Dom Jaeger

$100 won't get you much in 16mm if you want a decent lens as well as a camera. That Bolex is ancient, from the 40s, and only takes double perf film which is special order these days. The chances of it working perfectly are about as good as the chances of a 1940s car still driving well after decades in a garage. You might find a K3 that cheap, and it might work OK, but they're not really suitable for single frame - the shutter is an angled mirror which will leak light through to the film if you spend too long between shots without capping the lens. The best film cameras for single frame animation or timelapse are ones that use a focal plane shutter (that sits flush over the gate) which is better at preventing light from leaking around to the film. Bolexes were often used for animation because of this, but a newer, reflex model with prime lenses or a zoom will cost at least several hundred dollars. If you don't want to manually trigger a timelapse sequence (very likely) you'd also need a timelapse motor for a Bolex, which can easily be several hundred dollars more. Your budget is better suited to a Super 8 camera, maybe one of those Nizos that has a built-in intervalometer for timelapse.

The very first Arriflex 35 had a bowtie mirror with a 120 degree opening, which would mean two 60 degree gaps. Is yours like this: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=53764

Well there's a lock ring there.. have you tried undoing it? If it doesn't budge it can help to carefully run a solvent like acetone into the threads to soften any locking varnish that might have been used, and gentle heating with a hot air gun can also assist. Or there may be another lock ring on the inside, with the notched ring seen in the photo actually being a housing for the element, with notches to adjust the rotational position. Be aware that on reassembly all the anamorphic elements need to be perfectly aligned with each other in terms of their squeeze horizon (rotational position), or the image turns to mush. Not a job for the faint-hearted, unless it's just a junk lens you're pulling apart for fun.

I've serviced a few sets, they're very sharp but DoPs tell me they have ugly flare and bland character, and from the little tests I've done I agree. According to the ShotOnWhat site they were used on Contagion and Lockout, but serious productions generally seem to avoid them. They're what happens when lens designers chase numbers like high MTF scores but are blind to the subtler challenges of a pleasing image. The build is pretty solid (very heavy) but the focus markings are poor, the witness mark is overly thick and I've noticed the wides tend to develop backlash in the focus mechanism. Some people get Duclos to add focus marks or rescale them. They should be quite cheap to rent I imagine.

That's very kind Gregg but I'd prefer beer actually. :D There are of course many people with a great variety of experience who make up this valuable community, who generously share their knowledge and some that have done so consistently for quite a few years, with no expectation of statues or beer. Just helpful people. Hooray for them I say! It's just nice to be able to feel part of this community. Believe me Doug, your Nizo zoom was designed to be parfocal, like every cinematography zoom except the very earliest ones. In the manual you link to, under "Faults and Remedies" at the end it mentions focus problems, with the remedy being first to make sure the eyepiece diopter adjustment is correctly set, and second to always set focus at the telephoto end of the zoom. No point saying that if it's not parfocal. It's really only some still photography zooms (and as Phil noted, some projection lenses) that aren't designed to hold focus adequately through their focal range.

A normal mag will physically fit on a HS camera but it's not recommended to interchange them. For one thing the HS camera flange depth is slightly different to accommodate the different HS mag pressure plate design. I don't think it would be catastrophic though.

All Super 8 zooms should hold focus, at least within the tolerances of what were often low budget lenses. But if the back focus is off, which is to say the distance from the rear lens element to the film plane is not exactly right, the focus will drift as you zoom out to the wide end of the zoom range. The wider the zoom goes, the more critical the back focus becomes. With macro zooms the rear group of optics can be moved in order to focus at very close distances - if this group does not return to the correct position for normal filming the back focus will be off and the lens will not hold focus. I'm not sure that's what's happening with your lens but it's a possibility. Alternatively the camera may just be out of tolerance.

The variation in back focus is due to different lens designs and also the focal length. With a simple lens (a single element) the back focus more or less equates to the the focal length, with compound lenses that relationship becomes more complicated but often longer focal lengths will sit further away from the film plane than shorter ones. Retro-focus (or reverse telephoto) lenses were developed to overcome the problem of short focal lengths sitting too close to the film plane to clear a reflex mirror. Very long focal length lenses are often very long physically because the elements sit far away from the film plane. Most early lens designs had the entire lens move away from the film plane to focus at closer distances, with longer focal lengths needing to move further than shorter ones. But different designs can have a fixed rear element with a moving front group, or floating elements that move at different rates, or a central focussing group with fixed front and rear groups etc. Zooms generally have a fixed rear group with 2 zoom elements moving in different curves and a moving front group for focus. A macro zoom will have an additional movement of the rear group. Lens designs are often influenced by the requirements of the camera mount - Bausch and Lomb's Baltar lenses of the 50s needed to be redesigned when Mitchell cameras evolved a reflex mirror, becoming Super Baltars with a longer back focus. Early 16mm lenses made for the Arri 16S could no longer be used on the later 16 BL and SR cameras because the mirror clearance changed. These days Angenieux's range of DP Optimo zooms can only be used on digital cameras without a reflex mirror - part of the reason they cost less than the film Optimo range is that the designs were less restricted in terms of the back focus and how far the rear could protrude.

The most important thing I would suggest is to have professionally fitted travel cases, with snug cut-outs in impact resistant foam made for each individual lens. That way they're protected all the time - while travelling, on set, carried out of trucks, in storage etc. I'm not sure about bubble wrap, it's hard to bubble wrap a lens every time it goes in its case and the cut-outs should be a close fit, but I guess if the case isn't custom cut it makes sense. Setting lenses to infinity and wide open is good advice. With helical thread focus systems (like you find in the Hawk C series and most older lenses) the threads are fully engaged at infinity, the lens is at its most compact (if it telescopes) and there's less chance of an impact causing bending stresses. With cam driven focussing systems like in S4s or Master Primes there's less chance of impact damage to the cam causing a bump or focus drop within the focus throw if they're set at the infinity end. When lenses are assembled and serviced most of the lock rings and screws are lacquered in place (especially small set screws), but even so the vibration from a lot of transport can sometimes work them loose, and cause a focus ring or keyway or occasionally even a glass element to come a bit loose. Good travel cases can help, but there's not much else you can do about this sort of thing, it's just something to be aware of.

The main difference is that Master Primes are a range of very expensive cinema lenses made by Zeiss while a high speed lens is simply a generic term for lenses that have a relatively large maximum aperture. A "high speed lens" for 35mm cinematography would probably be around f/1.2 or faster (like older Zeiss Super Speeds or modern Master Primes or Cooke S5s) compared to roughly f/1.8 or beyond for non-high speed lenses (like older Zeiss Standard Speeds or Ultra Primes or Cooke S4s).

Wind-ups are pretty good for travelling light if you don't need sync speed or shots longer than 30 seconds. A Bolex would probably be the most reliable and easily serviced option, though they're not the smallest or lightest if you're carrying them around all day. But then any 100 ft load 16mm wind-up camera will be about the same size and weight - Filmos, Beaulieus, Reveres, Eumigs, Cine-Kodak K100s etc. Magazine load cameras are often smaller but re-loading the defunct magazine cartridges can be a pain. If you can find one on ebay a GIC 16 is a very compact French wind-up that takes 50 ft daylight spools and C mount lenses, and works with single perf film. It only shoots at one speed (16fps) but I've modified them to shoot closer to 24. Try ebay France. Another very compact 16mm wind-up camera would be the Siemens range, which take their own 50 ft cartridges but these are quite simple to load. Here's a pic of some compact 16mm cameras I own next to a Bolex for scale. From left to right - Zeiss Ikon Kinamo S10, GIC 16, Siemens model F, Agfa Movex 16 12B, Cine-Kodak K100, Bolex RX4.

That is a very old projector.. if your family films are valuable (but there is too much footage to have it all properly and safely scanned) I would suggest viewing them on an editor/viewer rather than using a projector. Especially with 9.5mm where the perfs are in the centre of the film, a projector can easily damage old footage. Even if the projector is OK if the film is brittle or shrunken or has damaged perfs etc it will not run through properly. On a viewer the film is manually advanced with far less chance of catastrophic damage. Ebay France often has 9.5mm viewers, like this one: http://www.ebay.fr/itm/PIECE-DE-COLLECTION-ENROULEUSE-VISIONNEUSE-Ferquin-TYPE-F2-FORMAT-9-5mm-/331119729597?pt=FR_JG_Photo_Camescopes_Cameras&hash=item4d18461bbd If you still want to find a lens for your projector, Graham Newnham in England knows a lot about 9.5mm equipment and may have a lens for sale that fits, or know what to look for at least: http://www.pathefilm.freeserve.co.uk/lists/filmlista.htm

You can find 16mm focal extenders, usually 2x or 1.4x, but ones in Cameflex mount will be rarer. Here's a PL mount one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Century-Optics-Super-16mm-PL-Mount-2x-Extender-for-Angenieux-Cooke-Blackmagic-/281255675215?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item417c25054f A doubler will generally cost you 2 stops, 1 stop for a 1.4x extender. Some have more room between mount and optics than others. An older Bayonet mount one like this by Optex for example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-Optex-2x-Extender-S16-/131088927317?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1e85824a55 will foul on the rear element of a 12-120. So check the clearance before investing in one if you find anything in Cameflex mount.

I don't know about matching, but for professional grade S16 the 6mm Century is very good, or the 5.7 Kinoptik Tegea for a fixed focus, or a good wide zoom like Canon 7-63 or Angenieux 7-81. Newer lenses like Cooke SK4s or Zeiss Ultra 16s get down to 6mm. I think people used those aspherons back in the day because there weren't many other options.

Hi Gregg, the one we have is for MK2 or 3 Super Speeds, with 80mm clamps for the 9.5, 12 and 1.8/10-100. In theory nothing would stop you making an intermediate spacer ring to clamp onto the 70mm fronts of the wide MK1s. Like other wide angle adapters from that era (Mutar 0.6x, Panaspheron etc) there is a lot of introduced CA and corner softness even stopped right down, so don't expect great image quality using these things.

Thanks Avery, sorry to hear about the hair loss. Terrible when it comes out in clumps like that. ;) I deliberately left out dismantling of the viewfinder system because pulling it apart seemed to me to potentially introduce more problems than it might solve. You can easily screw up alignments which are very important for a reflex viewfinder, or damage the fragile meter needle, whereas a little dust or some specks in there won't actually affect the film at all. Anyway most of the specks I suspect would usually either be on the ground glass or the optic behind it, and simply cleaning the mirror can brighten up the image considerably.

Hi David, the set screw above the gate aperture is an adjustable stop for the ground glass which sits just behind, to set the viewing frame height. It should really only be adjusted by a trained technician, who would never introduce burrs to the screw! But it is recessed and lacquered in, and the screw hole itself is at a level well under the film support rails, so there's really no chance it will damage film. I've seen this on Standard and Super gates, so it goes back to SR2 at least. Can't actually recall any SR gates that don't have it, but it's been a long time since I saw an SR1. Your second question I'm guessing relates to the new gate design that came in with the SR3 Advanced in 1999, where the old design with fixed top and bottom side rail blocks was replaced with two continuous side rails with sprung saphire rollers on the non-claw side. It solved the problem of wear to the side rails which could eventually cause lateral unsteadiness. Newer gate on left:

As far as I know bayonet mount lenses for Bolexes were only ever zooms, if you want to use primes with a bayonet mount Bolex you need a bayonet to C-mount adapter: http://www.ebay.com/itm/C-mount-on-Bolex-bayonet-mount-Bolex-cameras-SBC-EL-/261345300099?pt=UK_Photography_Movie_Camera_Accessories&hash=item3cd964ce83 then you can use C mounts like 10mm Switar RX or 10mm Schneider RX or (stopped down a bit) non-RX lenses like 10mm Angenieux etc.

Yes that looks to be a 2x extender, but I doubt it will work with the wide Schneiders you mention due to how far back they protrude. You could ask the seller to measure the distance from the front mounting surface to the first optic inside (carefully!) and then work out if a particular lens will fit. Most of these older extenders were made to extend already long lenses even further, a cheaper way to get extreme telephotos. Since long focal lengths don't need to protrude behind the mount, the extenders usually have very little room to accommodate a protruding rear. This one is possibly made by Astro Berlin, who specialised in top class telephoto lenses. A doubler on a 16mm Schneider for example would only make a rather slow 32mm, certainly worse than a comparable focal length prime and I would hazard to guess no better than most zooms.

Thanks everyone. :) I have given it some thought, but I suspect the market for such a volume would be very small. People get very worked up about specific techniques to clean optics! But perhaps you should read the text more closely Andries. I recommended lens tissue and methylated spirit to clean the ground glass only, and only if blowing air doesn't work. This was a tip passed on to me years ago from Arri, but there are other methods and tricks to clean the delicate surface of a ground glass, such as using a clean putty eraser. For camera and lens optics I mainly use isopropyl alcohol and/or lens cleaner with tissues. Some folks like micro-fibre cloths or lens pens or pec pads, but lens tissues are also often used by professional lens people. You can fold them into a point for small optics like eyepieces or to reach an optic deep in a lens body. They can feel crepe papery but at a microscopic level they are non-abrasive. The important thing when cleaning optics is to blow or brush off any particles first, and to make sure that the tissue, cloth, pen or pad you then use is clean.

While nothing beats a professional service, for those inclined to work on their cameras themselves or for anyone simply interested in the inner workings of a top class Super 8 movie camera, I've documented the stripdown and service of a Beaulieu 4008 ZMII, one of the gems of the Super 8 era. http://cinetinker.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/beaulieu-4008-zmii.html

Abakus designed and assembled a lot of optical products for Optex, including their S16 lenses and extenders I believe, so their S16 conversion kit for the 10-100 will be first class, the same as the old Optex branded one. It's basically a 1.2X extender on the back, turning the lens into a 12-120, introducing some loss of speed (T2 becomes T2.4) but very little loss in image quality. Which Black Magic camera are you asking about? On the pocket Black Magic a 12-120 should cover without vignetting, seeing as that camera has a S16 sized sensor. On the Cinema Camera where an image circle of about 18mm is needed I tested a bunch of S16 lenses see http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=56326 and estimated the 11-110 (the original Zeiss S16 conversion) would vignette below about 50mm. A 12-120 would presumably cover a little bit wider, but I don't have one here to test.

The term commonly used for battery capacity is amp-hours (Ah) or milliamp-hours (mAh), an indication of how long the cells can supply a certain current before the battery is considered discharged. A 1.2Ah (or 1200mAh) battery should nominally supply 1.2 amps for an hour, or 0.6 amps for 2 hours etc. As answered above, a higher capacity battery won't damage your camera, it will just supply the required current for longer before the battery becomes depleted. The supply voltage is more critical - SR2s run off 12V though they can handle up to about 18V. Above that and fuses or components will blow. Below about 8 or 9V and the camera will start to malfunction or shut down. Typically a 12V battery is at about 14V when fully charged and slowly drops down to about 11V by the time it's flat. If you keep drawing power the voltage will quickly plummet after this. The only issue with higher capacity cells is the charge time, as Jean-Louis mentions. The original Arri SR2 12V chargers are timer based, meaning they simply charge for a set time, so higher capacity cells may get under-charged - you might need to charge them twice to get them fully charged again.

There are Universal mount extenders for older 35mm pro zooms like Angenieux 25-250s (as far as I know Universal mount was only 35mm), but there are also extenders made for other 35mm and 16mm lenses. The rental house I work for has 16mm versions in PL and Bayo mount by Optex and Zeiss, and 35mm ones in PL by Optex and Century. The main issue is how far the optics protrude in both extender and lens, many combinations simply don't work because the optics hit before the lens is seated. The older ones in particular were designed primarily to be used with telephoto lenses which don't protrude behind their mounts. The Zeiss Mutar was designed for the Zeiss 10-100 and 11-110 so has a bit more room, but it still won't fit most Angenieux 16mm zooms. The Optex "Colcine Super 16" 2x extender has the most room of all our extenders. Some 16mm extenders: and some for 35mm: FWIW, I haven't found any 16mm zoom with 2x extender combination that properly covers a S35 frame, including the Angenieux 12-240, though I suppose it's possible if you custom fabricated something on an optical bench. But the enlarged image circle is often quite degraded in quality at the edges anyway.

The Alexa Studio has a built-in retractable ND filter with a density of 1.3, not full spectrum so some IR pollution may be visible in certain conditions, correctable with a T1 or IRNDs stacked in front. Not always a noticeable issue but you need to test. See http://cinematography.net/ir-grabs/ir-grabs.html The Arri IFM (In-camera Filter Module) is an optional extra available to use with the Alexa XT range (except XT Studio) which allows custom IRND filters from 0.3 to 2.4 to be fitted behind the lens without altering the colour balance. I haven't had the opportunity to test it personally, not sure how many rental houses invested in it actually, seems a little fiddly.