Dom Jaeger

Ah yes, my apologies, you did specifically ask about eyecups not eyepieces. I must have blithely assumed you were asking about the diopter adjustment which is in the eyepiece. Had my nitwit hat on that day.. :blink: Thanks for politely posting the correct answer. :)

Hi Joe, looks to me like you had a long lens in the bottom mount of the turret which got in the 10mm field of view. Gotta watch that with turret cameras. B)

1/2000 of an inch or about 0.013 mm was a standard CoC value for 8mm intended for projection that I've seen quoted, though it varied between manufacturers - as low as 0.006 mm for some fixed-focus lenses to .017 mm used by Taylor Hobson for some of their 8mm depth of field tables. You should do your own tests and have a look, with 8 mm grain it can be pretty arbitrary, and most of the time the depth of field is very large. A lot of 8mm lenses have depth of field scales marked on the lenses themselves, notably the Kern Visifocus ones. Someone posted some 8 and S8 tables on this thread, doesn't say what CoC value was chosen but it could be worked out from the figures: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=28046 If you shim out the mount to better align the lens markings you won't affect the depth of field, but you will change the back focus and the lens won't reach infinity, though longer focal lengths will be less affected. Actually, I'm curious, have you checked focus with that adapter? The reflex H8 flange depth is shorter than standard C mount, you may find the lenses focus at infinity well before the mark, in which case shimming will be necessary to get close focus.

Sure you can, the spring motor is cased, as long as you run it down first nothing will explode. But it's a bit of a disassemble to reach the winder seat in order to clean and re-grease it. You have to remove the spring motor, which requires removing the front. Getting the motor out can be tricky too, the square key on the winder side won't allow you to lever the motor out unless it's in a particular orientation. When you take off the front, take careful note of how the movement/shutter gears mate with the body side. The shutter fader pin on the body sits inside a groove in a sliding gear. Watch the lightmeter wires going from front to body too, unless you don't intend on using it (or it's already broken). $20 was a good deal, those cameras were really pricy when new.

Here in Oz RED cameras displaced film pretty quick for the higher end ads, now Alexas are the camera du jour. But often it's the cheapest format the producers think they can get away with. A seasoned local operator recently posted a photo of himself on his Facebook page holding a toilet roll with the caption: "Here's the latest format I've been asked to shoot on". Someone replied "well at least it's two-ply!" :lol: I can't remember the last time we supplied 35mm gear for a TVC, probably was a Korean crew flying in for the location.

It's funny, in my family we have an iPhone, a Canon 5D, hell if I wanted I could borrow an Alexa for the weekend, but quite often I choose to spend $50 on 4 minutes of Standard 8 film and processing to record my daughter's first years. Why? Because I absolutely love the process and the aesthetic, and because I know that if I store them well those rolls will still be there for my daughter and maybe her kids long after I'm gone, easily viewed on my Bolex projector or transferred if need be. My mum just unearthed a roll of Pathe 9.5mm footage of her from 1938 when she was 4 years old and it's perfectly viewable, which just reinforced my attitude. Hours of footage I recorded on digital cameras only a few years ago are already lost because the files were too big to sort through and the equipment to store them too short-lived. And even if the archival issues surrounding digital capture are eventually sorted out, I'll still want film as an option simply because it's beautiful and tangible and somehow more real. Also the cameras are so much cooler. B)

Chris, I tried to work it out, but my brain just got thor. :blink: Fractal mapping software? Scale irrelevant patterns to overcome distortion? Cool suits for the extras? What do you reckon?

Nice article, thanks Freya. I liked Spielberg's description of film grain as "the visible, erratic molecules of a new creative language", both photorealist and impressionist. And Keanu Reeve's perspective as an actor was interesting. Still working on Goddard's comment - I guess he's saying that the move from analog to digital is a step towards regimentation and loss of individuality (ordered little pixels as opposed to free and scattered silver halide), which is the preferred environment of totalitarian power structures? Well, maybe.. :unsure: Best was Dick Pope's description of his rainforest tribal shoot. Priceless!

I've been wondering about this for a while, but according to this article the last film camera was probably manufactured sometime in the past year. http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black I knew Panavision had stopped building Milleniums and Arri were only making the odd film camera to order using stock parts, but with Aaton's Penelope only fairly recently unveiled I thought they might still be manufacturing them. But apparently they've turned their attention to a new digital design, so I guess the factory has retooled. Which means film cameras are now historical objects. Still useable of course (and to my sensibility still helping to create a superior product), but no longer being made. Vale to over a century of mechanical wonders. I'm not trying to stir up another pointless argument, but as someone who works on these beautiful machines, and takes pleasure in the elegance and precision of their little internal ballet, I just thought it deserved a mention.

435 and 535 eyepieces share the same mount, the 235 shares eyepieces with the 416. The SR3 eyepiece mount is different, the Arricam eyepiece mount different again.

I don't think it'll wipe off, but it's pretty easy to scratch. Guess you're talking about your 16BL? Unless it's really dirty I'd leave it alone. And if it's really dirty the camera probably needs a service, so let a tech clean it when the camera's apart.

Hi James, It looks weird but yeah, I think the film bulges out over that protrusion, gets clamped on the locating pin below and torn at the cutting edge. Then loaded and the camera does the rest. Because I feel for you (and the 3 other guys worldwide who own Pros :) ) I can email you pdfs of the relevant pages from the manual if you send me a PM. Sorry, don't have time yet to scan and upload the whole monstrous manual. Maybe one day.

As far as I know if you want a blimped zoom for a 16BL you're limited to the original choice of Angenieux 12-120 or Zeiss 12.5-75 or the later additions of Angenieux 10-150 and Zeiss 10-100 (T3 version). From talking to people who used them back in the day the 12-120 was well regarded if you got a good one - Arri supposedly tested them before supplying a blimped version and only accepted the best ones, so obviously there was quite some variety in quality. They were a hugely successful lens and went through a few upgrades over the many years of their manufacture, so later ones will be better. Unfortunately their popularity, especially as a news gathering lens, means they will often have been worked very hard and quite probably are now out of tolerance or damaged. The Zeiss T3 10-100 was also good, quite sharp and probably better contrast, but a bit slower and a terrible breather. It also zoomed the wrong direction which annoyed a lot of people. Of course any zoom this old won't compare well with contemporary primes, let alone modern glass, but stopped down they should be OK. Worth getting them looked at by a lens tech though. With a Universal blimp you can use primes - most of the 16mm Zeisses, Schneider Cine-Xenons and Cooke Speed Panchros (not Kinetals). The 18 and 100 Schneiders and Panchros and 135 Zeiss can be used but won't fit the blimp.

Hi Doug, by coincidence I just finished servicing our Kinamo. Only took me a year to get around to it.. :D Ours runs for 15 seconds - pretty short duration but being 35mm it equates to 15 feet of film being transported, which is about the same or more than other contemporary spring motor cameras I've played with. A 16mm Cine-Kodak B for example runs for about 30 seconds before slowing, having only transported 12 feet of film. Also, by contrast, the Kinamo motor was designed to stop before the speed slows. Yours might be running a bit fast if the governor is worn. It's an unusual motor design. Apparently the inventor, Emanuel Goldberg, spent ages tweaking it and making sure it still performed in freezing conditions. As one of the first truly hand-holdable cine cameras he wanted it to be reliable even on mountain tops. This is a photo of the spring mechanism. The cased spring drives the primary gear via a cable, the length of which controls the duration of the unwind. The ingenious part of the design is the conical drum that the cable wraps around. As the spring unwinds, the diameter of the drum increases, effectively reducing the gear ratio so that the motor has less work to do. It means that the spring can exert a constant force for the duration of its run. Another view showing the drum and its ratchet gear connecting to the drive gear and the little governor behind it. The drive gear drives its shaft via a spring that dampens the start and stop jolt, presumably to prevent damage to the film and movement mechanism. A shot of the polished brass gate and pressure plate. I recently acquired one of the first Kinamo models, made by Ica before it merged to form Zeiss Ikon. It's crank driven, and probably dates from 1922. Pictured with a Zeiss Ikon 16mm Kinamo from the late 20's, which is about the size of two cigarette packs: One last photo, of Australian cinematographer Paul Ruckert using a Kinamo in 1930. It shows a magazine attached to the rear, which is interesting, as I've never come across any reference to a Kinamo mag.

There's a free German language manual on this page: http://www.webjam.com/cinetechnique/super_8/$journal/2009/04/08/zeiss_ikon_moviscope__visionneuse_8_mm_ou_16_mm Click on "mode d'emploi.." You can also buy an English manual for 6 bucks here: http://www.texsales.com/proddetail.php?prod=OM6630&cat=7

Hi Fabio, welcome to Melbourne, hope you enjoy your time here. Like most places the local film industry is pretty small and hard to break into. It's been even smaller lately because of our high dollar which has scared off the foreign productions. But you could try dropping in to the main rental houses (Panavision, Cameraquip, Lemac) to see if there's any internships or positions available - that's probably the best way to make contacts in the industry. It's getting a bit late in the year, but there's also the various film schools (VCA, Swinburne, Griffith) where you could offer to help out on student shoots in order to meet people and get more experience (and maybe score a free lunch B) ).

Some rare behind-the-scenes footage shot on a Standard 8 camera smuggled in by an audience member: Shows the sets in colour, and intercuts with the corresponding B&W 35mm show footage. Very interesting.

Sometimes working the focus ring and warming the lens will marginally free up a stiff focus, but really, there's no quick and easy fix. The lenses need to be dismantled and the focus threads cleaned and relubricated. It's a job for a lens tech - without a collimator or a familiarity with lens mechanics it's very easy to lose the carefully callibrated back focus setting, among other potential problems. You can have a go yourself, of course, if you're up for a challenge. Just measure and mark everything as you dismantle it (especially the point where threaded rings begin to screw together - there are typically many thread starts but only one will give the correct collimation). But even with great care, chances are the focus scale won't be reliable afterwards, especially on the wider lenses. You'd also need to source some decent and appropriate lens grease, have the right tools, and avoid damaging any sealed-in set screws or exposed element surfaces.... have I dissuaded you yet? B)

No, it was a mathematical discovery first. It's a very specific ratio relating to growth and proportion, which was seen as mystical (rather than aesthetically pleasing) by early geometricians who were searching for mathematical answers to the universe. They incorporated it in their architecture and art, and through the centuries other artisans and artists with a mathematical interest have continued to find it inspiring. The aesthetic beauty derives from the various interpretations of its mathematical properties, not vice versa.

A good wind-up Bolex can keep speed remarkably well - I measured one recently that deviated no more than a fifth of a frame per second up until the last few seconds, though generally they slow a little more than that. As Chris said, if it's in good condition there should be no difference in image quality from a motored version. For travelling purposes the advantage of a wind-up is you don't have the extra weight of batteries and a charger, and you never have to worry about whether your battery is about to run down. They're also cheaper to buy and to service, and often more reliable, or at least harder to break. But I must admit a bias - I love those old wind-ups!

One of the great things about this site is the wealth of information contained in the archives, and this kind of question has probably been asked a dozen times over the years. For example: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=36429&hl=%20cleaning%20%20lenses&st=0 So it's always worth doing a search of the archives before posting a question that's not particularly specific. But anyway here's my take, since I'm only a relatively new contributor.. The first thing I'd emphasise is never try to clean a lens without blowing off any surface debris first. If there's anything guaranteed to scratch an element it's dragging a hard speck across the surface with a tissue or cloth. I've never had a problem blowing air onto a front or rear element. Canned air might possibly spatter the surface with moisture, but that's easily cleaned off. My personal preference is to then use a tissue folded into a coned wedge dipped in isopropyl alcohol, starting from the centre and spiraling out to the edges. I roll the tissue slowly as I go to lift off any particles that the air didn't remove. If it's a large element I might use several tissues. If there are stubborn marks I'll use acetone, maybe with a cotton bud, being careful to avoid any edge blacking. Sometimes lens cleaners like Pancro or Rosco (I use a German brand called Sidolin) remove marks that neither alcohol nor acetone can clean, but I find that they often leave streaks or residue so I need to go over the surface again with alcohol. Once I'm certain the surface is clean I might do the breath and buff thing, but it's generally not necessary, and if you're using a micro-fibre cloth you need to make sure the cloth is clean. Bear in mind I'm a lens tech doing this at my bench. In the field people have different techniques, but as a general rule the less you need to clean a lens the better. The damaging things are usually fingerprints, spittle, and salt crystals (beach sand, sea breeze etc), which can all etch into the element coating if left for too long.

We've got one in our rental fleet, it just went out on a job for the first time in yonks so I had a good look at it on a projector collimator. It's a beautiful lens, probably the nicest S16 zoom I've seen - pin sharp edge to edge, no distortion, minimal breathing, and virtually no image degradation even fully open (at T1.5 no less!) - just a slight veiling glare that reduces contrast. Only drawbacks are the size and weight. Definitely worth using.

I just took some quick measurements off a Zeiss PL mount while working on a Super Speed. Might also be useful as a future reference. Rear lip OD: 54.00 Flange OD: 63.0 (not critical, probably a safe maximum) Wings OD: 68.5 (not too critical) Base OD: 62.0 (not critical) Thickness of flange/wings: 2.00 (tolerance at a guess +/- 0.03) Distance from mount base to flange seat/rear of wings: 5.50 (for older Zeiss lenses) (This will vary depending on the lens but 3.5 (distance from base to front of wings) is probably a good minimum to allow clearance for the lock ring) Cut-out in middle of wing for locating pin: 3.00 wide machined in to base OD (62.0) Width of each wing: around 24 or within an eighth of the circumference (not too critical) Depth of rear lip: 12.0 (not critical, plenty of mounts protrude less, but 12 is probably a safe maximum limit) All measurements are in mm. Undercut where flange seat/rear of wings meets the rear lip, remove all burrs.

Just to clarify, that's the in-camera accessory supply pico fuse, not the battery fuse. For the battery I'd use a 15 amp fuse - the start-up current can potentially spike above 10 amps.

Hi Jean-Louis, you and Tom seem to have worked it out already, but for what it's worth, I have specs for the BL4s - I think it's pretty similar to a BL4 in terms of current draw. The camera movement alone should draw 1.8 A. At 24/25 fps with a 400' load the draw should be 2.5 - 3 A. Of course, if you're running enough accessories from the camera accessory socket (lens light, heated eyepiece, split, mini-monitor, Preston etc) you can easily double that. I think the supply fuse is 7 amps. 12V 7Ah lead-acid block batteries were pretty standard for these cameras, but if more weight isn't an issue and there are a few accessories to power a 12Ah cell is better. If you're going with NiCads, you should be OK with 14.4V (we never had a problem). You're definitely fine with 13.2V.