Doug Palmer

That's a great solution, but how can you be sure the owner will do the test properly. Only the flicker might show, if any. I would think only some sort of guarantee ?

The electric models are not very noisy when well maintained, and are very compact, certainly when using prime lenses. Small base can have a sturdy flat base added. The image stability is usually good. On two cameras I had, there was a very small focusing discrepancy, ie the sharp viewfinder-image did not tally with the image on the film. I don't know if this is a common fault or not. Whatever camera you eventually decide on, suggest a good service. All are antiques !

I don't know if you considered the Beaulieu. Not as well engineered as Bolex and maybe not quite as compact as Canon Scoopic. Interchangeable lens though, and good exposure control. Very nice power zoom, much better than the one fitted to the Bolex POE lens. Viewfinder much brighter. Lots of filming speeds. Downside: film loading takes longer.

Yes, I wasn't aware of this, thanks Dom for the photo. Maybe then that's why the electric Bolex's tend to be quieter-running, with fewer cogs ? I used a POE Kern 16-100 for a while, and found the auto exposure accurate. I think I used the recommended old-style battery, but I can't see any reason why smaller batteries with spacing wouldn't work. I found it a very sharp lens too. Just a bit too bulky. But the auto exposure was very convenient at times.

I am surprised these days why blanks need to be used at all. Surely plastic fake bullets can be shown being loaded if necessary, and the actual firing can be done either using some kind of lighting/smoke effect or created later in post. Or both. The recoil effect if needed, would obviously be acted by the 'gunman'.

It's amazing isn't it, that these Bolex's still work at all after so many years. I had one once with a feed spool that wouldn't take up in backwind mode, and happily carried on using it, but take-up spool is rather more serious ?

This is a problem we all have at times, me included. I don't think, Jared, the previous user "idiot" tightened it on purpose ! Somehow these rings seem to tighten themselves. I haven't tried Robert's canned-air trick though sounds a good one. Whatever method is taken, I suggest covering the lens element with some protective tissues and perhaps some stiff card. It's all too easy I've found, to slip when using pliers or whatever.

I hadn't till now realised this appears a common problem and Bolex didn't think it out properly. There is indeed quite a strain on the cover-plate, and I would think metal may be necessary to repair yours, perhaps using small bolts. My one is luckily broken in the middle and can be easily taped over.

OMG that price just for a small piece of bakelite or whatever it's made of. I was also thinking of replacing my broken one, think I'll carry on with the gaffer tape ? Or maybe it's possible to knock up one simply out of metal...

I hadn't read it properly... the Resolve stabilisation. Would be interesting yes to see how it looked before.

Haven't been to Camden for many years... looks great, and seeing all the cyclists. If you say unsteady, which I can't see btw being handheld, maybe it's a small adjustment needed to the pressure-plate tension. Nice exposure, UK afternoons getting shorter now...?

I rather like that staccato look at times, but yes, panning does look jerky. Unless combining with slomo. But for fairly static scenes you don't notice any difference.

Maybe 40 too fast, though perhaps 36 would pass for certain actions, then that's another half-stop out of the way !

Another thing you've probably thought already, half-close the variable shutter to reduce one stop. Also... don't know if you are thinking of shooting closeups of non-actors, but I have found that giving them a bit of slowmotion, say 32 to 40 fps often helps.

I wouldn't have thought much of a problem with dust, unless it's a dusty environment. Any specks way out of focus and likely invisible at the gate. No problem of course with bayonet models where the filter is enclosed on withdrawal, unless you then forget to insert ? Unfortunately, even with filters over the lens there's going to be difficulty focusing through the dark viewfinder of the Bolex. Maybe though with a matte box it'll be quicker to take off the filter briefly.

They look right, but a lot of money ! Maybe you can find cheap s/h filters, also made in 2x2 size. They tend to keep well for many years. The template Brian mentions is not really necessary btw.

When Imax started in the 1960s, film emulsions were nothing like they are today. Projection light output not as good either. So it made a lot of sense to create a very big film format. Maybe something could be done today using a new Vistavision projector, and utilising the full Imax width screen. Keeping the film-grain tight as possible with slow emulsion. After all, 35 is (supposedly) much more available than 70. So you'd end up with a slightly different aspect ratio with a non-digital film appearance. Cameras much more user friendly. I don't know if it would be feasible to put registration pins in the projector. Obviously everything would need to look rock steady. Ellston Bay was a short made in Vistavision in 2018, then shown in London Imax. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it. Maybe someone here ? Don't know if 15/70 or digital. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5852116/

It's very sad indeed if as Tyler says, 15/70 projection is now dead. A 54 year lifespan isn't bad, though I'm sure many devotees like myself would still support the cost of providing those mammoth rolls of film. I think Simon mentioned: unlike 35mm there haven't been any monochrome Imax's during this time. I wonder why. It would be great to see something like Ansel Adams-type footage of Yosemite and so on, not to mention the many creative possibilities of chemical black and white film projected on to that vast screen. Maybe indies should take over...

Another thing that separates 15/70 Imax from all other formats (including digital Imax).... the extreme height. In fact, depending on your seat it's sometimes not possible to see part of the base of the frame. Perfect for accentuating high places or creating vertigo ? And it's sometimes disappointing I find, when Nolan changes abruptly to normal 70mm height. We shouldn't forget that 15/70 Imax has been a highly successful format worldwide, since its creation way back in 1967. Cameras and projection ingeniously designed.

Hi Jake, maybe attach a small video camera to the side of the K3 at the same level as the lens. I did this with my Bolex and it works well, viewing the image on the monitor. Not perfect for avoiding parallax but pretty accurate when using wide lenses.

Apart from tracking and craning shots, there's very little camera movement. At least in the Imax films I've seen. The action is allowed to take place in a more leisurely fashion, similar to the old Cinerama, with more screentime needed to take it all in. And I've noticed often the main subject with say a person in mid closeup, happens in the lower central part of the frame, where your eyes are naturally placed. Haven't seen TV Imax, but would think it would'nt work too well.

Have you tried comparing a short length of your DS8 film with another piece of super-8 film that you know is alright, over a lightbox ? Then you'd see straightaway if there's any shrinkage or uneven splitting involved. If shrunk, very often another projector may play it OK. But as I think aapo said earlier, it's probably not a good idea to project it.... or perhaps with a decent hand-viewer. Hopefully a scan should be steady.

The Beeb used 16mm Ilford FP3 quite a lot. Not sure when it started. I still have some when they were clearing it out, and it produces images after all this time, with a loss in speed and some fogging.

Gosh ! Maybe... my Steenbeck was completely yellow when I bought it, including the lenses. It smelt a lot too.

Thanks Olaf... I won't be buying it though I'm sure somebody here will. They are great lenses. I think my 3.5mm version could be older than yours, as it only covers the regular 16 frame, maybe ultra-16 at a pinch with some vignetting. It feels funny each time looking for the focusing ring that doesn't exist ? Also my lens is naturally difficult to shade from the sun, and tends to lack contrast even in overcast conditions. Though for much of my projects I don't mind this.