. I just like a light manual setup personally

I find that batteries often add a long list of cumbersome considerations that I would rather do without. They have a short lifespan, you always have to charge them, they add a lot of weight to your set up, they can blow up if you store them somewhere too humid or in the sunlight for too long, and there is always a risk that you run out of battery in the middle of a project, you have to schlep adapters if you travel abroad, etc. If there was a way to make a miniaturized version of the Konvas battery, it might be a different story. I don’t really have that kind of budget though.
 

I don’t have any motion film cameras that use batteries, except super 8 mm cameras that use AA batteries that I can easily find anywhere in case they die during a project and they don’t add much weight to the total mass of equipment. For 16 mm I use a Webo and a Beaulieu - love both but prefer the baseplate and center of gravity of the Webo - which can be handcranked or wound up for constant framerate. 

I'd like to upgrade from my hand cranked camera which is often getting jammed and isn't reflex.
I mostly do street cinematography and experimental short films with low budgets so I'm open to any offer ?

Thanks

Hello

How many feet and how much? DM me thanks

2 hours ago, Steve Switaj said:

Supposedly, every Mitchell 35 ever made had an 8:1 shaft with an accessible D-spline that could be hand cranked.

I know for a fact that this is the case with the Fries Standard conversion sitting on sticks in the corner of my living room, and that was one of the last Mitchells off the line, built in 1974.

Don't know about their 65-5perf line, but from what I can recall those were mostly just upscaled NC's. 

I have personally never hand-cranked a camera, but was once told by an olde-timer that you should mentally hum the "Addams Family" tune to keep time.

 

Ok, I definitely need to know more about this Addams Family reference! Can you explain? I hand crank a lot! ?

12 hours ago, Chris Burke said:

It has been discussed here not too long ago and if I recall, the camera in question is an early gen IMAX camera. 

To my understanding, many motion picture cameras can be modified to be hand cranked. For instance I have used an Arri IIc that was hand cranked. My Arri 35 3 can be modded to be hand cranked. Lots of fun using a camera that way and rather efficient for some kind of shots since you rarely reach 24fps hand cranking. It is usually a slower frame rate yielding a fast paced home movie look. 

Ah, I did look for a similar question but could not find!

In the film Nope, one of the characters is using a manual 70mm/65mm film camera.
Has such a camera ever been manufactured/existed? Or was it just made for the movie?

On 10/10/2021 at 5:13 AM, aapo lettinen said:

my cheapest Konvas was 50 euros. The cheapest lens was something like 50 or 60 euros I think. They need some cla of course before one can use them but for such a low cost camera I am happy to take risks and cla them by myself. has worked fine so far ?

Wow, that's a great deal! Impressive. Might get one too if I find a similar deal, although a lot of the ones I see don't have a manual crank option.

Where did you CLA it?

4 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

I purchased mine something like 10 years ago and I think I shot one or two rolls with it total. 

Purchased a Konvas later and shot thousands of feets with it.

The Lomokino is a cool toy but it was not very useful even for art projects.

One can hand crank a Konvas much more easily and get very usable results even for cinema release of the camera is properly used and maintained.

The Lomokino is more like, look how cool new toy I have, then getting bored to it and putting it into storage forgetting it even existed. It is a nice toy but not a real camera by my opinion and one could get real cameras with almost the same price

Thanks Aapo! I think part of my interest lied within the portability, and part lied within the fact that it's probably the only small 2 perf 35mm camera (quarter frame by still photography standards), so I wanted to play with it as a photographic instrument, and experiment (maybe put some anamorphics on it, why not... hehe).

 
A mix of the Lomokino for the idea, and the Yashica Samurai for the manufacturing quality (motor drive/zoom lens) would have been amazing. I also have a 35mm Kinamo - also very small and hand-cranked - but the loading of the film is slightly more tedious so I haven't used it yet.

How much did you pay for your Konvas including lenses?

I received my Lomokino yesterday. I always loved the idea of an amateur 35mm 2-perf camera for a long time, but finally decided to buy one.
I've used other (better) film cameras in the past (Super-8, 16, 35...) but still was very curious to see what could come out of it (and still think that someone should make a quarter frame still film camera! but that's a discussion for another day).

Here are the following issues I encountered while trying to shoot my first roll:

Loading
The crank that one uses to move the film in the camera is designed in a way that you can still turn the crank even if the film is jammed or stops because you're at the end of the roll. When that happens, it produces a clicking sound but the film doesn't move in the camera as it should.
This was my main issue, as when I loaded the film, the crank would click and the take up spool wouldn't turn to secure the film on.

Filming
When I was filming, I feel like the same thing would happen: instead of moving continuously through the camera, it seemed that the film would move a bit, then stop, the crank would make the clicking sound, and the film would move forward again.
In the user guide, they recommend looking at the rewing knob to see if the film is advancing in the camera. While I was shooting, the rewind knob would move then stop then move then stop etc.

As I had expected, holding the camera steady was extremely difficult (there is no handle of any kind). I will definitely try my second roll with a tripod.

Rewinding
Rewinding was extremely difficult. I felt like the materials were very flimsy and risked breaking as I was rewinding. The rewinding knob kept popping out so I had to push it down at the same time as I was rewinding. I am not sure yet if this resistance was due to the path that the film takes in the camera, or if I just used a roll of film that was particularly jammy, or if it's just really difficult for anyone.

I haven't gotten the roll back, but compared to my other 35mm attempts, this was sadly a bit disappointing. 

Could anyone share their experience shooting with the Lomokino and if they've hacked it to make it more usable?

Really enjoyed watching these high-budget home movies ? Keep it up, very inspiring. 

I recently got a Double-8 (not Super-8) Bolex C8 camera in near mint condition.

I mostly shoot Super-8 as far as small film gauge goes, but given the condition of the camera and how fun it looks to use, and also that I’ve never used this format, I thought I’d give it a go and get film and a good lens for it.

I got a really nice D-mount 1.4 Yashica lens for it, but now I’m wondering how to expose film properly, since the camera has no electronics or auto settings.

For still photography, I use iPhone lightmeters like Lux, and get really good results, but are there user-friendly ways to measure exposure settings for film, based on the chosen frame rate?

21 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

What Robino said, get yourself a film changing bag, and get yourself a dummy roll of film (an old roll of film that's already been exposed/processed) so that you can practice the process of loading the film safely with just your hands.

Once you're comfortable loading the dummy film, you'll be fine to do it with your unexposed stock.

It's an important skill, so you have to practice it (if you don't have an AC or loader to do it for you).

 

Thank you guys. Are there good and bad ones? Large and small ones? What model do you guys have?

Hello,

I am looking for camera loading services in the city of Los Angeles.

Drop off camera and film, pick up the next day with the camera loaded.

The camera is a kind of ancient, 35mm camera which takes 25 meters of film.

I have the camera, I have the film.

I'm just really afraid to mess it up and expose the film to light while doing it because I don't have a darkroom.

6 hours ago, Olle Knutson said:

because you cna run the camera for about two and a half minute in 25fps and then you have to load it again. and also there is no viewfinder

Dang, sounds like a challenge! At the same time... challenges can be good... and exciting ? 

Just found this post - very interesting but it seems like the OP's website is dead now.

Were there commercially sold "reloadable" Super-8mm cartridges? I would very much like to find a way to double-expose Super-8mm film and maybe transferring film into a cartridge that is easy to open and close might help... If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate - thanks!

This is a great discussion and I am also interested in rewinding Super-8mm film. There has got to be a way - like, a cartridge that can be opened and closed easily (like the reloadable film cartridges) and the user would be able to open, rewind, reload.

But what no one answered yet is why it wouldn't be possible to just rewind by cranking the cartridge's spool in the other direction, before reaching the end of the film? So you'd lose maybe half a foot of film to make sure it's still spooled on one end and then just "rewind" it?
Any modern screwdriver with a large flat screwhead would do the job...

Has anyone tried that?

On 1/23/2019 at 12:26 PM, Olle Knutson said:

Well it was the shutter like you guys said so thank you!!

 

Shot this music video on it after it was fixed. It was hell :)

 

 

Why did you say "it was hell"? Can you share the experience?

On 10/24/2020 at 3:33 AM, Pavan Deep said:

I think I’ll say it here, the pellicle mirror is fragile and can break and is almost impossible to get. I just tried a microscope slide cover and it works, the microscope slide covers are incredibly cheap.

This is great, Pavan - care to share some pics of the repair process as well? (if you have) - thanks!

On 9/11/2020 at 4:51 PM, Gareth Blackstock said:

Hello,

I recently bought an old Pathe super16 Webo and was hardly surprised when it showed up with a few issues.  Seems most non-shop owning ebay sellers these days are "selling on behalf of another person" which seems to mean "I have no idea if it works so don't send it back!"

Anyway, it was cheap and I have been keen on getting one for awhile so I can tinker with it.  It came with an issue, film take-up cog not turning, very noisy operation, and generally grotty.  After a bit of poking around I fixed the issues, detailed my progress below, and now just have to shoot some test footage to make sure the shutter angle is ok.  

http://canon-s8-repair.yolasite.com/pathe-webo-m-super-16.php

If anyone has extra info I can add to my site please let me know.

I am next moving onto getting my Auricon CM72 working.... gonna be a hard one I think....

Cheers, Gareth

Congrats on fixing the Webo! I think you should offer servicing for the cameras you know how to fix - when I rounded up Hollywood camera repair shops, no one knew what the Webo was or how to fix it (thankfully it wasn't broken...). You might be able to make some money repairing people's 16mm cameras. One thing that might hinder people's google searches when looking for you is that the title of your webpage for the Webo is "Canon 814/1014/1218 repair" (also here).

Congrats for your efforts in fixing the camera. Are you planning on using it? Feel free to share some footage if you do!

On 10/19/2020 at 3:15 PM, Webster C said:

Fabrice,

I'm loving this topic and I'm so glad you started it, and made a good case for the Webo, a camera which I have  long been curious about.

I have dabbled with shooting through an anamorphic lens, but didn't want to spend a lot of money. So I picked up this giant inexpensive projection lens and rigged up the Bolex on a cheese plate, with rails and a big mount for the front lens. It works okay and I have even handheld this rig! This is just to show that anything is possible with the right rigging components.

You also mentioned the Kodak Cine Special. I have been scanning film shot with a Cine Special from an old filmmaker friend and am finding lots of unstable footage. Recently I verified with someone else, that with their Cine Special system some magazines were more reliable than others - the claw mechanism is part of the magazine and it doesn't seem to be very well made.

Webster,

Thanks so much for following this discussion and adding your contribution.
Your rig is super - congratulations! But double or single focus?
I'm sure you can always find a smaller anamorphic someday either by luck or if you win the lottery... (Are you in the anamorphic shooters group on facebook?)
I'd love to see your anamorphic footage.

To be honest, I don't get why people place anamorphic lenses in front of a digital camera. For me it only really makes sense in front of a film camera... If you use a 2x anamorphic on a no-crop-needed setup, you end up with a output image after anamorphosis that is 7680 x 2160 for stills and 3840 x 1080 for video as seen here - pretty useless imho. But when you're working with a square-ish format, now we're talking...

By the way, how do you offset the anamorphic or the lens to align them? Here's my Pathé and the Schneider Cinelux seen from above, they're not aligned because the lens of the Pathé and the tripod socket are not on the same axis. If you know the name of the lego piece I need for my Fotga rail - it'd be much welcome! 

 

8 hours ago, Pavan Deep said:

Can I ask what issues did you have with the Kodak K100?

Pav

If you read the rest of the discussion, you can find out that I prefer cameras with a reflex viewfinder and a flat front turret. I think it's a decent camera for someone who doesn't need a reflex system, solidly built and easy to manipulate!

15 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Fabrice, what do you mean by scopes? CinemaScope anamorphot?

Simon, a lot of people have been using anamorphic projection lenses to capture anamorphic footage of photography.
There's a lot of resources online about this, it allows for guerilla filmmakers and low-budget productions to access anamorphic technology at a fraction of the cost it would be with actual anamorphic lenses.

Tito Ferradans has reviewed pretty much every option available in his youtube channel.

I personally use a Schneider Cinelux with either film or photo cameras (turns a 35mm SLR into a panoramic camera, makes it feel like a Hollywood still...).

The tests with the Bolex were absolutely non-conclusive - not even impractical, just impossible. I'd have to use two tripods. But then how do I focus? I'd have to align everything on the top lens position, focus... then move everything back? Nah...

It's much easier with the Webo. The camera and the scope fit on the same rail mount. I just need to offset the camera by a couple of centimeters to the right...

This is what the Webo's reflex viewfinder sees. And once anamorphosed... (The actual results will not vignette and be better aligned...)