Dom Jaeger

I think like Phil said, cheap and Lemo don't share the same address. I bought some cheap Chanel No 5 once, only to notice too late that the label actually read Chaneli No 5. Lost a girlfriend over that one. The Keywolf site is a blatant Lemo knock-off, though they have the gall to say their product is "designed here in the United States" while the components are "sourced from low-cost countries such as Mexica, China, Taiwan and Malaysia". I'm not sure how much design is involved in copying a product right down to the square-knurled casing, but since it was done in the US I guess we can rest easy. Their discount price is contingent on an order of 5000 or more. You might find some small variations in the cost of proper Lemo connectors, but nothing I'd call cheap. I bite the bullet and buy mine from the local Lemo distributor (who know their product line and keep a good inventory), and unless a truck drives over them they tend to have a very long life. Most commonly over time the casing gets chewed or deformed but you can buy the shell alone and replace it for much less than a whole connector. I've made the mistake of buying cheap brand connectors (for other applications) and found that the cost of a failure during a shoot is not worth the few dollars saved initially.

Ha! How fabulous was that! Thanks for the link Douglas. If only modern behind-the-scenes documentaries could be so entertaining. Please feel free to share more tales!

Hi Gregg, from your description it's most likely a very easy fix. The tiny grub screws that secure the focus ring have probably just come a bit loose. With a small jeweller's screwdriver you can nip them up. If they're over-tightened they put pressure on the helical thread within and make the focus stiff, so they should be only lightly tightened and then fixed with locking varnish or paint. On some lenses there is a second ring under the focus ring, secured in the same way, so it could also be that one that's loose. If there's rotational play between the front section of the lens and the mount (which can feel similar to just play in the focus ring) then it's a different story and the lens needs a service.

Hi James, well if the pages from the manual covering loading that I sent you didn't help I don't know what else to offer. I've never loaded a 16 Pro myself. You need to use some dummy stock and try to see where and why it's jamming I guess, maybe the thing needs a service.

I don't have the manual, but as far as I know you don't really need the regulator unless you need to power a magazine motor as well. Your two 12V batteries wired in series will give out 24V which is what you need for 24 fps. I don't know why your regulators are burning out. The obvious cause would be reverse polarity, so are you sure you're feeding the battery voltage in correctly? Can you post a photo of your set-up?

Well it could be a few things. If the camera runs well without film I'd discount problems with the spring motor or the speed governor. First thing to check is the take-up friction - the lower spindle needs to slip as it winds on the film. If the clutch gets gummed up it can pull the film too hard and cause problems with the transport, jamming the claw. If you run the camera without film and hold the lower spindle as it turns it should slip without too much force, and with a steady friction. If it's jerky or stiff the mechanism directly beneath the spindle (under the plate) needs to be disassembled, cleaned and lubricated with grease. It's fairly simple to remove that plate to access the clutch. Another possibility is that one of the spools is sitting high and rubbing against the door, maybe it's deformed or not located properly. The Bolex pocket cameras are pretty foolproof though, with no locating key on the feed spindle and only one key on the take-up, so mismatching the 3 and 4 key holes on the spools isn't possible. But just check that when you fit the spools they don't poke above the top of the spindles. A further possibility is that there's an issue in the gate, maybe something gumming up the film channel, the pressure plate pushing too hard against the film or (least likely) some damage to the claw. You can easily remove the pressure plate (just flick back the lever and lift it out) to clean it and check that it's free of burrs and able to move in and out against its spring. You can also then access the gate to clean it too (use cotton buds or toothpicks, nothing metal). For a better look and to see the claw you can remove the block with the lever by undoing the single screw, just take note of how the spring-loaded roller at the top is working, for when you put it back together. You have to remove this block anyway (and the claw) if you want to remove the camera plate to get to the take-up clutch. Good luck with it Facundo!

I finally got around to seeing Hugo and must say I really enjoyed it. I guess as a lover of fine mechanics, the history of cinema, and Paris I was easily charmed, but aside from that I thought it was an exceptionally well-crafted film. And a beautiful tribute to the work of Georges Méliès. The recreations of his studio (and the old cameras cranking away) were worth the admission price alone. Certainly also one of the better 3D movies I've seen, though I still find the combination of shallow depth of field and 3D off-putting. It just doesn't look right to have an out of focus blob looming in the foreground, for example. I was pleased that the true history of Méliès wasn't too altered to fit the fictional narrative, but I thought the automaton that drew pictures was a little fabulous - until I did a bit of googling! It seems the adapted novel's author, Brian Selznick, was partly inspired by an actual automaton, known as the "Draughtsman-Writer", that was created over 200 years ago by the Swiss mechanician Henri Maillardet. If anything the real automaton is more incredible than the fictional one, with a mechanical memory capable of reproducing 4 drawings and 3 poems! For a more detailed description including images of the automaton's drawings and inner mechanism (which closely resembles the mechanism inside Hugo's automaton) see The Franklin Institute's webpage on the subject: http://www.fi.edu/learn/sci-tech/automaton/automaton.php?cts=instrumentation Art imitating life that imitates art! I love it :D

As far as I know, it goes like this: The first Bolexes, up to serial number 100400, have a shutter angle of 192 degrees. From serial no's 100401 to 195800 (1954 to 1961) they have a shutter angle of 143 degrees. In 1962, a few years after variable shutters had been introduced, it was further reduced to 130 degrees. EL and EBM models are 170 degrees.

Good choice! We're lucky to have Nanolab here in the Southern Hemisphere. The 25 ft spools from Richard are actually a few feet longer than that to accommodate the film lost during loading. I tried some stock from Wittner in Germany and was a bit disappointed to find that they supplied exactly 25 ft.. I'd definitely recommend loading in low light at least the first few times, to see what you're doing. As Richard mentioned, most Standard 8 cameras are pretty simple to load, but there are a few things to watch. It's important to make sure the take-up spool is properly located on the bottom spindle. Standard 8 spools have a 3 key hole on one side and a 4 key hole on the other - on most cameras the take-up spindle takes a spool with the 4 key hole to the bottom. Once you've laced the film, run the camera for a few seconds to check that both spools are turning. It's not always possible to find total darkness to load in. At 2 minutes or less for each side I find I often need to reload wherever I am, so I have a changing blanket in my car. I've occasionally used a public toilet, but walking into a cubicle with a camera in hand sometimes gets me weird looks.. B) Personally I like the flashes, fade-ins and fade-outs that you get at the start and end of each side, they're like the sign-posts at the borders of an altered reality!

Well there's 3 factors involved - the camera flange depth, the ground glass setting and the lens back-focus. If the ground glass is set to the same depth as the film plane (which is how it should be), then what you see through the viewfinder is what will be on the film. In that case, if the lens marks aren't lining up either the lens back-focus is out, or the flange depth is out (and the ground glass out by the same amount). The lens may not reach infinity (or it will pass through it) but what's in the viewfinder will be what's on the film. If the ground glass isn't set to the same depth as the film plane, then what you see won't be what's on the film. So if your lens marks aren't matching the distance measured, it could be that the ground glass is out, or it could be that the lenses are out. Until you get the film back you can't say whether the camera flange depth is out as well. If you find that all your lenses are out in the same direction, and getting worse with wider focal lengths, then chances are the lenses are OK but there's an issue with the camera. Unless the gate has been removed (for a DIY conversion, for example), or the reflex prism fiddled with, generally the ground glass should match the film plane. It's quite possible for the camera flange depth to be out, but still match the ground glass (if the turret plate is bowed out for example, both flange depth and ground glass will be out by the same amount). So going by eye-focus is probably more reliable than trusting the lens marks and a tape. But if the camera and lenses have been professionally checked or serviced, it's better to tape out distances for lenses up to about 50mm focal length - you'll get sharper results, and judging best focus on wider lenses by eye can be difficult. The only way to check whether all 3 critical settings are correct is to have the camera and lenses professionally checked. You could shoot chart tests for each lens, but if something is out of tolerance and the tests are soft, you may not know whether it's the ground glass, the flange depth or the lens.

Yeah, I'm not sure what a "re-stocking fee" is, but that part of the deal sounds pretty rough. It's true that some fairly cheap stills lenses can be fantastic optically, but the scale of production is many times that of cine lenses, which reduces their cost. They use plastic housings, short throw focus mechanics with enormous tolerances, and have no need for accurate scaling. And if they're not aiming for high-speed, they can optimise the optical design around it's natural maximum aperture. $400 might get you an f1.8 lens, but what's an f1.4 24mm Nikkor worth, 2 grand? And you'll often find the more expensive fast lens doesn't perform as well as the cheaper sibling. Is there an 18mm Nikkor that's faster than f2.8? From your tests I'd say the designs of the 18mm and to a lesser extent the 25mm Illuminas probably don't quite work down to T1.3, and maybe should have been limited to (and optimised for) T2, but then it wouldn't have been a uniform set. For some people the aberrations you noticed may not be a deal breaker. The only experience I've had with Illuminas was a few of their S16 lenses that I serviced for a film school, and I can't say I was particularly impressed. They weren't far off 16mm Super Speeds optically, I didn't notice any really nasty aberrations, but the build wasn't great and the scaling was so off I had to re-mark them. Anyway, you should be happy with the Ultra Primes. Here's hoping you shoot some great stuff on them and never look back!

Most 35mm cameras won't do single frame without an animation motor attached, unless they're purpose built animation cameras like an Oxberry or Acme. Cameras that don't have a focal-plane shutter - like a Konvas or Arri - also need a capping shutter to prevent light leaking past the mirror shutter and fogging the frame. Some of the best cameras for stop motion are old pin-registered Mitchells, still used today by some animation/effects companies. One cine re-seller I looked at has a single frame capable Fries Mitchell going for about 3 grand. Your cheapest option is maybe a Bell and Howell Eyemo fitted with an animation motor. If you're interested in film-originated animation but don't have a huge budget maybe think about a 16mm Bolex. For absolutely consistent exposures you'd want a single frame motor attached, but if you're just experimenting you can use the spring motor and built-in single frame advance. Funnily enough, I was at a retrospective yesterday of the amazing work of William Kentridge, and noticed he used a 35mm camera to capture his animation:

While I can sympathise with the money you lost, I'm not sure your outrage is really justified. With lenses, and cine lenses in particular, you really do get what you pay for. Why would you expect a set of (relatively) low-cost high-speed lenses to be in the same league as Zeiss or Cooke? Lens design is always a balancing act of compromises. You can't really expect a cine lens to be relatively small and light-weight, T1.3 fast, free from aberrations at every aperture and focal length, without distortion, extremely sharp, mechanically robust and precise and yet still be classified as a 'budget' option. Super Speeds are still highly sought after because they come close, but they also have their issues (particularly wide open), and unless you get a pristine set or one that's been re-conditioned there could be all sorts of wear or damage that will affect the performance. If you want perfection and high speed you need to use modern glass where affordability isn't part of the compromise - something like Master Primes or Cooke S5s, though you'll notice they still carry some weight. It's also worth noting that when Cooke or Zeiss produce lower cost optics, they drop the speed. For their cost, speed and size, the Illumina S35s are probably not a bad deal, if the only issue is a bit of distortion and field curvature on the wides. Shooting a flat chart wide open at one-and-a-half feet is testing them at their limit. Was the corner softness less noticeable further away? Did you do any other tests? Sometimes chart tests show issues that are never really noticed in real-world set-ups. Perhaps you would have been happier with Red Pro Primes, but again, the compromise there is big, heavy lenses with sloppy focus scaling and what I find to be a rather ugly bokeh. I'm not defending Lumatech (or their refund policy), but I think perhaps you're expectations were a little high. I would also suggest that anyone thinking of investing that much money in lenses should try to rent a set and see how they fit first. And if no rental companies carry them, perhaps there's a reason why.

The finder turret actually tilts in like that when you set the rear eyepiece for close focus - it's adjusting for parallax. If you set the dial for infinity the finder turret should straighten up. Shame about the winder, but you see them on ebay from time to time, if you can't fix it. One for an Eyemo should also work. Or pick up a ratty old Filmo for parts - they often go for next to nothing. Edit: seems Charlie answered at the same time!

Have a look at this behind-the-scenes grab: http://img162.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=33483_BTS_onesmallstep_122_388lo.jpg It's quite clearly a Prosilica GX camera. Which is fine, the digital Bolex is obviously more of a concept at this stage than a working camera, and you can't build a digital camera prototype from scratch.

Yeah I wouldn't use a dremel, a fine jeweller's file will do the job. But there are a number of things to consider. The most important is making sure there are no burrs remaining that might scratch the film. The rails that support the film on each side are chrome-plated and highly polished, so nothing abrasive should be used on them. Any burrs on the filed edges of the support rail need to be polished out. Also, despite the K3 being one of the easiest cameras to convert to S16, the gate actually isn't really suited for it. By widening the frame into the sound track area to make it S16 you end up completely removing the support rail on the non-claw side. So the film can potentially bow in slightly at that edge when it's positioned over the gate aperture, and result in a loss of sharpness on one side of the image. And even with any burrs removed, because the film can bow in, a sharp corner on the support rail can leave a mark. Still, plenty of people have done it themselves and been happy with their results - I'm guessing they were either careful, lucky, or not very fussy about their images. But if you do still want a S16 conversion I would recommend getting it professionally done, not only for a more scratch-free gate, but also so that the flange depth can be checked afterwards. Any time a camera gate is removed, there's no guarantee that it goes back at exactly the same depth from the lens mount - all it takes is a few hundredths of a mm difference (far less than the thickness of a human hair) and the wide end of the zoom (or wide prime lenses) will be soft. There's also the issues of lens re-centering and opening up the viewfinder, but they're not so critical if you're on a tight budget.

Read your initial post again and realised you did mention a serial number 16xx.. sorry! That would indeed make it a WWII model. But given the ongoing design modifications that occurred during that time, it's hard to say exactly what is an "original WWII configuration".

I posted some photos of our WW2 era model, serial number 700, in this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=53764 Very early ones (below around #1000) had a single lens release, square matte box pin and pertinax gate. As far as I know the war era magazines were unpainted. According to John's information serial numbers below 2000 are WW2 German combat cameras, so if you can find a serial number that would help. I'm not sure about the green paint - as you suggest, maybe they were Luftwaffe variants, or captured cameras repainted by the US military?

It's a physically long lens in the top turret port, getting in the field of view. Guess the edge of the extended frame isn't visible in the viewfinder huh?

Interesting idea.. but I don't think it will work. It would have been designed for the 10mm only, factoring in it's front element to attachment thread distance among other things. I would imagine that if it worked perfectly on the H8 RX 5.5mm as well, Bolex would have advertised the fact. So chances are it either won't work at all or you'll get some nasty edge fall off. I have access to an Aspheron attachment but not an H8 RX 5.5mm, otherwise I'd give it a go!

For really high speed circling maybe it would be easier (and safer) to spin the talent and green screen the background?

Depends a lot on the software, and the size and weight of the camera. Check out: http://www.synccine.com/nxtindex.htm We tested his rig with lightweight cameras and it did both smooth, repeatable real time moves and micro-step time lapse. It can be done but usually the software is expensive.

Almost all modern lenses are variations on only a handful of basic lens designs, which as Simon pointed out, are mostly over 100 years old. This is an interesting albeit brief essay on the subject: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/lens-geneology-part-1 As far as personal choices go, I suspect your question is a little too broad. Different lenses suit different subjects or material. What format, what budget, what look, what constraints, what camera mount, what acquisition method etc? If I had to choose a series as an abstract favourite it would be Cooke S4s - gorgeous, rich, warm, reliable, hand-scaled, mechanically simple, reasonably lightweight, perfectly imperfect.

Depends what you want to clean, how far in you need to go. Lens work is generally not easily undertaken. You need proper lens tools and it's very easy to lose collimation or damage elements. But if you have some experience, post some pics, maybe I can help.

Well this thread sure is a head scratcher.. Maybe we can work through some of the confusion. First off, Bolex shutter angles are different depending on the model. Very early ones (before serial no 100401 for H16 and 97801 for H8) had a 192º opening. In 1954 they changed it to 143º. The early variable shutter models (introduced in 1959) still retained the 143º opening, but in 1962 Bolex reduced the angle further to 130º. The modification, which also included changing the shape of the variable sector and removing a third (2-stop) setting, was done "in order to reduce the flicker of the variable shutter". The quote comes from an official modification notice in one of my Bolex service manuals that specifically mentions reducing the angle from 143º to 130º. A quick measure of the 2 shutters in my parts inventory confirmed those figures. A lot of sites and literature (including the Bolex manual exposure times, if you convert them to a shutter angle), give a figure of 133º for reflex Bolexes, and until I dug up that modification sheet and measured the damn thing, I thought it was 133º too, but there you go. Serial numbers from 195801 have the 130º shutter, though some earlier variable shutter ones may have been retro-fitted. EL and EBM cameras have 170º shutters. Whew! Now, the variable shutter is marked in stops, rather than angle (though the manual does describe the settings as quarter- and half-closed). As we discussed in that other thread, there is some discrepancy between the exposure times listed in the H16 manual, a true 1/2 and full stop reduction in light, and the idea of a quarter and half-closed shutter. The printed exposure times for the "quarter-closed" setting are pretty close to a 1/2 stop light reduction (but equate to a shutter angle of 96º, which is smaller than 1/4 closed - as it should be for a half stop), and for the 1 stop setting they equate to a shutter angle of 58º, which is neither 1 stop less nor half closed. But lets not get too bogged down in all that, the printed exposure times are probably the more accurate figures, and it's all close enough not to be a concern. When you consider all the variables involved - the meter used, the age or condition of the stock, the play in the variable shutter, the accuracy of the particular lens aperture scale and the 'approximately' 25% light loss to the prism, we're not dealing with precision exposure here. Shooting a test is always the best indicator anyway. Deep breath. Anything past the 1/2-stop (quarter closed) mark on the variable shutter (let's call it 96º) will probably give you stuttery motion, depends on how and what you're filming really. You can get strobing at normal shutter angles if you pan too quick. Until you shoot it and watch it as you intend it to be shown you won't really know how unacceptable it might be.