Dom Jaeger

As someone else mentioned, the loop formers on K3s were poorly designed, and often don't retract properly, causing the film to rub against them and potentially cause scratching and registration issues. Which is why many people remove them. There's a website that describes the removal process I think. The size of the loop is important for steadiness, but manually forming it is quite easy. The other main causes of unsteadiness in this kind of camera are too much pressure from the pressure plate, and friction in the gate (usually from dirt build-up). There are other causes, but these are the most common. If you're up for it, it might be worth removing the loop formers, cleaning the gate and checking that the pressure plate has some give when it's up against the film. To find out if the camera is scratching, run 2 feet of a 3 foot length of fresh stock through, then before removing the film, with a sharpie mark on the film where the gate starts and ends. Remove the film and study both sides for scratching (you're looking for continuous or repetitive longitudinal scratches. Depending on where a scratch starts relative to your gate marks, you can tell what part of the transport is scratching. If it's all good, shoot a quick test. It may not need a visit to the doctor.

Hi Robert, I'm not sure where you're located, but if you fail to find anything locally, I have a couple of Kinetal wings in my parts inventory - I could sell you one. I'm at the far ends of the earth, though! As John mentioned, there were similar wings fitted to older Arri mount Zeiss and Schneider lenses, so as well as service techs like Tim perhaps a long established rental house in your vicinity may have some old bits lying around. The Zeiss and Schneider wings have slightly wider screw spacing compared to Kinetals, so it would be easier if you can find the matching size, but it's not something a bit of filing couldn't overcome. If you're handy you could just make one out of a spoon handle.. B)

Yes it looks very similar to the prism in an old 35mm editing viewer that we have in our museum. The prism facets follow the film as it moves, so that each frame remains stable in the viewer before dissolving into the next. It's the same principle at work (reversed) in high speed camera prisms, though the ones I've seen are smaller and coupled with a spinning, multi-segmented shutter. To make a camera out of your nifty bit of treasure, you'd probably need a gate on the sprocket side to guide and hold the film at a consistent plane and a lens of some sort to focus through the prism. The smaller the lens aperture the less you need to worry about an exact focusing plane, so maybe just a pin hole would work? Otherwise a piece of tracing paper over the gate opening will let you see if you can get a focused image with a mounted lens. Without a shutter the prism facet will determine the frame, so you might get edges smearing or some other effect (not really sure!) but as John said, play around with some release print first and see how it works. Sounds like fun project!

Hi Phillip, the early Bolex motors - Unimotor, U-62, MC-17 - or ones made by Stevens, all drove via the 8:1 shaft. They tend to require different input voltages for the different speeds, either with transformers or variable battery packs. There were changes to the diameter of the 8:1 shafts, so if you consider buying a motor, ask the seller for the drive shaft dimensions to make sure it matches your Bolex. Regarding the Arri 16S - I'm sure you could still get them serviced by various people around the globe, but parts may be hard to find. Tim Carroll, who posts here a lot (though he's been quiet lately), is the master of all things Arri S. His website is a great resource for anyone contemplating investing in one: http://arri16s.com/ His advice on this would be a lot more reliable than mine. If you're in the US I'm pretty sure he still services them. (Tim?) Otherwise various Arri agencies might have a tech familiar with them. I can service them in Australia, but I only have a handful of parts. They're beautiful cameras, but your C-mount Bolex lenses won't be compatible, so keep in mind you'd also need to invest in new (old) lenses with Arri Standard or Bayonet mounts.

Ok - basically you shoot a grid pattern test chart, then you rewind the film, offset or twist the chart slightly, and shoot it again. On the first pass you shoot at all the frame rates you want to check, maybe 24, 50, 60 and 75. You only need to get 5 or 10 seconds at each frame rate. Make sure you label the chart with the mag number and each frame rate. On the second pass, with the chart tilted and the labels removed, you shoot that same length all at 24fps. Repeat the procedure for each mag. You only need to process the film, viewing the projected neg is fine. What you'll get is a double exposure with 2 grid patterns, offset so you can check if there is any movement between them. Don't worry about the whole image steadiness, that is unimportant (and related to the projector), what you're looking for is any change between the 2 grids. When a camera is steady the 2 grids will not move relative to each other.

Nice work Nicholas, and Jean-Louis. The interchangeability of parts in Bolex H8 and H16 models makes this a fairly easy mod, though being a Bolex tech myself (far below Jean-Louis' experience however) I imagine it's not without some difficulties... unless you have the parts you need two cameras for a start. The advantage over cropping half of 16mm footage and then reshooting on the other half as Chris describes would be that it's much easier for the user, the lens is centred as opposed to using the top or bottom half of the lens image circle, and I imagine transfer would be simpler (that last one is a guess though). The disadvantage is that you're limited to the stocks available for double eight - namely reversal - unless you get that guy in England to reperf some negative for you.

Hi Deepak, First off, I'm not very familiar with Aatons, but I work on other cameras, so maybe I can help a little. Otherwise, if someone who knows Aatons better chimes in, listen to them. If your other high speed footage was OK you can probably rule out things like unstable camera support, camera vibration or transfer issues. To properly work out what's going on I think you should shoot a double exposure steady test, at various frame rates and with each mag. If you're unsure of any part of the procedure let me know and I'll describe it (or at least the version I find works best). Just make sure the camera is firmly supported on a solid floor when you shoot the test. You haven't said what camera you're using, but as far as I know 75fps is the top speed of XTRplus and above 16mm Aaton models, so you're testing the camera and mags to their limit. Any wear in the movement, or out of tolerance pressure plates or clutches in the mags, or even just dirt build-up in the gate, will affect vertical steadiness at high speed more than normal speed, at least in the cameras I work on. But once you've shot a steady test you'll know for sure if it's the camera, a mag, or something external.

OK Matthew, if you say so. I'd rather be paranoid with a problem than a butthead, I guess. B)

Hi Matthew, I can only assume I'm one of the the 'film snob buttheads' you're referring to. Didn't you just express in another thread the desire not to see people abused on these forums? For the record, I thought a Bolex kit for under a grand was a good start for film newbies. I mentioned that given the plummeting prices for industry standard sound cameras, for sync sound it might be worth considering investing in one of those (these days starting at maybe 6 grand or less), rather than buying a camera for 1 or 2 that can be harder to find parts and service for. I never said it was the only option, and of course it's dependent on a person's budget, location and intent. I'm just one voice among many sharing their viewpoint. Because I'm a repairman my perspective comes from the service aspect. I'm more than happy to stand corrected, that's really why I post here - I'm more interested in learning than lecturing. So if you disagree with me, argue the point. Maybe someone in the States has a store full of Eclair parts, maybe there are plenty of CP-16 service guys out there, maybe it doesn't really matter. Calling me a butthead in a different thread does nothing to advance your argument, it just makes you sound like an angry crank. Sorry to further the highjack of this thread, but I find it galling to be abused and accused of helping along the demise of film when I've devoted my career to supporting it.

The right frames will be running in reverse, though, won't they? Which can be a cool effect.. Probably the simplest way to do split screen in-camera is to use a regular 8 camera that has back-wind facility - most of the high end ones had it (Beaulieus, Arcos, Bolex H8s, plenty of others). The film is on spools so it can be rewound as much as you like. If you get a camera with interchangeable lenses, you can remove the lens and mask half of the aperture with black tape. If the lens is fixed (or you don't want to screw around with the aperture) you could mask half of the front of the lens with a matte box or simply some cardboard, but the split won't be as sharply delineated. Then shoot one sequence, rewind the film, mask the other side and shoot again.

Hi all, for anyone in Melbourne interested in the history of movie cameras, over the next 2 weeks a selection of our museum 35mm cine cameras will be on display in the upstairs lounge of the Forum Theatre at 154 Flinders St as part of the Melbourne Film Festival. Worth a gander I reckon. :)

Hi Wiki, it's not as simple as marking a 16S ground glass unfortunately, but the same principle applies. I'm assuming it's a Standard 16 ground glass. In the past what I've done is cut 2 thin strips of contact adhesive, 1.5mm wide and 15mm long, and placed them along the top and bottom of the upper surface of the fibre screen. (The lower surface is where the frame seats in the camera, very important in maintaining the proper flange depth for focus, so you don't want to put anything on that side.) On the upper surface the fibre screen is recessed, so the contact adhesive strips are placed inside the top and bottom edges of that recess. I fold the last 1mm of the strips, to make a handle to remove them if they need repositioning. The handles can be snipped off with scissors once the position is correct. The relative position of your 1.78 frame doesn't matter, it can be centered or top or bottom etc. I find centered easier to mark. For extraction you just need to shoot a frame leader showing how you've framed. You need to fit the ground glass, check it through the viewfinder against a frame you've marked up, and reposition the strips if necessary. It can take a few goes, and some plastic tweezers and a magnifying loupe is helpful. Chances are you have TV frame lines (1.33) which as an aspect ratio crops in a little at the sides compared to the 1.37 full gate aperture. If you use the inner 'TV safe action' frame you'll be losing too much area to cropping, it's only 8.4 mm wide. The outer 'TV transmitted' frame lines (actually just corners) are 9.35mm wide, so if you used that frame you'd want you're unmasked 16:9 area to be a little under 5.3 mm height. But the corner markings mean it can be hard to judge the exact edges of the frame, unless you use more strips to complete the side frame lines. Perhaps simplest is to use the very outer frame line (surrounded by the grey area), which is the full aperture so you're using the maximum film width, but it will leave you no wriggle space on the sides. It's 10.3 mm wide, so your height then would need to be 5.8mm. Good luck!

Well Matthew I spend a great deal of my time trying to help keep film alive as a low budget option, whether its assisting film schools and servicing their film gear, or checking and repairing old film cameras and lenses very cheaply for students and amateurs. There's no money in it, but luckily the company I work for is passionate about film. I actually think what's more likely to turn a low budget filmmaker off film is buying a clapped out camera kit for cheap, then spending hundreds of dollars on stock, processing and transfer only to find the images are soft or unsteady or scratched or fogged because the camera and/or lenses need a service. Then spending weeks trying to find a service agent, hundreds of dollars more on freight, service, possibly parts if they can find them, then more stock and processing before they can even see a result. Sometimes people don't even get that far - they don't actually realise something's wrong, they just think: "gee, film looks crap". It's not my attitude, it's a physical reality that cameras (and lenses) are finely tuned machines that need regular maintenance to work properly. You can get lucky, and some cameras are inherently more reliable than others, but it should be factored in to any discussion about the cost of a film kit. That's why I think Bolexes are a good low budget choice for 16mm. If you want to shoot synch sound of course there are ways to do it on a micro budget besides renting, if you're passionate and patient enough. But these days a serviced Super 16 Arri SR2 kit can be had for well under 10 grand - not much really to get to a professional grade, highly reliable sound camera, with far less headaches.

I'm pretty sure you could get better deals these days on 16mm rentals, but it's worth remembering that a large part of the cost to rental houses is regular upkeep, repair, storage and employing knowledgeable staff (none of which are any cheaper just because the gear is less valuable on the second hand market). Aside from a large choice of equipment, the benefit of renting is that you know the gear is serviced, checked and working, you have technical assistance, and back-up if something goes wrong. So you're paying for much more than just the initial purchase cost. I think in the price range of the original post I'd agree with Robert that a good Bolex kit is probably the best option. Mainly due to serviceability and reliability. A serviced Bolex with say Switar primes can produce exceptionally good, stable images. They're cheap to service, can be fairly easily converted to Super, and you can take them up Everest or into jungles and they'll still work. A good kit can be had for well under a grand. By comparison, finding parts or service people for Eclairs, CP-16s, Scoopics etc is a much tougher prospect, and generally these cameras are not as durable and more likely to need a service. (You can always get lucky, of course.) If you want to move up to purchasing a synch-sound camera, I think it's worth jumping up the cost scale to an Arri SR2 or 3 or an Aaton, especially now that they're getting cheaper.

It might help if you gave a location. :)

Hi Jurgen, any chance of a similar book on Standard 8? The camera photos will be so much prettier.. :D

At the risk of getting bashed attempting to intervene in a fistfight.. In terms of field of view, any DOP worth the title should know which focal length suits a particular format. There are plenty of apps or online guides if they're unsure, eg http://www.abelcine.com/fov/ But as Stephen correctly pointed out, the distortion of a particular focal length will vary with different lenses. An 18mm Zeiss Super Speed may not yield exactly the same image as an 18mm Cooke S4, for example. Abberations such as barrelling, pin-cushioning or breathing will vary from brand to brand, especially at wide focal lengths or with anamorphics. Sometimes focal lengths are approximations. Zooms are even less predictable. It's one of the difficulties of 3D work that without compensating software even 2 lenses that are the same brand, series and focal length may not perfectly match each other through their focal range.

Really? Watercolour painting is delicate, luminous, unpredictable and organically fluid. It takes years of practice and a solid understanding of how it will look before the mark is made. And it's very hard to correct a mistake. I think the comparison with acrylics is much closer. B)

From the testing I've done, most of those viewfinder prisms divert enough light to lose about a third to a half of a stop. Haven't tested that baby though.

Hey Nicholas, you got some lovely effects in that movie. Some of the band shots did remind me of Francis Bacon paintings. Matthias, as I see it, the only way you'll get anything vaguely recognizable is if the subject is moving at the same speed as the film. Is that the idea? You could try and work out how fast the film is being transported (at 18 fps, one frame = 4mm in maybe 1/40 sec, so 16 cm per second?) and have the subjects move at that speed past the tilted camera. I don't know how it'll play back as moving pictures, but you might get some interesting individual frames. Alternatively, you could move the camera at that speed, in the opposite direction of the film movement, perhaps circling a subject as Nicholas suggested, or from a moving car window? The toughest bit will be judging your exposures. They'll be quite fast, for a 1mm wide slit maybe 1/160 sec? If the film transport phase is quicker than the open shutter period, or your reversed timing is a bit out, you'll get patches of higher density at regular intervals, where the film is stopped but the shutter is still open. Should be fun! Definitely let us know how it goes.

Most reflex H16s have a shutter angle of 133 degrees, giving an exposure time of 1/65 sec at 24 frames per second. (The early ones without a variable shutter were 144 degrees, giving 1/60 sec.) But the beam splitter prism between the lens and the gate on reflex Bolexes diverts a quarter of the light to the viewfinder, so you need to adjust your exposure slightly for that. One option is to use an 'adapted' exposure time of 1/80 sec instead of the actual 1/65, but given that your SLR only has a 1/60 sec setting, the easiest thing to do is set it to 1/60 with the ASA on 200 (for Tri-X) and just open up the lens on the Bolex a third of a stop more than your reading (to approximate 1/80). That's your 'proper' exposure. You can open the lens another third or half stop on top of that, if you follow Paul's advice to overexpose.

I recall very much enjoying the interviews from Mark Lewis's 1988 cult classic "Cane Toads: An Unnatural History". Not in terms of the lighting, but the individual settings (often exteriors), which beautifully complimented each subject's quirky uniqueness. I'd also second Errol Morris. His interviews are just about always visually interesting, but for a documentary that revolves around a single interview, I found "Fog of War" riveting.

Hi Matthias, what effect are you hoping to achieve? Have you thought about how to translate those sorts of still images into moving pictures? As Martin said, exposing cine film as it is being transported just results in smears of light. Even if you masked the gate down to a slit, you would just get very fast exposures of the same slitted field of view smeared across the frame. People have experimented with setting the shutter slightly out of synch, which results in a viewable image with the highlights streaking vertically. What might be interesting, and closer to the effect of the photos you referred to, is to use a camera with a variable shutter, set to a very narrow angle, and film at a slow frame rate. The narrow shutter angle would work like a slit passing across the film, and at slow filming speeds any subject motion would cause deformations. Played back at normal speed, of course, everything would be sped up, and very jerky, and the individual frame deformations would probably all blur together into an unwatchable mess.. but hey this is art right? B)

Meopta were a Czech company, one of the East Block's main photographics manufacturers, especially for enlargers and medium format cameras. In the movie world they mostly made projectors and 8mm cameras, but also the odd 16mm camera model. As someone else here posted, they were kind of an East Block version of the American camera maker Keystone, with products aimed firmly at the amateur market. The company still exists, but now focuses on where the real money is: military optics. I've only had a chance to assess their 8mm lenses - they're actually surprisingly good. Not up to Kern or Taylor Hobson quality, but certainly not rubbish. The cameras are pretty average, though. The 16A might be fun to play around with, but it's certainly no good for any serious project. Being electric, you'll get longer takes than a wind-up, but you're still limited to 100 foot spools, and the mechanically governed speed won't be reliable. Old electric motors (especially in amateur cameras) are also more prone to failure than mechanical spring motors. And the viewfinder is shocking. It ran off (I believe) 6V rechargeable batteries in the handle - I'm not sure what replacements will fit. Some manuals (in Czech) are available here: http://www.meoptahistory.com/download/Admira-16-A1-Electric---CZ-pdf-3922.pdf http://www.meoptahistory.com/download/Admira-16-A-Electric---CZ-pdf-2370.pdf One of them has depth of field tables for the Openar 20mm. For anyone interested, Meopta made the coolest range of 8mm movie cameras ever, the Adastra series, but they only reached prototype stage. Quite odd, as all their other designs were boring and boxy. http://www.meoptahistory.com/?id=313

If the thieves were clueless, here's hoping they don't log on to Cinematography.com for some advice.. No offence Tom, but I don't think that post was helpful.