Jump to content

Robert Lewis

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Robert Lewis

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    United Kingdom
  1. Hello Jackson. I would advise you to contact Bolex International in Switzerland. They offer servicing of Bolex cameras and whilst there is a cost associated with sending a camera to them, I can thoroughly recommend the quality of their work. As you can imagine, you can do no better than go to the manufacturers of the camera. You will find them very helpful and if you contact them by email or telephone, you will be able to explain to them the issue which is concerning you and I am sure they will advise you. Relatively recently I had my Bolex EBM serviced and in conjunction with that I had an auto exposure system installed which is excellent. In my view you can do no better than contact them. I hope this helps..
  2. My experience with 7222 is based on shooting film for projection which is what I tend to prefer being a fan of B & W. I have to admit I have no experience with film which has been scanned. That having been said, I mainly shoot in daylight. Whether I have used an external meter or built in meters as fitted in Arri SRIIs or Aaton LTR54s, both of which I use, I have always shot at 250ASA in daylight, and I have always been quite delighted with the results of my projection prints. So I stick with Kodak's recommendations metered appropriately. I do accept that scanning rather than projecting might require different settings though.
  3. I am sorry to say that you cannot use this lens on an EL camera. The lens is a C mount lens and the EL camera has a Bolex Bayonet mount. You cannot use a C mount to Bolex bayonet mount adaptor either, because the lens back plate will foul the dish shape of the adaptor. Apologies for the earlier non-sensical message!
  4. Wonderful news! I hope soon to hear that a 16mm stock is available. Black and White can be so beautiful.
  5. I am not sure that this statement is fair to Ferrania and those who are trying very hard to succeed in what must be a most difficult task. Just remember that when Kodak was abandoning those who wanted a colour reversible stock in all three gauges we needed (35mm, 16mm and Super8) those involved with the rebirth of Ferrania committed themselves to a task which has proven to be monumental. They committed themselves from the beginning to produce stock in all three of the gauges I have mentioned, whereas at this point in time Kodak have said little in the way of a firm committment to do the same. Furthermore, in terms of timescale, even Kodak are saying that they need time to reintroduce Super8 alone and it is clearly not a case of just going to the start switch and setting it to "on". Ferrania, on the other hand are having to reconstruct a process and a processing plant which had been abandoned many more years ago. I say nothing about quality, at this time, as there is no example of the finished product from either team, but I do wish both teams great success.
  6. Having read, read, and read again, the announcement by Kodak, there does not seem to be anything in it which refers to specific gauges, part from Super8, in respect of which it is simply said that Kodak intends to market and distribute it directly. This might well be related to their plans for the production of their new Super8 camera and the supply and processing of stock for use in it. The reference to Kodak Alura seems to be specific in that it refers only to still format stock "for photographers in 135-36x format". Of course, "words" can be an imperfect means of communication, but it would surely be something of a nonsense if Kodak is proposing to produce 35mm and Super8 movie film, but not 16mm. Indeed, there is no specific reference to 35mm film, and taking Phil's point, how much 35mm 100D was produced or used before 100D was discontinued? The article referred to by Emiel is, I have to say, slightly more concerning, in that it implies that it is intended to produce 100D only in 35mm and Super8 gauges, but the article does not actually contain a quote to that effect, and it might just be misguided. I do hope so. At this point, therefore, I am contenting myself with the thought that 16mm is a stock Kodak will be available once again for 16mm users. However, perhaps it would be timely to ask Kodak the question specifically. Does anybody have a contact at Kodak from whom clarification might be sought?
  7. My reaction to the content of the original posting is "Of course one is entitled to one's opinion, but that is all it is! ". Beyond that, what was said is valueless.
  8. Thanks Dom. I am just surprised that it has been said that Julian "has to focus at the correct stop- he's following a moving target.". This, of course is not so as I said earlier. As you say, a 25mm lens lens at f8 set to 10' will cover anything from about 6' to 25'. However, actually Julian said earlier that he is using a 16mm lens and so that lens set to f8 and 10ft will cover anything from about 4' to infinity, and it gets better. At f11, it will cover anything from about 3' 5" to infinity, and at f16 it will cover anything from about 2' 7" to infinity. So the upshot is that Julian not only doesn't have to focus more than once (provided he bears in mind the that the depth of field commences at 10ft in these examples), as long as he knows the depth of field which is yielded by whatever f number he has to use in order that he may use 50ASA film. If he uses faster stock, his depth of field increases and the iris setting might also, but so does the area within which his daughter can roam and still be in focus. There is, of course nothing to stop him focusing through the viewfinder by opening up the iris of the lens and then closing down before shooting, as previously advised, in the knowlege that having done so, as long as he is aware of the depth of field applicable to the iris setting and the focal distance he chooses, everything with the depth of field will be in focus.
  9. I agree entirely. The point is that Julian said he was focusing at f8, and not opening up the iris to focus. My point was that if he was opening up the iris he would have a brighter viewfinder. That is why I suggested he followed that procedure. The point I made about using faster film was in relation to increasing the depth of field and so perhaps reducing the frequency of refocusing as his children moved about whilst being filmed within an increased depth of field.
  10. It seems you have your view, and I have mine. The lower the f number the shorter is the depth of field. A faster film would allow the use of a higher f number which would in turn yield a greater depth of field. This would mean one had a greater range in focus if the required f number was higher and so within that greater range there would be less need to constantly re-focus. It works for me and very well too. I didn't use the term "stop down". I referred to opening up the lens when focusing. Furthermore, I used the term "maximum brightness when focusing" not "increased brightness". You seem to have forgotten that Julian appears to focusing at f8. Opening up the lens to maximum aperture when focusing would most certainly result in a brighter image in the viewfinder than would an image at f8. Finally, you say "He has to focus at the correct stop ...". It is that about which Julian is complaining and it isn't so.
  11. Gosh Julian! With the constraints under which you are working, I can see that you not making life easy for yourself. Quite apart from the fact that you are using a slow stock, I have the impression that you are trying to focus at the correct f stop. I think you would find it much easier if you were using 250D, say, because it would give you a higher f level and that would, in turn, probably allow you to get maximum light into the viewfinder if you were opening up the lens to focus. It would increase your depth of field too so helping you film young children who, I suspect, are moving around making focus more difficult. I have some experience with the Super 8 cameras with split image rangefinders, but frankly I find those much more difficult to focus than the Bolex SBM, and the points I make about the speed of the film you are using would apply just the same.
  12. Julian ... I have a difficulty in understanding why you are finding focusing your SBM such a problem. I have a Bolex SBM, and I do not experience any difficulty. Whilst you haven't said what lens or lenses you are using, I am wondering why you are trying to focus at f8. What one is advised to do when focusing is to open up the lens to it's maximum and then focus. That way you have maximum brightness through the viewfinder. Having focused, one should then close down the lens to the required exposure setting and all should then be well ... maximum brightness whilst focusing .... sharp focusing .... followed by correct exposure.
  13. Seth ... If you are referring to the standard metal black spools which Kodak and others use for 100ft rolls, these are a standard "daylight" spools which can be used on Bolex, Arriflex, and Aaton cameras, and very probably other cameras. They are quite different to those used on the Aaton a-Minima camera however, which was a special design for that camera and that camera alone, and cannot be used on other cameras. I have an Aaton LTR54 camera, and I can assure you that the standard black 100ft reels referred to above can be used in the LTR54 with no difficulty whatsoever. I mostly use those reels. The LTR54 is designed to take 400ft rolls of film which are wound on to cores as well as 100ft daylight spools, and as the manual says, to use the 100ft metal daylight reels you first have to remove the core centres by unscrewing the small screw. On withdrawing the mounting for cores you will find that the 100ft spools will fit on the shaft on which the core centre was mounted. Both sides of the magazine are the same in so far as the precedure described above is concerned. Regards.
×
×
  • Create New...