Dom Jaeger

Oh the wit, you guys must have killed them in the schoolyard. This is however a grown-up's forum. If you want to mock people on the internet, using their real names, because you disagree with their politics or their choice of footwear or whatever, do it somewhere else.

Bill, there are online IIC manuals available in several places. Try: http://www.kevinzanit.com/Arriflex_35IIC_manual.pdf or http://www.kinokamera.com/DROPBOX/35IIC_manual.pdf Most IICs will be 4-perf, a very few modified to 3-perf, and occasionally you'll find a Techniscope 2-perf model. Most will not be S35 capable either. PS I would disregard the manual when it suggests trimming the first 20 perfs off a leader for loading the mags, not necessary IMHO

Nice to know I was correct. B) That link is the best history of the Arriflex 35 (particularly pre-war) that I've ever come across, lots of fascinating info. Thanks Simon. It deserves a good translation, or at least a better one than online translators are capable of. I haven't read this new book yet, though from the title it seems more focussed on the post-war, American history: http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Camera-Arriflex-America-1945-1972/dp/1617037419

Yes you need to be careful with old Standard mount 16mm format lenses on SRs; some will fit, others won't. Because the whole lens moves forward as you focus down from infinity, a lens set to close focus may fit but will then foul as you focus further away. Worst case it hits the mirror. Don't bother with Cooke Kinetals on an SR, but certain Schneiders will fit. I have yet to work out what focal length/serial numbers work, except for the 10mm Cinegon which I believe needs to be above serial no 9861936. See: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=59808&hl=schneider&do=findComment&comment=388139

Wait, what? This was a competition? What does Keith win? I would've tried harder if I'd known there were prizes..

Thanks Mike, very nice. Yours is even older than ours, but curiously has the round matte box shaft.

A wall wart - visualise it! Jaycar website has these: http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=MP3490&form=CAT2&SUBCATID=1000#12 If 2.5A isn't enough for your applications they also have 5A desktop versions

True, for rotation you need to use something like a Dove prism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dove_prism But as Joerg mentioned, the nearly square S8 frame turned sideways is hardly portrait. A fairly simple method to get a more vertical projection aspect ratio is to shoot and then project with a 2X anamorphic lens turned 90 degrees (so that it compresses and later uncompresses vertically). This is what Tacita Dean did for her marvellous Tate installation. A 4:3 horizontal frame would become a 4:6 vertical one, some masking of the sides could make it more portrait still. Or simply mask a normal frame, but you'd lose a lot of image area. For an installation that may be running for a while I don't think turning a projector sideways would be a good idea.

It might help to mention where you are in the world, this is an international forum! :)

It was standard procedure back when we rented film cameras out regularly to do a scratch test before each job, also something I still do after every camera repair. Just run some fresh film through the camera, doesn't have to be much, then cut off the unused feed side and put it back in the can. Before removing the film that's been run through the camera, mark where the gate is with a sharpie. Remove the film and carefully study it for scratches on both sides. Depending on where a scratch begins relative to your gate mark you can determine where in the film path the scratch is occurring. Could be a burr in the gate or the pressure plate or something else. Make sure your loop size isn't the problem either.

I can tell the difference if I project 35mm Super Speeds with a S16 test reticle, which sometimes happens by accident if I've been checking 16mm lenses and forget to change reticles. The image looks very slightly softer than I'm expecting from a S16 Super Speed. But I'm not sure the difference would always be noticeable on a production by the time of the final viewing after variables like focus error, stock resolution, and path to final output resolution are factored in. It's a pretty subtle improvement at the level of very fine detail that gets even more subtle as you stop down. Plus these are old lenses so there can be some variation. But I know Zeiss made a dedicated 50mm for S16 when they had a perfectly good 50mm in 35mm format, so there was a difference. True, an astonishing thing. You can get down to 6mm with Ultra 16s or Cooke SK4s or a Century, roughly a 90 degree angle of view on S16, but at 114 rectilinear degrees the 8R is something else..

Simon, the original question wasn't about the Cinegon, which is a retrofocus design for wide angles that is indeed different to the Xenon, but rather what differences there might be within the various brandings of the same Schneider Xenon design. As for differences in iris design, the change from early iris mechanisms which cramped the smaller aperture stops together to ones where the stops were evenly spaced was actually very important in the history of lens evolution. Very few professional lenses these days have more than small fractions of a stop of play in the iris, but the same amount of play would be a much larger fraction if the stops were all squished together!

Yeah Schneider lenses can be confusing! Judging from a pair of Schneider 28mm lenses I've got here, the Arriflex-Cine-Xenon version seems newer than the plain Xenon. The Arri branded one has evenly spaced aperture marks compared to the Xenon which has the typically crowded as you get smaller aperture marks of older lenses. The Xenon also has the rotating mount of early Arri Standard lenses and fewer close focus marks. Optically they look like the same design though. Schneider used to have online pdfs of vintage lens brochures that were helpful for this kind of thing but I can't find them anymore unfortunately.

Try a rental house that's more oriented to cine lenses, look for lenses that are designed for Super 16. For example: http://www.radiantimages.com/lenses/s16/arri No idea about that company, just using it as an example. You can use PL mount lenses designed for 35mm on an SR2 but like Adrian said you'll struggle to find wides and some of the short, bigger barrelled designs will foul on the viewfinder. You might also potentially get some internal reflections that flash the film because the of the larger circle of light coming out the back of a lens designed for a bigger format. Basically it's overall just better to use lenses that are designed for the format you're using.

A set of S16 Super Speeds would normally be 9.5, 12, 16, 25 and 50. Can you only access 35mm Super Speeds or something?

I'm not familiar with the black version 8-64, but the later model 8-64 we have in our rental fleet is actually heavier than those two longer range zooms, and a little physically longer although the barrel is not as thick. From projection testing the quality is similar, 12x and 15x are maybe a little less snappy in contrast at the long end, which is a common price to pay for a bigger zoom range. The 8-64 has the best close focus at 2 ft, compared to 3 ft or more for the other two, and it also breathes less. The 8-64 and 11-165 were both used on Hurt Locker, as an example of how well they intercut. I suspect the T2.5 11.5-138 being only very slightly faster but neither wider nor longer than the T2.8 11-165 (and more or less the same size and weight) is not quite as useful.

The first Arri 35 had a shutter angle of 120 degrees, so the exposure time is 1/72 sec at 24 fps. The butterfly shutter spins at half the rate of the pulldown cycle, so each 60 degree gap exposes one frame every 180 degrees of shutter.

Usually just newer is better, esp zooms which only really arrived in the 60s, and went through a steep evolution in the 70s and 80s. Coatings also evolved during that time. The 15-150 is from the early 70s, quite different from say an 80s Canon zoom. From what I've been told the converted 12-120 wasn't as good as the factory built 11-110. Zeiss converted Mk2 10-100s but it was a complete rebuild, not just the Abacus rear extender like on 12-120s.

To attach a video assist camera you'd need a T-bar elbow (with a central partial prism or splitting mirror and arms going either side for video and eyepiece, sometimes the video arm bends up) rather than the J-bar you have (with only one arm on one side), which is just a normal viewfinder elbow. Unless the camera's been modified with a window and prism under the handle like on later SRs, in which case you'd need a video split handle. Never seen an SR blimp!

Some people shot a silent film on a 2709 not long ago, some info here: http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/photos_the_bell_amp_howell_2709_and_the_canyon/ Some of those who were involved are regular posters on CML where you might get more responses: http://www.cinematography.net/ I think you can forget about sound recording, even if you have a compatible sync speed motor it's a very noisy camera, blankets wouldn't be enough. They used to put cameras like this in a sound-proof booth back in the day!

$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.