Jump to content

Dom Jaeger

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    2014
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

Dom Jaeger last won the day on March 13

Dom Jaeger had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

About Dom Jaeger

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Specialties
    Cinema camera and lens technician

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://cinetinker.blogspot.com.au
  • Skype
    cinetinker@gmail.com

Recent Profile Visitors

40320 profile views
  1. The advice is that the zoom motor does not in fact use the 3.6V centre tap. That only powers the iris motor. Since the OP mentioned that the auto iris works, as well as the camera run release which uses 7.2V, the battery itself is therefore not the problem. The issue is with the lens zoom motor or how it’s getting its power.
  2. If they're both the same nominal voltage, the only difference can be that the battery voltage is dropping under the current load of the camera (due to a bad or too low capacity battery) and setting off the sync warning, or the battery power cable has high resistance and the voltage is dropping across that.
  3. In case anyone is confused by the conflicting information in this thread, Bjorn is the world authority on Beaulieus so I would listen to his advice over anyone else's. Thanks Bjorn!
  4. If the camera is BNCR mount (which looks likely) it should have a throat diameter of 68mm. If the scope mount is simply Arri PL you could look for a PL mount Arriflex, which should be easy enough to find though probably more expensive because it's the most commonly used contemporary mount. (Converting it to PL yourself will not be simple as the BNCR throat diameter is much larger.) But the scope mount looks a bit different to PL in that it has holes in the flanges, rather than cut-outs. The outer diameter of PL flanges can vary a little, but usually they are under 68.5mm. Many camera PL mounts have lock rings that won't accept 69mm flanges, so you may need to machine down the outer flange edges. If it is PL, the throat of the scope mount (which would be the outer diameter of the shiny ring protruding slightly from the mount) should be 54mm. The original ad is from 1971, which was more than a decade before the PL mount was introduced, so either this is something else or it was modified to PL later. Finding a BNCR mount to fit the scope is the other option, but may be tricky. You could ring around some older rental houses or repair/resell places like Visual Products or places that modify old lenses like TLS or P&S Technik and ask if they have any old BNCR mounts you could have.
  5. The telescope mount looks like it might be Mitchell BNCR, while the camera is possibly Panavision‘s PV 65. Is the bore 83mm in diameter? It‘s a pretty unusual mount on an Arriflex 35, where did you pick that up? The camera base that adapts the motor to the side is called a flatbase, Cine 60 made a lot of them.
  6. The normal rewind crank on a Bolex is pretty small and hard to crank consistently, especially if trying to do 3 revolutions per second. If you can fashion a slightly larger crank that would help your cranking technique. In the old days, camera operators would hum a tune to keep their cranking speed accurate. For 16 fps you need 2 revolutions per second beats or 120 bpm songs like Michael Jackson's "Don't Stop Til You Get Enough" for example. https://jog.fm/workout-songs/at/120/bpm?order=desc&sort=popularity For 24fps you need 180 bpm songs, like the B-52s "Rock Lobster". https://jog.fm/workout-songs/at/180/bpm?order=desc&sort=popularity Alternatively you could use a metronome.
  7. Yes that's right. One way to remember is to note that adding extension tubes to a lens reduces the focus range to macro, so it's the same sort of thing - when a lens sits further away from the film plane it focusses closer, and in some cases won't reach infinity.
  8. Make sure to focus the viewfinder diopter on the grain of the ground glass, rather than on a sharp image. Best is to defocus the lens completely and point to a bright background, so all you see is uniform white, and then focus the eyepiece to see the grain of the ground glass. This way you will be sure to see what is in focus at the film plane (since that ground glass surface should be exactly the same distance from the mount as the film plane, just reflected off the mirror). Because the film plane and the ground glass are locked together, even if the camera flange depth or lens back-focus is out, whatever you see on the ground glass surface is what will be on the film. It sounds to me like the flange depth of your camera may be a little out of tolerance, probably because of the S16 conversion. It only takes less than half the thickness of a human hair to throw out the focus scale of a lens. There are of course two settings that need to be exact - the flange depth of the camera and the back-focus of the lens - so it's possible that the camera flange depth is OK and 2 of your lenses have their back-focus out of tolerance, but I think that's less likely. The most likely reason your f2.8 135mm lens doesn't seem affected is because back-focus is less critical with longer lenses. So at 135mm an error of a hair's thickness will barely shift the focus scale, whereas at 15mm the scale will shift considerably. This is why a parfocal zoom that is not seated at the correct back-focus distance will get softer as you zoom out to the wide end. Also, the slower (smaller) the aperture, the more tolerance there is for variation in the film plane distance behind the lens (much like depth of field in front of the lens is increased), so an f/2.8 lens will be less affected than an f1.8 lens.
  9. Pretty sure this was the run 'n' gun camera crew that sound recordist was working with:
  10. Those are old home movie films already shot and processed.. I got a box of old standard 8 home movies once along with some Bolex gear, quite fun to project and watch films of your home town and surrounds from 60 or 70 years ago. There were some great editing bits too, in one film the filmmaker had put it in a little intermission sequence showing a teapot materialising , then teacups appearing one after the other in a circle and then a title declaring "teatime!".. very creative. Archival bodies (like the National Film and Sound Archive here in Australia) often have in-house scanners to preserve historically interesting old films, but I don't know if individuals like Daniel trying to do similar things could utilise them. Maybe crowd funding could help cover scanning costs?
  11. Thorium oxide was used as a component of the glass in some lenses made in the first few post-war decades to enhance certain optical properties, it wasn't used in lens coatings. Soviet lenses don't appear to be among the lenses people have measured to be radioactive, unlike a number of Japanese, German and American lenses from that time, which suggests they didn't use thorium in Russia. It's possible they used Lanthanum, which is much less radioactive, but I don't know how much yellowing that might cause with age. This site has a list of some of the lenses that have been measured to be radioactive due to thorium glass, I don't think any are Soviet: https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses UV lamp light can reduce the yellow/brown cast caused by decaying thorium, but has no effect on the yellowing caused by old Canada Balsam glue used in doublets and prisms, which is what I would say is most likely causing K3 viewfinders to yellow. I remember Arri SR viewfinder prisms sometimes had the same problem. But the OP could try a UV lamp down the viewfinder, in case it's Lanthanum glass causing it.
  12. As much as I am a huge fan of Martin’s enormous knowledge and generosity, I have to disagree with him on the use of silicon spray on cine cameras and especially lenses. In my experience it can migrate onto optics or surfaces with specific lubricity requirements, so you need to be very careful where to use it and how much to use. I find it quite hard to remove silicone effectively. There are other lubricants you can use, like oil or a good quality penetrating spray like CRC 2-21 which are also effective. I do avoid WD40 on precision instruments though. If a contact pin is stuck in a hole you may just have to use force and damage the pin. If the hole goes through you can push the pin back from the other side but you’ll need to remove the camera front. If you have space to slip a thin metal shim between the lens and the camera mount you might be able to shimmy the pin back out of the way. Good luck!
  13. Ansco were an American photographic company that started making 16mm cameras in the late 20s. Although the Berlin-based Agfa took them over in 1927, their cameras remained US designs, quite different to the Agfa 16mm cameras from the same era. Your camera was their first design, from 1929. Any 16mm camera from before the 30s is something of a collector’s piece, as there were relatively few companies making them back then. After the big three - Kodak, Bell & Howell and Victor - who all released cameras back in 1923 when 16mm film was first introduced, I believe there was only DeVry and Agfa-Ansco in the US at that point. The form follows the vertical spool arrangement of Bell & Howell’s Filmo design, but retains the boxy look of the Cine-Kodak and other early cine cameras. According to my references, the camera had speeds of 16 and 64 fps, and the lens is likely a Wollensak, if not an Agfa Anastigmat. Be careful opening it up if the spring is fully wound, whatever is jamming could be freed up as you disassemble, and it might start running. Set the speed to 16. The spring may or may not be housed in a camera this early. If it is not enclosed in it’s own casing, be very careful seperating the mechanism as a tightly coiled spring (even if run down) holds a tremendous amount of energy and can have sharp edges. You should be able to remove the mechanism from the camera housing safely, but pause and examine before dismantling further.
  14. Are you talking about the lens or the lens cap, which is what the OP asked about? I don’t see any lens caps for that lens on ebay. lt might be easiest to measure the front diameter and find a generic clamp-on plastic cap that fits. Jean-Louis Seguin might know the thread diameter and whether lens caps from other Kern lenses will also fit, you could PM hin.
  15. Since you are framing through the viewfinder, that will only tell you where the ground glass frameline is positioned relative to the gate aperture. You can roughly check that by inching the mirror in and out of position while looking through the lens port and comparing the reflection of the ground glass frameline in the mirror to the gate behind it. It won't tell you where the lens mount (optical) centre is, relative to the gate aperture. If the mount is offset from the centre of the gate aperture and the lens vignettes you might see more vignette on one side, or if it has distortion you might see more of that on one side, but it's not an accurate gauge.
×
×
  • Create New...