Brian Drysdale

There appears to be rumours of an Arri connection, which has also been denied. It has been mentioned that the Bolex Pro was intended to compete with the Arri 16BL, which could be fitted single system sound and was commonly used for shooting news. That sounds less likely that Arri would be involved. I guess the advantage for the Arri 16BL owner was that you could use the same camera for productions and for news gathering.

The Bolex Pro has commag (single system sound), so has a record head and a playback head. It's a tight space, but there's automatic threading (as explained above), details can be found in the "Professional Cameraman's Handbook" for those who have a copy. There's a throwout knob, which disengages the sound heads, which may assist when breaking a roll.

I've shot 7222 just using a incident meter and results were pretty good. It can depend on your scanner, I recently scanned a night exterior which had detail in the highlights that was blown out in the 16mm prints.

This post in an earlier thread gives some history: It basically says that it was designed by Bolex, but manufactured by a third party.

A bit of history on the Joe Dunton SR ll blimp in the first answer: https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/panavision/

Some rental companies had blimps for some 16mm cameras (e.g. Arri SR mark1 & 2 and the Eclair NPR) being used on dramas. These weren't barneys, but hard enclosures.

35 dB at 5ft could be one reason why it didn't take off, the CP16 was 31dB at 3 feet.

Since the Bolex Pro doesn't get mentioned too often, here's a brochure for the camera that gives some details: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00936/00936.pdf

With AI you can do a lot to reduce background noise, but you should test before making a final decision. Shooting 35mm was always expensive, unless you've got a good budget, the shooting ratio can become an issue on certain types of productions. As mentioned, the Arri BL4 isn't that light. I would be careful about shooting without a camera assistant on 35mm, the cameras were designed to be operated with one. 35mm has been used for newsreels, but they tended to work on a tripod or they were shooting mostly MOS exteriors handheld e.g. combat. As Tyler mentioned, the logistics become an issue, you need a larger vehicle for a start. What is one case on 16mm becomes several on 35mm.

The Lightworks V2024.1 beta has been released. There have been a number of major changes: Video Play Engine: There's a substantial performance boost, support Apple Sonoma on macOS lead to an reimagining of the CPU to GPU handling giving performance improvements not just for Mac users but also for Windows and Linux users. Export Improvements New export options designed specifically for professional users have been added. The “Beyond 4k” support introduces UltraHD formats (5k, 6k, and 8k) editing with export support for Apple ProRes, Cineform, AVID DNxHR, AV1, H.265. Effects Improvements SVG file import capabilities for masks, which include default SVG images for ease of use. Creating and sharing custom effects with ease using a new ‘Create template from shader code’ panel. User Interface Improvements There's a host of user interface enhancements aimed at making the editing process more intuitive, efficient, and enjoyable for both new and existing users. Further information can be found here: https://forum.lwks.com/threads/lightworks-2024-1-beta-revision-146900-now-available.251517/#post-279563

You could check out lighting units that plant hire companies provide to live events & construction sites. These have telescopic stands, some have generators built in. You could try using the cranked up stands used for HMIs etc, and mount smaller lights on them. Just be aware that wind can blow over these stands over unless weighed down by sandbags etc.

That could be a TV interviewer, so it could on any channel. I can think of a number of UK interviewers who might have asked the questions.

Cinelab offered the same 2k/4k test on a digital restoration of an old B & W drama that I made. I guess it pays them if you go for the more expensive route, In the end, I went for the 2k, because of the grain and the funder only pays for 2k. You still saw various flaws that we were getting away with on the 16mm print.

With film, you usually do exposure tests, so you know the stock. With neg film you're usually better overexposing (what used to be referred to as exposing for the shadows), which is the opposite of what you do in digital photography, which is more like exposing for reversal film. You can buy a viewing glass, which can assist in judging the lighting. Tiffen sell them.

I worked with a director who wanted dark walls in offices with white walls. We ended up just lighting the people and any objects of interest, but not putting any lighting on the room itself, the walls just picked up the stray light, so you could see something.