Dom Jaeger

Here's a nice brochure outlining the various types of Angenieux 17-68 lenses: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01067/01067.pdf The early silver zooms used L1 for the reflex dogleg models, L2 for normal C mount, and L3 for RX Bolexes. Later black versions used letters after the designation, so 4x17A was the dogleg version, 4x17B was normal C mount and 4x17C was for reflex Bolexes.

For future reference, the manual for the reflex (dogleg) version of the Pan Cinor 17-85 mentions that you can either use the tool supplied (which few have nowadays) or simply unscrew the lens by about one turn, then press the mount against the camera while turning the lens to the correct position. The mount is internally sprung, as Simon mentioned, once fully done up it should not rotate.

Questions like this are easily answered by reading the manual, which can be found with a simple google search. https://usermanual.wiki/Manual/somberthiotpancinor85compactinstructions.169125904.pdf The manual pictures a custom tool to rotate the mount, but you can use a lens wrench or something similar.

Lateral instability is usually due to the side rail spring mechanism not working properly, it could be gummed up or deformed, but I'm not familiar enough with that camera to comment on how the lateral guidance works. Also sometimes a claw off-centre from the perf can pull the film laterally. The other question is how the scan has stabilised the film, what scanner was used. But in theory stability can usually be improved by a technician.

If the loop itself is getting shorter (not just shifting position) then there is a discrepancy between the feed sprocket and the take-up sprocket. They are linked by gears, so the shafts should be turning at the same speed, which keeps the loop a constant size, but it's possible either the top sprocket is loose on its shaft (two screws hold it) or the film is somehow not engaging with the top sprocket correctly, perhaps too large a gap between guide and sprocket, allowing the sprocket teeth to slip over the film perfs. Ideally a newly bought Bolex should go for a service, it may save you a lot of wasted film, time and money. It's like buying a vintage car that's been kept in a garage for decades and expecting it to be roadworthy. Also just a thought - older Bolexes can have double perf sprockets, with teeth on the top and bottom, which are not compatible with modern single perf film stock. But normally single perf film just wouldn't run through the camera.

Almost all modern PL lenses still adhere to the mirror clearance standards of the film era, in other words they don’t protrude too far past the mount. If you are concerned, here’s a diagram of allowable rear protrusion dimensions to clear an Arriflex spinning mirror camera like a BL4: (Sorry for the low resolution, this site now limits pics to under 18kB which is barely useable). The surface to measure from is the lens mounting flange, with the four wings, where it seats on the camera mount. You’ll find nearly all lenses tend to fit inside this envelope. Optically, cine lenses made for digital cameras will work perfectly fine on film movie cameras, so you don’t need to worry about that. Full frame lenses will cover a larger area than a Super 35 film gate, but if the focal length is the same then the angle of view will be the same as a S35 lens. The only thing you sometimes need to worry about with modern lenses is the slope of the camera body where the mirror is housed. That can sometimes foul on the iris ring of some lenses before they are fully seated in the camera mount. I have heard Xeens can do this on certain cameras, so ideally test them at a rental house or rent one to test before buying. CP.2s are Ok. Happy filming!

No argument here, just discussing the weird world of anamorphic artifacts! So mumps refers to the optical effect that used to happen with older anamorphics that would cause an actors face to appear wider than normal when filmed in close-up shots. It was due to the lens squeeze factor reducing below 2x as you focused closer, which meant when you unsqueezed the image the subject was wider than it should be. Panavision developed a mechanism to counter this back in the 50s, which is still used in their modern anamorphics today, albeit in a more refined way. The mechanism uses two counter rotating astigmatisers which manage to maintain a 2x squeeze through the focus range. One of the by-products of this mechanism is that Panavision anamorphics don't breathe much, as most other anamorphics do. You can see this in the test you linked to before, where the background doesn't expand or contract horizontally during a focus pull. You're only seeing the vertical smearing of the anamorphic out-of-focus areas, and maybe a little vertical breathing. The actor's face looks pretty consistent at different distances too. Other modern anamorphics use different design tricks to overcome the mumps effect, but they still tend to breathe, in the sense that the focal length appears to change, the background field of view expands or contracts. Older Panavision anamorphics like the C series used a basic gear driven mechanism for the astigmatisers which wasn't able to customise the rate of squeeze variation, so there could still be a little variation, and close focus was limited. More modern lenses like the G and T series use a different mechanism that can customise the astigmatiser rotation which allows more fine tuning and better close focus. Regarding the squeeze discrepancy in La La Land .. well, it happens. Could be a C series was used at it's close focus limit, or had been customised to focus closer. Lenses get adjusted or modified and sometimes I come across one that has a slightly altered squeeze factor. Panavision customises lenses all the time. I suspect it was different focal lengths rather the same lens, but who knows.

No mumps with Panavision anamorphics. This was shot primarily on T series with a bit of older C series, just like tons of other big budget movies. Big focus pulls with Panavision anamorphic lenses look different to spherical focus pulls, you get a vertical smearing of the out of focus areas. Other anamorphics can also have severe breathing, which can be even more distracting, but Panavision anamorphics have a mechanism inside that adjusts the squeeze while focussing to avoid mumps and reduce breathing. But a lot of filmmakers avoid big focus pulls with any anamorphic lenses because they can look a bit weird and pull you out of the movie.

Congrats on finding such a great camera that you can use for free! First step would be to read the manual, an actual Bolex one not the various college manuals you can find on the net that can contain misinformation. Here's one for the Rex 4: https://www.vintagecameras.fr/images/MonSite/BOLEX/H16_Reflex/_Doc/Bolex_H16Reflex_Manual_en_Revu.pdf Here's a thread about the 18-86 zoom, with some info about it: https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/95617-ii-kern-paillard-vario-switar-125-f-18-86mm-ee-h-16-rx-maybe-vario-switar-86-f25-18-86mm-ee-battery-manual-question/ You'll want to get yourself some dummy film to practice loading, and check that the camera is running ok. Hopefully your college might have some old exposed or out-of-date film you can use, otherwise maybe ask a local lab. The Rex 4 uses 100 ft daylight spools. Some things to check on the camera: You should be able to wind up the spring, then run the camera at 24fps for about 28 seconds. Listen to the sound, most Bolexes slow down a bit in the last 5 seconds, especially when film is loaded. If the camera slows down very noticeably before that, it may need a service. You can still use cameras like this, but limit shots to shorter takes, and always wind the spring up before each shot. When you run the camera, make sure that the take-up spindle (the lower one) is turning smoothly, not starting and stopping or sluggish. You should be able to hold it to stop it turning with one hand, then when you release it, it should spin again. If this doesn't happen, the camera needs a service. Sometimes a drop of oil under that spindle can help, but essentially if that spindle doesn't turn properly then the film won't take up and you'll end up with the film looking like spaghetti inside, un-useable. You can remove that zoom by turning the knurled ring at the back anti-clockwise. I find it easier to have the camera facing up while undoing that ring, so the weight of the zoom isn't binding the mount thread. Once the lens is off you can check the glass surface just behind the middle lens port. This is the reflex prism that sends a quarter of the light to the viewfinder. It should be clean and free from fungus. You can clean it with a tissue dipped in isopropyl alcohol or lens cleaner. If you rotate the turret out of the way you can flip the prism out to blow dust off the ground glass on top (use a lens blower), and maybe clean the rear surface as you would the front. The turret should have a bottom port locking cap and a lock at the top right. You want both of those engaged when mounting a heavy zoom like this. Practice loading your dummy film, and check that the loop stays in position. The take-up should wind the film on snugly. Next step would be to shoot a quick test, if you want to make sure that you don't waste time and money filming with a crew and actors etc only to get the film back with an issue. Find yourself a lightmeter, or even just a lightmeter app so you can set your aperture. The manual will tell you what your exposure time should be (1/80 sec for 24fps), then just input the film stock speed. If you get a battery for it the zoom does have auto-exposure, but it may not be working, so I probably wouldn't bother with that. You can always ask more questions here when you need to. Happy filming!

It’s been a long time since I looked at an SR 1, and most of the ones I’ve seen had the light meters removed or disabled, so I don’t remember exactly how the needle should behave. But I do recall that the needle is very easily bent if someone has tried to clean the glass surface just above where the ground glass sits. I also thought the light meter circuit only comes on once the switch is in the half down (standby) position. Have you read a manual? Is yours an original Bayonet mount camera or has it been converted to PL? Pics would help. Personally I would stick to using an external light meter anyway. Regarding the viewfinder, please be careful fiddling with screws if you don’t know exactly what they do. SRs have numerous adjustment points and some screws should really not be touched. There is only really one screw that adjusts the tension where the viewfinder meets the camera body, which is the 190 degree rotation from left side to right. You need to loosen the outer lock ring half a turn before adjusting the inner Allen screw though. It’s here: Without dismantling the viewfinder, which has rotating prisms inside set to maintain a level image, there aren’t any other user adjustments. If things are very stiff the grease probably needs to be cleaned out and replaced, which is not really a DIY job.

Sorry Joe, I don't have access to that manual anymore. I was using a free image host site back then which subsequently demanded a subscription and all my images disappeared. Learned my lesson, now I upload low-res images directly, but unfortunately it's too late for some things.

Ok, sounds like something loose rather than worn, so probably fixable. If you can find a tech familiar with these zooms it would be advantageous.

If you go from a Rex 4 with a 10x viewfinder to an SBM with a 13x viewfinder, then yes the image is a bit larger and easier to see. Early SBMs can have 10x viewfinders too though, so in that case it would be no different. The condition of the camera can also make a difference - fog, fungus or corrosion in the optics can reduce the image quality drastically.

Is there an issue with the image? Do you get image shift or focus backlash when you adjust the zoom? If not I’d leave it be, otherwise maybe see what a tech says. It could be beyond repair if it needs parts that have worn, or be too expensive for what it’s worth.

Yeah that’s not an easy lens to work on. The entire zoom group mechanism removes from the rear, not the front, and it’s a complex beast that is tricky to reassemble and calibrate even for an experienced lens tech with a lens projector and a collimator, let alone a novice. But if you don’t mind destroying a lovely vintage optic as a learning experience, I guess go ahead.

Do you have experience working on cine lenses?

You will need the right screws too, the ones for a PL mount are a bit longer than the ones for a B mount. If memory serves you need something around 6mm long I think. The head needs to be quite small to fit inside the recessed hole as well. Original Zeiss mount screws are your best option. Perhaps Samuel kept the screws with his mounts? Otherwise try the sources I listed before.

Your lens aperture is a tool, any stop is useable really but it will affect your depth of field, which is one of the choices you can make as a cinematographer to tell your story. Your shallowest depth of field occurs at wide open, and at close focus distances. This helps isolate your subject from the background. But wide open is also where a lens exhibits most of its character, meaning the aberrations that are created - things like spherical or chromatic aberration, halation around highlights or veiling glare that reduces your contrast. These are artistic choices you can make regarding your image. Testing before a shoot is a good way to see how a lens performs wide open. As you stop down the image will clean up, and your depth of field will increase. If all you care about is a clean, sharp image, then shoot between around 5.6 and 11. Stopped down past that and your lens will begin to soften again, due to an optical effect known as diffraction. The zoom you mention (I assume you mean a Zeiss 10-100 T3) is a Standard 16 zoom which is pretty sharp but does not have very close focus capabilities, which might be useful to have in a small room. Just something to consider if you plan on doing close-ups or want a claustrophobic feeling etc.

Here’s one of the sort you need on eBay, but overpriced I think: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/304611190863

I would ask some older rental houses if they perhaps kept any Arri Bayonet mounts, otherwise perhaps rehousing companies like P&S Technic or TLS.

If you can source the right Bayonet mounts (with 8 screw holes in the base) then yes you can convert them to B mount. The first generation S16 Super Speeds (I call those Mk1, some call them B Speeds) used an earlier Bayonet mount with a single locating slot and a locking ring - those mounts won’t fit later Super Speed versions. You may need to adjust the shimming, best to have a tech check the back-focus after conversion.

You want to shoot 1000 fps on 16mm? I hope you have a stack of film.. you’ll go through a 400 ft roll in 1.6 seconds! You really need to time the shot perfectly. One of the first things to go digital was high speed cinematography, for good reason I think. But don’t let me put you off if that’s what you want to do.

The figure is to build a studio, not to make a single movie. A good quality studio attracts big productions, bringing in potentially billions, and gives employment to many locals while raising the skill level of our crews and our broader film industry workers in general. Currently our largest studios are on the Gold Coast. Lovely place, but culturally a little .. monochrome. Another hub around the northern NSW area would be fantastic.

You don’t want to take any screw out, you need to loosen the outer lock nut half a turn, then use an Allen driver to turn the inside screw counter-clockwise. The inside screw is actually a worm gear that will slowly undo the lock ring holding on the viewfinder. To loosen the lock nut at the start, you need a two-prong screwdriver.

The last big lab in Australia, Deluxe, closed in April 2013. In November 2013 Neglab re-opened, a much smaller operation, basically one guy. So we were without any processing facilities (outside of Super 8 or home development with Lomo tanks) for about half a year. But no major features have been shot on film in this country since Deluxe closed. We have a pretty small film industry that manages to punch considerably above our weight, but once the infrastructure for supporting large film productions was fully dismantled (and actually destroyed - Deluxe ordered their staff to trash their equipment to prevent any rival labs from possibly competing with them), the days of shooting film for major movies here was over. We don’t have the volume of work to justify re-investing at that scale. We’re lucky to have Neglab still doing an excellent job, but they are really the only dedicated 16/35 cine film lab here, and they’re small. I know there have been plenty of features made here over the last decade whose directors or DoPs explored the option to shoot film but changed their minds after investigating the logistics. Just recently Nitram, and Judy and Punch come to mind for example. That doesn’t mean we don’t shoot film here though. There are actually plenty of little indie productions going on all the time, and a thriving artist film community, particularly here in Melbourne. We have world-famous experimental filmmakers like Richard Tuohy and Dianna Barrie working exclusively with film who tour the world showing their films and giving workshops. We have rental houses like Cameraquip and Panavision who have good inventories of film gear, and a number of decent film scanning options. Among younger filmmakers there’s a real interest in analogue processes, which is a world-wide movement really. As possibly the last movie camera tech still actively servicing cameras in this country I‘ve been swamped with work over the last few years. It may prove to be a temporary fad, or it may solidify into a sizeable niche market, I’m hopeful it will be the latter. By the way, if you (or anyone) can get Mark Kenfield to shoot a music vid for you on 16mm, it will be fantastic. His work is extraordinary!