Doug Palmer
-
Posts
633 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Doug Palmer
-
-
Registration looks good ?
-
On 6/29/2023 at 6:15 PM, Uli Meyer said:
I hadn't shot any 4perf footage some 20 years before the conversion. Since the conversion I've shot footage on a tripod locked off and it is rock-solid. The neg perforation is pristine, no sign of widening. I'm not sure what Daniil is doing apart from changing the gears so that the transport slows down by half and changing the gate but he improved the camera overall, mechanically and cosmetically. I'm super happy with it.
That's great you got satisfaction with his work. I am guessing the sound of the mechanism is quieter too ? It certainly makes a lot of sense to use 2-perf, and a lovely ratio. btw your images always look so sharp at the edges. And I enjoy too your family films?
-
And me too ! I was wondering Uli before you got yours converted by Daniil, did you ever do a registration test on 4-perf? Then later compare with 2-perf ? I have a 2C and was interested in the 2-perf idea. As it is now it is fine on registration, but it certainly makes sense to consider 2-perf to save costs etc, IF the steadiness is sufficient. Your footage looks great. Though I'd be doing locked-off stuff as well with my camera.
-
14 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:
yes it would be better to borrow or rent if one already knows how to use the camera and has used it before, but for new filmmakers trying to get a grasp the basics how to use film cameras it would be needed to have lots more time to just get used to the camera and workflow in which case it would be better to own so that there is time to run tests and learn well enough how to use it and how to build the kit for different shooting scenarios. With rental it is just grab the camera, shoot shoot shoot, return it asap, no time for learning
Agree. It makes a lot of sense to own your camera and really get immersed in it, before tackling a serious project. Your earlier comments on the non-affordability of sync sound cameras of course are a problem for many of us. However, I think it should be mentioned that their is always the option of putting a trusted MOS camera inside a blimp. Bulky yes, but entirely possible to get good sound if you don't mind a non-handheld camera. For me the film-look is everything.
-
Much as I like deep focus, I was also intrigued by some of the outdoor footage in the recent Great Expectations on BBC. Taken with fairly wide lenses in good light, with the closeups sharp but the crowds and activity in the background very out of focus. The effect concentrated the actors' performances better, as well as maybe losing any unwanted detail in this period setting.
-
Thanks Dom for this, he certainly seems a clever guy and it's encouraging that modern motors are possible on a nearly hundred year old camera ! Now I really do wish I'd kept mine.
Fabrice, I hope you solved your issue with the unwelcome running of motor. Maybe it's a problem with the release spring not activating properly. And I'd be interested how many seconds you are able to get when fully wound. Re the loading, I recall it was fairly straightforward. And hopefully the registration will be good as I found on my camera.
-
7 hours ago, Doug Palmer said:
Great little camera. I had one that gave nice steady images. However, I parted with it as the duration of spring motor on mine was only a few seconds. I did think of modifying somehow for electric motor, maybe should have kept it ?
I'd be interested to know the proper duration of the spring motor in a well-serviced camera. Also if anyone has succeeded in modifying one to 24 speed, perhaps with an electric motor in place of the chunky spring motor. The Kinamo is so incredibly compact.
-
Great little camera. I had one that gave nice steady images. However, I parted with it as the duration of spring motor on mine was only a few seconds. I did think of modifying somehow for electric motor, maybe should have kept it ?
-
5 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:
Willis, like many classically trained DPs, totally controlled the light; even outdoors.
Arc lights, scrims, flags, ND filters and every tool in the grip truck would be used to force the dynamic range of the shot into the predetermined exposure range and f stop chosen.
It's not a luxury most of us have or will ever have, but they were given the vast resources to make this happen and obtain the smooth visual continuity a constant aperture affords.
Most of us have to adapt and supplement the available light; he kicked it into submission...
Point taken !
-
1
-
-
I would have thought using the same f-stop could present lighting problems. Although I see his point in keeping depth-of-field constant as possible. I prefer the idea of using similar focal length lenses in a movie, for example either wideangles or tele, so the look is constant and doesn't jar from shot to shot.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:
It’s Kodak 3242. Grainless
Thank you Simon, I might try some. I suppose another attraction is the bright reflex viewfinder during shooting. Assuming of course that the glass is sharp at big f-stops.
-
Has anyone tried this film in 16mm yet ? According to
it would work in bright sun at f2.8 if using a shutter speed of 1/60th. So fairly useable in a 16mm camera. As I mentioned earlier, might be good for differential-focusing shots. I wonder how the grain looks.
-
The only zoom lenses I ever managed to adapt for the old front-mounted anamorphic lenses (such as the Kowa 8Z) were the Bolex Compacts, Som Berthiot and Switar. Anything with a larger front element gave vignetting. Even with these lenses it was necessary to restrict zooming to 24 mm or longer, on regular-16. It's also important to keep the gap between front element and rear of anamorphic as short as possible, and light-tight, using a separate bracket or mount. However, I got good sharp results using these small zooms.
-
13 hours ago, Miguel Mayans said:
Hi Doug,
Thank you for your advice about this. The problem appears towards the end when it takes about 20 seconds at a good pace and suddenly starts to slow down. At first glance I see that everything is fine but perhaps the lubrication is super important and as it has not been used in decades....
Sorry but I don't understand that kind of testing procedure.
Certainly appears as if oil or lack of it, is a problem as Dom and Robert indicate. I have an H16 that also slows, but otherwise OK for fairly short takes. Also steady. That was really the point I was making earlier. It may be worth doing this steadiness test first, to see what the results are like.
-
10 minutes ago, Miguel Mayans said:
Hello again guys,
Just now I've done a test again on the speed at which the movie moves. At 24fps and it turns out that when the movie is not loaded (just with the mechanism released) it runs great and well maintaining the speed.
When I put loaded film, it seems to be difficult. As if the collection of the film was wrong. Maybe the drag system is affected?
Best
M.
Old Bolex's often lose speed during the run. So maybe the friction against the spools is not helping. If the film appears steady either side of the gate it's probably not a transport issue. Only a technician will know if proper lubrication is the answer. Before sending the camera off, it's probably worth doing a film test with some old b/w film, to be sure it's nothing too serious and expensive. Camera mounted seurely, say attached to a table or windowsill. Then do two superimposed passes on some newsprint, the second pass aimed slightly differently.
-
Quite extraordinary.... I couldn't have imagined it taking that weight. So my thoughts automatically went to 16mm. I know it's been done using large drones, but maybe a very small 16mm camera like the GIC could work on this smallish drone ? I don't know if the weight would be more than this compact S8 camera. Interesting how the start button was activated. I've no knowledge of drones, what kind of money are they I wonder ?
I don't think I'd fly near those wind turbines ?
-
2 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:
Simplex Pockette cost $50 in 1932, that would be $1,101.59 today. (different magazine)
Filmo 121 cost $67.50 with Cooke f/3.5 in 1935, that would be $1,487.15 today.
Magazine Ciné-Kodak cost $117.50 in 1940, that would be $2,533.27 today.
Thanks Simon ! So you'd have to be getting good earnings to afford them. Their smallness was maybe attractive, especially for the wives ? I guess the large 100ft loaders may have cost even more. Regular-8 was getting nearer....
-
I don't know how much these cost when new. I'd think probably much less than spool-loading cameras as they weren't as complex. Perhaps many were bought by not so wealthy people, and then only used once or twice a year, when the cost of film sank in.
-
I see that The Film Photography Project are now supplying 16mm b/w and colour film in 50ft Magazines. I'd guess there must be many, many of these old 16mm cameras in people's cupboards and attics. And although the years have probably taken their toll, I bet a large proportion are still in useable condition. And as the 50ft magazines were always more expensive than rolls of film on spools, it's likely they had less wear.
The FPP is US-based. So the costs of shipping may deter some in other countries. But it's good they are offering various film-stocks including Ektachrome. As the film is double-perforated I guess they have re-perfed some. They also emphasise the fact the magazines themselves can be temperamental due to their great age. I wonder if that happens in practice? Those I've used have worked OK. It was a great design. They enabled folks who could afford it (inc our old Queen !) as well as others on expeditions etc, to carry a compact movie camera everywhere and get quality results.
-
I'm not sure what they go for these days, a Bolex EBM might be an option. I'm happy with mine. So you'd get longer runs with a 400ft mag possibility as well. Usually a bit quieter than the normal Bolex H16's, though obviously not like an Eclair, sound sync shoooting is possible if you make a blimp or just do long-lens stuff outside. Super-16 fairly easy to modify.
-
Fantastic ! I'd no idea it existed. If I ever get to London (rarely) I'll pay a visit for sure.
-
This I'm sure has been discussed in different threads. Maybe this piece is worth a read:
At the end there are some interesting comments as well...
-
Filming at 48 with the shutter half-closed I'd think should look OK for waves, depending on what you're planning. You'd get sharper details. Seagulls maybe slightly jerky, I'm not sure.
-
13 hours ago, Frank Wylie said:
It's most likely a dupe neg lab stock that has been respooled.
If so, would you have to be careful about under or over exposure ? I can remember using the old Ektachrome Duplicating still film, 8 ISO or thereabouts, and finding it best to bracket. But then, that wasn't a negative emulsion which presumably has more latitude.
It's nice they are putting it into 50ft mags as well, resurrecting those great cameras. If their lenses will cope ?
New Bolex owner requests advice on refurbshment options
in Bolex
Posted
May be an idea to at least check whether it appears to handle the film OK. Just some 16mm leader or old film threaded. Lots of information how online.