Jump to content

Heikki Repo

Basic Member
  • Posts

    643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Heikki Repo

  1. I can't help but to wonder... with the resurgence of film photography, ever rising demand for film (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/35mm-c41-film-selling-very-well.186557/page-3#post-2464820) and even FilmoTec preparing to enter color negative market to compete with Kodak in motion picture film stocks --- might we see such a day when Fuji returns to this market? 🤔
  2. It could be either one - or both. Perhaps some people who have been previously renting have realized they are going to shoot 16mm so much that it's worth it to own a 16mm camera? Looking at different forums and Ebay it seems people (non-collector) have been buying 16mm cameras left and right.
  3. Film prices were raised last year, before pandemic in order to make an investment to increase capacity to meet the higher demand. https://parallaxphotographic.coop/kodak-film-price-increase-and-stock-availability/
  4. To be honest, I don't remember mine having been quite that dark ever. Definitely there is a spot, but not that strong one. But I might remember incorrectly, as my camera was modified by Bernie in 2016, light meter removed, ground glass cleaned & remarked for S16 and laser brightened.
  5. Could be related to shortages in acetate base? In still photography films Portra 800 and ColorPlus 200 are now on estar base due to it. Growing popularity of film might be having some effect too... As for MP stocks, Silbersalz35 has had shortages and delays, but no idea if they are related to lack of film stock.
  6. There are also these Zeiss lenses, 8mm 16mm and 25mm - you can find several of them on Ebay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-25mm-T2-2-Planar-Lens-Arri-Standard-/284165807125?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-16mm-f2-T2-2-Planar-Arriflex-standard-mount-2695832-/372170239523?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-8mm-f2-T2-4-Distagon-Arriflex-standard-mount-5546549-/371775805742?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 I like them. The 8mm doesn't cover super16 and 16mm is so-so in covering, but with your 16s and standard 16 you won't have to worry about it :)
  7. I tried to dig some info for you, the best I came up is that - http://showreel.pt rents film cameras (including Arri SR3) so they might have some stock? - Cristina Pereira is the Kodak Sales agent for Portugal, she might know if there is some place selling Kodak 16mm film: Cristina Macedo Pereira Sales Agent Motion Picture and Entertainment Eastman Kodak Company Phone: +351 937 988 389 cristina.pereira@kodak.com Other than those, I only found one place selling super-8 cartridges...
  8. Yes, on top of the camera you'll find Arri locating pin holes and the screw hole. Plug and play.
  9. For the top carrying handle I can warmly recommend this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1542946-REG/smallrig_2165b_arri_locating_handle.html As for batteries, buy a holder for 10 AA size batteries and get Eneloop batteries for it. It's easy to build one. Then, for mounting it on the mags I recommend this instead of velcro: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/dual-lock-reclosable-fasteners-us/
  10. Well, for some reason I feel it did look yellowish when I first got this camera but after Bernie did the laser brightening and also redrew the ground glass markings, it doesn't look yellow anymore. Can't say if the yellowness was in the vf or ground glass. Anyway, I find it hard to believe Angenieux would have used radioactive elements in viewfinders in the 1970s. I know only of Angenieux 15-150mm that has such radioactive lensing inside it (a friend, old DP told visiting a nuclear facility with it would set off alarms). But even my Angenieux 9.5-57mm for 16mm or the high end super-8 zoom with f1.2 doesn't contain any - and those rare earth minerals are really useful in the taking lens, because that affects the image on the film. So if even most of the professional lenses of the era made by Angenieux don't contain radioactive elements, why would they have used them in the viewfinders, where it is a) forbidden and b) not really that useful? My guess is that yellowing is due to something else. Could be as simple as cigarette smoke...
  11. But to put my findings in context, take a look at https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses That Switar seems very tame compared to some other lenses 🥵
  12. The Swiss secrets! 😁 But surprisingly the 10mm isn't, so not all Switars are radioactive. f1.4 seem to be, since that has been reported on this forum in the past... 🤔☢️
  13. Well, for someone who has tendency towards OCD such things do matter, it's not just some excuse. Some of us just tend to get affected by news stories of brain eating amoebas, knowledge of possible radiation and lead from solder (getting eaten by toddlers) 😅 And then there are those of us, who have no issues with storing photographic chemicals on kitchen table, right next to food...
  14. Okay, I retested that way both the VF and the Switar: VF, nothing. Switar 16mm: 1.03 µSv/h. Don't hold that on your eye.....
  15. The Geiger counter has arrived! And here are the results... Disclaimer: I'm not a professional, this is actually the very first time I use a Geiger counter and my setup is not a lab setup. This is not medical advice, your mileage may vary etc. I have tried to take several measurements to avoid having some surge of radioactivity (for example, due to radon) affect the readings. This counter doesn't detect alpha particles. However, thorium decay causes also beta and gamma radiation, so should there be such radioactive elements, I'm convinced my counter would detect it. Background radiation today in Tampere, according to Säteilyturvakeskus: 0.161 µSv/h Room BG levels: 0.10-0.18 µSv/h (highest counts when counter on the wooden table...) Switar 10mm f1.6: 0.16-0.18 µSv/h Switar 16mm f1.8: 0.25-0.34 µSv/h (rear) Angenieux 6-80mm f1.2: 0.14-0.21 µSv/h (rear) Angenieux 9.5-57mm f1.6-2.2: 0.10-0.23 µSv/h (rear) The results with these lenses make me believe that only my Switar 16mm is more radioactive than other stuff around me. Only its readings stayed consistently over the background radiation levels. And now *drum rolls* ACL 1.5 Angenieux orientable VF: 0.10-0.18 µSv/h ..... Ground glass: 0.12-0.15 µSv/h In order to get the readings I set the VF diopter to -5 (minimum extension) and removed the eyecup to get the counter close to it. I tried different orientations of the counter as I'm not totally sure where the tube in it is. But results: nothing. No bursts of clicks. I think we can conclude that at least this particular VF doesn't contain thorium or other radioactive elements. The ACL 2 Kinoptic VF on the other hand ... 🤪 Just joking. I don't have one to test, as I made the mistake of selling it for pennies four years ago. Perhaps you could put together an .. ehm .. fundraiser to buy me an ACL 2, I could then test it for you 😂 ...or perhaps just get a Geiger counter yourself, probably cheaper 😉 Still, I would be quite surprised if the Kinoptic - which is newer than Angenieux - had thorium. That's already from the turn of 70s and 80s. That would leave the oldest, non-orientable viewfinders. I really don't believe those have thorium in them either. And NPR viewfinders? Well, those are from the 1960s. Closer to Arriflex 16S in age. But has anyone checked with a Geiger counter even those? Thus far the only evidence for thorium in Arriflex I have seen is the mention of the color of the glass - and that yellowness is not really evidence, unless UV light treatment makes the glass clear again - or so I have understood. Clear glass can be thoriated and yellow glass can be yellow due to other reasons.
  16. Yeah, perhaps this rumor is finally able to bring down those Ebay prices 😸 My geiger meter should arrive on Tuesday or more realistically later next week. I'll post the information here... unless, of course, I want to buy a cheap second unit 🙈🤪
  17. According to some information I read, thorium use has been restricted in the US since 1963. For lenses it has been authorized but for eyepieces not. Some unauthorized use has been, but I also read a comment online from a camera enthusiast who had measured hundreds of cameras and only that Pentax VF has had this issue. Considering this I find it highly unlikely that Angenieux would have done it in the latter part of 1970s. Had cinematographers developed cataracts due to radiation, that would have been a real mess in courts, I'd guess. And would French laws on radioactive materials have been any more permissive than US ones at that point?
  18. Let me revise myself here: apparently some Pentax 6x7 viewfinders do have thoriated glass. Which seems utterly incomprehensible. https://www.flickr.com/groups/328006@N25/discuss/72157675944465082/
  19. I just ordered from Amazon the same radiation meter Aapo uses. It might arrive next week. I'll check my ACL 1.5 Angenieux viewfinder (and other vintage glass I own) then and post my findings. Still, I find it difficult to believe that the viewfinder would have radioactive elements. After all, thorium hasn't turned radioactive only now, it has been that always, right? ACLs were popular cameras for documentary makers -- countless hours of eye on that viewfinder! I tried to find out about cameras having radioactive eyepieces. Thus far I have been unable to find anything on Google. Such eyepieces have been used in old military equipment, which has been repurposed by some for use on microscopes or telescopes. Some sources say that using those elements in eyepieces is against regulations. How long those regulations have been in use I don't know, but I'd like to think already in the 1970s one wouldn't have been allowed to put radioactive elements right next to camera operator's eye. Then again, asbestos wasn't banned in many countries until 90s... But we'll see. I'll post my findings.
  20. I think if there is realistic demand, eventually someone is going to answer that demand. After all, someone is buying those Arri Alexa SXT sets for $95,290 USD! The current professional 16mm and 35mm cameras aren't that old yet and in most places they probably don't see as much use as they did when film was the only option. There are also lots of older well working professional gear in the hands of hobbyists. So, in the end this might depend on whether or not rental companies see a need to buy new film cameras at some point. If film use grows -- as it seems to be growing -- and their cameras see constant use, at one point they might have a real need if those cameras don't work reliably enough despite servicing. In the still photography it is clear that film use has been becoming quite popular, with many higher end cameras seeing higher (2-3x) prices on Ebay than a couple of years ago. Still, those cameras work pretty well so thus far no new 35mm or 120 cameras have been manufactured - the prices are still so low.
  21. Eclair ACL II with two 400ft mags cost $21,950 USD back in 1980. Inflation adjusted it would cost now over $72,000 USD... Eclair ACL II pricelist from 1980
  22. Looks like small shutter angle and low frame rate to me :)
  23. I showed a clip of your home movie to my children and they insisted on watching them all! Quite captivating movies, holding their attention, great work! 😉
  24. Thanks Anfisa! Any plans for earlier versions of Ubuntu? I'm still staying on 18.04.
×
×
  • Create New...