Boris Belay
-
Posts
248 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Boris Belay
-
-
Thanks Clive. Sounds interesting and I'll look into the possibility of using this upgraded Crystal Unit. I'll start with my TXM-11, but if anyone else is interested in either sharing info on this or possibly my doing the mod for them, let me know.
And indeed, the non-modified spare grip is only useful as a safety back-up, since the crystal can stay plugged in while on non-synched speeds.
-Boris
-
Hi, I tink a big distinction must be made between the video-lenses made today for the contemporary market (ie, mostly surveillance camera bits of glass/plastic (and cheap) and a few higher-quality lenses for 3CCD or High-Precision B&W medical imagery cameras), and the 'TV Lenses' made in the 70's when video was only beginning to take a hold and which are much closer to cine lenses. For instance, I have a nice Canon 'TV-16' that was obviously made for the TV-news market but is still for 16mm. film.
So, I'd say : stay away from anything that was made for video since the 80's (either video-specific or awful) and proceed with caution with lenses from the 70's, which were progressively moving away from their film-origin. The best one of those include the Canon, the Cosmicar/Pentax, and perhaps the Sony (zooms made by Tamron, I believe), and they can be recognized by their construction (metal, traditional film-lens layout, no motors on zooms...). Given that some of these reputable-brand 70's lenses are very cheap, they may be worth a try... besides the price of wasted film !
Perhaps the one exception of current lens manufacturer to be trusted with new lenses is Schneider Kreuznach : their Cinegon line should still be fine, especially their primes, so long as they're specified for 2/3" or larger. I recently picked up an Angénieux 50/1;0,95 for next to nothing, but it's no use : purely CCTV-oriented.
With respect to super-wide angle lenses, you're pretty much out of luck since the technology was still so cutting-edge in the good-ol'-days of 16mm. film that film-specific lenses this wide are extremely rare and equally expensive... On the other hand, given how practical these fields of view are for CCTV, you're going to see a lot of cheap plastic that would put an Kern/Zeiss Aspheron 6mm. to shame on paper... but certainly not on film !
As for the Bolex Reflex issue, it's a different beast altogether. If you need more info on it, I recently posted a detailed answer on specific brands in this thread (and the theoretical part is well-documented all over this board) :
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=10117
-Boris
-
Marcus, Do you mean that what is useable in a S-16 image after cropping to particular standard screen ratios could have fit between the top and bottom rows of perfs ?
That is the principle of Ultra-16, indeed. But the point of Super-16 when it was defined (ie, before HDTV and reg. 16/9 ratio) seems to have been simply to use as much of the available neg as possible, cropping coming afterwards if necessary (and as standards get defined).
Does that make sense ?
PS. To go back to one of your original question, yes, there is (was?) a 16mm.-wide film format with smaller perfs : Double Super-8.
And as a matter of fact I know of at least one person who has worked on and advocated a sort of Ultra-16 on DS-8 film in which cropping is not necessary, since the Super-8 perfs are so small. He is a Swiss engineer, formerly with the Swiss TV, and maybe even Bolex, whose name I have to find in my notes.
Needless to say, his format has not gained much acceptance, although I love the idea.
But I'm not sure where Kodak stands on DS-8 these days... that amy be part of the problem !
-Boris
-
Hi, In terms of identifing RX lenses of different brands, I posted an extensive response in this thread :
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=10117
-Boris
-
Thanks for the hint. Please place this threat in the Super 8 forum. Thanks.
What a great typo ! Or did you mean that ??
-Boris
-
And The Draughtman's Contract was pretty much the first film to make a big impression (or none, actually, since it was assumed to have been shot in 35) when presented at Cannes, I think. The 'world' then began to take note that Super-16 was a viable option. It took a few more years for most of the labs to effectively accept it.
Ultra-16 only makes sense if you do you own telecine, as I do, and control most of the steps after shooting yourself (or work closely with a lab that will bear with you). So even though the camera conversion is simple and the advantages seem evident, it's not resommended in most cases... but that's been discussed at lenght in other threads.
-Boris
-
Marcus, Congratualtions on the Eclair purchase !
Yes, the RX-branded lenses were made specifically for Bolex RefleX (to correct the optical aberrations of the fixed prism). So RX lenses should only be used on Bolex RX cameras (Rex-0 -> Rex5, SB, SBM, EBM, EL, and none other), and those cameras should use these lenses.
So the basic rule is : "If Bolex Reflex, then RX lens", in simple logic terms.
One main exception is that most (but not quite all) fixed focal lenses 75mm. (3") or longer are not "RX" branded as the aberrations mostly do not matter for telephoto lenses -- so the Switar 75mm 1:1,9 sold with the better Rex kits was never Rx-specified (but the Switar 50 1:1,4 was).
Specifically, it's more complicated. Here's most of what I know, brand by brand :
Angénieux zoom lenses were specified for Bolex RX, on most lenses from the late 60's on (particularly the 12-120/1:2,2 and mighty 9,5-95/1:2,2). It's easy to see as the base of the zoom is silver (instead of the usual black C mount), with H16 RX engraved in black. They're also identified as "Type C" around the rim ("Type A" were models with reflex viewfinders built in, and "Type B" were all others : reg. C mount, Arri, Eclair, etc.)
Less easy to identify are the earlier Angénieux models (admitedly a bit old now) : for instance, the 17-68/1:2,2 (silver body) was classified as "Type L1" (built-in reflex VF), "Type L2" (all other mounts), and "Type L3" for Bolex Reflex, with the cryptic "Special P." engraved around the central rim of the lens. It took me a while to figure that one out : I thought the P. may stand for Pathé, but it's for Paillard, which was the French's preferred way of referring to Bolex cameras in the 50's.
As far as I know, no Angénieux fixed focal lenses are RX-specified, so use at your own risk... (that includes the common 10/1:1,9 and the great 25/1:0,95). Angénieux then stopped bothering with Bolex specificities in their (somewhat) more recent zooms, which were not even offered in C mount anyway.
Schneider (Kreuznach) lenses are simpler (German systematicity!) : they engraved all of their made-for-Bolex-Rex lenses with the "RX" brand, including their (less common) zoom lenses, and these are all in the black series. The only confusion may arise from the fact that some of these black series lens are inscribed "Für Bolex" but not "RX" : as far as I understand, that's because the black series lenses were originally designed to Bolex's specifications (generalized, convenient size for the turret, same front rim diameter,...), so "For Bolex", but not all of these were for H16 Rex cameras, only the RX ones.
The silver Schneider lenses, whether from the 50's, 60's or recent ones, are not RX-specified : proceed with caution...
SOM/Berthiot is the 3rd main supplier of Bolex lenses (besides Kern, obviously). Again, their RX-specified lenses are clearly labeled "RX" or "H16 RX", either on the front rim or around the mount. These include the 25/1:1,4 and 10/1:1,9 notably.
There are more exceptions here, however. A little known one is the Berthiot Cinor 25/1:1,8 which is listed as RX-compatible in Bolex catalogs of the mid-60's and was sold as a cheaper alternative to the Kern Switar 25/1:1,4 (it is sometimes identified as a Lytar 25/1:1,8).
None of the SOM/Berthiot zoom lenses were RX-engraved, but most are compatible with H16 Reflex cameras nevertheless, notably the Pan-Cinor 17,5-75/1:2,3 ; 17-85/1:2 (both models) ; 12-120/1:3,3 ; and of course the tiny 17-85/1:3,8 Compact, which was sold as the only zoom that could be mounted on the turret along with other lenses (usually a 10 and a 25).
One little known fact that makes for good deals : SOM/Berthiot was a French state-owned company linked to the weapons industry and it was re-organized in the 70's into the SOPELEM, which kept producing those nice lenses for a while. Furthermore, Sopelem made a deal with Rank Taylor Hobson, who distributed their zoom lenses ("Montal" range) in the UK : again, the same as the SOM Berthiot lenses (17-85, 12-120,...) but generally better, since they are more recent. And often a great bargain, since people don't know what they are.
Kern, even after it became independant of Paillard Inc., always branded their lenses as RX or not (except, obviously for 75mm. and above). This includes even the very latest Multi-Coated series, since some were also produced for H16M (single lens, non reflex cameras), and therefore are 'regular' C-mount specified. So both ranges of regular and RX-specified lenses are clearly identified by Kern (thanks!).
Only one exception (there had to be one) : the very first lenses produced by Kern for the H16 Reflex (original 1957 model) were labeled as "DV" in red, rather than the more explicit "H16 RX" that came soon afterwards. So all DV lenses are RX lenses, but you know they're old.
As a side note: the "AR" mark on Kern lenses denotes an Anti Reflection coating (appears in the early 50's). So it's not incompatible with the RX brand as it is sometimes thought (AR vs. RX lenses), in fact all RX lenses are coated, but the "AR" is dropped out of the engraving probably because of the room necessary around the rim of those small lenses to fit the "H16 RX" mention. And the "DV" lenses still have the "AR" inscription too.
Besides that, I can't think of other brands that made lenses for the Bolex Reflex models. So lenses from American makers such as Kodak, Elgeet, Wollensack, Bausch & Lomb,... as well as Japanese (Canon, Soligor,...), British (Cooke, non-Sopelem RTH, Dallmeyer,...), or German (Zeiss in particular) are not specified for H16 Rex's to my knowledge. Which means, and that's the final confusing bit, that they may work, possibly, maybe, perhaps, at some opening, on a case by case basis. But it's trial and error and you're likely to waste film in the process.
As for Super-16 compatibility, that's another question. Who has hands-on experience with either kinds of Switar 10mm shooting Super-16 ? I think the pre-set version does cover it.
-B
-
PS. Alternatively, if you want to give me the auction link or eBay item #, I can look it up and tell you what kind of a deal you got.
-
Hi Stephanie,
Welcome to the wonderful world of Bolex and 16mm. film !
The best model/serials reference about Bolex in my opinion is
http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/history/index.html
As for the 1/1 motor shaft, it's easy to tell : if your camera has an 'I-T' lever (for Immediate or Timed single-frame exposure) in a cresent-shaped resess between the turett and the side release, then it only has the 6/1 motor axle. If the 'I/T' control is a little rounds knob, then the 1/1 shaft is there, just above.
Regarding motors and intervalometers for either kinds (obviously more choice with the later models), the best place to start is Clive Tobin's shop, but since he's active in this forum, I'm sure he'll respond directly.
www.tobincinemasystems.com
B.
-
Adam, As Clive points out, pre-set or non-pre-set does not determine the quality of the lens, at least not its optical quality (but it's ease of use).
If, as I suspect, you mean to talk about pre-set SWITAR lenses (ie, those lenses made by Kern for Bolex in particular), they are supposed to be better only because they were designed later and with better optics. So yes, a pre-set Switar is generally better than its earlier 'click aperture' equivalent.
As for 10mm. lenses covering Super-16, it entirely depends on the particular brand and model. A focal length does not define the amount of film surface that is correctly rendered (covered), just the field of view a lens 'takes in'. So you need to be more precise about which lens you're wondering about.
-
Here's a simple idea I want to try out as soon as I get a chance -- it should be sound and easy, but if anybody (Clive Tobin ?) has anything to add/confirm/improve/take down, please let me know.
The EBM grip is necessary to strart/stop the camera but it is also supposed to house proprietary (cylindrical!) batteries that are now mostly dead or very expensive to replace. They also add weight to a hand-held system for not much power, even at full charge. So besides the cable to an external battery (minor annoyance in most cases), standard 12V. external battery packs are a big improvement.
Which leaves us with an empty cavity in the grip, whose connector handles all outboard connections to the camera, including an optional crystal unit. If we have an external battery pack, the crystal unit must then be piggy-backed to the battery (ok but still inconvenient with the Bolex External Battery Housing, harder with other set-ups).
I recently picked up a Tobin TXM 11 Crystal Unit (EBM/ESM/EL) and realized it's so tiny (thanks, Clive!) that it could easily fit in the battery compartment of the grip. Since all the connections are through the grip anyway (and it's easy to take it apart), I thought it would be a perfect idea to hard-wire one of these crystals in a grip to have a permanent built-in crystal camera rather than a dangling series of outboard bits and pieces.
All it involves is desoldering the crystal's plug and soldering the connections from the inside into the grip's main connector (where it would plug in anyways). The one question to work out (but it's a matter of personal preference) is what to do with the crystal unit's synch light. If one knows the camera to work well as is, perhaps the light is not so necessary. Otherwise a hole could be drilled in the back of the grip so the light is visible trough it. A better option would be to bring the light outside of the grip (a couple of soldered wires) and place it wherever it is convenient for the shooter. Ultimately, it could even be placed inside the view-finder, EL-style, but that's a lot more involved and makes the conversion more or less permanent.
One point : besides this last option, this modification only involves the hand-grip, which is detachable anyway. So one could even have one crystal grip and a spare regular one. Also, the modified grip could just as easily be brought back to its original state (besides the hole for the light, but that's not even a concern for the grip's function).
The only limitation is that the crystal unit is not easily removeable anymore, so not useable with the tripod base, for instance. Or another option could be worked out where a second connector is soldered inside the grip with enough wire to easily connect and disconnect the unit when needed, while still all fitting in the grip.
Obviously, the same modification works with the ESM outboard motor for Rex-4/5/SB/SBM. And that grip could be adapted for the EL too (with just the crystal connector changed, or both power and crystal through the grip).
Has anybody tried anything like this ? Any suggestions or good reasons why not even bothering with it ?
Also, which other crystal units, besides the Tobin TXM-11 would work, space-wise (short of dismantling them) ? The Bolex Unit is housed in a largish enclosure but perhaps there isn't that much in there once the two connectors are removed. Other brands ? Any other Tobins, now that the TXM-11 has been replaced ?
-B
-
Yes, and as Herb stated, any mechanical Bolex H16 can be handcranked, with the speed governor limiting going over the set speed. It's as simple as using the rewind position (motor srping Off, release locked in run position), setting the speed and cranking it forward rather than reverse.
A nice trick would be to craft a better handle than the tiny original rewind handle, especially since the spring-motor handle is not necessary.
Also, with a broken spring, you can crank the camera with the main motor handle.
Since you can still get new SBM's from what's left of Bolex, they're probably the only guys to sell factory-fresh hand-crankable cameras today ! Obviously, in terms of cost, you're better off getting one with a dead spring off eBay...
-
Read what Montage was asking Bobolex (and please use your real name). He said he wanted to use the camera to make "feature length movies" and, "music videos". I was warned by some of the smart folks here not to buy the Bolex EBM when I too wanted to use it for feature length movies. I did not listen. Just as you won't listen to anything negative I say about a Bolex. They are a great hobby camera. But if I am going to spend hundreds of dollars on film stock, thousands of dollars on processing and telecine, and take up actors and crew time, I will never again do it with a hobby camera. If you want to use it to take 100 ft rolls of your family and kids, or just to play around with, and if the image flickers or weaves a bit it doesn't matter, then it is a fine camera. But it is not a camera to shoot a feature film with. Sorry if you don't see that.
-Tim Carroll
Tim, Sorry in turn if your bad experience with one camera blinds you so much : re-read my posts and you will see how much I try to point out the limitations of the EBM (along with its qualities), its sound level being an obvious one.
Nobody's going to be helped by factually false claims such as that EBMs are 'hobby cameras'. Please keep in mind what the point of these forums is.
And let's remember this thread began with the words "All brand prejudice aside (if that's possible)... "
-Boris Belay
Marcus, you did not say anythig about the lenses included with each camera. That's certainly a big consideration with respect to the monetary value of the kits you're offered.
-
Hey Bryan, Sounds great, and I'm jealous !
I can't remember the name of the sound either, and the one I heard of is French anyways... that old cine rivalry ! Anyways, that song was meant for 35mm. cameras -- are you sure the gear ratios are the same on the first 16mm. camera ?
Where's the Kodak technical docs ?? Maybe a score was included !
Great stuff !
B.
-
I think there are two versions, the first being 'Made in Switzerland' (ie, by Kern, who made the same for the Switar 10 and Vario-Switar 12-100), and a second that is supposed to be better yet (made by Zeiss?).
-
Hi Dave, Great question.
Most anamorphic systems for 16mm. were add-on lenses meant for particular (medium) focal range fixed focal lenses and mostly did not survive (commercially) into the late 60's. There are very few arround, and I doubt any were made specifically for Arri Bl's or most other news-crew geared cameras.
35mm. Studio cameras had built-in anamorphic set-ups, but I'd love to hear about 16mm. anamorphic taking lenses for 16mm. cameras.
Anybody know of some ?
-
Hi again,
Yes, there's a fine line between the right camera and the next-step-up camera. and it's a very personal question. But as far as I am concerned (handling the whole Bolex range), the Rex-2 is the earliest H16 I would use : the 10x. VF is heaps better than the 6x. And it's a great compromise camera beacuse it's still so light -- very recommended !
As for eBay, it's not so bad, if you're up to it that is... Obviously it's not a shop : no trying, and often no return, but what deals you get ! I took it that you were handy and willing to tinker a bit from your original post, so you're in a good position with regards to eBay. Most people who sell cameras on eBay don't know the first thing about them, but they're often willing to go quite a ways to test the camera for you, so at least you know the basics. Also, Bolex cameras, particularly 60's models like the Rex-2 have one great advantage : they were very expensive cameras used mostly by wealthy amateurs : not pros who wore them through, and not off-handed why-the-hell-not consumers buying disposable products, but very often dedicated film enthusiasts who were very aware of how precious the thing was and treated them extremely carefully. And if, by chance, it's sat in the upstirs closet for the last 40 years rather than the damp basement, you're in luck indeed !
(When you think of it, there aren't many other items like that : precious enough to be well-cared for by enthusiasts but so obsolete and odd looking that their children sell them off just to clear that bit of room in the closet... I mean, they wouldn't sell their father's Rolex quite the same way, would they?)
So, I'd say : try your luck with eBay because if you have a bit of common sense (and a bit of time to be patient, then wait for the delivery, then dust it and look it over thoroughly), the odds are definetely on your side. And being in Cali is a definite plus too !
If you don't want to take that risk (or that time), I have a couple of Rex-2's that may do (I fix them up in my spare time). Perhaps you'd trade for your '23 Kodak Model A ??? I'd love one too !
B.
-
Marcus, If you've changed your mind, it's probably a good thing -- it means you've thought through your problem and sorted it out.
But Tim, what would you say if somebody responded with a problem they had with their NPR 30 years down the line and it would cost 1000's of Dollars to get it (possibly) fixed ? What I mean is, we all know there are overused cameras floating around, of every model (the better they are designed, the more professionals use them... out and move on to the next). So I'm not sure one's bout of bad luck with a camera (and repair shop !) is a reason to discourage somebody else out of hand...
Overall noise level is a reason, so is the quality (or not) of its accessories, so is its maneuverability, its overall convenience, etc.
But thanks for posting the pdfs on the site, and do let me know when you throw away your next economically-unviable professional camera ! But please, don't say EBMs are just good enough to sit on a bookshelf -- if anything, it's unfair for those who only have $500 to invest in a fisrt camera.
B.
-
Hi, For that kind of question, I would get in touch with the company that bought the left-over stock of Filmos from B&H and sells near-new kits and accessories on eBay. They seem very very serious and helpful. Look them up through their eBay pseudo : kinemaman
Good luck, B.
-
Hi, Two very different cameras, indeed, and two different approaches... And what you call brand-prejudice is not really the main problem here, but approach to cameras in general, and, by extension, to cinema. The H16 bears the marks of its origin as an (enlightened) amateur camera and always seemed at best a niche camera to professionals, or wanna-look-professionals. The NPR was always a professional camera, but remains the early TV-news crew beast that it ever was (otherwise Aaton wouldn't even exist). So, beyond what it can actually do for you, it's a matter of personal relation to the machine itself
Synch-sound would seem to point you directly to the NPR (assuming it hasn't gotten noisy with time), but you're obviously leaning the H16 way... smaller, portable, flexible. The qualities of the Bolex way are also its limits (as with every other engineering choice) : what you get in flexibility going from a light, hand-held, 100 footer with a single lens to a 400-footer with zoom and all is the relitive awkwardness of the add-on result. But, like you, I think it's worth the trouble, and the Bolex system is a wonderfully rich one, wit the advantage of an enormous amount of models sold and still floating around for relatively low prices.
It seems to me, your main question is whether the EBM works... isn't that true ? Try any 12V. battery around (there's an EBM manual to download on this site with battery connections schematics, or I can explain it all to you). If your question really is whether the camera is in good running order, the only way to reassure yourserlf is to test it thoroughly in the store.
In terms of quality, the EBM is a very good camera. Obviously the technology dates back to 1971, but it's an evolution of the a model that was already 40 years old then and thoroughly mastered. Some people think that because it wasn't a all-new model created from scratch, it must not be as good, but what I see is that with 90% of the camera tested on previous models, the faults are limited to the remaining 10% (just think of the introduction of plastics as miracle light-weight, durable material in the 60's/70's and what we know they've become 30 years later to relativize the all-new-is-better approach).
To get to the point : image stability should not be a problem on a decent EBM. Bolex are reknowned for that, which is why they're such a reference for animation. Also, the EBM is in fact lighter than the mechanical models, so more portable, and internally, they're very simple cameras : not much that can go wrong there, besides the electronics (of which there is less, and of the same age anyway, than on an NPR). So, check that everything works in the store, and look the camera over : some of these have been very, very little used, and you can see it. I have two EBMs that I got off eBay and they look like they were produced in the 21rst C. That and checking the fonctions hands-on is a good pointer to the actual shape of the camera because it's a simple, straightforward engineering (By the way, the Swiss mentality is much closer to the American "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" outlook than the French flashy engineering that's spectacular in results but pretty knife-edge and finnicky ; think : Concorde... same era!)
And regarding crystal : it should work, why not ? Tobin, for instance, has been making ctiny crystal units for EBM's and EL's for years. I got one for $25 recently. Also, here's a tip : if you use the EBM handle/battery holder but without battery (obsolete model, too expensive to replace), you can actually hard-wire the crystal unit in the battery compartment to have a permanent built-in crystal camera.
So, all in all, if you're more tempted by the Bolex a) make a list of all the good reasons why NOT to get it and all the things it can't do for you ; B) if you're still tempted, spend an hour or whatever it takes for the store-owner to kick you out trying the camera thoroughly an generally assessing its shape. If that's convincing, you're probably doing the right thing buying it. The price with all the accessories sounds ok, depending on the lenses (their quality and whether they suit your needs) and the warranty you get from the seller. It's a bit on the expensive side if the lenses are not good quality Switars, Angénieux, or equivalent (remember that the camera takes 'RX' specified lenses, by the way).
For more on the Eclair, get the opinion of somebody who knows them better than me, but if you need more info or advice on Bolex's, don't hesitate to ask.
Cheers,
B.
-
Hi, The upgrade to a better viewfinder is defiitely a possibilty on H16's... they're great cameras for that since the body essentially never changed, the screw holes are the same, etc. And this, from the earliest models (esp. after the built-in frame counter was added) to the latest Rex-5, and even the EL (although...), and including all the side models : M, S, J, etc.
So, that's for the good part (and mounting the VF is easy too). The not-so-good part is finding the viewfinder : the 10x. VF is (definitely) better so anybody who has one keeps it (forget about the 13x. VF, even rarer). And since it was used all the way to the Rex-5's, SBM, etc, any spare one will be snatched up to repair a damaged higher model rather than a Rex-0 like yours, for instance.
I fix these cameras, so I'm always on eBay looking for spares, and I can tell you these essentially never come up for auction... unless they're attached to a camera, of course.
My advice is to either buy a damaged camera with a 10x. VF, but those are rare too, or better, bid on what looks like a working Rex-2 (great, light model, IMHO), get it for cheap if possible, and trade your Rex-0 for the same money (if you're smart about your auction listing, like good pics and a lot of reassurance about its working condition), or if the Rex-2 turns out to be less than operational, transplant the VF.
Get a Repair manual off eBay too -- if you're a little handy, it's a great $25 investment.
Bolex are great for just that : cheap, easy to repair, low maintenance, and evreything you need to begin shooting 16mm -- hard to beat !
Cheers,
B.
-
I am looking for a Service Manual for the Bolex H16 EL model, prefrerably the Mk I (1975) version, but Mk II or III may do too. Does anybody have one available (scanned or hardcopy, free or not) or, alternatively, could point me to a source for them ?
(I am not looking for those for the preceding models (up to EBM), which are easy to find, and I already have).
I got a very rusty (!) EL off eBay and took it apart, cleaned it (well, what could be cleaned of it) and it looks ok. But it has a loose power (red) wire by the motor, which I don't know what to make of... I fix Bolex cameras regularly, but my electronics is a bit rusty...
The camera doesn't run (obviously), symptoms are : when the battery pack is connected, the camera goes straight to shooting mode (not light measuring possible) with the 1/1 axis catch retracted. Pressing the trigger does not do anything.
Short of a manual (and addresses for repair shops), any hint or suggestion would be appreciated.
Thanks, Boris
Bolex lenses & depth of field
in 16mm
Posted
Hi, First off, welcome to the wonderful world of 16mm. film (and Bolex cameras).
RX lenses are the greatest source of confusion outside of the world of politics, it seems... And certainly Bolex's greatest thorn in the side ! You've been carelessly advised, but you're not the first or last one to be confused.
When designing their Reflex H16/H8 model, the Bolex engineers opted for a fixed prism (most other reflex cameras have a mechanism that moves the prism mirror away from the light path during the time of exposure). The advantages were a very sturdy prism assembly (since it doesn't move) and no flickering in the viewfinder while shooting (permanent light flow). But this (fixed) Bolex prism introduced two problems : a light loss of about 25% indeed, and optical aberrations.
The light loss IS NOT corrected-for by the lenses. A f:1,4 on a RX lens lets the same amount of light in as a f:1,4 on an equivalent non-RX lens.
Which means that you should be careful to take the light loss into consideration in your light-measurement process. This can be done in several ways : the Bolex lightmeter for H Reflex cameras is already calibrated for this light-loss, so it's straightforward. (Two things to be cautions about, though : 1) this is the small Gossen-made lightmeter meant to mount on the accesory shoe mount above the camera turret, NOT the American Bolex Company hand-held lightmeter, which predates H16 Reflex models ; 2) these lightmeters are old by now, so should be checked carefully against another known-good lightmeter -- readings will be different, obviously (+25% light), but if the ratio remains the same in high, medium and low lights, your meter may be good enough). The other way is to use the adjusted shutter speeds published in every Bolex Reflex User manuals (make sure to get the right one for your camera) when measuring light with a regular lightmeter (a better solution since you can use more recent models). The User Manuals give two sets of shutter opening angles/exposure speeds : one 'real one', mathematically correct, and the adjusted one that corrects for the light loss and lets you use any regular light-meter reading.
RX lenses are corrected for the second effect of the fixed prism : the deformations introduced in the flow of the light by this piece of glass (it's flat, but it still acts a little bit like a lens element). For the techninal specifics of this correction, check out this site (and rummage through the other, very informative pages on Bolex history and more) :
http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/
So, your Depth of field should be the same whether on RX or non-RX lenses. I will compare your linked calculator to the Bolex D-o-F tables I have and confirm that.
Those are very good lenses you got, by the way -- and a good kit indeed !
-Boris