Dom Jaeger

Daniil (Kamera Doctor) has sold a few cameras in the US through Richard Bennet at CinemaGear, who I contacted last year to ask about the quality of his work. Richard was very positive about him, but unfortunately Daniil is from Russia.

Not really the sort of problem that can be diagnosed over the internet, the rental house needs to sort it out. But obvious things to check are the cables and monitor, so if you can swap those over it will isolate the problem. If it still happens then the issue is the IVS itself and an experienced electrical tech needs to look at it.

That share site is unfortunately compromised, my IT department detected a Trojan virus. Don’t click on the link!

Not your usual camera choice Greg.. ? There are only a few options left that I'm aware of. Jean-Louis Seguin, who posts here sometimes, is the best Bolex tech I know, and does excellent conversions, but I believe he is semi-retired now so may not be taking on new jobs. You could ask him though: bolextech@gmail.com Otherwise there is Dr Bolex, who also posts here sometimes as Arthur Sanchez: https://www.drbolex.com/super-16mm Or Cameraspro, whose conversions seem OK from the one or two I've seen: https://bolexsuper16.com/ Across the pond in the UK there is a company that converts Bolexes called Stecica: https://www.stecica.com/ Unfortunately I can't recommend Les Bosher anymore.

Congratulations to the Logmar team for continuing to design and bring to market new film movie cameras in this day and age! I have nothing but respect for their efforts. I hope they get enough orders to make it worthwhile.

Arri 2Cs usually have 165° shutters. The variable shutter model (2C BV) is described as opening up to 165° but the fixed shutter model is also 165° (unless a camera was modified to 172.8° to deal with flicker). All the Arri 2C literature describing a 180° shutter angle is incorrect. In practical terms, it makes very little difference to the exposure time. See: http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/04/arriflex-35-iic.html They are 4 perf cameras, although sometimes you can find 2 perf "Techniscope" models. I don't know anyone who modifies them today. There is a ton of info on these cameras in the archives here. Google "site:cinematography.com Arri 2C".

The drawing is from the Alexa Studio manual, so yes, it’s official Arri literature. I’ve never seen another document describing this clearance, but I assume lens manufacturers must have been given some sort of guide during the film era. Many lenses (particularly 16mm ones) had bevels machined into the rear housing to clear the mirror, so manufacturers were using every last mm available to them. The envelope shrunk after the 16St, causing some lenses to become unusable (Cooke Kinetals) while others went through modifications in order to clear the newer cameras (certain Schneider’s).

There is no standardised technical term for this that I'm aware of, I call it "rear protrusion" or "behind the mount protrusion". Flange depth or focal flange distance is a different thing, referring to the distance from lens mount flange to sensor or film plane. This differs for each mount standard, PL for instance is 52.00mm, EF is 44.0mm etc. As David mentioned earlier, every lens is different in terms of how far they protrude past the mount flange, but wider lenses typically protrude more than longer ones. The rear protrusion limit of older PL or Arri B or S mount lenses was dictated by the mirror shutter position. For this reason the safe protrusion space is more or less cone shaped. The following diagram is the safe protrusion area for the Alexa Studio, a digital camera with a spinning mirror/shutter, but it can serve as a guide for 35mm film movie cameras also. Note that 16mm lenses may protrude a little further than this, so never mount 16mm lenses to a 35mm film camera (or Alexa Studio) before very carefully checking that they clear the mirror at infinity. With digital cameras there is more room, but there are still baffles, sensor cover glasses and occasionally internal filter systems that limit the rear protrusion. The nominal 31.5mm depth illustrated above tends to be a limit most lens manufactures stick to as a maximum rear protrusion standard, which is also safe for digital cameras. Whether lenses or adapters fit can also depend on the diameter however, and different cameras will have different limits. Certain PL adapters for older Arri mounts for instance will foul on the inner baffles of PL mount Alexa cameras because they protrude more than about 20mm near the edge, even though they worked on PL mount film cameras.

The fact this is occurring on two seperate cameras, nowhere near a cut, across different stock batches and in different lighting conditions (indoor microscope footage!) seems to narrow it down to the only common denominators, which are the processing and scanning. Just the last two rolls you said? And they were processed/scanned at the same time?

There is no filter slot in a Bolex EL.

The site accu.co.uk sells them in small batches, ie 50 for £19, but the postage is £30 to NZ. https://www.accu.co.uk/reduced-slotted-pan-head-screws/65323-SFPR-M2-8-A2

The black lever controls the aperture, the silver lever is a sort of stop lock that limits the travel of the black lever. If you move the black lever right up next to the silver one and then squeeze them both together, you should be able to move them as a single unit to set the range. So if you move them both to the minimum aperture stop, you should then be able to move the black lever by itself through the whole range of f stops. If you set the silver lever at say f/5.6, you can move the black lever (and thus the aperture) between wide open and f/5.6. The silver lever should only move when pinched against the black lever, the rest of the time it is locked in place. If you find them very hard to move, the lens needs a service. I just had to service a H16RX 75mm pre-set Switar for that very reason.

I don’t know what to suggest really, I have special tools and a Zeiss anti-fungus solution that they don’t make anymore. Avoid metal tools near optics. Sometimes I use an ultra-sonic bath to loosen things but once optics are submerged they have to be removed and cleaned, no going back.

To do it yourself, you'd need to remove the mask, carefully lift up that split ring, remove the first element, and then undo a lock ring to access the two elements closest to the eyecup. You need a micro suction cup tool, and need to make sure the front/back alignment of each element is not mixed up. UV light can retard fungus growth but of course it won't remove the fungus already there. If you have fungus in the eyepiece, it may also be in other optics in the viewfinder. It won't affect the film image, but may make focusing more difficult if the viewfinder image is a bit hazy. Check the reflex prism for fungus too, as that can affect the film image.

You really need to be more specific about what you plan to shoot, otherwise there are too many variables and possible choices. You have a more or less sync sound camera in an NPR so are you planning to shoot narrative drama? In which case you'll want lenses that can operate with a follow focus or motor and do accurate focus pulling, something that C mount lenses are not suitable for. If you want to make experimental music vids you can probably get by with just about anything. If you plan to shoot surf movies or nature docs you'll want something more telephoto, etc. Will you be shooting in low light, or wanting a shallow depth of field look, where faster lenses will be useful? Do you want a clean modern look, or are you happy with a more low con vintage feel? What's your budget, less than 1K, up to 7K? There tends to be a jump from pretty old zooms (C mount or old Arri mounts) that can be under 1K to much better pro PL zooms that tend to be over 5K. Same thing with an old C mount prime vs something like a Zeiss Super Speed. Most wide C mounts don't cover S16 either, or only barely do. If you just want to know what a focal length looks like on S16, you can apply a crop factor calculation to something you already own (35mm stills camera?) to get a sense of it. I like this calculator, it not only gives comparison focal lengths but shows roughly what distance you might need for a headshot or full body shot depending on focal length and format, plus DoF info etc: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"f":27,"av":"2","fl":16,"d":1829,"cm":"0"}],"m":0} Roughly speaking, for S16 a 10mm would be starting to get wide, normal would be 20-25mm, and over 40mm starts to become telephoto.

No I would not recommend using spools, they will scratch the film if used for this purpose. You could possibly make or 3D print something that spins freely and only contacts the film edges, but honestly, just buy the proper rollers: http://www.duallcamera.com/store/Film_CameraAccessories.htm or https://www.ebay.com/itm/275010737544?hash=item4007ead588:g:UpgAAOSwoU5hgHHF

I've only had the chance to look over the Signature Primes. They are impressive lenses, but you pay for the perfection. I think if you have a limited budget it would definitely be worth comparing other very clean lenses that are more affordable, such as the Sigmas or Tokina Vistas, both of which also have minimal breathing and are solidly built.

We supplied Varicams for the upcoming ABC drama Savage River, shot by the indefatigable legend Don McAlpine. He used Varicams on the 2017 movie Ali's Wedding and has been an ardent convert ever since. Here he talks about using them at an ASC meet: And again:

I'm not sure about stills lenses like the Otus range, or anything that doesn't come in PL or LPL mount really. Surely you want proper cine lenses if you're doing VFX and using a Mini LF? Ultra Primes have a larger image circle than Super Speeds or Master Primes, in fact they're among the largest for any S35 lens series. I don't think they have too much distortion or breathing in S35, but it's true that you notice both more when using more of the image circle. Most of the focal lengths don't actually degrade much outside of the S35 design area, maybe a couple under 32mm can get a little bit weird, depends how big you go. They are sharp but not as sharp as Master Primes, or indeed Signature Primes, which have close to zero breathing and incredible edge to edge resolution. Perhaps renting a few options and trying them out yourself would be a wise move.

It sort of depends on what you’ll be shooting, whether high speed or close focus will be useful, whether size and weight matter, whether you need to impress potential clients or not. There are some pretty decent mid-range lenses out there, like Tokina Vistas or Sigmas, but obviously they don’t have the same cache as high-end brands. Signature Primes are extremely clean and sharp, so presumably you’re after that sort of look rather than more character or vintage lenses? Zeiss Ultra Primes are an interesting possibility, since their image circles cover more than most S35 lens sets. I think you can get down to around 20mm on an LF in 16:9. It will also be interesting to see if S35 lenses come back into fashion once Arri release their new S35 camera, which might make buying Ultra Primes now a good investment. But who knows really.

OK, don't panic, we'll sort it out. Maybe take a video or photo and PM me and I'll see if we can't get it working.

Ok well that sounds like the focus barrel is on the wrong side of the stop. So regardless of the marks, can you focus at any distance closer than infinity? How far does the barrel turn, only a small amount? The stop screw is the large screw in the knurled band around the focus barrel. There will be three smaller screws as well - don't touch them as they hold the focus calibration - but you could try undoing that large stop screw and turning the focus barrel so the distance marks are in the range of the index line, then put the screw back. Make sure you don't screw the focus out to the point where it looks like it might unscrew completely, go back the other way if so. The focus barrel should travel from infinity down through all the marks and stop past the minimum distance mark.

You are so funny. I really didn't want to bang my head against the impervious wall of your limitless self-belief again, but people seem to keep believing the half-truths and misinformation you post. First off, the BL4S and 535 were not Bauer designs. The BL4S technical Oscar award in 1991 was given to the Arri Engineering team, not Bauer, and the 535 was developed in large part from the work Arri had done designing the 765 under Otto Blaschek. They had set up Arri Austria in 1985 because Vienna was a precision mechanics centre, which is also where Bauer was. I believe his movement design was utilised, but there is a lot more to movie cameras than the movement. Drive systems, electronics, viewfinder optics, reflex mirror design etc. Both the 765 and 535 also won technical Oscars for Arri. It's no secret that the 535A was not commercially successful. But the re-designed 535B was bought by many rental houses worldwide, and used on plenty of movies throughout the 90s and beyond. Roger Deakins thought pretty highly of it. It also wasn't the only thing Arri produced in this period. There was a little camera called the SR3, which was by far the most widely used S16mm camera for professional productions everywhere. Movies, documentaries, music videos, TV shows, even the NFL all used them and rental houses and production companies bought hundreds and hundreds of them. Then there was the 435, a MOS camera that changed the face of advertising, and really hasn't been equalled in versatility and build quality. Panavision never even bothered to produce a MOS camera to rival it. Every rental house in the world (including Panavision) bought them in bulk, because every movie, TV ad or music video with a decent budget wanted to use them. Arri won another technical Oscar for the 435 in 1998. Then there were all the accessories Arri was producing which became industry standards - rail systems, lens supports, matteboxes, follow focuses, the Arrihead, not to mention their UK lighting division. The dominance of the PL mount and Arri/Zeiss lenses all solidified in the 90s. Hardly a company on the brink of extinction, about to fade from memory. Moviecams were terrific cameras, I know because I serviced them (along with Arricams) for a rental house for 10 years. But while they were very successful, not all industry veterans embraced them. Some people who had used and trusted Arri or Panavision for years were slow to totally accept Moviecams. So you'll find a lot of 90s movies used Arri 535Bs or BL4s as A cams, and Moviecams as B cams. In the film industry reliability is at least as important as the design itself, and Arri had earned that reputation. The Moviecam SL was a real game changing design (it won Bauer his third technical Oscar) but it didn't come out until 1996, and by 2000 there was the Arricam LT, so there really wasn't much of a lag. Most people also recognise that the Mk II Moviecams, produced after collaborating with Arri on things like electronics and viewfinder optics, were better than than the Mk I cameras. I think Arri recognized the advantages of Bauer's camera designs pretty early and would have designed something along similar lines had he not sold to them with the intention of collaborating for their mutual benefit. It's also worth remembering that by the mid 90s Arri were already preparing for the digital transition, with the Arrilaser and later the Arriscan, which directly led to the D-20 and ultimately the Alexa. Unlike Kodak, for instance, who squandered their inheritance, I think Arri always had their eye on the future. I have no affiliation with Arri, and I certainly don't think their designs have been without flaws. But I have always respected their build quality and durability, and their commitment to retrofitting and product continuity. The fact a mag from their 1937 Handkamera could still work on a 2003 235 was an incredible feat, and many of the film standards we have now are due to Arri's consistency over the years. So I take my hat off to a company that has absolutely dominated and shaped the cinema industry for at least the last 50 years.

Stopping down any lens will increase the depth of field (making slightly out of focus things get sharper) and will also reduce the lens aberrations (which could be both inherent and introduced by age or wear). So yes, it's normal that stopping down will make a lens appear sharper or more contrasty, some lenses more than others. However there could well be issues making your 10mm perform worse than it should. Firstly, is it an RX lens? For reflex Bolexes, RX lenses are recommended for focal lengths of 50mm and under. If it's not labelled RX, the reflex prism in your Bolex will introduce more abberations when your aperture is wide open. Stopping down past around f/3.5 makes them diminish. Secondly, the lens itself may need back-focus adjustment. Perhaps it is not quite reaching infinity focus before hitting the infinity stop. Check the focus at closer distances using your eye, not the marks. (Make sure to properly set the eyepiece diopter). See if the focus mark matches the distance to subject. A Bolex tech can adjust this for you if necessary. Thirdly, the lens may have coating damage or internal fog causing the image to appear muddy. Usually you can see this by holding the lens up to a strong backlight. If so, it may be repairable by a lens technician. Lastly, the camera viewfinder may need cleaning to give you the clearest image possible. Wide angle lenses in particular can be hard to judge focus in small viewfinders like the one in a REX 1, and any internal fog or fungus will only make that harder. The easiest way to sort all this out is to have the camera kit checked and serviced by a good Bolex technician, which I would heartily recommend to anyone who has just obtained a Bolex and wants to use it.

You still don’t, it’s not reliable information.