Dom Jaeger

The service literature recommends dry lubricant in the form of graphite powder. I tend to use a light smear of dry moly paste. I would avoid oil or wet grease.

I think for sure there would be a market, for all the reasons outlined above. Unfortunately it would require a completely new optical design to overcome the lack of flange depth space. The reason Speedboosters hit the market when they did was because of the space afforded by mirrorless camera flange depths. A focal reducer actually brings the image plane closer to the lens, so you end up having even less room for the reducing optics than the nominal difference in flange depths between lens mount and camera mount. There would be a market, but it would be fairly niche, limited to S16 PL cameras. So I suspect any manufacturer would baulk at the R&D costs to bring something like this to market, plus it would cost more than the current crop of speedboosters due to the extra optics required.

It’s easy to see if the timing is out and you’ve marked the film. You just need to advance the film slowly. If someone doesn’t have the rewind crank, it’s not too hard to make a tool - use a tube and make a slot in the end with a file. Or something I often do is just use the winding lever as a break - set the speed to lowest setting and engage the winder as if you’re winding the spring. When the camera runs, the winder will spin around, just hold it and only let it slowly turn. Not as elegant as using the rewind crank, but it works. But to reset the timing, just send it to Simon.

I don’t know anyone who converts ELs to S16 these days.

It really depends on the type of feature and how much you’re willing to stuff around with sub-optimal gear. But I think you’d need cine lenses for repeatable focus pulls, a decent head and legs and accessories like rails, matte box and some sort of follow focus (manual or motor). A decent video split with a mini monitor will definitely help. You could probably deal with a standard 16 Bayonet mount Arri SR1 or 2 if it was working well and had accessories, but bear in mind older Bayo mount lenses may have issues like image shift or focus play or scratched elements giving you low contrast etc. Personally I think renting something like an SR3 kit from a reputable rental house would be the best option, if you can film your movie in a short time. You get all the accessories you need, a camera you know is working and properly calibrated, and back-up if something goes wrong. There are affordable decent PL lenses around now, or you can rent those too, even just a single zoom. People spend an awful lot of time sourcing old camera gear thinking it will save them money but it can be a real money pit, and the movie just never gets made. Focus on the script, getting good actors and collaborators, and just rent the gear when you need it. Make sure you get good sound too, that plays a big role in how professional a movie seems.

That blog seems to be written for people who have never picked up a camera before, and is riddled with errors and assumptions. In another post he recommends using toothpaste to remove scratches from your lens (FYI that will just damage the coating further)! I would avoid that blog and find more reliable photography education sites: https://filtergrade.com/sites-to-learn-photography/

I agree with Simon and Giray, the shutter timing is out. You can actually see it in all the footage, a slight downward flare, but it’s most obvious when there is a strong highlight. Every time the sun is in frame for instance. The streaking only extends about an eighth of the frame height, so the timing is only a little bit out. The smear is downward, which indicates that the timing is out at the end of the exposure phase ie the shutter is not covering the film just as it begins to be transported. To double check, you will need a strip of dummy film which you should mark with a black marker on the emulsion side (the side that faces the lens). Make a long squiggle that goes from one edge of the film to the other, for at least 30cm. Then load the film and advance it until the squiggle mark is in the gate. Remove any lens so you can look through the front. If you have the small rewind crank, use it to slowly advance the film while observing the marked film. You need to have the motor disengaged and the run switch on. Watch for any movement of the film while the shutter is open. I suspect the film will start to move just before the shutter covers the gate. To reset the timing is probably best left to a Bolex technician, as it requires removing the front and remaking the light seal. I would recommend Simon Wyss in Europe.

If the zoom has the motor attached it will feel a bit stiff to move manually because you have to turn the motor gears too. If you want to use it manually you can remove the motors from the zoom. If it still feels stiff without the motor, it needs an overhaul, and may even be damaged, since the zoom mechanism is not typically very stiff. Björn is definitely the best Beaulieu tech.

That's a lot of Aatons with the same fault. So too much resistance in the movement due to old lubricants and they start fluctuating in speed? But once cleaned and re-lubricated the fault goes away? I thought AM Camera was the Aaton repair place for West Coast USA? Are you repairing these cameras for AM Camera or watching Andre do them or have you got your own repair shop?

Why don't you stop assuming what other people do and think. Tommy and co can speak for themselves, without you getting up on your soapbox to educate us all about why they do what they do. Holy cow, do you have any idea how insufferably arrogant you sound? Like you're some kind of expert on camera design and marketing and everything to do with film, and if only you'd been advised things would be perfect. And yet the number of times I've had to correct the misinformation you confidently spout on this site is exhausting, and that's just the small area of my expertise. I wish you would stop pretending to know everything about every subject, but I realized long ago that won't happen, so all we can do is call you out on your bullshit and hope that young people coming here for accurate information don't get hoodwinked by your pretentions.

What do you base that claim on?

Thanks for getting back to us with an answer Ryland.

No, an overhaul would be at least twice that, and I'm going off my own pretty cheap rates. I was basing my comment on buy it now Ebay prices for this lens, which can be over $1000. An overhaul could easily be more than the cost of a new lens if you pay what they're actually worth.

The 9.5-57 is generally regarded as the best of the early Angenieux zooms in large part because Angenieux reduced the zoom range to make it easier to optimise. But it’s still an old zoom, first released in 1971, so don’t expect it to perform like a prime, especially at wide apertures. And even if it’s a later serial number, from the 80s, that’s still a long time for wear to potentially occur. While I generally always recommend having older cine gear serviced, sometimes it’s not going to solve a problem, particularly if wear is involved and parts are not available. And if the equipment in question is not worth much to begin with, it makes it even less worthwhile. Setting the back-focus (which is a relatively quick procedure) will ensure that the lens is parfocal, so that you can focus by eye at the long end and it should stay in focus as you zoom out. But it won’t help make the image sharper if you have set the zoom to 50mm and focussed by eye. It looks like there is some decentration in your lens, which is what causes one corner to be softer than another. On modern Angenieux zooms there are a number of adjustments available to centre optical groups, but these older zooms didn’t really have much adjustment like that available. I suspect there is some wear in the zoom mechanics, causing elements to slightly cock or drift off-centre. A clean and relube may help, but probably not much. And unfortunately you won’t easily find spare parts for lenses this old. You may find that zooming from one direction produces a sharper image than from the other, a sure indication of wear. Sometimes new followers can be manufactured, but this takes time, expertise and money. The lack of contrast could be coating damage, or internal fog, or just how an older Angenieux zoom looks. I find most of them to look a bit low con, although the HEC coating was definitely an improvement. Again, it’s unlikely a service can help unless it is something that can be cleaned off, like fog either side of the iris or fungus, but you should be able to notice this with a strong light shining through. Again, for more money you can have elements re-coated, or doublets re-glued, but the cost is many hundreds of euros per element. A full overhaul (cleaning all optics, relubing the zoom and focus, etc) will easily cost half the price of another zoom, or more if you are patient and wait for a more reasonably priced one than the buy it now offers on eBay. So you may be better off selling this one and buying another. I don’t think a standard 16 zoom like this should be more than $600 IMHO, even the HEC ones. If you buy one from a reputable seller like Visual Products, who will have serviced and checked it and offer a warranty period, then $1000 is reasonable. You could email Visual Products and ask them their thoughts on overhauling your zoom, I think they will give you an honest opinion. Not sure who does this sort of work in Europe.

Hi Jim, I know the manuals and most people online say the 2C has a 180 degree shutter, but after pulling quite a few apart and noticing that they all had 165 degree shutters I did a bit of digging and found that Arri had quietly reduced the shutter angle from 180 down to 165 back when the 2B was released in 1958, a change that continued with the 2C. I believe the new cardioid movement hadn’t been quite fast enough to complete the pulldown with a 180 shutter, and was causing some smearing, so Arri reduced the angle. For whatever reason, they never mentioned it in their literature, but it is discussed in the book “Chronicle of a Camera: The Arriflex 35 in North America”. Some 2Cs were fitted with 172.8 degree shutters to deal with 50 Hz flicker at 24fps, not sure if these were after-market modifications.

Daniil (Kamera Doctor) has sold a few cameras in the US through Richard Bennet at CinemaGear, who I contacted last year to ask about the quality of his work. Richard was very positive about him, but unfortunately Daniil is from Russia.

Not really the sort of problem that can be diagnosed over the internet, the rental house needs to sort it out. But obvious things to check are the cables and monitor, so if you can swap those over it will isolate the problem. If it still happens then the issue is the IVS itself and an experienced electrical tech needs to look at it.

That share site is unfortunately compromised, my IT department detected a Trojan virus. Don’t click on the link!

Not your usual camera choice Greg.. 🙂 There are only a few options left that I'm aware of. Jean-Louis Seguin, who posts here sometimes, is the best Bolex tech I know, and does excellent conversions, but I believe he is semi-retired now so may not be taking on new jobs. You could ask him though: bolextech@gmail.com Otherwise there is Dr Bolex, who also posts here sometimes as Arthur Sanchez: https://www.drbolex.com/super-16mm Or Cameraspro, whose conversions seem OK from the one or two I've seen: https://bolexsuper16.com/ Across the pond in the UK there is a company that converts Bolexes called Stecica: https://www.stecica.com/ Unfortunately I can't recommend Les Bosher anymore.

Congratulations to the Logmar team for continuing to design and bring to market new film movie cameras in this day and age! I have nothing but respect for their efforts. I hope they get enough orders to make it worthwhile.

Arri 2Cs usually have 165° shutters. The variable shutter model (2C BV) is described as opening up to 165° but the fixed shutter model is also 165° (unless a camera was modified to 172.8° to deal with flicker). All the Arri 2C literature describing a 180° shutter angle is incorrect. In practical terms, it makes very little difference to the exposure time. See: http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/04/arriflex-35-iic.html They are 4 perf cameras, although sometimes you can find 2 perf "Techniscope" models. I don't know anyone who modifies them today. There is a ton of info on these cameras in the archives here. Google "site:cinematography.com Arri 2C".

The drawing is from the Alexa Studio manual, so yes, it’s official Arri literature. I’ve never seen another document describing this clearance, but I assume lens manufacturers must have been given some sort of guide during the film era. Many lenses (particularly 16mm ones) had bevels machined into the rear housing to clear the mirror, so manufacturers were using every last mm available to them. The envelope shrunk after the 16St, causing some lenses to become unusable (Cooke Kinetals) while others went through modifications in order to clear the newer cameras (certain Schneider’s).

There is no standardised technical term for this that I'm aware of, I call it "rear protrusion" or "behind the mount protrusion". Flange depth or focal flange distance is a different thing, referring to the distance from lens mount flange to sensor or film plane. This differs for each mount standard, PL for instance is 52.00mm, EF is 44.0mm etc. As David mentioned earlier, every lens is different in terms of how far they protrude past the mount flange, but wider lenses typically protrude more than longer ones. The rear protrusion limit of older PL or Arri B or S mount lenses was dictated by the mirror shutter position. For this reason the safe protrusion space is more or less cone shaped. The following diagram is the safe protrusion area for the Alexa Studio, a digital camera with a spinning mirror/shutter, but it can serve as a guide for 35mm film movie cameras also. Note that 16mm lenses may protrude a little further than this, so never mount 16mm lenses to a 35mm film camera (or Alexa Studio) before very carefully checking that they clear the mirror at infinity. With digital cameras there is more room, but there are still baffles, sensor cover glasses and occasionally internal filter systems that limit the rear protrusion. The nominal 31.5mm depth illustrated above tends to be a limit most lens manufactures stick to as a maximum rear protrusion standard, which is also safe for digital cameras. Whether lenses or adapters fit can also depend on the diameter however, and different cameras will have different limits. Certain PL adapters for older Arri mounts for instance will foul on the inner baffles of PL mount Alexa cameras because they protrude more than about 20mm near the edge, even though they worked on PL mount film cameras.

The fact this is occurring on two seperate cameras, nowhere near a cut, across different stock batches and in different lighting conditions (indoor microscope footage!) seems to narrow it down to the only common denominators, which are the processing and scanning. Just the last two rolls you said? And they were processed/scanned at the same time?

There is no filter slot in a Bolex EL.