Dom Jaeger

Lomo (Leningrad Optical & Mechanical Enterprise) made lenses for the Russian film industry up to the late 80s, including anamorphics. The early ones had a front anamorphic focusing group (square-fronts), later ones from the 80s had a spherical front focusing element (round-fronts). There were high speed versions as fast as T1.5 (though naturally they weren't as sharp). They also made anamorphic zooms (with a rear adapter). I've read that Tarkovsky used Lomo square-fronts on Solaris and Mirror, perhaps more knowledgeable forum posters could confirm it? They tend to be almost agricultural in their build, but the glass itself is actually very good. One thing I've noticed after working on 5 or 6 sets is that there is some variation in quality. They often need to be properly adjusted and aligned to perform at their best, particularly the alignment of the anamorphic elements. Also they were all individually constructed, so swapping the removeable rear spherical unit between lenses will generally throw the whole thing out, a point that might be lost on resellers who may have used a variety of bits to make up a set. But when they're in good order they're an excellent low budget anamorphic option. Like virtually any lens of this vintage they get softer wide open. The 35mm is AFAIK the widest angle round-front they made and often the most problematic, but it shouldn't fall apart wide open. It's possible the one used in those tests needs some work. As a point of interest, the first generation Hawks had a very similar element configuration to the last Lomos. I was told the Lomo lens designer went on to work for Vantage.

Why don't you contact the various labs that process S8 and ask them what sort of volume they do? They might at least give you a rough estimate. I've been skulking around ebay's vintage movie camera listings for a while and the top model S8 cameras still sell regularly, so someone's interested. They can't all be nostalgia collectors. I'm more interested in the older Regular/Double 8 cameras - which I use - and even there certain models (like Bolex) are guaranteed to sell if the bid starts low. Some of that would be collectors for sure, also the removeable lenses seem to be sought after by certain digital shooters, but a percentage must be people wanting to film with them. If you watch music video shows you're almost guaranteed to see some 8mm footage in there, particularly for more independent bands. My impression lately is that it seems more common than previously, but maybe I'm just looking for it. From my interactions the use of 8mm also crosses over into the realm of artists and experimental filmmakers who are interested in exploring the particular aesthetic and process. It's definitely a niche, but I get the sense it's far from dead.

Hi John, it's not that surprising that the Hawks outperformed the Lomos - they're 20+ years younger and what, 3 times the rental? I would also imagine that a 1.3X squeeze makes aberrations like veiling glare or CA easier to correct in the design than a 2X. Plus you're cropping a third of the image with the Lomos to match the aspect ratio, right? Were you interested in an anamorphic 'look' for the film or was that not so important?

On an Arricam (2, 3 or 4 perf) or Moviecam Compact II (3 or 4 perf) the gate and camera movement are exchanged, a different reduction gear and belt fitted for the sprocket drive and the frame counter electronics are switched over. Each movement also has its own balancing wheel fitted to the back of the motor to eliminate vibration. I think it's pretty similar with Panavision cameras. The movement is responsible for transporting the film down 2, 3 or 4 perfs each exposure cycle (and registering it), the sprockets feed the film into and out of the gate at the appropriate speed so as to keep a constant loop size. Arricams and Moviecams can usually be converted in a few hours, provided the new movement has already been measured, checked and adjusted for that camera. On other cameras like a 435, 535 or BL the conversion is not so simple. Most conversions of older cameras would be more or less permanent I imagine.

I'm pretty sure it's between 2.6 and the first mark. The 2 intermediate marks all up the iris scale are 1/3 stop increments between full stop marks.

They stopped making 16mm pre-loaded magazines like that many years ago, they would all be unuseable now. It's possible to reload an old magazine with fresh stock but it's fiddly (especially in total darkness!), requires double perforated film and some basic film handling skills, so not something I'd recommend for a beginner. However some companies sell reloaded magazines with a limited range of stocks, or will reload them with any double perf stock beyond a certain minimum order. See for example: http://www.alangordon.com/s_filmcam16_mags.html

Hi Mohammed, funny you should ask this, I just had exactly the same problem with an SR3 mag I was servicing today. The roller spindle is sort of press fitted into the arm, so you can't actually stop it spinning if it's come a bit loose, at least not without removing the arm and trying to clamp the bottom of the spindle, or re-securing the press fit somehow. But the force required to turn the spindle should still be strong, it's just that the force needed to undo the screw is greater. So the easiest solution is to try and reduce the screw binding friction. I got mine out by soaking the screw head in a rust penetrant/lubricant spray called CRC 2-26, something like WD-40. Then give the screw a short sharp twist with a screwdriver. If that doesn't work try applying a little heat to the screw head with a soldering iron before trying again.

Yes, you're right Mohammed. I just double checked - when the voltage supply is very low it's possible that the motor can run wild. Sorry for the misinformation in my earlier post, it seems to vary between different SRIIs. The voltage needs to be down pretty low though, I got it to happen on one SRII at about 6.5V, motor cut out at a little less. The test button could also potentially do weird things. I didn't get any motor whining, but I guess it's possible. The low battery warning should come on well before the battery gets that low, unless the voltage is plummeting, in which case the cells need replacing. It's actually not good for the battery to get drained that much. On SR3s (24V supply) a relay switches off the camera at about 15V.

Oh yeah, and I reckon they'll call them "Master Scopes".. :D

Judging from the prototype photos, or have you more info? I'll be pretty curious to see these. I'm not sure how they can make top class anamorphics with an aperture of T1.5 (maybe) that are also lightweight and compact without costing an absolute bomb, even outsourcing everything but assembly. There has to be a compromise somewhere. I'm glad they've stuck to 2x squeeze though, despite the obvious market for 16:9 sensor cameras. Lower compression ratios never really look anamorphic enough to me. But it means the target is pretty much Alexa Studio or D-21 (or 35mm of course) until another 4:3 sensor camera gets released. (Having said that, we recently supplied Lomo anamorphics for an Alexa job that was going to get cropped to 1.78 - utilising half the sensor just to get an anamorphic 'look' - so these days it seems anything goes.) It's true Zeiss hasn't had much success with anamorphics. Their Ultrascopes from the 50s/60s weren't a big hit either. Not sure who made the anamorphic fronts for those.

There's no problem storing the camera with the spring wound up for short periods, when there's film loaded for instance. The advice to run down the spring motor is really only pertinent if the camera is to be stored away for months or years. It just helps to prolong the potentially very long life of the spring motor. Bolexes are remarkably tolerant to temperature extremes - they've documented Everest climbs - but they need to be serviced to operate at their best. Most of the ones I've worked on slow down a little towards the end of the spring run, but if they're in decent condition it's no more than by 1 fps or so, and only in the last few seconds. If you remember to rewind before each take it rarely becomes an issue.

Aww Steve, you really should get that set by a tech with a collimator. But you can buy plastic shim sets in various thicknesses, usually colour-coded down to 1/1000 of an inch, which you can cut and hole-punch to suit.

Have you considered renting? The best results I've seen for S16 have used Cooke S4s masked for 16, supplemented by S4Ks for the wide end. Or rent Zeiss Super Speeds if you need more speed. With rental lenses you can at least be sure they're properly collimated and checked. But if you're set on buying.. I recently serviced a set of Optar Illuminas - optically they were not far below Zeiss Super Speeds, but the build quality was decidedly inferior. Biggest problem was the focus scaling - it was all over the place. I got the feeling that quality control was sacrificed to reduce cost. You'd definitely want to test a set before buying I reckon. The Canon zooms are all pretty good, so is the Zeiss 11-110 though breathing and close focus are an issue. I also like Cooke zooms like the 10.4-52 or 10-30, but I'm partial to the Cooke look. But by their nature zooms won't generally be as good as primes, and there's more mechanical components, meaning more to go wrong. Back focus needs to be set correctly if you want them to hold focus through the zoom range. It's possible to use one zoom for a whole feature but any deficiencies will colour the entire production, and if the lens comes a cropper you're basically stuffed. But I'm just a technician, not a DP, so maybe others have a more experiential viewpoint.

It's pretty simple. Ringing the hex key socket is a lock nut. The 'special wrench' needed to undo it is basically a two pronged screwdriver - you can make your own by filing or grinding out the centre of the tip of an appropriately sized normal slotted driver. The lock nut needs to be undone half a turn, then the hex key socket can be 'undone'. But rather than screwing out, the hex socket acts against the lock nut and via a worm gear unscrews the ring locking the viewfinder J-bar. Once that ring is loosened (maybe 10 or 15 turns of the hex socket), the lock nut can be fully unscrewed, the hex socket worm gear removed, and the J-bar lock ring undone by hand. The J-bar can then be removed and replaced with the T-bar, and the unlocking process reversed to lock it back up again. The hex socket worm gear allows minute adjustment of the viewfinder lock ring tightness, which controls how easily you can rotate the viewfinder.

Hi Isaac, that's definitely not a normal occurrence. I'm not sure why it's happening only when the battery is low, maybe a component is malfunctioning when the supply voltage drops below a certain threshold. Whining and a wild motor are usually symptoms of a fault in the motor feedback circuits. Guess you can live with it if it doesn't affect normal running with a charged battery, but I'd suggest it needs a doctor.

The 35 button would be to lock in high speed (35 frames per second) for slow-motion effects. Pictures I just googled show it as 32 though - maybe yours is a high speed model? B) The dial below is the aperture selector, set to A it's automatic, set to M you can change the aperture manually. Turned all the way to C and the aperture is closed.

Well you could try removing the rexofader in case it's somehow jamming the winding arm. The rexofader needs a special winder to work properly, with a gear above the axle thread. Maybe someone fitted the rexofader without changing the winder.

Hi Nick, yes a wide angle eyepiece should give you slightly more coverage. The viewfinder optics will still be centered for Standard though, so you may need to adjust the mirror prism in the viewfinder elbow - from memory if you remove the elbow cover plate you can sometimes reposition the prism a fraction. Make sure the wide angle eyepiece fits your viewfinder, ones for an SR3 or 435 have a different connection.

You've got it the wrong way round, Richard. For TV shows and other fluff that's likely to be quickly forgotten, Alexa footage is perfect! But for the really important stuff like home movies of your kids, film is the only real option. ;)

There are various ways of testing lens resolution, the most informative for me as a lens tech is projecting a graticule (like a slide of a test chart) back through the lens onto a wall or screen. The standard chart uses 200 line pairs per millimeter as the maximum resolution needed in the centre, with 50 line pair patterns at the edges. Virtually every cine lens I test, even ones 50 or 60 years old (if in good condition) will resolve this much at 2 stops down, modern lenses even wide open. For a S35mm cine frame of roughly 25mm width, this represents a minimum of about (50 x 25) 1250 line pairs of resolution to the edge. I'm certainly not an expert on things digital, but my understanding is that it takes at least 3 pixels to even begin to resolve a line pair (one black line next to one white line), which means virtually any decent 35mm cine lens should resolve at the very least the equivalent of 3.75K. Modern high end lenses could probably resolve 12K or more. But resolution is a complex thing - contrast, chromatic abberation (colour fringing), field curvature, flaring, etc all affect the perceived sharpness of an image, and will vary lens to lens. As Karl mentioned, either end of the aperture scale will introduce abberations that also reduce the perceived sharpness. Still, I'd say any good cine lens from the last 30 years or so would easily out-resolve a 4K sensor. With the advent of lower cost digital cameras entering the professional realm many lens manufacturers have sought to provide lenses that match the price/performance of these cameras. Often the trade-off (like the cameras) is less stringent tolerances and a reduction in build quality. The upside to lenses designed for sensors is that they are telecentric, meaning the light from the rear element emerges parallel, and hits the sensor perpendicularly. That was never a concern with film lenses. Most of the time it's not a problem, but occasionally a particular film lens with a certain digital camera combination does weird things. I imagine the Canon 4K lens announcement is mainly advertising hype, to justify the cost of having to tighten tolerances back to where professional cine lenses used to be, and actually make proper lenses for this industry.

The Canon 8-64 is another very good 16mm zoom, which covers S16. The Zeiss 11-110 is the S16 version of their 10-100. The nicest I've come across though, is the Cooke 10.4-52 Varokinetal, a S16 version of the earlier 9-50. The Cooke 10-30 is another beauty, if you can find one.

A movie like Cowboys and Aliens makes $175 million (so far) and it's deemed a turkey? Larry Crowne and Green Lantern both make back $20 million more than their budgets yet they're failures too? The only real flop among that list was Mars Needs Moms (though I agree there were some questionable choices made in some of the others). It's not like the opinions of critics matter here - Michael Bay's atrocities are never deemed failures. And some of the greatest movies in history were commercial disasters at the time. I thought the whole movie business was predicated on the assumption that most films will make a loss or barely scrape back their cost, but it's a numbers game, and as long as one or two give a good return the wheels can keep turning. Otherwise why would anyone bother making art-house or niche films that will never become blockbusters? I'm curious, does it make a big difference to producers if a movie gets critical acclaim but still posts a loss? Or would it be preferable to have made a film that got universally panned but made a small profit?

Exactly. 14.4 Ah would last you a very long time, enough for dozens and dozens of mags. Those belts use lead acid cells and weigh around 5kg (11 lbs), which would get you fit but might not be necessary. You don't really need more than what you can shoot in a day. The belt can be recharged overnight. An 8.6 Ah belt weighs 3.6kg (8 lbs) and will give you 7 hours of run time (nearly 40 mags worth), which would usually be more than enough. Depends what your schedule is of course. Also if you're running accessories like a split or mini-monitor out of the camera you'll draw more current and reduce the run time, in which case a higher capacity might be handy. Just something to think about. Gotta look after your knees! B)

Hi Robin, just thought you should know, the Switar (and any other lens marked RX) is designed to compensate for the optical aberrations introduced by the prism, but not the light loss. The iris markings relate to the lens alone. You should calculate your exposure the same for every lens.

There's no such thing as a service free camera, particularly when they are high-precision mechanical ones. Have you ever heard of a service free car or a service free aeroplane? Both Arri and Moviecam movements don't require constant oiling like some Panavision ones, perhaps that's what you've heard called service free. But they still need periodic maintenance by highly trained technicians, especially if they are being worked a lot, or used in harsh environments where sand, dust or salt can contaminate them. That's one of the reasons why generally only rental houses with their own service departments have owned these sorts of cameras. To answer your questions, the Moviecam would be less reliable than the Arri, simply because no camera is as reliable as an Arri. B) Also sound cameras are inherently more complicated and require more tuning because they have the added criteria of needing to be quiet. But if something needs fixing on either one, it won't be cheap. Easy to operate? Sure, on both you just press the run button! Maybe read the manual first though. In some ways it's like you're asking: I want to go for a drive. Which car should I buy, a Formula One or a Rally car? Why don't you rent one that's appropriate for your project and give it a test drive?