Dom Jaeger

If you examine the neg over a lightbox with a magnifying loupe you should be able to see if the footage itself has the problem. If it's OK then you can assume the transfer is responsible.

Given their age, there can be a lot of variation between Super Speeds, especially introduced de-centration of elements due to substandard servicing (particularly the 18mm). Just mentioning it as a caveat to these sort of lens comparisons. Also, there's no mention of the focal lengths used in this comparison. I've heard of issues with the 18mm and 25mm Illuminas, it would have been interesting to see them compared to the Super Speed wides. The 25mm Super Speed is often the weakest link in that series, from my experience.

Interesting interview with the DP of Breaking Bad, one of the best looking shows on telly, and one of the few still shot on film: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/behind-the-lens-michael-slovis-asc-breaking-bad

The 16D is smaller, so it vignettes a little more. I've used the 16H on standard 8 cameras, and can get down to about 10mm for that format using prime lenses. For 16mm format coverage you might get down to about 20mm, but the front element of the taking lens needs to be no larger than the rear element of the anamorphic (about 44mm for the 16H, maybe 36mm for the 16D), and as close as possible, so a long hood for example will set the lens back and introduce vignetting. The anamorphic doubles the horizontal angle of view, so a 20mm ends up with the horizontal view of a 10mm, which is reasonably wide for 16mm format. I don't think a 16D would get below about 30mm (for 16mm format coverage) even if the taking lens was no larger than the 16D rear element. Zooms tend to vignette more, I haven't got below 15mm (or 30mm for 16mm format) with the various compact zooms I've tried with the 16H. A short zoom range works better than a long one. Long focal lengths aren't a problem (unless the front element is too large). See: http://www.oocities....anamorphic.html

Hi Will, adjusting the bayonet mount flange depth is pretty simple, an adjustable lens wrench would do, or machine a basic tool out of an aluminium cylinder. Measuring the flange depth is what requires specific tools: a depth gauge with a 52.00mm zeroing block and a backing plate to fit in the gate. Or access to a bench collimator. It might be simpler (and cheaper) to get a rental house to do it, should take 15 minutes. Checking the ground glass depth is also important, which needs a collimator if you want it accurately set. Here's a pic of the Arri tools anyway:

This recent thread might be helpful: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58691

PM sent (and in-box emptied!)

Hi Will, we've got a S16 gate that we were saving for a film school that was considering getting their SRII upgraded, looks like they won't go ahead though. It's a re-machined R16 gate, P&S Technic job. Your tech might need gate shims to set it at the right depth for reg pin protrusion. You could probably live without using the centreing jig to position it perfectly. You also need to add about 5 degrees to the mirror/shutter if you don't want smearing, as it won't quite cover the expanded gate unless the pulldown is modified to be faster. When I was at Panavision Sydney years back the techs came up with a simple solution by glueing a wedge of balsa wood to one edge of the mirror/shutter and painting it black.

I haven't had my hands on a 416 but I'd agree with Adrian, it's a function of high speed designs that makes them noisier. The high speed SR3 is rated at 27 dB compared to 20 dB for the standard. Noise is always measured at sync sound speeds (since noise at high speeds is kind of irrelevant.) I suspect with SR3s the noise variation is mainly due to the pressure plate design in the high speed mags, which is quite different from the standard ones. Something similar would be happening with the 416.

Yes I think it will certainly be useful for the MFT version, very good timing on Metabones' part, they'll probably sell a ton of 'em. I brought this up about 5 posts ago, but with this thread at 8 pages long now I don't blame you for not spotting it!

If you know it's a complex issue then why ask questions that deliberately simplify and demand an either/or response? You're setting up a conflict through the questions. Even as part of a larger thesis, the statistical information you'll get from this kind of survey will be useless, because these days most professionals I know would find the questions too simplistic to be comfortable answering yes or no. Your response demographic will be skewed towards the diehard fringe on either side. It strikes me as a rather lazy approach, reminds me of an online workplace evaluation survey I was once forced to do by a corporation that outsourced the process to a generic questionnaire assembler rather than be bothered simply talking to its own employees. Sorry to be so blunt, but surveys like this really annoy me.

Chris, a wide-angle adapter is different to the Metabones Speed Booster we were discussing in the Black Magic thread. Wide angle adapters go in front of a lens, gather a wider view yes, but not more light. The system is still limited by the original lens T-stop. The additional glass actually adds more reflective surfaces and refraction so that you lose some light. The Speed Booster thing goes at the back of a lens and condenses the image circle, so that the same amount of light fills a smaller area, hence increasing the speed. It doesn't create a wider angle of view than the original lens had, it just allows the same angle of view on a smaller imaging area, effectively reducing the lens focal length.

Took me a while to actually find the white paper, on the Metabones site they mention it but don't seem to have a link! It's not as revolutionary as they make out, and some of the claims could certainly do with some tempering. It basically just shrinks the image circle down, so that a smaller imaging sensor gets the same field of view as you would normally get with the original format. The actual focal length of the lens remains the same, as does the f-stop, meaning there is no depth of field change. But because the same amount of light is being squeezed into a smaller area, the T-stop is faster. I don't know about it being sharper though, adding more elements generally degrades an image. But I suppose shrinking the image will make it appear finer detailed. I suspect it will work better with some lenses than others.

Here's something that could be useful, particularly in having options for the wide end: http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/14/metabones-announces-revolutionary-adaptor-makes-ff-lenses-faster-and-wider/ Not a new idea, but I haven't seen it implemented like this before. It's basically an inverted focal length extender, reducing the image circle while keeping the same angle of view, with the bonus effect of increasing the lens speed. So with this adapter, a full-frame covering lens could be used on the Black Magic Camera, the effective focal length of the lens is reduced by x0.71, and the speed increased by the same factor. It would only work on the MFT version.

That's exactly what I estimated when I posted a list of about twenty S16 lens image circles in this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=56326&st=0 The 7-63 was the best zoom option, might get down to 20mm.

Hmm.. I've measured the Canon 8-64 image circle pretty closely, at 12mm it barely covers a 17mm diameter. Stop down past 5.6 and it shrinks further. Maybe the active sensor area isn't quite as large as described, or maybe there's some other factor at play. From my observations (using a Chrosziel projector collimator and an Angenieux test reticle), the Canon 7-63 had a larger image circle at the wide end, and less degradation outside the S16 area, so if the 8-64 is perfect.. er.. slightly vignetting, then the 7-63 might be worth a test.

It will work as a macro lens, no infinity focus. The seller admits it in the listing, stating that focal distances of 5-70 cm are achievable. So nothing past a couple of feet will be in focus. Longer focal length lenses will focus the furthest, wider angles won't focus far at all. C-mounts are designed and collimated to focus 17.52 mm behind the mount seat, EF flange focal distance is 44.00 mm. To work properly, a C-mount would need to be seated 26.48 mm behind the EF mount, well inside the camera.

I'm pretty sure there is no C-mount Canon 8-64, at any rate I've never heard of one. The one in Hurlbut's photo is either PL or a Panavised (PV mount) version. There is no C-mount lens to EOS adapter because the C-mount flange depth is much shorter. EOS lens to C-mount is possible. C-mount lenses might fit on the Micro 4/3 version, though they'd need to sit nearly 2mm inside. It's very unlikely anything under 25mm will cover though, certainly nothing I've measured.

Only a few cameras took magazines, they were introduced (both in 16 and 8) as a simpler way of putting film in your camera, much like the Super 8 cartridges, pre-loaded at the factory. Most old 16mm and standard 8 cameras use daylight spools, usually 25 ft for 8mm and 100 ft for 16mm. The spools were designed to cover the film somewhat so you can load the camera in subdued light without fogging much more than the first few feet. It gets a bit confusing because the term "magazine" is also used for the add-on compartments used with more professional cameras that hold longer lengths of film, totally different thing. 25 ft of standard 8mm (which becomes 50ft after being processed, split lengthways and joined) gives you about 4 minutes at the old filming speed of 16 frames per second, 100 ft of 16mm gives you the same at the same filming speed. If you shoot at a faster rate, like the modern standard of 24 fps, you get less than 3 minutes. You'd have to compare stock and processing costs in your area to see what's cheaper. Check out the prices for transfer too. It's hard to get negative film in standard 8 (or colour reversal now), so there are many more stock options in 16mm, though older 16mm cameras might require double-perfed film which reduces your options back down. Standard 8 is made by adding perforations to double-perf 16mm.

I really wouldn't bother with that one. Don't get a camera without a lens. And don't stuff around with magazine load cameras. Magazines haven't been made for decades and you pay a premium for people to reload them, if you can even find reloaded ones. Also, for a beginner, buying film on ebay can be a real gamble, mostly it's way out of date and you have no idea how it's been stored. Before you start spending money, you should do a little more research. How do you intend to view what you've shot? Buying a camera and film is only the first expense. You then need to get the film developed, and to watch it you either have to have it transferred to a digital file, or projected in a projector. For me, projecting what I've shot is one of the great joys of using film. It has a look all of its own, and you can fill a wall with your images. If you use a type of film called 'reversal', you can shoot it, get it processed, and project it without needing to make a print. It's like slide film. Unfortunately we're down to only B&W with reversal, as the only reversal colour stock (Ektachrome 100D) was recently axed by Kodak. But B&W is still great. You would need to buy or borrow a projector though. And old school editing using splices can be time-consuming, and requires a few more things to buy, like an editing viewer and a splicer. The other option is scanning the film after processing, which can be quite expensive. But you end up with a file you can watch on a computer, easily edit, add music, share it on youtube or whatever. Cheaper scans end up looking more like video than film, so for me it kind of defeats the purpose. I really don't know what's cheapest in the end, taking all the factors in. Maybe 16mm reversal and an old 16mm projector, if you just want to play with film. My choice would be standard 8 (also called regular or double 8). In vogue from the 30s to the 60s, then made obsolete by Super 8. Lots of wind-up cameras that use 25 ft spools (don't get a magazine one), are completely manual, and pretty cheap. The little Bolex ones are great. You can still get film (try http://www.zerelda.c...tionalfilm.html), and processing. Projectors are usually cheap too. Except for a few Russian models, Super 8 cameras are all battery powered and plastic, which doesn't sound like what you want, even if they're easier to use. I personally find it much more fun to use a well-made old metal camera that you have to wind up. (No offense to all the S8 lovers out there!) Plenty of 16mm wind-ups out there too, usually cost a bit more though, as do the projectors.

Yes indeed! You'd think after 15 years of camera repairs I'd have learned that lesson, but people often walk in to my workshop to find me scrabbling around on the floor, cursing and muttering as I search for a little spring that pinged off on me. Not a very professional introduction. :P Glad you got your Filmo running again, seems like the front plate mechanism/shutter is a very common culprit.

It's a somewhat dodgy B (for bayonet) mount. B mount lenses have the 2 tabs at the back of the mount. Usually they are fitted then twisted until a spring lever in the camera (or adapter) mount clicks into a cutout in the lens mount and locks them in. In this case, after fitting and twisting, a grub screw driven against the thin wall of the lens mount is the lock. A little dodgy, but it should work, the ID of 41mm is correct.

"The Story of Film: an Odyssey" is currently being shown on free-to-air TV here in Australia, on SBS 2 every night from tue to fri. Worth a look for the fascinating subject matter, the blow-by-blow invention of each grammatic step in the evolution of film language. What drives me nuts though is the appallingly shot video 'filler' that pads the doco out between snippets of beautiful old movie footage. Blown out, poorly framed, utterly banal video that completely undermines Cousins' attempts to wax lyrical about the poetry of the moving image. If ever there was an argument required to refute the old "it's all about the story" chestnut, this is it. Despite a compelling and fascinating story, the series is almost unwatchable.

The handle switch is wired to the 2 outer (male) pins (ie the pins either side of the middle pin) of the connector. The 3 (female) sockets are not used. Sorry to have to describe it, I can't make out any pin/socket numbering on the example I have.

Please feel free to spruik your Lemo copies in a paid advertisement on the right side of this page like responsible companies do rather than continue to post spam.