Selinica Harbinger

Just to add, even an eye safe laser can damage the sensor or possibly cause eye injuries if someone is using an optical viewfinder. The reflections aren't something to worry about but because the lens focuses things, even a very low power laser can get to some fairly high peak values on a sensor or film plane. Just pop on a lens cap or measure from the camera position

I did a little more digging and it seems media logic made a crystal speed control that had a cable for the aaton. I found an LTR package with the control after some browsing. Apart from one for sale on it's own I can't find anything else, but it would appear at least that there are some options other than the Atelen for speed control. AZ Spectrum says their one speed control will work for the LTR and the 16SR. So far that's lead to a dead end of someone here in another thread trying to figure out what their 16SR wanted as a signal. I'll keep digging in the hopes I can find something, as I'm of the mind this should be documented given how hard original accessories are to find for older cameras.

Looking at the LTR manual, it seems that port is used by a couple different accessories-a video assist camera or the 'atelen'. The description of the latter states it "delivers an external master frequency signal derived from a video signal, or pilotone, to the camera." I could be completely missing it but the connector pinout is not documented in the LTR manual. If the XTR uses the same pinout then based on the mention of 'external master frequency derived from pilotone' it seems the camera can be controlled by an analog frequency signal and if it's that 2400Hz then it seems it may be 2400Hz=24fps The best thing to do if nobody knows would be to make an adapter cable for between the atelen and the camera and check the signals on the cable to see what signals are where and what is sending what, if you can find an atelen. If it is just an analog frequency signal then that'd be fairly easy to generate with some pretty good frame stability for very cheap, so there is some good news there possibly.

I personally would reach for kino for some applications. The light quality from good LED fixtures is pretty impressive, many can do color temperature adjustment and other things and are arguably rebuildable and a little more environmentally friendly due to the lack of mercury. LEDs are also expensive and most interest is there so my reasoning for kino is more to hunt for costs that have dropped than anything else. What the use plan, budget, and level of build involved would be the determining factors for me moreso than bulb technology. Some LED makers do offer repair services as well if you're not committed to the fluoro bulb style LED.

What range of infrared are you looking to emulate? It'd probably be best done in effects for any range of the IR spectrum with how it all behaves. Somehting like aerochrome is best emulated now since foliage has a shift but not everything green will be emissive in infrared. If it's monochrome, you see a shift with foliage and other things being much brighter than a visible spectrum monochrome image. From what I remember with some color infrared you get color inversions for some things and personally, I know of no physical filter that will make just foliage color invert and have the effect in the sky regions. If you had one with the IR filter removed you can just use an external IR blocking filter the rest of the time. It might not be as convenient but it at least allows the shift between both with one camera. Oh, and digital cameras will see infrared a little different than infrared film did since the digital sensor will just see a more red while film would have some more complex chemistry to do a false color reaction to the infrared.

1:2 means for one rotation of the input, the output gear will turn twice. 2:1 means for two turns of the input, the output will turn once. So to get a single turn of the output from each, with a 1:2 ratio you'd turn the input half a turn, and on the 2:1 you'd turn the input two turns. So it is right about a 4x difference. To calculate the ratio from the gear change, just use the input teeth/output teeth and reduce the fraction. So if the stock MFF has a 43 tooth gear, that is the gear driving the lens if I'm looking at the product chart correctly. You actually can't compare the two yet without knowing the drive gear to lens gear ratio since you don't have your output gear yet (the lens portion). So your system would be more like A:B (the follow focus itself) and then B:C (the follow focus to lens) which would give the final A:C ratio and every other bit of information you'd be able to derive from there. The focus throw would then be an angle limit and you'd need to back calculate that through the final turn ratio to find how much the follow focus moves for a full focus throw, and then you could start to make comparisons about how far each follow focus knob has to turn. With just the follow focus, the output gear is 43T, meaning your input would be 21.5T. Half of a tooth isn't possible so it means there must be another gear at least, but it'll work. With a swap of 43->64T you'd change the follow focus from 1:2 to 43:128 or fairly close to 1:3. That's still not considering the 64T to lens ratio though.

An additional beamsplitter would make sense as the proper way to do it. Getting the exposure information from the gopro would be a bit of a hack but functional. I'm not sure this is better than an off the shelf sensor or miniature camera for the video tap and costs a lot more. All that aside, going by the OP link it's now only crypto payments which is a huge red flag. Red flag on the level of 'you have no recourse if anything is wrong or not delivered' at the very least. A gopro shoved inside a k3 for 2k, payable by crypto only from Russia at least to me sounds extremely sketchy especially after the regular testimony. I could see someone doing those mods to a k3 as a project or to see what they can do to improve it or as a first step in making modified cameras, so I can't judge there. 2k of crypto for a k3 with a gopro put inside it though. Yikes.

Check the manual for the oscilloscope too. You may need to do some added digging from there. The older test gear required film cameras to record the waveform, so there is information in the manuals about that. The trace focus and intensity will affect the exposure as well as the phosphor used-the old test gear used different phosphors for ones intended to be mostly just photographed and those intended to be primarily viewed. Then there were some slower and faster phosphors and some that were a mix of the two colors-a fast green and a slower blue for the camera that our eyes don't see as well. You will want to do a test, especially as compared to a regular CRT the oscilloscope will have the trace speed varying based on the signal settings rather than how TV/monitors work. You may need a viewing hood too and no grid illumination. I know for mine it's not easy to get the ideal hair lines that are the sweet spot of visible and fine enough. However mine is from the 60's so there is a decade difference. Do be a little cautious-if you don't turn down the intensity as you adjust the focus you can burn the phosphors and damage the screen. That's just my two cents though, Alexandre has a really good point with the checking using a digital camera too.

Thank you so much for the patent link! I threw it together just for a start in solidworks and it does appear to do something basic. I've got a render working that is a 180 rotation from the optical axis on one side to the other to see how it goes. I'll be getting a .step out after this finishes and into freecad since there does seem to be a snell's law solver someone made for it, and I'll double check with some paper calculations since the patent provides the ratios and theory. One radius the half of the other and a spacing relating to the difference of the ratios. I'd have not caught the second bit on my own, I had guessed at the ratio bit but wasn't getting much of anything without that last detail so thank you very much! I'll try to get some final details for a mount together as I can based on the technirama one with the focus and what I can guess at from the patent and anything else that can be found or turns up. I'll need to try to figure out a motor and some other stuff too for LCS or something so it can be double focused rather than being purely fixed, and since it's the ratios it'll hopefully be easy to scale for other magnifications. I'll have to get the whole lens model into some better optical program once I have more of it completed rather than a basic proof of concept two floating prisms in CAD model and see what results are given, but I don't have anything currently that can solve more advanced lens models. I'll try to get a basic work in progress model up asap online for anyone else who wants to poke at it too. Thank you so much for the patent link!

This has taken days of searching to no avail so I am hoping someone knows some historical documents on Delrama anamorphic lenses (such as the technirama ones and the 16mm and 8mm ones) that cover any of the design behind them, dimensions and drawings would be even better. I've been through every search engine and even gone to the company that made them, but there just isn't the information there. I'm attempting to understand how they did the curved anamorphic lens and the focusing so I can model one up and try to make a new one for testing and usage for the particular look and see what can be done with it. The issue is, none of the information seems to exist anymore. Regular anamorphic prism pairs I can find plenty of information on angles and distancing but nothing relating to the curved anamorphic elements the Delrama used. I've even tried the company for information but they were bought up along with several others by another company who seems to know nothing of the products the original maker made, and then that company has been bought by Canon and just makes medical imaging equipment. Even if it ends up simulating as inefficient, I'd like to be able to get something modeled up to see since my odds of seeing one in anything other than a museum setting is unlikely. My other motivation is that maybe if it simulates as super amazing maybe there would be some way to update it and loan it out, see what others have to say and let people get a chance to use one that isn't a historic artifact.

Why not a microcontroller with a TCXO reference? The PLL some have will give amazing clock stability and putting an absolute encoder onto the motor will let you know exact speed and position, so you could stop it exactly at a desired point and use a basic closed loop control to where it almost would not matter what is happening, since you can use a basic software feedback loop to hold a desired speed. It'd be easy to also then report errors such as underspeed, no movement, no feedback, or whatever you want. Even a GPS module for GPS referenced timing isn't a very expensive part and would give extremely good stability at the cost of being possibly overkill for a reference but would be handy if deriving timecode from there.