Doug Palmer

The Schneider 25mm f0.95 works great on Bolex, it doesn't have that protruding c-mount thread. It even performs well on reflex Bolex, though focusing needs care.

I don't know if you find this. Very often I seem to get a decent shot right at the end of the film. Something to do with getting immersed in what you're shooting ? ? Not sure. So to avoid losing any of this footage I sometimes unload the spool in the dark, much easier to do than the loading. It's worth noting also that when you send your film to a lab, they also handle the 'daylight spool' in the dark, so no footage gone.

If it's genuine shade that's not 'bright' shade it should be fine loading in your car. Maybe put something over the window just to be sure.

Yes I've been somewhat mystified when they say this on the label. I've always loaded the spools in subdued light without any problem. The leaves of film protect the film underneath, even for super-16. The only thing to be cautious about is a possible bent spool. Subdued light can be quite dim as long as you are confident with the loading, so using as much film footage as possible.

The main attraction of S8 is the small compact cameras available, easy to carry anywhere. And the simpler S8 cameras I've found are less likely to fail. Unless you get say a Beaulieu with a good c-mount lens, you are unlikely to see any difference with the images. Both S8 and 16mm have their advantages, I'm a little surprised though, you say S8 films are cheaper and easier to develop. As I see it, S8 has become far too costly recently.

....or if the film is really overflowing it may be a good idea to shove it all into a black bag, then do the tightening later in the dark.

Not sure but maybe you meant that the takeup spool while running without any tension from the film, may cause the film to become loose ? Normally this shouldn't happen but if if you open the camera and find the outer part of the film is loose then of course some fogging is likely. So it's necessary to tighten it properly on to the spool asap. It goes without saying it's best to do all this in a shady place.

Thanks for this. It's something all us Bolex users should be aware of.

It looks great. I musn't get tempted !

Sorry Jon, right off the subject I know... Regarding Daniel's 'Found Photo' that I fell for: in this age of easy manipulation of images, I hope nobody tries to airbrush in a rosy kind of way what happened to a certain Japanese city and its inhabitants 77 years ago today.

That's a relief. I thought perhaps they'd been down in a roadside ditch. Then just after it happened Dad told them to stand there for the photo ?

My God ! Is this real ? Surely not. If so, are these people alive now ?

But the Bolex is fairly heavy. I was really thinking of something like this G.I.C. camera. So maybe a much smaller drone might be able to lift it. I have no idea. Super-16 also possible. https://filmisfine.com/blog/16mm-exploits-with-the-g-i-c-camera/

I wonder if anyone has ever put a very small 16mm camera on to a drone. eg a GIC 50ft camera, possibly modified to take electric motor. I do hope your digital drone footage blends in well with your film footage. I don't know how this is normally done. All the best with this interesting project ? I don't know how it is in the US when using a film camera at these kinds of vintage locations with any onlookers. I was at a Victorian enactment held at a fort last Sunday, and there was a great fascination with my Bolex H16. Folks wanted to know its age. They were a little disappointed to learn it wasn't even Edwardian !

I liked the general atmosphere, and the tracking shot of the train was really good. I hadn't realised you used a car. Apart from the lovely zoom-back at the end, I thought the zooms didn't look very nice, some jerkiness ? The static shots much more effective. Liked the tele shots of train.

If there's fogging near start of a new shot it does indicate a leak near the top of the camera. But you say the top mag hole is securely covered. And presumably the door is on properly ? Perhaps if you have a small light you could place it inside, close the camera and observe the effect in a dark room. If it's a superficial problem maybe it can be cured with a good helping of black tape.

Not too much about miniature shoooting on this forum, I always find it fascinating. Snorkel lenses tend to be expensive. It's usually possible to dig the camera down low enough, or possibly use a mirror arrangement. Lens on small stop, so probably long exposures needed. Carlos, I can see that if you down-res the format it could help the green-screen combination. But I don't know as I have only used film. Maybe others can help.

Hi Monica, maybe I was wrong about that foam strip by the screen. Perhaps it is meant to be there, I really can't remember now. And as Mark says, it shouldn't be affected by the heat of the bulb. And the smell could be dust. BUT it could also be from a cable, ie a possible electrical hazard. So if in doubt I'd get it checked by an electrician.

Hope you're feeling better now. Perhaps not the foam... covid ? ? I've had these Minettes, I don't think ever seeing this foam attached. They are excellent viewers on account of their gate pressure pad and kindness to the film. However it goes without saying, a scrupulous clean first.

I good S8 projector though, like eg your Elmos, should surely be as stable as a normal 16mm projector? The gate and claw arrangement is similar in many ways, but obviously you are magnifying any discrepancy much more on the screen. The Elmo lenses also very good performers, especially when stopped down a little.

Strange, our experiences differ. Most S8 projectors I encounter work OK mechanically after all these years, excepting the usual broken belts etc. The cheap S8 cameras back then weren't meant to last very long maybe. Kodak could already see video coming ? Having said that, some like the Kodak Instamatics, were quite well made and still work OK today. Did you ever see Cinerama that some enthusiasts created with 3 cheapo Kodaks linked together? I remember Chris Usher's UK presentations and being astonished how the film images welded together so well. Silent cartridges and stable.

The mag sound track also gave more protection due to the 'rail' effect, so there was less friction between layers of film. Regarding 'bad projectors' I haven't found many that give shaky images. The gates etc are certainly far better than the cameras' movement. Lenses though were generally inferior, so yes detail was lost for sure.

It's funny, back in the late 1970s and 80s oldsters like me certainly weren't looking for a shaky image ? Maybe we actually got more stable images then. New Beaulieu cameras I recall were good. We used the sound cartridges which I think were steadier due to the loop for the sound head. (And also gave excellent sync sound too.) I think the "super-8 look" is perhaps more to do with the way most people back then handheld and zoomed their movies. And cheap cameras, except the Kodak ones, probably weren't very steady with silent cartridges.

Whatever 16mm camera Logmar come up with, I do hope it will be small and compact, like a super-8 camera. And quiet too. However, I do realise these attributes don't happen easily together on a 16mm camera. You have to transport far more film at greater speed. If they succeeded though, I think the market could be large. I mean not just for true professionals. Lots of people want to use film, they really do. But the cost of S8 film now puts them off. A roll of film I would guess is much cheaper to produce than film in a cartridge. (eg Regular-8 film is so much cheaper than S8, though not available as far as I know in colour.)

Although I wouldn't myself have been a buyer, I'm disappointed Logmar cancelled their S8 project. Glad though it looks as if a few may be made for rental. Also, the 16mm camera is interesting indeed, especially if smallish. I'm guessing hopefully it will be normal 100ft loading, with mag option.