Jump to content

Dom Jaeger

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    2443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

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

45975 profile views
  1. Some great movies were shot on Franscope, including Bunuel's Diary of a Chambermaid, Godard's Contempt, and Truffaut's Jules et Jim. There's a dolly zoom in Jules et Jim that might have used this lens:
  2. Also worth remembering that the Bolex pulldown claw drags back across the perfs before engaging the next one, and Ultra 16 extends into that perf area. Combined with the sprocket rollers which need to make contact with that perf area as well, you're almost guaranteed to get scratching/scuffing/bruising inside the image area. I reckon either invest in a properly converted S16 camera, or stick with Standard 16 and crop to whatever final aspect ratio you want.
  3. I fix a lot of these lenses for people in Oz. Binding in one spot on a Kern lens is usually caused by a high spot in the key way fouling against the mount as it slides through. I don’t know who to recommend in the States for Kern lens service, but probably someone who works on Bolex products rather than a general lens service company. Maybe Procam (Bolex USA) or Jean-Louis Seguin or Visual Products or Bernie from Super16inc? Hopefully someone more local might chime in.
  4. I find this the best way to search for specific info in the archives here: google “Panaflex Elaine site:cinematography.com”
  5. Unfortunately that Evergreen College manual is spreading the misinformation that RX lenses do compensate for the prism light loss. The bolexh16user site says the same, and it seems to be a very common misperception. I've emailed them but I never get a response. I don't know where these people get the idea from, it's not in any official Bolex literature. And anyone who is literate with lens terminology knows that an f stop (which is what RX lenses like Switars are marked in) cannot be adjusted to let more light in. An f stop is a fixed mathematical relationship between focal length and entrance pupil. Some cinematography lenses are marked in T stops, which are f stops adjusted for the internal light loss that occurs within a lens, but never for an external factor like a reflex prism. The only things an RX lens compensates for are the optical aberrations introduced by having a block of glass in the light path. They do not compensate for the prism light loss. The fact that RX lenses were only made up to 50mm ( because longer lenses don't exhibit the aberrations as much as wider ones) should be a clue that light loss is not compensated for. The light loss occurs no matter the focal length, so why would Bolex not make RX lenses for all focal lengths? If you had say a Switar 25mm RX and a Switar 75mm (no RX made) you would have the crazy scenario of having to change your metering every time you swapped between lenses. The variable shutter has half and full stop reduction settings (marked 1/2 and 1) so if you needed to reduce more than a stop of light you would still need ND filters. The manual has adjusted exposure times for the variable shutter settings which you can enter into yr meter.
  6. There's no guarantee that diagram matches your lens, the internet is full of misinformation, and I've never seen a zoom where the rear element is as large as the front element! So I don't think it's a reliable diagram. But in terms of what it would mean if it described a real lens, the far right bracket of 3 groups would be the rear section of the lens, with the aperture placed in front of the rear 2 groups. Ily O. on RedUser seems to have a lot of old Russian lens info, or maybe ask a Russian lens broker like Rafcamera if they have any diagrams?
  7. Always worth checking the archives here:
  8. I think the original Zeiss grease may be a Losimol product. They make a variety of lubricants for applications like lens helicals and sliding barrels: https://www.losimol.de/en/products/#toggle-id-1 The Zeiss grease is creamy and grey coloured and very light, but does not seperate (leach oil) over time, which is important.
  9. It's been a long while, but from memory the grub screws at the front should hold the outer focus barrel on, which needs to slide off to access the focus stop underneath. It may be a bit stuck or something? You may need to remove the grub screws completely not just loosen them. I only remember front ones, in the barrel grip area, like this:
  10. There is no such thing as S16 film, perhaps you mean single perf film as opposed to double perf? Most modern 16mm film stocks are single perf now. Early Bolexes used double perf sprocket rollers (with two rows of gear teeth) that won't work with single perf film, but Paillard changed the design to single teeth in 1952, from Bolex #76471 onwards. It's possible to convert those older Bolexes to be compatible with single perf stocks, but it's bit of a pain. All reflex Bolexes are single perf cameras.
  11. There is a TV 1.78 and transmitted 1.33 combo ground glass for 3 perf but no gate mask. The 1.33 framelines are just corner ticks within the 1.78 frame. See No. 13: https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/75846/d954e726489ab40665b69e0910ac125e/2-7-0-ground-glasses-and-masks-ansi-super-35-formats-data.pdf You don't need a gate mask (cropping can be done in post), but a ground glass is important for framing purposes.
  12. Should be the same focussing range on any standard C mount camera or used with a standard C mount adapter. The issue is the optical flange depth of a Bolex H8 RX, which uses C mount but is 2.2mm shorter than standard C mount. So on any normal C mount the lens will act like it has a 2.2mm extension tube fitted, making it macro only. You might find it has a slightly different character wide open on an EBM compared to a camera without a reflex prism like a BMPCC.
  13. Those are great looking stills!
  14. Well any full frame stills zoom will cover, or adapted medium format zooms, some of which would be considered vintage. No guarantee they’re parfocal of course. In terms of specifically made for cinema zooms, there are some Panavision zooms for the System 65 series, dating to the 90s, and maybe some of the zooms for the Arri 765 are vintage (no doubt adapted from medium format) and I believe some Russian zooms for 65mm were made back in the 70s/80s (if you can find them). I don’t know if Todd AO made any zooms, there don’t seem to be any Panavision zooms for the Super Panavision 70 format of the 60s. Zoom technology for cinema was still very much in its early days in the 50s and 60s, when large format cinema peaked. Som Berthiot made a 60-240 zoom for Vistavision in the 50s, but it wasn’t a great success, and I don’t know of any 65mm zooms made by companies like Angenieux or Cooke. A doubler on traditional 35mm vintage zooms like old 25-250s would probably cover LF.
×
×
  • Create New...