Robert Lewis

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..

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.

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!

There are two points I make: (1)

Wonderful news! I hope soon to hear that a 16mm stock is available. Black and White can be so beautiful.

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.

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?

Simply wonderful news!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, do be very careful Peter. This issue has been covered before. Some of the old Schneider lenses were made when older Arriflex cameras were in production, and they cannot be used with the SRI camera. There is a difference in the design of the mount on the older lenses and the mount on the newer ones and you might well notice this difference if you compare the mounts on your Zeiss 10-100 with the mount on your Schneider lens. The mirror will clear the mount on the Zeiss, but not the one on your Scheider. There is the possibility that if you start the camera with the Schneider in the mount, the mirror will be smashed. To make matters more difficult, some Schneider lenses will safely fit, and if you compare the two types, you will see that the diffference is in the shape of the "shoulder" of the mounts.

I continue to think about getting an Aaton A-Minima camera, and see that some of the cameras are fitted with the camera start button in blue whilst others have the button in red. I am wondering whether there is any significance in the colour. Was the blue button fitted to early cameras and red to late ones, for example, or were there specification differences? Any information would be appreciated.

I am often left wondering what the word "Professional" is intended to mean when it is used in a thread such as this one. So that having been said, I feel that it would be quite appropriate in these times when film labs are getting more and more difficult to find, especially those which offer a print service, to mention a new processing lab which opened up in London in 2015. "Film in Process" is a small artist run business providing a 16mm B&W processing and printing service. It has been set up by Bea Haut and Karel Doing, and the project is located at the University of East London, within the Fine Art Department’s 16mm facility. "Film in Process" aims to keep black and white 16mm film as an affordable medium for artists and students in London and the UK. Bea and Karel are working closely together with Close-Up, and one can drop of and pick up films in their café and library. One can Subscribe to their mailing list by sending an email to filminprocess@gmail.com. "Film in Process have a web page at www.filminprocess.com which contains more information for those interested. My understanding is that Bea and Karel were associated with the processing service offered by "no.w.here" in East London, which discontinued the service they offered early in 2015. I am sure they would welcome any support they can get.

Dirk ... Do you think it is possible that the environment in which the rewinding is done might explain the fact that others are saying the creation of static flashing needs to be avoided? I should imagine that the vast amount of film rewinding you refer to is done in laboratory conditions. Is the risk increased if the rewinding is done at home where there might be carpeted floors, say? Or perhaps the shoes one is wearing makes a difference. My only experience of static is the occasional spark one gets when removing an item of clothing. Certainly there have been flashes flying around on those occasions.

Hmmmm! I thought I had not imagined the risk of static electricity when rewinding film. There is presently a topic running on rewinding film, and in it there is a number of references to the risk of static electricity "flashing film" when rewinding film too fast in dry conditions. I have never rewound unexposed film and so I have no personal experience of it, but it would be interesting to have some feed back on the point since it is relevant to the Aaton spools issue.

I think guiding the film between thumb and forefinger and "twisting the feed" whilst self spooling is easy enough, but I think one would have to be careful about creating static electricity. I am not sure how one might avoid it, but I do believe that it could cause problems if it couldn't be avoided.

Hi Pavan. I think that emulsion out is is necessary because Aaton could not find a way of reversing the film to get it to the gate with the emulsion facing the lens. For example, whilst the Arriflex and big brother Aaton cameras use B wind film (emulsion in) as the film passes through the magazine to the gate in the main part of the camera, the face is reversed as it has to be in order to have the emulsion side facing the lens. One doesn't notice this reversing of the film on its way from the feed side of the magazine and from the gate to the take-up side of the magazine, but it is there. If one looks at the path the film takes in the Aaton A Minima, these reverses simply cannot be achieved, and so because the emulsion side the stock has to go through the gate facing the lens, and there is no way of reversing it, it has to start and end its journey with the emulsion facing out. By the way, do you have an Aaton A Minima? Regards, Robert.

I was puzzled too by the fact that I could not see in photographs how the feed and take up spools were driven. There appeared to be no drive system as one finds in, say, Arriflex cameras or larger Aaton cameras. Then, after an earlier contribution by Dirk, it became clear. In the front part of the camera, there are the feed and take-up sprocket rollers (the rollers which include the sprockets). On each of the four rims of those rollers, there is, I believe, a" tyre". When the loaded magazine is pushed forward to the front part of the camera, as part of the loading procedure, the spool flanges "mate" with the tyres referred to above and slightly force open the flanges at the points at which the film passes from and to the magazine and the friction so created drives the the spools. Because the speed of the sprocket rollers is always synchronised with the speed at which the film is required to be delivered and collected from the rollers, the whole system works perfectly. Very clever and very simple I think.

Dirk ... I understand the drive system now. It is clear that the centres on which the spools and cores fit are not driven. They are free running. The drive is provided by the edges of the spools themselves engaging with the feed and takeup spockets when the magazine is inserted fully into the camera. So it is for this reason that the camera cannot work if there are no flanges. No spools no drive! It is as simple as that. There is a very simple description in the operator manual, in the magazine section, but it is so easy to miss the significance of it. Many thanks. Kalle ... Thank you for your words of comfort.

I was aware that the traditioonal metal spools couldn't possibly work, whether they are 100ft or 200ft. They have the square centre holes to engage in the square drive. However, I had no idea that the Minima spools were not driven from the centre, but from the edge. So, thank you Dirk for that information. It would appear that there is no alternative to trying to obtain a supply of the original spools and cores. I had looked at every piece of information I could find on the web, and saw nothing to suggest that they were driven from the edge. Since I had not managed to inspect a camera, it never occurred to me that that was the case. It does seem most unfortunate that the future of these cameras is left to the possibility that labs might have some they would make available which may, or may not, be the case for any length of time, with some many labs having closed down. In all honesty, I rather feel that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs, especially since Kodak appear to have patented the spool and and may not allow others to produce it.