Robert Morein

I was involved in a project that had this problem. This is how it was solved: 1. It is not true that tungsten lights are much less efficient than HMIs. The design of the reflector/collimator is much more important. By using PARs, you can come very close to the output of HMI's. Full blue gel loses quite a bit, 1&2/3 stops, but these lights are so bright, there is still usable light output. Half blue costs less light. Put it this way: if you gel a PAR full blue, you will still have about as much light per watt as an ungelled Fresnel, which is the most wasteful light, per watt. 2. We used a parchment paper, behind curtains, as an approximate 1/2 CTO. Covered by curtains, the paper could not be detected. Of course, we sacrificed a view out the window, but with much less labor. 3. We had a nearby balcony from which we aimed PARs at the windows. PAR bulbs come in three spot sizes; the longest one really throws a distance. 3. Theatrical PARs are really cheap. We rented for $12/week. We shot with 500T. The windows were rendered slightly cool. Since the room was balanced for tungsten, we had full run of our ample tungsten lighting package.

This lens has zoom and focus gears added at considerable cost by Optical Electro House. Ready for use with Cinema Products J4 zoom controller, or JBK follow focus. The mount is Eclair, but can be changed by OEH. A small rubber washer was added by George, visible in the left hand photo, to prevent the zoom from creeping. It covers Super 16 at all focal lengths and apertures. Optics in new condition. Barrel in excellent condition. The front element has always had a UV filter on it, which will be included. It has had minimal use. Speed F2.8, T3.1. Picture at http://www.extranormal.tv/picture_library/...gear%20comp.jpg $700. Bob Morein unpac@comcast.net (215) 646-4894

Then you really should not use Zeiss lenses. People keep asking this question over and over. See http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/truth.html As far as I know, Zeiss never made any of the special lenses required by RX Bolexes to compensate for the prism. Switars are lenses of great optical reknown. The RX Switars were designed for your camera.

Is your Bolex reflex (H-REX), or non?

These auctions appear constantly, and are a ripoff, because the batteries/chargers are available cheaper from B&H Photo (http://www.bhphoto.com).

Not a problem, Mike. I was just reporting my personal experience. We would have to take a poll to determine if 10%, or 50% of the cameras have this problem. It could be the strength of the spring, or variations in the camera body casting that determine this. And please do repost soon! Regards, Bob Morein

That indicates your camera is not in perfect shape. I have. I'm sorry to hear that. Camera body castings differ subtly. All video taps do this, without exception. It is not particular to the ACL. The exact figure is 50% split, which is exactly equal to 1 stop, not two, which would be equivalent to a 3:1 split in favor of the tap. The film path of the ACL is arguably better than the LTR. The LTR C mag actually puts the film through a severe 180 degree twist. It was not until the Aaton "D" magazines that this was corrected. The film path of the ACL is twistless. Here's another point that bears mentioning. According to Nathan Milford, chief tech for Abel Cine, the Aaton rep in the U.S., an Aaton requires vacuum impregnation of the bearings every four years, at a cost of $1200 - $1500. By contrast, George at Optical Electro House will lube an ACL to factory specs for $300. He actually completely rebuilt the guts of one of my ACLs for $1000, an extremely reasonable figure. The replacement of Aaton bearings is much more expensive.

I have both cameras. The LTR54 is considerably quieter, which is for feature work a concern. There is an excellent barney made by Custom Upholstery Products that allows the camera to do close-in sound work. OTOH, it is a fact that very few LTR54s can actually run at 54 frames/second. This is because of the odd film path in an LTR, that actually twists the film 180 degrees between the supply and takeup sides of the mag. This can be fixed at a cost of $1200 per mag. The ACL has a very straight, twistless film path. The multispeed motor is also larger than the Aaton motor. The ACL has the most universal lens mount system in existence. Changing the Aaton mount on an LTR54 to PL is an expensive proposition. With the ACL, it's trivial. There isn't even a trip to the shop. Simply unscrew one adapter and put on another. The ACL also takes C mount lenses. I have government surplus extreme wide angles, in C mount that would cost more than the camera in bayonet or PL. If you put a C-mount lens on an ACL, and attach a 200 foot mag, the camera weighs in at about 8 lbs. For small crew work, the ability to hand-hold the camera, instead of using bulky support gear, is a plus. Until the advent of the A-minima, this configuration of the ACL was the lightest sync-sound camera. I think that in general, I would prefer the LTR54 for sync sound work. However, if you are starting out, the ability to use cheap C mount lenses, some of which are extremely sharp, is a great advantage. Both cameras have superb image registration. The lens is the limiting factor. As far as the business of magazines falling off the camera, I find that this occurs if the latch mechanism is incorrectly mounted to the camera. This occurred with one of my ACLs. I screwed the latch mechanism down in the proper position, and it didn't happen any more. The shutter angle is fixed at 175 degrees for a nonconverted ACL. ACLs converted in 60 Hz countries have the shutter converted to 144 degrees. The AZ Spectrum video tap does not cause any noticeable light loss to my eye.

The following posting is a scam: Aaton XTR Super-16 W Color tap and ZeissItem number: 7529530807 Do not try to buy the camera from this seller. You'll end up with nothing.

As Dave Mullen says, amperage frequently provides a severe limitation on small indie shoots. An interesting lighting option is the theatrical PAR, which can be rented for dirt, around., twelve bucks a week, and have the greatest light output per watt of any incandescent light. These lights put out so much it's actually possible to gel them full blue, and have useful light output. Not as bright as as a 1200 HMI PAR? Hook up two! PARs have an undeservedly bad reputation due to misuse, ignoring the many legitimate uses they have. If you have a large diffusion hanging from a jib arm, the least efficient light is a Fresnel. An open-face is better, but only the PAR, with its built-in, vacuum sealed parabolic reflector, efficiently collects all of the lamp light and throws it at the gel. We've even used these on balconies to add punch to windows covered with diffusion. By changing lamps, the throw can be set to wide, medium, or spot, allowing positioning the light distant from the diffusion. One could almost say a PAR should never be pointed directly at the subject, though that's exactly what Fellini did with his "visible light tower" shot in LA DOLCE VITA. However, I have seen a very creative, tricky setup that does just that. The subjects were positioned in a large room, backlit by half a wall of glass doors 25' feet away. The background light level was high, but it dropped off near the camera. How could the foreground be brought up to match the background? The power of sunlight is tough to match. The DP had theatrical PAR cans, but could the hardness of their light be disguised? He arrayed one on each side of the camera, like a copy stand, and - voila! the light appeared soft, even though no diffusion was used. The result is mystifiying to look at, since it looks soft, but was lit with hard light. Bob Morein indie filmmaker

A Kinoflow provide approximatey 5X the total light output of an ungelled Fresnel. If you gel a lamp full blue, you lose an additional 70%, for a total differential of 15X per watt, in favor of the Kino. A diffusion gel results in similar loss in the high intensity spot zone. Of all the incandescent lights, the Fresnel is the least efficient; most of the lamp light never exits the housing. This is because Fresnels were designed to throw an intense, focused spot. Fresnels, along with their more efficient and modern cousins, the Dedos, are the most flexible kind of light. But as the above shows, this comes at severe cost. If the intent is to provide accent on a scene that is already fairly well lit, they may be useable. But putting diffusion on a Fresnel actually defeats the purpose of the light. Open faced lights with diffusion have a 2.5X advantage in illumination per watt versus a Fresnel. As the other posters point out, Kinos are somewhat hard to control. But the first priority is to get enough light to expose the film. Unless you have high amperage available at the set, Kinos are the most practical choice. If the Kino light is too undefined, you can use undiffused Fresnels to bring up the contrast ratio.

I find very bright walls to be practically difficult. In a small room, light spill can cause a wall to appear brighter than a nearby face. In a large room, when the subjects can be positioned away from walls, it's not such a problem. Diluted black or gray paint, applied as a watery solution, works well to reduce wall brightness without enforcing a color scheme.

You should avoid RX lenses. RX lenses have specific correction for the Bolex prism. Since your camera has no prism, the optical system of RX lenses is not designed for your camera. The earlier series of Switar lenses, type AR (antireflection) will work well. In a 25mm lens, however, you have many options. In the 50's and 60's, Nikon and Canon made 25mm C-mount lenses. Both represent good choices. Switar AR lenses show up from time to time on eBay. They do have an excellent reputation.