Doug Palmer

Not absolutely sure, but I would think so. Most zoom lenses seem to cover ultra-16 fairly well. You could always try projecting an image say of a window with it, on to a card with dimensions drawn.

It's an interesting idea though. I wonder if there'd be some way to diminish the orange mask.

None, it's all very basic the method I use, and seems to work fine. I simply shoot out-of-focus, a matte-black card, in a shaded doorway. Bright sun without any cloud. So no danger of lights failing during the flash (except eclipses ?) I over-expose in a range of half to one-and-a -half stops. So with careful footage-readings of the film already taken, I can vary the flash accordingly during this second pass. Usually by fading the iris ring.

Thanks Tyler. Hoping it may match fairly well with my older stock in a project I'm working on. I guess then it will need a similar amount of flashing.

I've not yet used the new Ektachrome, as I still have some of the older 7285 in freezer. Are you saying it's even more contrasty now ? I've always tended to post-flash the 7285 to bring contrast down for scanning etc.

ECO in 16mm was a lovely emulsion, if slow at about 16 iso I believe. It's a pity there's no low contrast reversal film now, not even for still photography. To try and get an equivalent with Ektachrome, I always flash the film.

Thanks Tyler, Frank and Aapo for these interesting points. Frank says we're lucky to have film at all, and I guess he's right when you consider the effects of the pandemic, and the fact as Tyler says, Kodak has now finished being propped up by the studios. Re the current manufacturing of film, a good summary here from 2015, not sure if it's the same now: https://eu.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/2015/03/14/kodak-makes-film-rochester/70299168/ Yes a complicated process. Yet about the same time I recall a lady from Kodak giving an optimistic plan on introducing small compact machines that can make almost any emulsion from the past (?) ie. in small quanitities, presumably on special order. Does anyone remember this ? Orwo then looks hopeful for a new colour movie film. Or as Tyler suggests, working with them maybe and concentrating more on their wonderful Vision stocks. It would be a shame indeed if Vision went the same way as Kodachrome. (It was a relief when the new Ektachrome appeared. Thanks Kodak.) Aapo's ideas on monochrome interesting, and hopeful. Though a future without colour movie stock is truly unthinkable. We need Mr Bezos or Mr Musk to take up analog movie-making ?

There's certainly a need for a similar kind of movie film that doesn't break the bank. Hope Orwo or Ferrania (?) can come up with something. Many folks would happily buy it, the future of movie-making needs them, arguably ?? btw I sell Colorplus to my customers but can't get enough of it. Kodak should figure out a way of making more of this still 35mm film, and similarly their movie division produce some kind of "essential" emulsion that everyone can afford. Super-8 too. Non-availability of anything doesn't help.

I'm sure you're right Simon, and it's great we have people like you here keen to get these old beasts working as in younger days. Though as Dom points out, it's sometimes possible simply to find another body with better lubrication and so on. On the other hand, sometimes we are attached for different reasons to the one we have and enjoy. In my case, it was my first attempt at a mod for ultra-16 (I can hear you gulping Simon !) and I've been happy sofar with the results. So I think I'll see if it gets better or worse, then decide what to do with it. There's always as Dom says, option for an electric motor. Let us know how you get on with yours, Hugo. Interesting Simon that bit about the frame counter friction. And Bell & Howell's. Even the 240 model has far better running duration than the Bolex, a minus point sadly after all the good points.

A few minutes ago I used an old H16RX round base camera for the first time in two years, and I was rather shocked how it seemed to lose speed after only about 18 seconds or less, at 24fps. So frequent winding up necessary. This one hasn't fallen ? so maybe it's just lack of use and the oil a bit thick ? And it's quite cold here now, maybe a factor. As always with these things, it's whether it's worth getting it serviced or not, when OK otherwise.

That's the real reason, trying to drown the noise of people chatting. Just like they do at home watching TV. And very rarely in movies nowadays are we treated to a long quiet scene. Maybe too risky.

I find some Imax movies too loud, and I'm deaf ? It could be that cinema owners just try to pump that much volume to make the experience as different to home-viewing as possible, knowing it won't be distorted. They couldn't do this so much in the old analog days of magnetic stripe stereo because of tape-noise ?

There is so much 2.39:1 these days, it's lost a lot of its appeal, especially in digitally shot movies. At least that's how I feel. Sometimes yes, it can be effective for composing images even without showing on a large screen. There are one or two such scenes in this trailer, and the two-shot at about 1.42 is a good example of keeping the characters far apart without resorting to cutting or panning. https://vimeo.com/ondemand/lawrenceafterarabiamovie/639004797 However, much of this film would have looked better in my opinion at 16:9 ratio . Maybe because it's a period movie. Perhaps we are so used to seeing old photos etc in squarer ratios ? Also, I wonder if 2.39:1 doesn't look as sharp as 16:9 when projected digitally.

Swings and roundabouts... motor/battery much more bulk.

Apparently Mark Griffin only managed to get Clouds Hill quite late on, as the National Trust who own it were initially reluctant, maybe worried about the content of the film. In his movie some things could have been done better maybe, but the compelling story counts for a lot. Maybe that's good lesson for anyone planning a low-budget feature film. Trailer: https://www.lawrencethemovie.com/watch

I'm not a great fan of the turret on the H16. It was designed I suppose for fairly small lenses. Long lenses though may be heavy and strain the turret downward. Later models better maybe. And I don't like the fact that the rear elements can sometimes be exposed to dust etc and also preventing easy winding of the motor, because of the non-circular shape of the turret. However, it's useful for checking the gate between shots.

A typo or two above, sorry. The motorbike value isn't $340, should read $340,000 !

Lawrence After Arabia was made for only 162K dollars. I saw it recently at my local cinema, followed by questions to Mark Griffin the director.. I'd be interested what others think of this movie. As Mark points out, this would hardly have paid the catering bill in David Lean's production ! I won't go into the story here, which could contain spoilers if you aren't aware of it. Just to say it introduces an alternative theory that the stunning opening scene of LOA doesn't show. (Mind you... regrettably I never saw the director's cut of LOA.) But coming back to the tiny budget of LAR, I found it very interesting how this was made possible. The movie was shot mostly around my home-county Dorset UK. Locations were very carefully chosen, trying to be as authentic as possible. Clouds Hill, the actual house of T.E. Lawrence, was used for some exterior shots. This is normally open to the public, so the crew had to get the filming done in double-quick time before it opened. Also they used the actual church of Lawrence's funeral. However, the windows had been replaced in 1950s so aren't right, but if small things like this creep into a period movie does that ruin it ? if the story survives intact. Needless to say on this budget, the movie wasn't done on film unfortunately. However, I liked the general appearance, if a little disappointed by some of the rural scenes. And the green-screen. I thought the Clouds Hill interior was very good lighting and composition. And I have to say Derek Herbert's Winston Churchill is very convincing. Worth seeing for him alone. The scene on the airfield and in the hangar was well done. Again, it was interesting how an authentic period Brough Superior motorbike (costing 340 dollars !!!) was protected for the shooting. The road accident closeup was done with it sliding on a dolly I believe, and for the hangar 'after' scene we are not shown the damage thankfully due to the darkness. Just implied. It's a very long take as well, and apparently the traffic on the road outside meant they couldn't use the recorded dialogue. Another idea I found interesting: the film was produced in four one-week chunks, starting in October 2018 and ending in June the following year. So there was a long gap between the sessions. And each week lasted only 5 days. Some of the sets were done in a hotel, so there were plenty of food breaks ! Maybe the fairly relaxed atmosphere helped keep the budget in check. Having said that, I think another 20K or so would have improved the look of the film. And some cutting too would help, especially at the beginning. I was a bit put off at first seeing the poster with Tom Barber Duffy as T.E.Lawrence. But when I watched the movie he got into the part extraordinarily well, as well as playing his brother.

Yes agree. I don't think I've ever used the critical focus finder on a Bolex. It feels somewhat fiddly moving the lens over. On my H16M of course there's no option for this ?

If the bottom loop is too tight by say one frame, I would certainly adjust the position of film before closing the door. It may still be steady in the gate but anything could happen ?

Thanks Uli ! I think I'll use my H16M more now. Maybe sometimes it's quicker than a reflex Bolex, where you are taking some precious moments trying to get a sharp (dim) image in the viewfinder.

btw I meant the non-reflex H16 is "underrated". And although in general the Bolex models are not considered a pro camera compared with say the Arri, they were used alot in professional films, maybe because of their reliabilty. Auto threading superb, short-duration motor not so impressive.

The non-reflex H16's shouldn't be under-estimated. Assuming it isn't one of the really early models you have, it will deliver similar images as the reflex versions do, as well as giving a bit more light on the film. Again, assuming that it works as it should. And arguably better images than the K3. As regards whether you need reflex viewing for your project, if you're using wideangle lenses and standard focal-length lenses of say 25mm, you will be usually OK for focus and framing, with the side-mounted viewfinder. If you're concerned about focus you can always swing the taking lens over and check via the top focusing aid. Longer lenses similarly. Though maybe your project doesn't need them ? Wideangle lenses are effective for much handheld stuff, with loads of depth-of-field. You can of course do mods for ultra-16 (see my site below) and S16, but I certainly wouldn't recommend doing anything like this if you aren't familiar with what's involved. As Simon says, 3:4 is nice too, and perhaps attractive these days ? Or if you wanted some widescreen without too much effort, anamorphics may be an answer, though more focusing issues maybe.

It may be a good idea Simon... must be a lot of broken ones out there. However, I just managed to repair mine with Araldite. It seems OK for now, haven't tried to break it ?

It does sound strange this issue. If it's a speed fluctuation, you would presumably see the erratic behaviour of a length of film-leader through gate. Although I've no personal experience with the Scoopic, I am attracted to its body design, with the low centre of gravity and its short zoom lens.