Dom Jaeger

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.

Well this honest-to-goodness optical guy thinks you're pretty spot on Dan.. B) Yes, the tolerances are fairly tight. The rear lip of the mount needs to fit snugly in the camera mount cavity, so that the lens is centred and can't move around, but obviously you want to err on the side of too small. Undercutting where the rear of the wings meets the lip will help the lens seat properly. Other than that the critical things are flatness of the mounting surfaces (mount to lens seating, top and bottom of the wings - ideally within 0.01 mm) and the thickness of the mount wings. Too thick or thin and the PL locking ring either won't slide over the wings or slides too far past. I think 2.00 mm is the upper limit. The depth will be the tricky thing. Proper PL mounts are machined about 0.1 mm under where the exact back focus should be, then shimmed the rest, so you can set it exactly. It's easy if you have access to a collimator, otherwise you have to play with shims until infinity focus lines up. You can make your own shims out of thin plastic sheets with a compass cutter and a hole punch. I'm guessing you'll be just eye-focusing when you come to use the lens, so as long as you can reach infinity you'll be right. Not an easy thing to fabricate though.

It's probably the most interesting ratio there is (and there are some very interesting ones out there!).. The easiest way to visualise it as a rectangle of sides 1 and 1.618 (or 0.618 and 1 - the ratio is the same). It creates a very pleasing shape, but the magic comes when you divide it into a square and another rectangle. The smaller rectangle will have exactly the same proportion as the larger rectangle. Segment the smaller rectangle with a square again and you are left with an even smaller rectangle of the same proportion, ad infinitum. You can do the same thing with a line, dividing it into a smaller and larger portion with the ratio 1:1.618 (or 0.618:1). The proportional relationship of whole line to large section is the same as that of large section to small section. There exists only one point in the division of a line into 2 unequal parts that creates this proportional symmetry - the golden section. So it can be used not only as a framing shape, but also to divide linear space, or create more complex forms such as spirals. In nature it creates patterns that remain the same proportionally no matter how big they become. It also pops up in all sorts of seemingly unrelated mathematical areas from the Fibonacci series to tiling patterns. I suspect we respond on some subconscious level to the proportional symmetry of the ratio and find it aesthetically pleasing.

Lens coatings are generally applied layer by layer in a vaccuum chamber with the coating materials vaporised and allowed to condense evenly on the element, at temperatures of several hundred degrees. A more recent technique involves bombarding the surface with ions, which doesn't require high temperatures. If you do a tour of a lens manufacturing facility the only room you're not allowed in is the coating lab - it's the cleanest room in the building. The tiniest contamination and the whole process has to be redone. Like Tom says, you often need to heat up a lens during a service and they can take a fair bit of heat. But I think sustained heat is not so good - it can dry up lubricants and I've seen the edge blacking of elements quickly deteriorate (causing an interior speckling effect that rings the glass) after shoots near volcanoes for example, though that could also be the atmosphere. The coatings seem unaffected though!

It should be centred. Can you post a photo of how it mounts to the camera?

Hi Andrew, On flat-base cameras the leatherette at the front of the base peels off, and the plate beneath is removed to screw on a slide block that holds the rear spacer of the matte box rods. On round base cameras a flat base adapter (BASOU) with a built in slide rail screws into the underside, and the matte box attaches onto that. The slide rail can be adjusted for centering. I've only seen the flat-base version myself, but it's all covered in Andrew Alden's Bolex Bible, quite a handy resource, especially for accessory info. You can make your own mattes - the original assembly was supplied with sheets of acetate and black cardboard for that very purpose.

Yes for very high speeds and 1000 ft loads 12V batteries are often not enough. On occasion we've used 14.4V batteries without problem so 13.2V is definitely fine. The upper limit of the motor electronics tolerance is around 35V I've been told (so two 14.4V batteries fully charged are sailing pretty close to the wind).

Hi Jonathan, look you don't need to be too fastidious, those figures I gave were in the interests of accuracy and to give you an idea of how much a NiCad should be discharged, but they're pretty tough batteries. Without a low battery warning or meter it's pretty hard to monitor the voltage level for optimum battery life, my point was mainly that you don't need to keep discharging the cells after the speed dips. The danger with bulb discharging is that it will just keep draining the cells, whereas most appliances reach a cut off point where the voltage drops too low to keep working. It would be good if the battery re-celler can check your charger as well, but if it's working OK an overnight charge should be fine. I'll assume that the camera is an Arri 2C, which should draw 2A without a load and about 3.5A with a 400 ft load. The constant speed motor should keep speed until the voltage drops to between 12 and 13V. (That's a little past the 'recommended' discharge limit, but it won't damage the cells.) So if your new cells are 8 Amp-hour capacity the battery should run a 400 ft load for over 2 hours before the frame rate dips, at which time they'll be well ready for recharging. If it's an old power cable, or the mag take-up tension is too stiff you'll draw more current and get less run time. If it's significantly less I'd get the charger, cable and camera checked.

The 'recent scam' of experimental, non-narrative cinema (labelled as such) probably starts with films by the Dadaists, Surrealists and other revolutionaries of the 20's, the best known examples being Un Chien Andalou and Man with a Movie Camera, both from 1929. Dali, Bunuel, Vertov - all poseur hacks I guess... :blink: Malevich painted his Black Square back in 1915, so the total abstraction scam has been going nearly a century now. Just personally, I could stare at a Rothko for hours, but I'm a bit of a wierdo. As far as today's mainstream cinema goes, I thought Children of Men really pushed the envelope stylistically, in a way that enhanced the film's narrative. I came out of that one blown away, even though I don't generally like too much hand-held.

At what voltage is the frame rate dipping? What's the camera supply voltage meant to be? Unless your battery voltage is too low for the camera or you're dropping voltage over the cable or connections, I would have thought by the time the frame rate dips the battery should be ready to recharge. It doesn't need to be drained completely flat, in fact that will shorten its life. The battery capacity will give you an idea of how long it should run for - if it's 8 Amp-hours for example it should supply 2 Amps for about 4 hours, before the voltage drops 10-15% below its nominal level and may start to affect the appliance (at least while the cells are relatively new). You generally don't want to discharge a NiCad battery much more than about 15% below the nominal voltage (each 1.2V cell down to 1.0V), 10% below is roughly the recommended discharge limit for maximum longevity (down to 1.1V per cell). In your case (16.8V) you'll get the longest life out of the cells if you recharge when the battery hits 15.4V, and avoid draining it below 14V (measured under load). With modern NiCads it's not too bad if the battery is regularly being only partially discharged before charging again, as long as every month or two the cells are exercised with a full discharge/charge cycle (down to 1.0V per cell). A very occasional deep discharge down to 0.5V per cell can be useful to rebalance and recondition the cells but it should be a very low discharge rate, otherwise you risk cell reversal and internal shorting. All of which is to say, if you use bulbs to fully discharge your battery belt, monitor it with a voltmeter to avoid draining it below 14V.