Dom Jaeger

Well caught Mark! Yes, it seems the idea that it was cut from 28mm is one of those repeated internet "truths" that become ubiquitous by repetition, but it's actually false. Three times 9.5 is indeed 28.5. It appears such a logical step for Pathe to have cut down their own larger gauge safety film to make the smaller gauge, until you actually do the maths! This article also describes it being cut from 35mm stock, with the 35mm perfs being discarded after slitting: https://www.filmingantiquity.com/blog/the-story-of-95-and-its-early-role-in-archaeology-part-1

It was mainly used in France and England (the French firm Pathe introduced it a year before 16mm was introduced by Kodak in the US), but its popularity spread world-wide during the 20s and 30s. I actually have a 9.5mm film of my mum when she was about 5 in 1937, so it was in use in Australia. I imagine the US was a tougher market to crack with 16mm being locally promoted. 9.5mm died out in the post-war years as 8mm became the dominant home movie format. As mentioned, 9.5mm was chosen because 3 strips could be cut from Pathe's 28mm film stock, which was a safety film made from diacetate rather than the flammable nitrate used for 35mm back then. It's an interesting format, with almost the same image area as standard 16mm film due to the perfs being located centrally between frames rather than on the sides. This is a great read about the construction, use and history of 9.5mm for anyone interested in diving deeper than a Wikipedia entry: https://necsus-ejms.org/thinkering-with-the-pathe-baby-materiality-histories-and-reuse-of-9-5mm-film/

This was great, Michael! Keep going, love to see some more episodes.

I knew there was a projector, but I was wondering if they ever made a viewer/ editor for home movie editing. They tend to be a lot gentler on the original film than a projector, but still allow you to view the film. Not as simple to make for Kemco as the ones for 8mm though..

This is a common misconception, that you need to use "wider" lenses to get the same angle of view on a smaller format. You need to use a shorter focal length, but that doesn't automatically make it wider. While focal length definitely has a relationship to depth of field, by itself it does not actually relate to the angle of view. That is determined by the focal length combined with the image circle coverage (or the format used). In other words, a 25mm lens made for S16 is not a wide angle lens, but a 25mm lens made for medium format sure is. And they would need completely different designs, because of that difference in image circle coverage and angle of view. The design difference, not the focal length, is what causes issues like distortion or chromatic aberration or field curvature. Lens design begins with the intended angle of view for the required format. The easiest lenses to make are always the "normal" ones, neither wide nor long. As a general guide, it's technically around the diagonal of the format frame, though in practice most people prefer something a little longer. For 16mm format, the diagonal is around 15mm, though traditionally 25mm was often chosen. For full frame the diagonal is 43mm, but 50mm is usually the practical choice. In every format, the normal lenses are generally able to be the fastest and smallest. It purely depends on the angle of view, the actual focal length number isn't important. So to return to the claim that for larger formats "you don't need to resort to specialised wide angle lenses", this is demonstrably false. You always need a wide angle design to get a wide angle of view. The 18mm Zeiss Super Speed for example is the largest lens in a Super Speed kit, because it needed a special wide angle design. It has pretty similar distortion to the 9.5mm made for S16. The newest S16 lenses made by Zeiss or Cooke went down to 6mm with barely any artifacts, less than you'd find in many 18mm full frame lenses with a similar angle of view. A lot of this comes down to the individual lens, many modern designs have well corrected wide angle focal lengths, and zooms can have more distortion that primes. But essentially S16 does not look different to S35 because of the field of view, since that can be re-created easily. It looks different mainly because of the depth of field and the lower resolution when you scale it up, and even those things can be variable.

Probably damage to the internal CCA filters, either the 85B or the clear.

Hi David, if you don’t get any answers here you might have better luck asking on a forum dedicated to film projection rather than cinematography. Try here: http://www.film-tech.com/vbb/

Not sure what you mean by aloof, like snobby or something? How do you reach that judgement without actually knowing anyone from the community? Anyway, here's a few links to articles or promos for some films shot by locals I've had the pleasure of meeting. This was a cool project by Danny Cohen, who followed Courtney Barnett around for several years with his 16mm Aaton: https://www.anonymousclubfilm.com/film Here's an article on a film shot on 35mm by Melbourne cinematographer Ed Goldner: https://acmag.com.au/2021/10/03/inang-maynila/ Here's another AC mag article about the Victorian film Nitram, describing how Justin Kerzel wanted to shoot it on 16mm, just one example to dispel the notion that no professional filmmakers want to shoot on film in this country: https://acmag.com.au/2021/09/01/nitram/ Here's an IF article on a short film shot by local cinematographer Joey Knox: https://if.com.au/victim-short/ I'm sure google (or a subscription) would dig up more.

What sort of films are they? Are they worth all the hassle of trying to digitize them? I wonder if Kemko ever made a viewer/editor for their system. Finding a working projector might be another route, though dangerous if the films are valuable or rare. I've always wanted to get my hands on a Kemko camera, to check out the mechanism. It was a pretty crazy idea, but they actually got it working. Standard 8 makes a lot more sense though.

I'm not sure this represents the return of professional film cinematography in Australia, it's just another 16mm short film, and there are plenty of those being shot here all the time. There are in fact four other new Australian short films also shot on 16mm screening at this years MIFF (Melbourne International Film Festival). We have a lab that can process 16mm and 35mm, the issue is just that it doesn't have the capacity to process large enough batches for feature films, or be fast enough for dailies. And sometimes the owner shuts shop for a month while he goes on holiday. His rates are roughly the same as sending film overseas to be processed, which is why some people prefer that route. But outside of a few very indie productions no-one has shot an entire feature on film in Australia for about a decade. If these guys can get a film feature up and shooting then that might start some balls rolling, but I wouldn't hold my breath. There is definitely demand though, and I know someone who is actively trying to get a bigger lab up and running here in Melbourne, so fingers crossed. But it's still a huge financial gamble, and logistically difficult with our small population.

Fibre optic screen ground glasses are also used in Arriflex 16SR 1-3 and 416 cameras.

Looks like moisture got in there at some point. I clean and treat small corrosion spots like that with a brass wire pen brush and a product called CRC 2-26. Don’t use WD 40.

I don't have a Master Anamorphic on hand to check, but comparing pictures scaled to have the same size PL mounts, the problematic rear section profiles and diameters look identical.

It doesn't matter where the voltage regulation happens, at your V lock plate or in your cable, as long as it's regulated. The only caveat is that the regulator needs to be able to handle up to about 3A, and sometimes very small in-line regulators have a low current rating. You need a power cable with a switch if you are using an external battery, not too hard to make for anyone with basic soldering skills.

I would probably think about things like weight if you are predominantly hand-held and what sort of focal length range you need. Big difference between an old Cooke 20-100 and an Optimo 16-42 for instance. The advantage of renting is that if there are any issues or you find you don’t like the look or the range, you can easily swap the zoom out for something else. If you buy one, especially on the cheap, you might find yourself with a lens that needs an overhaul, or maybe fails during the shoot, or isn’t quite what you hoped for but now you’re locked in until you go through the finding and buying process again. Aluras and Angenieuxs tend to be pretty reliable workhorse zooms, but the 18-80 and 17-80 are both around 5kgs, compared to the DP 16-42 which is under 2kg. So if you can live with a shorter range it will be much better for your back. I’m not a big fan of Zeiss zooms, I think they are much better at making primes, but some people like them. The Cooke is lovely but quite old now, and really not a great choice for handheld at over 6kg. If you could rent the Angenieux DP pair of 16-42 and 30-80 you would a have a pretty good range, a great image and very light weight.

You may be able to turn the focus ring, but does it shift the optics inside? I'm guessing you need the mount part with a mating helicoid to actually focus the lens. If that's the case, you really just have the optics from a 1970s Zeiss Contax 1.4/35 Distagon, which is worth under $1k. If you want it useable as a PL lens, I think the easiest route would be just re-housing the optics through someone like TK lenses, GL Optics, Whitepoint or TLS. Some are more expensive than others, with long wait times. Forget "plastic rehousing", whatever that is, it needs to be done properly or you're just wasting money. If you wanted to try and use the original Technovision parts, I think you would need to enlist the help of an experienced lens tech or lens designer and a good machinist and probably spend a decent amount of money working out how to replicate the original keyed mount with mating helicoid and an iris ring. Or it's possible one of the rehousing companies would take on the challenge, but as a custom job it will likely be more expensive than just rehousing it.

As Martin said, whatever the cause it’s unlikely to be repairable for less than a replacement camera. It’s most probably the filter or an optical surface inside a prism or doublet somewhere, which are very hard problems to fix. Unfortunately you just need to get another camera.

It’s easy enough to say things are overpriced when you remember a time when they were cheap, but the reality is vintage objects like cameras fluctuate in value. I’d love to find a flat base 13x viewfinder Bolex for £800, I buy Bolexes all the time for parts, but you just can’t find such bargains anymore. The only cameras that cheap or less are non-reflex, or early reflex models, or ones that are damaged or not working. So saying “don’t pay more than £800 for any Bolex” is more of a recipe for frustration than helpful advice these days. There are definitely over-priced Bolexes sitting on eBay, of course. I tend to wait for auctions, where actual values become apparent. S16 is a modern standard, but whether the benefit is worth the added cost is a tricky question. It does add quite a bit of extra film real estate - around 20% more - and provides a closer aspect ratio to what many filmmakers want for a final delivery. But it’s also true that these days you can easily crop a standard 16 frame to a wider aspect ratio without making the image too grainy. However there is definitely more value in a S16 camera, both by virtue of demand and by the extra work involved in a conversion. A S16 Bolex is worth around £1000 more than a regular one, provided the conversion is professional. A badly converted one should by rights be worth less, but people often don’t find out until they start using it. There are precious few places left doing good S16 Bolex conversions, but I can recommend a couple of people around the world depending on the model. I have started to offer the service for filmmakers in Australia. If anyone is offering a conversion for less than about £900 they are not going to do it properly, because it does require some precise work and ideally an overhaul at the same time. The only experienced Bolex technician I know of still working in the UK is Les Bosher, but unfortunately his work can be hit or miss these days. I suspect he passes some jobs onto less experienced people. His adapters are great though. There are a number of good EU based technicians, including Simon. Rex 3, 4 and 5 models are all good, with the same flat base and 10x viewfinder. They have a 133 degree variable shutter, not 172.8. The shutter angle is only approximate with Bolexes, as is the frame rate. If you can find a camera with a 10mm RX Switar that will do you well. To get the best from a reflex Bolex at maximum lens apertures, look for RX lenses (at least up to 50mm). It’s not so important with zooms.

Bolexes are in fairly good demand at the moment, especially Super 16 ones. I would probably value it at around £3000 without lenses and without a recent service. If you have recently film tested it, that will make it more attractive to buyers. If you were optimistic and not in a hurry you might get up to £4000 for it. Selling it by auction would be the quickest route and let the market decide, but that can be variable. You can if course put a reserve on it.

Here's a copy of the original manual for a Rex 4: https://www.vintagecameras.fr/images/MonSite/BOLEX/H16_Reflex/_Doc/Bolex_H16Reflex_Manual_en_Revu.pdf There are a few ways you can meter. Either use the "adapted" exposure times listed in the manual - ie 1/80 sec for 24fps. This takes into account both the 133 degree shutter angle and the 1/3 stop light loss to the viewfinder. Or if using cine mode on a light meter (which assumes a 180 degree shutter) then you need to compensate an extra 2/3 of a stop (1/3 for the prism light loss and 1/3 for the difference between 180 and 133 degrees). The easiest method is to set your meter ISO at 2/3 stop slower, so for instance if using 100 ISO film you would set your meter to 64, or if using 250 ISO set your meter to 160 etc.

You can’t just alter the rear element position relative to the film plane, it’s intrinsic to that particular design. Sometimes lenses had the rear housing and even part of the rear element beveled to clear a reflex mirror, but that’s about all you can do without actually changing the lens design. If you simply shift a lens away from the film plane to clear a mirror, by shimming the PL mount for instance, the lens will no longer focus to infinity and would effectively become a macro only lens.

If you’re seeing image highlights doubled it’s due to reflections on internal glass surfaces. Sometimes it can be from sensor cover glass reflections or from filters. Odd flaring is more likely to be shiny surfaces inside, or oily iris blades. First step would be try it on a different camera. Did you ask VP?

$12,500 for a Bolex with cheap as chips Cosmicar TV lenses? They aren't even suitable for a reflex Bolex. Make an offer indeed.

Sounds like a parking issue, not battery related. I’m not sure how a Konvas parks, but if it uses a motor encoder, I’d start there.

So f/1.8 would be about T2.1? Given this is a very short range (less than a 2X) zoom, and only for mirrorless short flange depth cameras, I'm not sure it's such a breakthrough. There are already full frame T2.2 Sigma zooms and longer range T2.4 zooms by Canon available in more versatile mounts. But I guess it has a market. As Sebastian said, more of a variable prime really.