Simon Wyss

No hesitation, Sankyo 8-R. You have a critical focuser-framer that allows you to prepare a lens for a take. Paillard-Bolex D 8 does not have that. A D8L offers TTL light measuring. I prefer a sharp image over a perfectly exposed one, albeit I can use a handheld lightmeter or a cell phone with an app.

Dear Greg, a passage from your blog, Their company would later be shortened to Arri, and for the next 100 years Arri would be a dominant player in the film industry, seems a little far fetched to me. The truth is that Arnold & Richter were a small enterprise and not well known until 1952 when they began selling the ARRIFLEX 16. The ARRIFLEX, from then on coined ARRIFLEX 35, was sold perhaps 40 times up to the beginning of the war, I don’t know that precisely. Until February 1941 some 125 have been made. The Kine cameras of the 1930s were Askania, Bell & Howell, Debrie, Eclair, Mitchell, Vinten, Wall. Thousands of Debrie Parvo were in use when the ARRIFLEX appeared in 1937. ARRI printers are long forgotten (like others). An international player the company became with the 35 BL in the seventies. There have also been a KINARRI 16 and a KINARRI 9½. Only for completeness

We don’t know. One thing I know is that funghi are metal eaters, some plants pull in heavy metals favourably, for example tobacco. That’s why the leaves are smoked, addiction to metal oxides and stuff. Lens coatings are metal oxides. Canada balsam is still in use, I have a bottle of. According to wishes I cement lenses with it or with an ultraviolet curing plastic. Both have their advantages and setbacks. The spores that can grow out are already in the fir resin when it’s collected in the forest.

This but to have that done by a person in the know.

Fungus, at least on the front surface of the double prism. The round spots you may want to try to remove. Clean the glass on both sides with cotton swabs moistened with alcohol, you can rub lightly first, a second time, new damp swab, a bit stronger. The coating holds well on the glass. Finally breathe on the glass, then polish with a dry swab. If the dots stay, try acetone. After that the double prism needs to be replaced.

Simple check: pull on the mounted lens and feel any longitudinal play. If snug, leave everything alone. If wiggly, give camera to service together with the lens.

Film perforated on both sides doesn’t pose a problem with any 16-mm. camera. I have the impression that your camera needs some cleaning. Possibly it’s more than 70 years old, if an early DR. A service would bring it back to a like-new state. While at it a technician can measure flange depth and speeds, clean the critical finder, the turret finder, the mechanism including the release button and its bore. The money spent on servicing is not lost, it will be conserved as impeccable functioning, perhaps with a warranty.

A piece of black velvet can always be glued on a pressure plate.

It is a colloidal silver layer in gelatine. Colloidal silver is black.

Do feel free to ask me questions, if you deem the subject interesting enough for everybody. Maybe you want to find the way back to the original concept of the (Paillard-Bolex) 16-mm. turret movie camera. The Victor model 3 was first to afford that, some months before the Bell & Howell Filmo 70. The idea is to have ready a normal focal length lense, a wide angle, and a tele. The most used lengths are one inch, about ⅝ in. or 15 or 16 mm, and three inches. Two inches are also nice. The important aspect besides all optical finesses is compactness. Three C-mount primes are often lighter in weight than a zoom lens. If your model is from 1953, it has the early steel claw and a 190 degrees shutter opening angle. It may shake a little because the claw drive and the shutter aren’t counterbalanced.

Yea, there are a few things that are better made than with the Krasnogorsk. My principal concern about a K. is the rather insecure hook-up of the drive spring to the arbor. Maybe some series were okay but in the K. 2 I had to look into I had found this: The Bolex finder mask can easily be rotated with a large enough screwdriver after having removed the finder funnel cover, just while observing the position through the ocular.

Why did you pick a Bolex?

Let me take you around the rock to have a different look at it. Instead of investing in a RX-1 that affords a narrow finder view on a small round base you might want to find a different model which opens optical freedoms a RX model doesn’t, or a younger RX which at least gives a wider finder view on a large base. With different model I mean a Standard one, H 16 S on the name plate from serial number 203551 on. A Standard H incorporates the rackover focusing and framing system that goes back to the Bell & Howell Standard Camera, model 2709. You have 100 percent of the light coming from a lens on the frosted front of a glass prism behind the upper lens port. Through a magnifying loupe you see the image on the prism. The reflex finder gives you 25 percent of the incoming light at best. The first Standard with that critical finder system bears the number 7531. Older Standard H models up to serial number 100,400 have 190 degrees shutter opening, later 170. Together with the wider shutter angle you have a deeply engaging claw made from steel plus lateral film guidance according to the norm (today ISO 466). H 16 S since 1963 have a bigger rectangular body base with three tapped bores for fixation. But what counts most is that the Standard models have nothing between the lens and the film but air (and the shutter). You can use almost any optics there are, be it a C-mount one, be it a LEICA lens via the original Leitz adapter or something else. For framing you employ a side finder attached to the camera lid. If a zoom lens, I’d search for a modern one. There are very compact ones, not that long and wieldy. TV lenses can be so-so, some are excellent. A third approach could be to purchase a bayonet model, SB/SBM/EL, and a Vario-Switar 12,5 to 100 (Aspheron or not). This is a sturdy and optically satisfying equipment. It all depends on which direction you’re taking in cinematography.

It does, with my brain and soul. Where does this obsessive wish come from to have large lenses on a camera that was made for smaller, more compact, more lightweight, and optically perfectly fit ones? I don’t get it. C-mount optics are good enough, actually better, can be had for little money and look exactly right. Also the choice is wide. It’s vast.

Over the years you accumulate data, knowledge. It can get complicated sometimes but also interesting: https://forum.mflenses.com/wollensak-cine-raptar-1-inch-f-1-5-what-is-it-t82922.html We haven’t spoken of many other manufactureres, yet. Berthiot, Leitz, Optikotechna/Meopta, Ernitec, Boyer, Sun, Laack, Nikon, Meyer, Zeika, Canon, Ling, DJS, Veydra, Ichizuka, Soligor, Walz, Kowa, Anstron, Fuji, Unitel, Cinetor, Tewe, Astro, Rüo, Enna, Krauss, Wray, Ross, Voigtländer, Busch. The Kern-Paillard Compact Vario was a licenced Pan-Cinor Berthiot.

YVAR was the economy class, basically triplets. Stereo-Yvar: two triplets. Macro-Yvar are dialytic four glass. The Yvar 75-2.5 is a classic Cooke triplet but the 75-2.8 has a thick center negative unlike everything known until its appearance. Similar the 36-2.8 for 8-mm. film. PIZAR form the middle segment, five-glass normal or mild telephoto or less opened wide angle lenses. SWITAR is the premium line. Still, the six-elements normal was made without depth-of-field indicator and branded PIZAR 25-1.5. Then the 50 mm Switar, f/1.4. 75 mm, f/1.9. The 5,5 mm wide angle consists of five cemented doublets, Switar or Pizar identical glass, just different apertures. Bigger sister 10-1.6. Entirely new designs were the Switar and Macro-Switar for the Paillard-Bolex H-8 Reflex. VARIO-SWITAR. These had begun with 16 elements. The 12,5‒100, f/2 has 19 elements.

I think we’ve had such discussions here but I’ll try once again. A single glass is not used in 16-mm. cinematography. Two-elements lenses can perhaps be found with cheapo products from China. Then come the many triplets. The still larger group of constructions has four elements and some of them have become world famous—Josef Petzval’s design, Goerz Celor and its derivatives, Zeiss Tessar, the Perlynx of Hermagis or the Ernostar. The Petzval was taken up again and again, you’ll find it for example with Kodak taking and projection lenses in the sixties. From the Celor comes the f/1.9 Kodak anastigmat as employed for Kodacolor (1929). The Tessar pops up on a Kinarri for instance or with Bausch & Lomb for the Animar f/2.7. The Animar 26 mm, f/1.9 is a Petzval lens. A Perlynx is a triplet with an additional positive rear glass which gives better image flatness and more even illumination till the corners. The Ernostar returns as Eumigar on the Eumig C 16. The Kern-Paillard 25 mm, f/1.8 is an Ernostar. It is not possible to correct a triplet for the entire spectrum. Some longitudinal chromatic aberration must be left in them but the designers choose it to be on the short wavelengths end, so by using a yellow(ish) filter black-and-white films don’t record it. Four-glass lenses can be fully corrected for the majority of optical aberrations. Sufficient image quality at relative apertures up to f/1.9 is generally given. Although an f/0.99 aperture would actually call for at least seven elements Dallmeyer made a four-glass lens of that speed. Naturally at open hole the image degrades towards the borders. The most intense use can be seen with the six-glass formulae. Initially there was the symmetric Planar by Zeiss, a so-called double-Gauss arrangement of f/5.6. Taylor, Taylor & Hobson changed that to the asymmetric Opic in 1920 from which various Xenon have been deducted. Along this line we have the Quinon by Steinheil, the Heligon by Rodenstock, Zeiss Biotar alias Wollensak Raptar, Kern-Paillard Switar, Angénieux S 41, and many more, all at around f/1.5, f/1.4. None of them is perfectly depicting. Only the Apochromat of Kinoptik, f/2.0, has no fringing or soft edges. Tevidon from the former GDR are also top-notch glass. From Rochester have come some interesting lenses. While Kodak bought the f/1.4 Cine Ektar II from Schneider, Elgeet indeed made the f/1.2 Golden Navitar wide-angle (1955). ILEX’ Cine Paragon 25 mm and 50 mm, f/2, are Tessar types, should be fascinating. Among long focal lengths a Century is always present. From Gundlach a number of Radar Ultrastigmat are known but hardly seen. These are variations of the first Radar anastigmat, f/4.5 from 1916. Graf, South Bend, made a small range of lenses also for the 16-mm. format. Always remember that a clean and correctly adjusted triplet gives more satisfying pictures than a dirty or misaligned heavy system. They’re cheaper, too.

I’m bewildered. Doesn’t that stand for Electronic News Gathering?

Everything’s fine except the tripod. Movie cameras don’t belong on still photo camera tripods. If it’s still possible to have a supply come in, a Bolex accessory CADIL will be very helpful. Just take care to not scratch the film rails by moving it around when seated. CADIL, not your friend.

It is and will remain an amateur camera. The mainspring is at least 44 years old. The use value of an H camera is 400 Swiss Francs maximum. The reflex finder system is awful. You don’t mention any warranty for that converted camera, nor that its lubricants should be expected to have dried up over the years. Never had film in it is a non-argument because it’s a film camera. To run fresh stock and to observe the functioning, to listen to that, forms a technician’s first investigation. Lenses are different. As long as the glass is intact a lens pertains its value which drops to half the original sale price second-hand. But then a good service gives you everything back.

I find it surprising that there’s halo with Kodak 5222 and 7222. The stock has a dyed base which should suppress excess light enough on its travel two times through it. With the filmouts you have a light point intensity that never exists behind a lens or a negative on a printer.

I’d welcome colour stocks without soot gelatine back layer. Of course will Kodak include an opaque subbing that gets discoloured at processing. At last. Black-and-white films either have a dyed base or a subbing, Fomapan Reversal, ORWO PF 2 version 3.

Why have you made a shutter from stainless steel?

Short pitch perforation is still in use with negative stocks. Reversal stocks are perforated full pitch because they’re not intended for printing. The difference is two per mill.

Are you rather interested in the technical properties of ciné lenses than in the pictorial character they offer? Do you want to learn about triplets, four-glass lenses, five, six elements systems? Seven? Nineteen? Transmission of the sunlight spectrum? Resolving power? What are you planning to expose, colour negative or colour reversal stock? Black and white films? Do you project? Will there only be binary data? Is your eyesight so good that you can focus precisely? Just want to get an idea of the person who’s asking.