Dom Jaeger

Because it's directly in front of the lens, those kinds of faders have very blurred edges, but they would still create a diminishing circle. The darkening would appear to come in from the sides because it's a rectangular frame and the circle is so diffused. The more a lens is stopped down, and closer the focus setting, the more the circular edge would be defined. I have a version for a 50's 8mm camera that is larger and fits in a matte box. It can sit a little further away from the front of the lens and is quite effective if the lens is stopped down a bit.

12V or 13.2V should be fine. The upper limit is 18V, so even a fully charged 14.4V battery would probably be OK, but given the age of the camera, it's maybe best to avoid pushing it. With film the camera should draw about 1.2 amps, so a relatively small battery capacity of 1.8 Amp-hours (Ah) will give you about 1.5 hours of normal run-time, enough for eight 400' mags. The original on-board batteries were only 1.2 Ah, these days I recell film school batteries with 1.8 Ah cells. You can make your own choice depending on cost, weight and run-time. If you want more run time you either need more batteries or higher capacity cells. Cheapest option for you is probably off the shelf 12V power packs which you can carry in a back-pack. You just need a power supply cable with a female 4 pin XLR plug at the end. The 4 pin XLR power socket at the back of the camera is wired pin 1: neg, pin 4: +12V. There may be an on-board battery adapter fitted to the XLR socket, it's easily removed by undoing the locking screw.

The trick with setting back focus on a zoom is to start at the long end, and get the focus sharp. Then zoom to the wide end and adjust back-focus (or in your case the camera flange depth) until it's sharp. Then go back to the long end and fine tune the focus. Depending on how much the flange depth was changed, it may only need a tiny readjustment of the lens focusing barrel. Then go back to the wide end and fine tune the camera flange depth if necessary. The zoom should now hold focus through the zoom range. Do the adjustment with the lens at T2.9 focused at 6 or 8 feet, double check it at infinity.

Not just the destruction of cinema. Personally I think Rupert Murdoch has done more to generally degrade humanity than almost anyone in history. Much more subtle than the usual suspects, but just as effective. I just hope he and his empire are exposed and overthrown as quickly as possible, for all our sakes. And if you think I'm being extreme, look into it.

Hi George, I agree with Jean-Louis - every base I've seen is attached by the 2 screws mentioned and easily removed. Never seen one like that though. The provision for fitting rails suggests it's a late after-market version. The quality would suggest it was made by professionals - maybe Panavision? It looks like the whole kit was refurbished at some time, the serial number is probably on the front beneath the new paint.

It was all downhill after Tom Baker anyway, the yanks couldn't possibly degrade the franchise further. Maybe a Doctor with an American accent might even be fun. We had to endure Mad Max getting a dubbed twang back in the 80's.. it's only fair you get your turn.

Hi Marty, Not sure if this addresses you're interest in exotic systems, but you sparked a response in me nonetheless. I'm only a recent convert to small formats and their history. Professionally I service 35mm and 16mm cameras and lenses but in the last couple of years I've been collecting, servicing and filming with old Standard 8 cameras. I love their build quality and design variety, and I find that the small format accentuates the beautiful qualities of film - I'm constantly amazed by how a tiny rectangle of processed reversal can be projected 6 feet wide and still look so good. I think there's a wealth of cultural history contained in the home movies of past generations. I recently bought a Bolex D8L Standard 8 camera from an old couple who insisted I also take the boxes of films and sound tape that the owner, 10 years deceased, had left in their care. I've been going through them slowly, and amidst the family outings and neighbour's new baby there are some wonderful records of my city of Melbourne in the 60's and some beautifully idiosynchratic stop motion "fillers" designed (I imagine) to keep the audience from getting bored. Unfortunately I don't have the equipment to play the magnetic tape sound recordings that accompanied the visuals. There was a Bolex Synchroniser amidst the stuff the old couple gave me, but I haven't worked out what sound system or projector might utilise it. But it strikes me how much time and effort went into some of these home movies. Titles, fade-ins, double exposures, stop-motion - all done in-camera.

Exactly. If you need synch sound go with the Moviecam Compact. It's a reliable, versatile, relatively modern studio camera. Arri were so impressed with the design they bought the company and based the Arricam on it. The 35-3 is a MOS camera from the 80's, precursor to the 435. Very steady, great for high speed, but loud as a lawnmower. Two very different beasts.

I imagine Psycho must have caused the audiences of the time to emit copious squeals of terror, likewise some other early horrors that even now have their unnerving moments, like Nosferatu, Freaks or Les Diaboliques. It would also be interesting to have been at the first screening of Michael Powell's Peeping Tom, which so revolted audiences that it destroyed his career.

As well as the corner fall-off, flares and zoom tracking that David mentioned, any pin cushioning or barrel distortion will also be more pronounced on one side if the lens is off-centre, as will any lens deficiency that gets worse towards the edges such as chromatic or spherical aberration (typically exhibited when a lens is wide open). Many older lenses only just cover the Super 35 frame, so if they are not centred they may actually vignette on one side. Using a ground glass that does not match the lens port position simply means your frames lines will be off. The bridge plate needs to be recentred because the rails support accessories such as matte boxes and lens supports that need to be centred to the lens.

Yes, film can be expensive and low quality transfers can look pretty bad. I also agree that practicing on digital cameras can be a much cheaper way of learning the basics. But I would argue that the native quality of film in terms of colour space, latitude and movement capture still surpasses all but the highest quality digital cameras, and if you have an artistic sensibility that appreciates random brush strokes above ordered pixels, film grain will always be more beautiful. There's also the discipline that 'precious' film engenders, the process (which any artist knows is half the art) and the simple joy of using a precision, mechanical device that purrs in your hands - all of which should not be underestimated, however much the dull voices of mass consumer bean counting modernity might protest. But yes, it's a road less travelled these days.

Hi Wouter, Other people have given you good advice about film stocks, processing and such, I thought I might tell you a bit more about the camera itself. The K100 was the last high quality cine camera Kodak manufactured, in a royal lineage that stretches back to the very first 16mm camera ever made, the Cine-Kodak (model A) from 1923. The K100 came out in 1956, by which time sound on film was available, utilising the space where the second row of perforations used to be, so all K100s will have single perf sprocket rollers and be able to use either single or double perf film. It takes 100 ft rolls of 16mm film, on daylight spools. The spools are designed so you can load the camera in low light without fogging the film, but if you can get hold of some old or exposed film it's good to practice loading the camera so you are familiar with how it threads. The viewfinder looks through the smaller viewing lenses on the turret (which rotate into position as you rotate the taking lens in front of the film), so it's not reflex. This means that the viewfinder will show you the the field of view, but not whether it's in focus. So you need to measure or estimate the distance to your subject and set the lens focus scale correspondingly. It's more critical at closer distances and wider apertures. It's worth checking that the viewing lens matches the taking lens, sometimes they can get swapped around! You also need to set the lens aperture by using a light meter, or if you don't have a meter you can use a digital still camera set to the same ASA or ISO as your film stock. The shutter speed is roughly twice a fraction of the frame rate, so if you're shooting at 24 fps calculate for 1/50 sec, at 16 fps it's 1/35 sec and so on. The spring motor runs for a long time, longer than most other wind-up cameras including Bolexes, but it's still worth remembering to give it a wind before each take. Nothing worse than the spring running out in the middle of a perfect moment. It takes a little more preparation than you may be used to using more modern cameras, but the results will be worth it. It's a really nice camera, I hope you have fun using it.

Hi Rob, weren't you looking for this a year ago? Any Arri branch should definitely sell it (I got some last year through Arri Sydney), though you'll never need the 100g minimum size tin - 1 or 2g should do you. I would recommend asking the closest Arri service department, or any nearby rental house that still deals in film cameras, for a small amount. It's the same grease used in many older Arriflex movements (Isoflex LDS 18/05). They would also most probably have the Chronosynth 1/8 oil as well. I could sell you some but I'm sure you can get it from somewhere closer than the antipodes. B)

At a guess I'd say the film wasn't flat in the gate - it's noticeably softer on one side. Which could be the cartridge, or something in the gate.

Given it has a constant exposure speed of 1/100 sec I imagine it uses the same spring shutter as in their other cameras, and the crank simply advances the film, cocks the shutter and releases with each turn. If that's the case the frame rate would be limited by the fact that it's hard to wind faster than 5 turns/sec, coupled with the resistive friction of the mechanism. No doubt someone will try to attach a drill to the thing and end up with bits of plastic and shredded film everywhere. :P It's a bit like a return to the very beginnings of amateur cine cameras - the Debrie Sept from the early 20's was a hand-cranked 35mm stills camera that took 15 feet of film and could shoot short movies. Only better built of course. It also had provision for a light bulb to be fitted in order to project the footage, which could be an option for the next Kino-Lomo model.. For anyone interested in a real hand-crankable 35mm cine camera that's affordable, these turn up on ebay every now and then for a few hundred bucks or so, take 80 feet and use interchangeable Zeiss lenses: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Ikon-Ica-Kinamo-N25-Movie-Camera-1920s-Carl-Zeiss-lens-/250917321315?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6bd67a63#ht_500wt_1118 Just make sure it comes with the loadable internal magazine. The lenses are 90 years old, but I guarantee they're better than a Holga lens! And with an occasional service (quite simple to do), the camera should easily last for another century. I just used mine, got it up to about 30 fps, and it worked beautifully.

Probably because they made pretty fast lenses in long focal lengths, and savvy ebay sellers realise there's a whole swag of digital shooters out there just begging to get fleeced while looking for an ultra shallow depth of field vintage lens edge in order to stand out. :) I've been hunting around for old D and C mount lenses to test out and I noticed the prices on 1930s era Dr Rudolph Meyer Kino-Plasmats were just astronomical - one nitwit in Hong Kong is asking $13,000 for one! Check it out: http://www.ebay.de/itm/Dr-Rudolph-Hugo-Meyer-Kino-Plasmat-1-3-8-inch-f-1-5-35mm-f1-5-modified-Leica-M-/280700919441?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item415b141e91#ht_9350wt_870 They pop up regularly so I don't think they're that rare, but they were quite a sensation back in the day because an aperture of f1.5 was unheard of. So when an old cameraman I know dug one out of his basement for me (in quite good condition) I was curious to throw it up on projection. Needless to say, it looked a bit like a 60s lens with less contrast and more abberations. Fun to play around with maybe, but certainly not worth hundreds, let alone thousands. I'm not saying vintage lenses can't produce beautiful images, but the idea that ancient optics might have some secret recipe that will unleash masterpieces and so be worth paying a fortune for is a fallacy. The whole point of using older glass should be that it's affordable!

Schneider have a very good on-line archive of all their old lens brochures, including their cine range: http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/archiv.htm About a quarter way down the page are 2 pdfs on "Kino-Objektiv". Most of the time you can differentiate 16mm from 35mm by the aperture/focal length combination, so for example 2/75 will be for 35, while 2.8/75 or 3.8/75 are for 16. A 28mm is for 35, while a 25mm is for 16. The 50mm is tricky since it seems there is a 2/50 for both formats. I'm not familiar enough with Schneiders to tell you what to look for. Probably the simplest thing is to ask the seller to point the lens up to a bright window with half closed louvres or blinds and move a piece of paper behind the rear element until it forms a sharp image. If the image circle is larger than a postage stamp it should cover 35mm.

Hi Flavio, yeah I'd tape up the gap, any light coming in there will degrade the image. Bernie's advice about getting it checked for collimation is spot-on, a few hundredths of a mm out and everything could be soft if you're at wide apertures. Back focus is extremely critical at this sort of focal length. Best to get it checked with the camera you'll use it on, in case the camera flange depth is slightly out. When I service wide fixed focus lenses like this I always ask if the client wants it set for close focus - like car interiors - or whether they want it to reach infinity. Like Bernie, I sometimes offer a shim to allow them to adjust it for both. On some lenses, like the Angenieux 5.9mm, the mount is easily removed to allow the internal shim to be swapped over.

Hi Mark, Welcome to the wonderful world of obsolete technologies! One of the great things about 8mm and S8 cameras is that they're so cheap you can pull 'em apart without worrying too much. If you forget how it goes back together, just buy another one! Well, most are cheap - some people seem happy to fork out hundreds of dollars for a Canon or Leicina, even thousands for a top of the line Fujica - but really, you shouldn't have to spend more than 50 bucks, sometimes just 5. With the Bolex 155 (and any battery powered camera), the most common problem is corrosion in the battery compartment. Batteries get left in there for years and leak acid, and the corrosion can travel up the wires. Cleaning the contacts with steel wool or a little wire brush and anti-corrosion spray sometimes works, but you may need to replace the wires too, which would require some disassembly and a soldering iron. The P1 is a Regular 8mm camera, meaning it takes different film, on little spools rather than cartridges like Super 8. I personally prefer the older R8 format, the cameras are virtually all spring powered with metal casings and seem to last forever. They often came with interchangeable prime lenses which is much harder to find on the Super 8s, which almost always have a fixed zoom. Bolex made a whole series like that (C8, B8, D8) which use the same body as the P1, wonderful little cameras, though not reflex. All those Bolex pocket cameras, including the P1, are quite simple to open up to access the inner mechanics. First run down the spring, then open the the pressure plate by flicking the lever, and pull it out. Then undo the screw on the block where the lever is and remove the block. There's a little spring-loaded roller at the top of the block which may come loose, note how that works in case you need to re-set the spring. Then remove the claw spring and undo the top screw holding the claw (note the washer under the claw seat). Don't undo the screw under the claw that screws in sideways, that sets the pull-down to shutter timing. You can now undo the screws holding the top plate, and access the gears beneath. A shaft connects between the plate and the footage counter at the back of the body, just watch how it fits. The general rule is a drop of oil on any bearing (where a shaft spins in a hole) and a light smear of grease on any sliding surface. Old hardened grease can be removed with a cotton bud and a cleaner like alcohol. But avoid greasing the governor, which is the sort of umbrella mechanism at the back. If you play with the speed selector you'll see a slider with a little pad moving - that pad limits the governor's spinning speed, so it and the surface it acts upon shouldn't be glugged up with grease. Originally it was lubricated just with graphite, but a dry lubricant like molycote works also. Otherwise just leave it. If you're not removing anything further you can actually wind the spring and give it a run to see how the mechanism works, but set it to the lowest speed. The important bits to lubricate are the claw axle (grease), the take up clutch under the cover plate (grease) and the few bearings you can access under the gate area (drop of oil). Have fun!

Well the glass itself is the same as that used by Zeiss Oberkochen - from Schott AG, which is very good indeed. The story of the two Zeisses is actually quite interesting, and in many ways still shrouded in mystery, a small mirror of early post-war German history. From its beginnings in the 1840s until the end of WWII Zeiss was based in Jena and the lenses were branded Zeiss Jena. Some of the most successful lens designs of the previous century had been Zeiss innovations, and by the time of the war years their ground breaking lens coating technology (first developed in the late 30s) was so effective it was a classified military secret. So both the US and Russia were intensely interested in the knowledge that was held in the Zeiss collective. The Americans reached Jena first and promptly escorted many of the upper management and designers to the US controlled region in the west, where they eventually set up Carl Zeiss AG in Oberkochen. When the Russians arrived, they appropriated the factory tooling and what remained of the skilled staff to assist their own optics industry, primarily in Kiev, but the Zeiss Jena factory was soon restarted by the East German government and began producing optics for the East Block. Most of the East German Zeiss Jena lenses were made in M42 (Practica/Pentax/Krasnogorsk 3) or Pentacon 6 (medium format) mounts, but they also made cine lenses for the Pentaflex 16 and Pentaflex 8 (the most over-engineered R8mm camera ever made), which both had their own mounts. Due to licence arrangements some of the designations are different to Western Zeiss lenses, but basically Flektagons are Distagons, Biometars are Planars, etc. I'm not aware of any Zeiss Jena lenses in Arri Standard mount, unless they are 35mm war-era lenses from before the split. The Pentaflex 16 lens mount looks similar to Arri mount but I'm pretty sure they won't fit without modification, if at all: http://www.canon-board.info/showthread.php?t=51217

You could have picked up one with 7 mags and a split for 2 grand at the recent Kerner fire sale: http://www.westauction.com/auction/item/id/626/num/31858

Here's one on German ebay that looks pretty early: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200667572786&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:DE:1123#ht_500wt_1118 It has the round matte box pin but what looks to be the single release. Seller couldn't find a serial number either.

That's very interesting John, thanks. Number 200 out of 1500 would date it quite early in the war I imagine. Some photos for reference might be of use to collectors or historians: The early magazines were unpainted. A close-up of the single lens release - two pins that you squeeze together. Must have led to the odd lens falling out on occasion! The original gate, made from some sort of fibre resin.

Yes the movement is the older type, which means it's a IIA or earlier. I've read some conflicting information about when the later "dwelling" movement with a cardioid cam was introduced, either it was with the IIA (1953) or early in the IIA production, but I would presume it came the same time as the 180 degree shutter, which seems to have been 1953. As well as allowing a larger shutter angle the new movement design made the camera steadier, as the claw acted as a form of registration pin by dwelling at the bottom of the pull-down. We have an early Arri 35 in our museum, which has the first movement, a bakelite (or pertinax?) gate, and a single release for all three lenses (sorry John, they do exist). The 120 degree shutter angle is quite a bit smaller than the 180 of later models - you can easily tell the difference looking through the lens port. The serial number on the front of ours is 700, but there's another serial number (570) inside the door. I guess that makes it a pre-war model, going by John's information. I'm curious myself about when the single release was replaced with individual mount releases. Our camera is fitted with some rather lovely (though uncoated) Meyer Gorlitz Primoplan lenses, including an f1.5 5cm, which I believe was the fastest in the world at the time. From the little research I've done that also places them pre-war, since post-war Meyer lenses (as part of the DDR) seem to be branded Meyer-Optik Gorlitz.

I'm pretty certain it's a long lens in the bottom port of the turret that got in the 10mm field of view. I was thinking film chip too at first but the "reflects light when hit directly" line and the fact it only occurred with the 10mm made me think again. It's a classic turret camera problem, led to some interesting camera designs to overcome it like the diverging turret and Bell and Howell's Spider Eyemo: http://www.golden-agetv.co.uk/img/equipment/159s.JPG