Dom Jaeger

I'm not sure your terminology is correct, a H16 is a Bolex camera model. Are you asking about Bolex lenses or just N16 (normal or regular or standard 16 are the usual terms for the older camera format) lenses? Generally speaking, it's hard to convert N16 zooms to S16. There used to be conversion kits for certain zooms. but they are no longer readily available. The process requires adding a focal extender to the back of the lens (around 1.1 or 1.2x), which expands the image circle, extends the focal lengths and reduces the max T stop. You can use the more commonly found 1.4x and 2x extenders, though not all zooms fit them, and you lose one or two stops of light respectively. You also end up with much longer zooms, losing your wide end. So if you have a Super 16 camera it's much better to just get a lens that covers S16, though they will be more expensive as a result. Here's a list of some pretty decent S16 zooms: https://visualproducts.com/product-category/lenses/super16-zoom-lenses/

Curious that the gate is N16. Some conversions had a removeable piece that could block the S16 gate aperture back to N16. P&S Technik did indeed do movement conversions rather than mirror replacement, you can check if the timing is ok by marking some film with a sharpie and inching it through while looking through from the lens port. The film will move just before the mirror fully covers or uncovers the gate if the timing is off (so mark the film with squiggles that go to the edges). A small flange depth error only matters with primes if you want to rely on the distance marks, but with a zoom the focus will drift as you zoom out. This is assuming that the lenses are accurately collimated of course, and the drift may be so small as to be unnoticed except perhaps at maximum aperture. So I wouldn’t worry too much if you can’t check it, shoot a test and see how it goes.

Well done, you approached it carefully and systematically, and repaired the fault. Dry joints can be a common issue in older electronics. One thing I would mention is that when you replace the front, it can sometimes happen that the flange depth is altered a bit. A tiny bit of debris or a hair in the join or even different tightness of the screws can actually shift the flange depth by a few hundredths of a mm. So a technician would always double check the flange depth after front removal. But this requires a depth gauge, accurate 52.00mm blank and a gate block. Chances are, it’s probably good, but you could ask a rental house that has film gear to check it. The other setting that is good to check is the ground glass depth, as reflected off the mirror, which should match the flange depth. But again you need special tools - in this case a collimator and an accurate test lens. If you didn’t remove the mirror, or the ground glass holding assembly, or the gate, it’s probably still at the correct depth, but it’s such a crucial setting that it’s worth checking. Again a rental house might be able to help you.

The main difference with an Arriflex is the camera build quality and reflex viewing clarity. That means you're more likely to get stable and properly focussed images. A Bolex can do that too, it can just be a bit harder sometimes to gauge focus, and you might get a bit of unsteadiness, especially at higher speeds. The other factor is that an Arriflex uses a spinning mirror shutter for reflex viewing, whereas a Bolex uses a beamsplitter prism. So an Arri has nothing in the lightpath when exposing the film, but a Bolex has an extra piece of glass. If the prism is damaged or dirty, it can affect the image quality. The prism is also why you need to use RX lenses on a reflex Bolex if you want to shoot at wide apertures, under f/2.8 or so. Normal lenses used at fast apertures can exhibit aberrations that make the image a bit soft and hazy. But it only affects focal lengths of 50mm and below, and the effects can be variable depending on the lens design, so you need to test each lens for yourself. Some of the C mounts made for Bolexes are excellent, like the Kern Switars or Macro-Switars. I've seen comparisons between Switars and Zeiss Super Speeds and they compared quite favourably, in fact at the widest apertures the Switars were better on a reflex Bolex (because of the prism issue). But generally Arris are used with more professional grade lenses, with the ability to add matte boxes and better grade filters, and maybe you're seeing the results of a more professional shoot with proper lighting etc. People can get great results with a Bolex though. It really often just comes down to a good DP and a good scan/grade. CCTV lenses are commonly of lower quality than a good 16mm format lens, but sometimes they can be OK. Most lenses tend to look fine stopped down enough, it's when you try to use them at their fastest apertures that they can fall apart. A modern CCTV lens is probably quite sharp and contrasty. Watch out for ones that have a long C mount thread (longer than 4mm) or optics that protrude out the back, as they can hit the Bolex prism.

When you look through the viewfinder, you are seeing an image formed on the top surface of the reflex prism. This surface has been etched with a texture to help the image form, which is why these surfaces are often called a “ground glass”. So seeing this grain in the viewfinder is totally normal. It is also very useful for you to focus the eyepiece properly on this surface for optimal judging of lens focus. As Christos said, the image recorded on the film will not have this texture, because it is a different pathway. The light is passing through the reflex prism to the film, while a small portion of light is reflected up onto that ground glass for the viewfinder to see.

Oh it’s a different lens for sure, but they are the same design I mean.

I think the focus ring is actually the same, but the rubber grip has been shifted up.

Actually, looking again, I don't think your zoom is the B4 version. They look quite different. Could it be an Aaton mount? At any rate, not what they advertised.

Here’s one with a 16SB and a Zeiss 10-100. Took me 5 minutes. https://www.ebay.com/itm/197095768101

There is no BL mount, do you mean Arri Bayonet mount? Sometimes it’s called Arri B. There are Arri Bayonet to PL adapters available if you google it. The more expensive ones tend to be better.

Yep, you got a different lens. They made these for 3 chip CCD cameras as well as 16mm. You don’t want a B4 mount version. Definitely call them out and demand a refund.

Arri made a rotatable periscope attachment for the 16SB viewfinder, allowing you to view from above when doing low shots. See:

I don't agree. Arri 16S and SB cameras were made from the the 50s right through to the 80s. They were made with far better materials than amateur or even prosumer cameras, and designed to be serviced, although I've found (as an actual camera technician with 30 years experience) that they will often keep running for decades without much upkeep. As I mentioned before, they contain no electronics, and the motors are interchangeable, so you don't get electrical issues. The reflex viewing is via a spinning mirror shutter, just like the 35mm cameras used professionally to shoot movies. It means there are no prisms or pellicles in the light path which can degrade the image. The lenses are Arri Standard or Bayonet mount (if you get an SB variant), which were professional grade. You can also use 35mm lenses with the same mounts, which were used on countless movies. The price of these lenses has gone up, but so have all lenses unfortunately, even C mounts. The images you tend to get from a pin-registered Arriflex are super steady, and because of the very clear reflex viewing and tight tolerances for settings like flange depth, the focus is usually spot on. You don't get scratches or light leaks or any of the other faults that are more likely with more amateur or prosumer gear. So generally an Arri 16S is in much better condition than many other older 16mm cameras you'll find on the second hand market, and more likely to just work. Canon Scoopics were made from the mid 60s to the mid 80s. Early versions were not as good as later ones, and while they are great little reportage cameras, they suffer from the same issue that many electronic cameras of this era do - faulty electrics. I must have repaired (or attempted to repair) a dozen of them over the years, running at max speed, having auto iris faults, or just being erratic. The zoom is fixed, so you're stuck with a focal length range of 12.5 to 75 (or 13 to 76 for the first model). 12.5mm is not very wide for 16mm format, considering you can get an 8mm prime or a 10-100 or 9.5-95 zoom in those Arri mounts. And 75mm is not particularly long either if you want to shoot subjects at a distance, though it's worth remembering that you will get pretty shaky footage handholding with telephotos. If the Canon zoom or the internal reflex prim gets fungus, it's a major job to service, as are the camera mechanics, hidden under a rat's nest of wires that all need to be de-soldered. I've also heard plenty of complaints about Scoopics having exposure flicker, whether due to the auto iris or some thing else I'm not sure. They are much more likely to have some instability from a worn gate or claw. And the number of shops willing and able to service them are few. So taking all that into account, the chance of a Scoopic giving the same image quality as an Arri 16S is actually unlikely. Apart from beaten up early models, most Scoopics sell for $1200-2500 these days, which is about what you can get a working Arri 16S or SB for, sometimes including lenses. With patience you could also get a decent reflex Bolex for that sort of money, which would be fine for this application too I think. The viewfinders are not as bright and clear, but they are solid cameras, often used for filming surfing, skateboarding and other sports. No batteries is a bonus up a mountain. Every camera has it's pros and cons, and some are better suited to certain jobs than others. As mentioned, the Arri is heavier and needs external batteries, so maybe it's not the best option for climbing up mountains. If the OP had a bigger budget, perhaps there would be better options. It's also quite possible to go cheaper, and try some non-reflex cameras using depth of field and lens distance scales to achieve reasonable focus. Out of non-reflex options, I think a Bolex is probably the most reliable and easiest to get serviced, but there are smaller and lighter options

Thanks Perry, agree 100%.

Scoopics were designed almost like a Super 8 camera, with a fixed zoom and a beam splitter for focussing, and the capacity for auto-aperture. They are easy to load (like a Bolex they have an auto-threading system) and pretty easy to use, and ideal for hand holding. But the footage often has a bit of exposure flicker and the electronics often fail. For your purposes they would probably be great, but these days they are more expensive than they should be, like Bolexes, and can be a real pain to repair. You also can’t change lenses, you’re stuck with the zoom it comes with. By contrast, an Arri 16S is a professional grade camera, highly durable, extremely stable and with a spinning reflex mirror. I disagree with what has been said about them not being good for hand-held - they were designed to be handheld as well as mountable, with a grip at the front which allows you to simultaneously hold the camera and adjust focus on a lens with one finger. They are heavier than a Scoopic or a Bolex but still quite useable I think. (As an aside I think it’s worth noting that if you use longer lenses hand held, your footage will be quite shaky, so using a tripod might sometimes be a good idea anyway.) A 16S contain no electronics other than the motor, which is replaceable, so you never get electrical issues like you do with a Scoopic or electric Bolex or Beaulieu etc. You do need an external battery supply, but it’s easy to put a small battery in a backpack or shoulder bag. Currently they are often less expensive than a reflex Bolex or a Scoopic, which is crazy to me given how superior the build is. It will give you outstanding images, but it’s maybe not the best choice for going up mountains. 🙂

If you decide to look for reflex zooms, don’t get the very early Som Berthiot dogleg zooms like the Pan Cinor 70, as the zoom viewfinder is only for framing not focussing. Get a Pan Cinor 85-2, or a dogleg Angenieux 9.5-95 or 12-120, which allow reflex focussing.

If money is tight you could get a non-reflex Bolex with a reflex (dogleg) zoom. These were made back in the 50s and 60s, so pretty vintage, but the image can be surprisingly ok. Angenieux and Som Berthiot both made them. Otherwise, if you shoot at a very deep stop, say f/11 or f/16, you can probably get away with a non-reflex camera and a normal zoom or telephoto, and just estimate the distance and hope the depth of field covers. You can also check focus between shots on a non-reflex Bolex. Bolexes are wonderful cameras, very durable and easy to load. It does pay to have it serviced or at least checked by a good technician, but that’s the case with any old movie camera. And at least there are a few Bolex techs still around (like me). Spring motors have the advantage that you don’t need to worry about batteries, which is handy up a mountain. The downside is shots are limited to about 30 seconds at 24fps, and you can miss a shot because you need to wind the motor up each time. If you want an electric camera, the Arri 16S is very good, with a bright reflex viewfinder and good lens options. They are relatively affordable, given the quality. A Canon Scoopic is very simple to load and use, also with a bright reflex viewfinder and a pretty good fixed zoom, but it’s no match in quality for an Arriflex.

They should be fine. I tend to fold wipes/tissue into a wedge shape and use the tip to clean, rather than pressing the wipe with a finger directly onto the glass. It means you don't press too hard. Ideally work in a spiral from centre to the edge, after blowing off any debris, as you describe.

Sure they’ll work. Using 35mm format lenses is identical to using S16 lenses, except that it’s harder to find wide enough focal lengths, and they are sometimes slower than dedicated S16 lenses. You can sometimes get unwanted light reflections due to the larger image circle, but I think you’ll be ok with a Bolex. There is no “infinity focus” issue unless the adapter flange depth is off. The Bolex prism just introduces aberrations when used with lenses that have a shallow exit pupil - which is how deep the iris appears to be behind the rear element. It’s an indication of telecentricity, or how parallel the rays are coming out the back of the lens. And the aberrations diminish as you stop down. Anything over 50mm tends to have a deep exit pupil and is more or less unaffected. So you just need to watch out for lenses that have a shallow exit pupil when used at about T2.8 and wider. Most PL lenses tend to be fairly ok, but I’ve seen footage from Zeiss Super Speeds used on a Bolex and at T1.3 some of the wides were noticeably softer than usual. By T2 they had improved a lot. By T2.8 they were pretty much normal. So it’s more or less a lens by lens thing, and you need to test them individually to see how they perform at max apertures.

Super Speeds are funkier wide open, and at more than a stop faster will give you a shallower depth of field. Otherwise a similar look as Uli said. They are also a little larger. If you're thinking of sub-hiring, Super Speeds are more in demand. People often fill out a Super Speed set with Standards if they need to go wider or longer. Mini S4s are virtually identical to S4s, only with a one stop reduced aperture and smaller optics. So they are smaller and slower, but look very similar. I think T2.8 is a little slow for modern tastes, which is why they were never very popular, but they are often around half the price of S4s. As Albion mentioned, the /i means they have lens data electronics that interface with cameras , which is good to have these days. Only fairly old S4 sets don't have it, it's been standard for Cooke PL lenses for some years now. They actually pioneered the idea.

A 2C claw doesn’t closely fit the perf like a rego pin, so it will probably work, given how close the perf pitch is. Try it and see! You can manually inch the movement over if you’re worried about damaging the mechanism, but 2Cs are pretty tough.

You need to decide on a few things: Will you need full frame coverage, do you plan to use large format cameras? Is high speed/shallow depth of field something you will want to utilise? Is weight and size a factor? Are you planning handheld/gimbal shots or documentary style shoots? Do you have a budget for maintenance? Some of these sets are much more durable or service friendly than others. Personally I think Zeiss Super Speeds have kept their value for decades for a reason, they are always desirable. But either get a well maintained set or think about re-housed sets, as they are getting old and some sets will have worn helicoids. Otherwise Cooke S4s are easily the most durable and service friendly, and look fabulous. They are a bit out of fashion at the moment, but that makes them quite affordable. Both are fairly small and lightweight, but only provide S35 coverage.

I’ve documented a few different movie camera overhauls here: http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2013/01/

I’m confused why you want to shoot anamorphic through Panavision and then use Todd AO lenses? In terms of being safe for IMAX, I think it would be better to choose the format according to what suits the project visually, and not worry about the IMAX thing.

Here's one for the K-100: https://archive.org/details/k100x2/k100x2/ It's pretty hard to find service literature for a lot of these cameras, but if you know how a movie camera is supposed to work then a lot of it comes down to mechanical aptitude and experience. Some are more complicated than others, but especially for older non-electronic models, they usually follow a similar pattern. The important things tend to be lubrication of gear pivots, timing of the claw to shutter, flange depth and ground glass depth (if it has reflex viewing). A scratch test can tell you the state of the transport path, a film test or ideally steady test will tell you how well the camera registers. A timing gun (or strobe app) can measure the camera speed. Most spring motors are cased and have some sort of limit gearing to set maximum and minimum winding, which is important. You need to fully wind down any spring motor before disassembly. Some cameras, like flat base Bolexes or Filmos, need the limit gear disconnected in order to fully wind the spring down. Filmo springs are not cased, so watch out for those. Many so-called service manuals (like the K-100 one above) just give you exploded diagrams and part numbers. Some reference test tools and jigs, which are meaningless if you don't have them - Bolex manuals for instance are full of them. Some people expect service manuals to give clear solutions for fixing faults, but more often than not that's something you only learn through experience.