Robert Lewis

I would like to get a Lens Aperture Control Ring which was fitted to new Arriflex SR cameras supplied with the Arriflex bayonet mount. The ring was often removed from cameras because it could get in the way of larger zoom lenses, and/or because it was incompatible with the PL mount when cameras originally supplied with bayonet mounts were retro-fitted with PL mounts. The ring originally fitted to the camera I have has been removed at sometime, and I would like to fit a replacement. I am wondering if anybody has a surplus one they would be willing to sell. I attach a picture of the what it is I am looking for. Please contact me if you can help. Thanks in anticipation.

Apologies: Above posted in error.

I would like to get a Lens Aperture Control Ring which was fitted to new Arriflex SR cameras supplied with the Arriflex bayonet mount. The ring was often removed from cameras because it could get in the way of larger zoom lenses, and/or because it was incompatible with the PL mount when cameras originally supplied with bayonet mounts were retro-fitted with PL mounts. The ring originally fitted to the camera I have has been removed at sometime, and I would like to fit a replacement. I am wondering if anybody has a surplus one they would be willing to sell. I attach a picture of the what it is I am looking for. Please contact me if you can help. Thanks in anticipation.

I would like to get a Lens Exposure Control Driver which was fitted to new Arriflex SR cameras. It was often removed from cameras because it could get in the way of larger zoom lenses, and it was removed from the camera I have. I would like to fit a replacement and I am wondering if anybody has a surplus one they would be willing to sell. I attach a picture of the what it is I am looking for. Please contact me if you can help.

Thank you very much for your advice, Lars. Yes it would be a "one-way" move, in that I have the chance of getting a Zeiss 10-100 lens for my Arriflex SRII camera, but it did appear to me that the lens installed in the blimp might not fit on to the the camera mount. It looks like the blimp requires more space around the camera mounting than a normal bayonet mount lens requires, but I could be wrong about that. That is why I wanted to know whether, if that is the case, I could get over the problem by removing the blimp. I appreciate your advice, and I will think it over some more. I am slightly uncomfortable about departing from original condition with such things. Regards.

Can anybody advise please? I am wondering if a Zeiss 10-100mm zoom lens fitted in an Arri BL blimp can be used on an Arriflex SR camera fitted with an Arri Bayonet mount? The lens fitted with the BL blimp appears to have an Arri Bayonet fitted, but I am not sure whether the lens in the blimp will mount on to the SR camera, or whether the blimp has to be removed (assuming it is possible to do that without difficulty). In this regard, is removing the blimp difficult? Advice would be greatly appreciated.

Phillip...what you are getting when you take a reading with no film loaded sounds right. You should find that when you take a reading with film loaded, it should be nearer to what you are getting when you take a reading with your Sekonic. That having been said, however, remember that the Aaton meter will be giving you a reading which is, in effect, an average reading reflecting the light bouncing back from the film which originates from the picture you are taking as seen through the camera lens. Your Sekonic will be giving you a reading which will either be a spot reading or an averaged reading, depending on how you use the meter. The reading provided by the camera and your Sekonic are therefore unlikely to be the same, but in my experience the camera meter is generally pretty close to what is appropriate, and I find I need to use my Sekonic only in particular circumstances when lighting conditions call for more precise readings.

As has been said, the meter built in to the LTR reads the light value reflected from the film during the entire exposure time. Therefore accurate readings are taken when there is film in the camera and the lens cap has been removed and the camera is in normal use. The system will take into account the actual fps setting you have entered . You can, of course, also take a reading using the "test facility", but when this is done, the exposure reading will be adjusted that for the crystal speed you have the camera set on, and so if you are using a variable speed setting you will find that the reading needs to be adjusted to reflect this. So, comparing readings obtained with the camera's exposure metering system and an incident or spot metering will not be straightforward when using the "test" facility on the camera unless you happen to be using a crystal speed. All of this having been said, I have found the metering system on my LTR54 to be pretty accurate when used having regard to the points mentioned above. I hope that this is helpful.

It was a delight to talk with Roger, and I am saddened by this news. Although somewhat belatedly, my condolences go to his family.

I am thinking about purchasing a Kinokone (Finland) K-ASCU Crystal Speed Control Unit for an Arriflex SRII camera. It does look to be an impressive piece of equipment, but I am wondering if anybody has any personal knowledge of the product to help me decide. I have searched on the Unit, but there is very little about it coming up.

It was intended to be a gentle "take us back to the topic" message, and I hope you were not offended. Actually, the topic is most interesting. I have just got some ORWO UN54 and am intending to use some in my Aaton LTR54. However, having come across this topic, I am following it carefully before doing so. I am wondering whether there is any significant difference between the Aaton XTR and LTR54 models which would impact on the issue which has been raised - whether one camera is more able to cope than the other.....? I know that on some cameras it is possible to adjust the pitch, but I believe it is not possible to do this on either the XTR or the LTR54. It does seem a little strange, however, that apparently one camera will take the stock without any problem, but another will not. I am wondering whether it could be that servicing of the camera has anything to do with it. On first receiving the UN54, I tried it in a Bolex SBM, and there was no problem with it at all. Having had the film processed I have to say that it is a very nice stock indeed!

How does this relate to either Aaton or Orwo?

Following on from this topic and the petition which was organised in an attempt to persuade Delux Soho to reconsider their decision to close down their 16mm print facility in London, I picked up a posting on another board and I hope the poster will not mind if I quote his posting: I got to speak with John at i-dailies about the position in relation to 16mm printing. He explained to me that they had a printer for 35mm film and were able to produce 35mm prints, and they had recently commenced Super8 processing, but that they were not presently equiped to provide 16mm prints. They are able to process 16mm negative film, but not print it. He informed me that that having been said, i-dailies were considering investing in a 16mm printer and were aware that there is demand for 16mm printing in the UK but they did not know the extent of the demand. He said that he had been surprised at the number of enquiries he had received in this regard but he needed to try to assess the level and strength of demand. I suggested that I post this message explaining the position and asking those who need this service in the UK to contact him via the web site referred to above so that he can get the best information as to demand for 16mm printing. So.....here is an opportunity to all those who need 16mm printing in the UK to help a company which is seriously considering providing once again a service in the UK which many of us have in the past said we need. In helping i-dailies in this way, we would be helping ourselves and hopefully convince John that the demand justifies the investment his Company is contemplating. We have somebody who is listening....

I do wonder whether the actions of the studios might arguably give rise to issues which are covered by "anti trust" provisions. Cinemas do not appear to be converting to digital projection because they wish to...it seems to be because they will be out of business if they do not.

The format used for filming is important of course, but it is not the be or end all of things. The way in which a film is projected is important too. Many cinemas in the UK, when cinemascope was introduced, had full cinemascope format screens installed. Those were the ones which had a fixed top masking and side masking which was opened to facilitate the projection of films produced in cinemascope. In those cinemas the positive attributes of the format were obvious. However, in many cinemas, there were constraints on the installation of cinemascope screens and so films shot in cinemascope format were shown in format, but on screens on which only the top masking was adjustable. In these cinemas the screen had only top masking which was variable and films shot in cinemascope appeared to be only half the height (and therefore size) of the 4:3 format films. In short there was no benefit in the visual appearance of films shot in cinemascope, but rather substantial disbenefit. Some cinemas had screens with limited variation of the side masking and variable top masking, and so there was some benefit, but not full benefit to be seen when watching a film shot in cinemascope. I believe, therefore, that the original format of a film is therefore only part of the story. The way in which it is projected is also important. I think the two images shown in the opening posting well illustrates this point. All this having been said, I have to say that I do not have a problem in watching a film shot in any particular format. I think it is not the format which makes a film, but the way in which all the qualities of a good film are brought together. The format in which it is shot is but one of these rather than a matter of fashion.

Christopher, I have two Bolex cameras fitted with the second series POE lenses, and have very recently had them serviced by Bolex, so I think I can say that they are set up correctly. In relation to both lenses, having set the diaphram to its widest setting (using the pre-selection system to the first stage position on the button) I zoom in to whatever it is in the distance that is to feature in my picture and then focus on it. If, say it is to be a building, I zoom in fully on the building and focus. Then if I wish to have a wider angle shot of what it is I focussed on, I zoom out until I have the composition as want it. As I zoom out every thing remains in focus until I reach wide open (subject to depth of field considerations). After processing, I have a projection print made and on projecting I find that the focus is just right. I think I can therefore say that the manual for the lens is correct in what it says. Of course, if you are using the lens on auto setting, as the light value changes as you use the zoom, so the depth of field might well change because the auto diaphram changes. Because, however, focussing was done with the diaphram wide open, any change in the diaphram setting done automatically will only lengthen the depth of field and not reduce it. Apologies for going into such detail, but it just occurred to me that you might not be focussing correctly in the first place. I think that if you focussed initially with the diaphram open at other than its widest, you could be suffering from the depth of field changes as you zoom which, in turn could impact on focussing. If I am going into detail which you already know, please excuse me.

This is the Mark I POE lens by the sounds of it. The highest ASA setting it could take was, as you say, 200ASA. The Mark II version of the lens could be set to 400ASA. So, if you wish to use the auto-exposure function of the lens you can't really use manual exposure settings unless you are shooting a picture which has a steady light reading because the auto exposure will contually vary the exposure as the light reading changes. You can't do that in any event unless you have an exposure meter and unless you know how to take into account the Bolex prism factor which one has to have regard to when using a conventional exposure meter. A Bolex exposure meter takes the prism factor into account, and so if you had one of those you could lock the exposure control on the lens and use manual settings. To use the lens you have on auto setting, you need to reduce the light going through to the film by 1/3 of a stop. You could use a 1/3 of a stop filter behind the lens. The lens will, on its 200ASA setting, allow 1/3 of a stop over exposure. So you use your POE lens on 200ASA setting and use a 1/3 of a stop filter behind the lens. That will then reduce the light going through to the film by 1/3 of a stop. That having been said, however, having used EK 7222 film myself, I am not so sure that 1/3 of a stop over-exposure would be significant. I hope this is helpful.

I quite agree on both of these points. The London Team have always demonstrated a most welcome level of friendliness and support whenever I have been in contact with them. One wonders whether even now Fuji might be willing to consider maintaining a rationalised range, accompanied by increased prices if necessary. Only this week, I ordered and received a modest supply of 16mm film, and responded to the email informing me when it was to be delivered with a message asking them to feed back to Fuji headquarters that many of us want to be able to continue to buy Fuji film. Is there nothing we can do to demonstrate that we want them to continue, with a rationalised product range if necessary?

Taking what is said here at face value, and I suspect we are all hoping it simply isn't true, it means that Fuji are ending production of all film stocks which are of use to cinematographers. So in relation to film stocks it would have been simpler to have said all production is to end except for archival film. It is quite amazing that there has been no formal announcement from Fuji, either in relation to the ending of film stock production or to any increase in prices. They must know that something is out, and silence does seem to lend weight to what is out. Since they appear to be going to continue producing archival film, one might have hoped that a rationalisation of stocks might have been considered, perhaps accompanied by increased prices, but what information is apparently finding its way out seems to rule out that sort of approach to their difficulties whatever they might be. Also, one wonders what the problem is: is it a severe reduction in demand, or are they dealing with losses, or both. Whatever the problem is, the available information does seem to suggest that the Company is not able to attempt to keep things going by a combination of rationalisation and increased prices. But if the situation is so dire, why are they allowing the problem, whatever it is, to continue until March 2013. No doubt time will tell...

I think Roger Sharman has moved back to the UK and is now living in Cheltenham.

I have used Fuji filmstock for quite some time now, and I think Fuji's initiative in introducing "Complete 16" and developing it in the way they have is to be commended. However, not all of us wish to finish up with a digitised version of the imagery we have shot on 16mm film. It would be great if Fuji would therefore develop a spin off which involves shooting 16mm film and getting a film print. They could call the further initiative "Complete Complete 16".

This also, once again, neatly highlights the inherent weakness which those involved with digital imagery never wish to acknowledge.

Indeed!

Yes, I do think one should form one's own view. I did. :)

I am sure you are, that is why I have expressed mine. :)