Christian Flemm

Dears, Might anyone take the height of their Steenbeck for me? I’m building a table into my wall and would like for it to be the same height as my Steenbeck. My 16mm Steenbeck, a late model with six plates and a single viewer, is in pieces in a friend’s cellar, so I am unable to access it at the moment. Last I checked, the working area was 80.5cm off the ground, with a thickness of 1.7cm. Though this was a 35mm Steenbeck. Anyone care to kindly doublecheck my crazy request? Best, Christian

Michael, would you care to send me photos some other way? I’m not on any social media and cannot access your Facebook link.

You’re a funny guy, Michael! And you’ve definitely made good use of your printer. I am interested in the Superior Bulk developing tanks. Care to send some photos, either privately or here? Best, Christian

Dears, I am offering for sale three beautiful Kern Switar lenses (10mm RX, 16mm AR Switar, 25mm RX) for your 16mm Bolex, movie camera, or MFT digital cinema camera. The lenses come with head and tail caps, have recently been serviced, have smooth focus rings, and are functioning without issue. I am preferably shipping within the EU, and local pickup is also possible in Berlin. If you are located outside of the EU, let's talk and see whether we can make it work. Lenses are available for the following prices: Kern-Paillard SWITAR 10mm RX 1.6 C-mount Wide Angle Lens - 600 EUR Kern-Paillard SWITAR 25mm RX 1.4 C-mount Lens - 350 EUR Switar 16mm F1.8 AR C-Mount Lens - 175 EUR The lenses may be purchased all together for 1000 EUR. Buyer pays shipping. Please DM me for more information as well as photos. Best, C

I’ve got one free of fungus and scratches. Feel free to make me an offer. mediumintimacy@gmail.com

Friendly bump :)

Dears, I've been using a small Meopta tank to hand process approx. 5ft of 16mm film at a time, but lately have been noticing a flicker making its way onto the film material, whether I'm processing as reversal or negative. Here are two short tests, the first of which is in Tri-X reversal, and the second of which is in Double X negative (digitally flipped from neg to pos). I'm wondering if this is a result of over-agitation in the first developer (in both cases) or whether someone has a better idea. The scans were produced on a homemade scanner, but I use this machine regularly for clients and know that it is not a factor in the image quality here (which was also apparent during projection). Best, Christian

Hi all, I recently purchased the Fomapan R100 home developing kit to run 100ft/30m of double 8 reversal material for friends. I’ve got two rolls lying about and am wondering whether the chemistry will be completely exhausted after initial use or if I can prolong the first developer time by 15-20 seconds to run a second roll. Can’t seem to find any answers about this online. Best, Christian

Hi Frank, Good catch. My mind wasn't in its right place while typing. Best, C

Hi Richard, Thanks for the note. In the time since Mark's original response I figured that both the bleach (dichromate) and second developer were weak. I'm happy that you are confirming my suspicions! Since, I've mixed new developers and am ready to get back to testing. As I said, I've run reversal many times before but have never had something like this happen as I've not been sharing chemistry, so I really appreciate your experience in problem-solving! Again, thanks for the super informed, detailed reply. Best, C

Hey Mark, Insufficient second developer, you'd say? I had 2L of first developer on-hand. Thanks for your feedback. Best, C

Dears, First time in a communal darkroom, but I've been hand-processing 16mm film in my own space for awhile now. A friend gave me a roll of ORWO UN54 to be processed as reversal, which I ran in a 100ft LOMO tank. Results were unexpectedly disastrous (uneven, dense) and I'm puzzled as to what could have gone wrong. Please see the screenshots here...maybe someone on here with eyes more wizened than mine could point to the problem(s)? I know that the film was overexposed in-camera, so if anything the results should be quite clear rather than dense. I tested the first and second developers yesterday evening and had no issues (in C4 chemistry, UN54 is suggested to be run in the first dev for 5 mins, and in the second dev for 3 mins, which I did), and apart from an issue with the developers I've no idea as to what could have happened here to get such nasty results. Fix was alright too (when developing I fixed the film for two minutes as prescribed...maybe not long enough?), and bleach certainly wasn't exhausted as it came out of the tank still yellow. Could this have been a re-exposure issue? As for the black gunk all over the film, my guess is that it's leftover remjet from a friend, who had just finished processing a roll of color neg in the same tank just before me. I think we simply didn't clean the tank carefully enough. Best, Christian

Hi all, I'm in search of any 16mm amateur lab equipment manufactured by Super Bulk Film Co. (Daylight tanks, contact printers, drying racks, etc.) - please feel free to DM me with offers if you have anything for sale. Additionally I'm on the hunt for a Uhler tabletop contact printer. Best, Christian

Dear Reader, If you are in possession of any 16mm experimental films, you reside in the United States or Europe, and you are interested in selling, please dm me. I'm open to any offers, but am particularly keen to acquire more structural films made in the United States in the 1960s/70s. I've a large print collection and may be open to a trade, if that is of interest. Best, Christian

They were done separately, owing to a problem with the scanner. I've a long relationship with this lab and we are all friends. Resyncing the sound won't be as laborious as you might think. Thanks again for all the advice!

Sounds like they've got their wires crossed!

Mine's coming from the UK to Germany, so I guess it's not being made here!

Hi everyone - In the last six months I've had two 16mm release prints from my personal collection scanned in 2K. The picture and optical sound track files were returned separately, and in both cases have proven impossible to re-sync digitally (if I sync one shot perfectly, the next shot, or the scene two minutes previous, is suddenly out of sync by roughly a half second or more). I thought it was a fluke on the part of the lab in the first case, but now that it's happened a second time, I'm really not sure what the issue could be. Any ideas? While I cannot confirm how the optical track on the first print was digitized, due to an issue with the lab's scanner the optical track on the most recent print was recorded by hooking up a Zoom H4n audio recorder to a 16mm projector that was running the print. Any clue as to what the problem could be? Both prints were scanned at 24fps, with both optical tracks at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. Best, Christian

Dears, If anyone's got a lead on decently-to-well-stored 16mm VNF stocks, let me know. I'm after 2253, 7240, 7251 in particular. Best, Christian

Hi Frank, Thanks a million - that'd be a massive help. Keep me posted. Best, Christian

Hi all, I'm working with a friend rebuilding an Oxberry 1600. The machine has been serviced and was seemingly in perfect working order until we discovered that the carefully focused film in the viewfinder does not turn out sharp on the exposed film. It is just barely out of focus. Any idea if this is related to the mirror and/or the ground glass, and if so, what can be done? I'm also aware of a tool, like a key, that can be inserted into the camera to calibrate focus. Anyone have a spare, or have a clue as to where I could find this tool? Best, Christian

Hi all, I've seen in written that the RX Kerns are in fact 1/3 a stop faster than the aperture markings on the barrel. ("The RX lens is calibrated to pass 1/2 to 1/3 more light than the aperture markings on the barrel"). This, because the lenses were manufactured with a light loss of 1/3 a stop from the reflex prism in mind. In other words, due to the light loss, I'm effectively at f1.4 on the 25mm, despite the lens actually being 1/3 a stop faster than that. Ignoring the issues that come alongside using those lenses on any other camera, does it follow that the 25mm f1.4 would, on a non-reflex camera, come out to f1.2? Now, at f1.1, the 26mm is quite fast; so, imagining I adapted mine to the BMPCC4K as many others have (again, ignoring the focusing and sharpness issues that come along with doing so), and imagining that I'm shooting wide open, with no reflex prism diverting 1/3 a stop of light, am I not truly at f1.0 (or f.95, if it's passing 1/2 instead of 1/3 more light than the number on the barrel)? Anxious to hear what folks have to say about this... Christian

Hey Daniel! Sorry to have left you hanging. Indeed I've been looking at the 18.5mm lens quite a bit as of late, 'specially since I can't seem to adapt the one I bought ? Dom noted that, prior to my purchase, due to the retrofocus architecture, attempting to adapt the 18.5mm BNC mount lens using a BNC-R to MFT/EF might prove difficult (due to it having a "straight cylindrical rear protrusion rather than a tapered or bevelled one"). So I wrote to the buyer who provided measurements of the rear element that seemed to put me in the clear; however, upon receiving the lens I discovered that the rear element was too large to fit through the back of the adapter (which, to a certain point, is bevelled - this beveling being the chief obstacle). Given that you've adapted several of these lenses, I wonder if you might be able to offer up a BNC to MFT solution for the 18.5mm lens? I'd love nothing more than to adapt it, and I'm sure I'd have a hard time selling it with that mount. Geoffrey Berliner at the Penumbra Foundation suggested I find a Mitchell that's been torn apart and ask that the mount be drilled out so that I could machine my own adapter...sounds nice but highly unlikely! It should go without saying that the Zero Optik rehousing, while ideal, is absolutely out of my price range. Here's to hoping that something'll come of this... Best, C

Dom, you are a godsend! And thanks for the history lesson – I needed it! Angenieux introduced the 18.5mm in (I believe) 1951. I've read that the lens wouldn't cover the full frame sensor of (say) my 5D were I to adapt it, and that it'd be much like equipping an APS-C lens. Any idea if this is true? If the lens was manufactured for a Mitchell camera, for Academy ratio, how could it be the case that the vignetting would be as severe as with an APS-C lens on a full frame camera?

Hi everyone – long time reader, first time poster! I'm considering purchasing an Angenieux 18.5mm Type R2, and was previously under the assumption that the mount was Mitchell BNCR. The lens' owner, however, has just informed me it's not a BNCR mount but BNC. Apparently, these mounts are slightly different. As I don't know my way around a Mitchell (or anything Mitchell, for that matter), and as I've not got the budget to rehouse the lens, I'm wondering whether a BNC lens (in particular this Angenieux) would fit an EF to BNCR mount adapter. I've been unable to source an EF to BNC adapter, so if I'm out of luck with the BNCR adapter I'm wondering if there might be other solutions to the problem. Happy New Year, Christian