Robert Hart

The second one is to a 16mm film camera lens and near-to 16mm sized sensor so optically it was probably a better match. The anamorphic lens was in a closer couple with the prime lens as it was handheld in place than with the remachined B and H lens adaptor wich adds about 5mm separation. I may examine making a sleeve mount which will enable a closer couple to the camera lens. this will also enable a more convenient orientation adustment. The Proskar anamorphic lens was designed for 50mm focal length projection lenses for 16mm so may have been a better match for the 16mm format. . As for the cat, there were stray cats hanging around at the time so she was in a state of high tension. She was dangerous to be near when so stressed because she would freak out at the slightest movement nearby and rip into the nearest thing in sight which might be the foot or the leg if it was close handy.

Here is another clip with the Ishico lens to the sensor on a SI2K video camera which is very slightly smaller than a Super16mm film frame. You will observe slight corner vignettes which are not apparent when viewing through a standard 16mm film camera viewfinder.

2x from a Ishico Proskar anamorphic projection lens with the original B and H lens projector adaptor remachined to 52mm 0.7mm filter thread is doable to some Nikon stills lenses or CP Ultra T* 25mm in standard 16mm - just. You have to remove one of the end stop screws in the Ishico lens to achieve infinity focus as they were set up for limited distance projection throws. The clarity is not anything to write home about. This clip was shot on a 4.6K camera with a Nikon lens. For 16mm film you want the image to be the sharpest and clearest it can possibly be. Homebrew solutions like projection lenses most likely will not work unless you desire a distinctly distressed look.

From vague memory, you would need at least 16mm of workspace between the film plane and the rear of a focal reducer aka speedbooster. You will not find that 16mm of workspace inside a rotating mirror-shutter reflex camera. That workspace is for the Caldwell 0.71x Ultra optical cell which is not ideal for the Super16mm frame. You might just shoehorn it in with a custom assembly replacing the lens turret on a C-Mount Bolex H16RX5. There may be a C-Mount to M4/3 adaptor but the only versions I have found on eBay mount C-Mount lenses into a M4/3 camera, not the other way about so you have to get one made so that a Metabones PL to M4/3 Ultra 0.71x speedbooster could be mounted. The Speedbooster for the original BMPCC would better suit the Super16mm frame optically but has to be even closer to the film plane (6mm) and would not fit in the available workspace of any Bolex as you will interfere with even the upright shutter disk path. The RX5 Bolex has another wrinkle in that the prism path for the viewfinder changes the flange to focal plane distance compared to the Bolex non-reflex older H16 cameras. The in-air flange to focal plane distance may be shorter than when the prism splitter is in the optical path. A 0.71x focal reducer may be most easily fitted if a custom C-Mount tail with M4/3-Mount front adaptor could be made. Otherwise it would come down to a custom rear tail for the 0.71x speedbooster. This is doable but introduces other difficulties including some very fine internal 0.5mm thread cutting.

I had a look for myself. The CPs seem to have disappeared. There were quite a few on eBay a few years ago. They were available in CP-Mount and ARRI Standard/B-Mount when I collected mine. I obtained PL-Mounts from Ken Hale at Whitehouse AV. The available lenses may have been scooped up after CP-Mount to M/3-Mount adaptors became available. They were handier in some ways than the Optars because they have 52mm filter mounts in the fronts like stills Nikons and can accept close-up dioptres or in my instance a cinemascope adaptor which was not an outstanding success.

The Elites and Illuminas apparently share a common optical ancestry, Lomo I believe but I could be wrong. They are T1.3 lenses. They behave similarly in use with an apparent sweet spot of T2 to T2.8. The test was shot with IR and ND filters so the lenses could be set to T4. In the last T-stop to wide-open, the lenses flare. For what it may be worth, here is a clip of a test with a mixture of Elites and Illuminas on a SI2K although the clip title does not mention Elites. The Illumina set consisted of 8mm, 9mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm, 50mm. The Elites in the mix were 35mm Series 3 which is physically comparable to the Illuminas and 85mm Series 4 which has a more modern body. CP Ultra T* lenses which are T1.3 lenses, 9mm, 12.5mm, 16mm, 25mm perform well and have slightly more apparent sharpness at the wide apertures. The 12mm specimen I have is excellent. Except for the 9mm, they are Super16mm capable. The 9mm can be modified but goes rather soggy at the corners when wide-open. Depending upon their age, condition and how recently serviced, the image from the CP Ultras may walk in a circular motion during focus pulls, most noticeably on the longer lenses. These lenses were made for Cinema Products by Kowa in Japan. Note that the circular flare in some of the images was due to a mattebox donut falling out and causing internal reflection and is not a lens artifact.

44mm is also the Flange to focal distance for Canon EF-Mount Lenses.

Are you aftering a moonlit scene or a shot of the moon itself in background of a composed and artificially lit scene? If you could describe your actual intended shots this might be more helpful. If you put an 85B daylight correction filter on your camera, you will lose 2/3rds or more of a stop. This muchly defeats the choice of using tungsten-balanced film which was originally purposed towards gaining the most faithful colour rendition out of the once common tungsten lamps which are limited by available power sources. Daylight has plenty of power to spare when correction filters are used. Filters will require you to light your subjects more strongly and if your lighting is to be LED or HMI which is nearer to daylight colour temperature, then the decision for tungsten balanced film might need to be re-examined. You might be able to take a bet each way and use a 81EF filter which may leave you with a little blueness in the colour but leave you with a bit more wriggle room for colour grading. You will still lose about 2/3rds of a stop. It confers a sweet effect in very early twilight with the sunset sky in background. What speed (ASA or ISO) is your tungsten balanced film? I doubt that moonlight alone will give you much of an image of anything except the moon itself or light clouds across or around it either as a shot or in background of a scene. The moon itself can be quite bright. If you want detail of the moon's surface, then you will need to set the lens aperture to suit. David Mullen can advise better than I can about exposure for the moon. Is something like this what you are seeking to film? Here is a link to another discussion which may assist you. https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/working-with-filters/

My personal preference would be to avoid the 100ft reels. They will scratch your film as there are no raised edges at the hub centre to support the image area away from abrasion. As a workaround, you could cut 3mm broad strips of gaffer tape and make ridges inside around the reel hub but the chances of making an even surface and not getting sticky cack on the image frame are pretty low. Unless you can afford to waste the work involved in shooting, you might be better off rescheduling your shoot to give yourself time to aquire the correct rollers.

The Pan Cinor Som Berthiot 17-85mm lever action zoom lens and Angenieux 12-120mm zoom lens were made with prism split viewfinders integrated in the lens itself. The Som Berthiot has a C-Mount. The Angenieux for early CP16s had a clasp and ring arrangement for easy removal of the lens. The clasp and threaded ring assembly was itself attached to the camera by a C-Mount hollow ring nut. There was also a wide-angle zoom by Angenieux with the same arrangement as the 12-120mm. The Som Berthiot is usable with a non-reflex Bolex but holding that heavy side-viewfinder steady may be too much for the friction of a C-Mount thread when fitting it up to a Bolex. As for the Angenieux lenses with side viewfinders, I suspect that the diameter of the clasp and ring may be too wide for the 3-lens turret of a Bolex and interfere against the centre pivot but am not sure as I have never offered one up to a Bolex. If the lens does not come with the receiver which attaches to the camera along with its hollow C-Mount ring nut, then the lens is of no use unless one can re-make a receiver which is not easy.

It looks like a B4-Mount 2/3" to me.

Further to the previous reply, the accompanying image illustrates where a clearance for the fillet radius should exist. If you are wondering what that object is propping up the PL-Mount, it is a plastic template of an adaptor for the Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic adaptor for Sony DSR PD150 camera to fit to a lens filter diameter of 52mm with 0.75mm pitch thread. I made made one in metal to fit Nikon AIS lenses and CP Ultra T* 16mm cinecamera prime lenses.

Sometimes with PL-Mount adaptors, there is a sharp edge instead of a rounded edge or chamfered edge on the inner front diameter of the hole which accommodates the lens shoulder. This butts against a fillet radius in the front corner of the shoulder of the PL lens tail and the flange face. It holds the lens away from the flange face ever so slightly and sometimes makes the lugs on the mounting ring catch or barely overlap before snugging down. More likely you will need to shim your mount but the interference by the adaptor with the fillet radius would be the first thing I examine.

Some years back, I tested a 16mm cinema camera lens set on the SI2K with a focus card (Siemens Star) with lighting adjusted with each aperture change and the card carefully framed. The sharpness numbers given by the SI2K are most consistent when the wider focus "window" is selected. The sweet spots I found for a set of CP Ultra T* lenses were 9mm T1.35 = T3, 12.5mm T1.25 = T3.8, 16mm T1.25 = T3.5, 25mm T1.25 = T4. The best of the cine lenses gave a 112 sharpness number. To the Super16mm sensor, the best of the Nikon AIS f1.4 stills lenses yielded a 65 sharpness number. The sweet spot tended to be in the zone f4-f5.6. The best of two old Cooke (Taylor, Taylor, Hobson) Speed Panchro Ser 2 cine lenses which had been distressed by fungus and inexpertly cleaned, surprisingly slightly bettered the best of the Nikons and was best at f5.6. There is a far more scientific way of testing to don't pay too much heed of my observations.

Keep up the good work. I come back from time to time to catch up on the news.

The Chinese optical manufacturer Venus Optics, branding as Laowa, has released a 1:33 rear anamorphic adaptor which attaches to a PL-Mount camera and accepts PL-Mount lenses. Super16mm lenses penetrate too far behind the flange face and will clash against the front optical element of the adaptor. Not all 35mm format lenses will fit either. It captures a narrower field-of-view than a spherical lens attached to it but yields a cleaner image than many front anamoprhic adaptors. You will not achieve the vertical and horizontally stretched bokeh effect unless you significantly detune the adaptor's relay focus adjustment which then softens the image including the in-focus subject. In a weird sort of a way, you can use the Laowa adaptor on the rear of a lens and a 1:33 front anamorphic adaptor on the front of a lens as a combination to achieve a 2X + squished image. I am not sure what utility there is in doing this but it can be done.

Very slightly divergent in this topic, this article, if you have the patience to read, features the Asian production entity, Shaw Brothers of Hong Kong and Singapore. Their anamorphic films were heralded with the full screen logo "Shawscope". As a teenager, on seeing the logo, my first cyniical thought was that it was asian copycatting and branding of someone else's proprietary hardware. However, on reading this articale I have been re-educated. According to the article, their Japanese Toho lenses were derived from Kowa and Dyaliscope designs. Some of the lenses featured a rear anamorphic optic, a product which Chinese optical manufacturer, Laowa has recently introduced in its line-up. https://www.davidbordwell.net/essays/shaw.php

For John Obrien, some supplemental info regarding Nikon lenses and a front anamorphic adaptor. Recently I remade the barrel of a Laowa rear anamorphic adaptor to accept Nikon F-Mount stills lenses which I have been using via a EF-Mount adaptor ring. Whilst I had the lathe set up for fabricating a tractor part and a suitable short piece of metal stock was available, I decided to remake an adaptor for an old Century Optics 16:9 anamorphic lens which was part of a Sony PD150 kit.I had roughed up an adaptor from pieces of PVC water pipe fittings years ago. It was never much good and I had intended to remake the part in metal once I had established the form which worked. I never got around to it and made do with the plastic piece for the few times I wanted to use the adaptor. When in use I was hoping and praying the blue plumber's glue would not let go.Cutting fine 0.7mm pitch filter threads is a bit of a nightmare with my meagre skillset and the cheap chinese lathe. It can be done but lots of workarounds are needed to get the precision. The thread cutting is the very last operation. It is the most likely to go wrong and ruin all the work which came beforehand, like about five hour's worth.The Century Optics anamorphic for the Sony PD150 has an exit pupil which is smaller than the Letus, rare Panasonic, rarer Optex and the newer SLR Magic anamorphic adaptors people use. The fitment to the PD150 was via a bayonet attachment which held the removable lens hood.Rather than cut out the reliefs for the bayonet lugs in the new adaptor, it is easier to slack off the stop screw in the attachment ring, take it all the way off, offer into the rear of the anamorphic lens the flange of the new adaptor then screw the ring back on behind it and cinch it firm.If it was to be used often and rapid lens changes were desirable, then several adaptors could be made complete with the bayonet reliefs and remain attached to lenses. As it will be infrequently used for script teasers, I won't be making more. The Century anamorphic lens has an adjustment so where the adaptor ends up when screwed into different lenses does not matter.For professional cinema lenses it is not an option. For smaller stills lenses like the Nikon F-Mount lenses with 52mm filter fronts and small diameter front elements, it works fine. The sharpness and clarity are adequate but I would not say outstanding. The anamorphic lens was originally purposed for standard definition television quality.The F-Mount lenses known to work with it with the URSA Mini 4.6K EF are the Sigma 28mm f1.8 (requires step-up ring), genuine Nikon 35mm f1.4, genuine Nikon 50mm f1.4, genuine older and newer Nikon 85mm f1.8. The front anamorphic increases the field-of-view the sensor sees through the lenses and you get a few flares and ricegrain bokeh on pinpoint highlights.The adaptor is the skinny gold-coloured piece of bronze between the anamorphic lens and the Nikon lens.

Dom Jaeger. A very valid point. My hack for Nikons which was a personal project is highly unlikely to ever see a genuine production. The existing Laowa PL - PL adaptor is viable for the company's own zoom lens, some other zoom lenses, prime lenses and wide-angle lenses that an industry standard front adaptor would not suit. Interestingly, Laowa cine standard anamorphic lenses are to be marketed in the near future.

Sintered bronze bearings were also known as "Oilite" bearings. My understanding was a special oil was required and the wrong oil would clog the microspaces and the bearing would wear. I too have not been able to find any particular info but it has been awhile since I searched. Makes and maintainers of analogue aircraft instruments might have a clue. There may be some light fractions in the correct oil which gas off over time as the recommended service interval for the CP was six months, whether used or not.

For curiosity. A test drive of the modified Laowa 1:33 rear anamorphic adaptor with a Laowa 12 lens for Nikon F-Mount attached. Camera is an original "big" URSA 4K PL recording in Pro-Res LT. The sport is Australian Rules football at local competition level.

Petersant. My sense is that it may be a reflection from a shiny area in the gate frame edge or maybe an internal reflection passing within the film itself from the previous frame into the next frame of the unexposed film before pulldown. Normally an uncovered or unshuttered viewfinder eyepiece might be expected to cause a veiling flare across the whole frame but there might be some weirdness happening with the chain of optics and prisms involved in optical viewfinders. Is this artifact you describe consistent across all shots with the only variations being intensity, or does it come and go. If your camera is an older Bolex I might suspect the shutter timing to be slightly off and a shiny spot on an edge of the shutter might be casting a flare. Phil Rhodes. An artifact occurring in alternating frames may be caused by a bowtie shutter being slightly out of timing and one blade's edges having been cut being very slightly off angle relative to its opposite blade. I wonder if a chip in the mirror shutter of a reflex camera could cast a pinpoint into some part of the camera throat or throw back into the image off the back of the lens. That is purely my imagination running wild.

Firstly, please bear in mind I am commenting entirely from recollection and may be confusing the gate of the Bolex H16 and the CP16 cameras. It is donkey's years since I ever had to field-repair my old film cameras. Sideways walking in the gate suggests that maybe the wing of an edge guide has become trapped and it is not pressing against the edge of the gate plate. Alternatively it may have been bent out of shape by a home repair or over-energetic cleaning or simply worn away. The vertical jitter may be related to the lack of edge pressure. The double exposure is just another artifact of the film moving sideways in the gate. With the edge guide correctly bearing against the film edge, this should also go away. The pressure plate itself may not be sufficient to stabilise the film. With insufficient friction of the film in the gate and if the bearing for the shaft which drives the claw is worn, it may not be stroking the claw fully downwards during moments when the centrifugal governor is minutely hunting for correct speed and momentarily decelerating the transport. If the oil film in the bearing is nearly gone or dried, there will be more tendency for the shaft to jump about when its gear is delivering a varying input of power. I would recommend a proper service by a competent tech familiar with the Bolex camera. There are places in the mechanism where oiling is required and some where oil should never reach. Blitzing every orifice with an oil can where oil can be got in may bring tears rather than joy.

There was a rehousing of the Kinoptik 9.8mm by Century in PL-Mount with standard pitch gears. The rehousing was essentially a wraparound and it was a heavy brute. The image yield is rectilinear. With such a wide field-of-view, the image becomes diagonally stretched in the corners which leads to a somewhat weird look when the lens is used indoors. The protective metal shroud around the rear optical element was removed I guess for shutter clearance reasons. Another unmodified lens with an ARRI standard mount has a portion of the protective shroud machined away for shutter clearance. Full removal on the Century version left the rear element vulnerable to damage. This lens and the 16mm film-camera cousin the 5.7mm were not the sharpest kids on the block. The 5.7mm was apparently used along with a zoom by Robert Rodriguez on his early film, "El Mariachi". Later versions of the lenses had filter slots between the front element and rear group of elements. My understanding is that a clear filter had to be fitted for the lens to remain correctly collimated to the film camera. The 16mm camera version had no focus adjustment at all. Apparently they were set up to be in acceptably sharp focus from about 3ft to infinity. With the C-Mount version, I cheated a little and undercut a custom C'Mount-IMS-Mount adaptor so that I could trim focus to best infinity with a bare mount and use a shim on the tail of the lens C-Mount tail for close focus. The 9.8mm lens vignettes on cameras with a sensor image wider than the original 35mm film camera gate. The 5.7mm lens covers Super 16mm. If your interest in this lens remains, I can take an image of both with a vernier to demonstrate the distance rearwards of the flange face the entire structure of the lens protrudes into the camera throat.

You might achieve a light fog by directing a mist coat of hair laquer from far enough away from the glass that a smooth film of laquer is not formed. Maybe try some dulling spray if you can obtain some. You will not be able to create droplet runs except maybe to spray some laquer into a small bottle cap used as a paintpot and start runs onto the glass using a small art brush. You may have to wait some minutes for the material to set. Make sure nobody touches it or you will have to clean off and start over.