Andrew Hamilton Watts

5 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Let me take you around the rock to have a different look at it.

Instead of investing in a RX-1 that affords a narrow finder view on a small round base you might want to find a

• different model which opens optical freedoms a RX model doesn’t, or a
• younger RX which at least gives a wider finder view on a large base.

With different model I mean a Standard one, H 16 S on the name plate from serial number 203551 on. A Standard H incorporates the rackover focusing and framing system that goes back to the Bell & Howell Standard Camera, model 2709. You have 100 percent of the light coming from a lens on the frosted front of a glass prism behind the upper lens port. Through a magnifying loupe you see the image on the prism. The reflex finder gives you 25 percent of the incoming light at best. The first Standard with that critical finder system bears the number 7531.

Older Standard H models up to serial number 100,400 have 190 degrees shutter opening, later 170. Together with the wider shutter angle you have a deeply engaging claw made from steel plus lateral film guidance according to the norm (today ISO 466). H 16 S since 1963 have a bigger rectangular body base with three tapped bores for fixation. But what counts most is that the Standard models have nothing between the lens and the film but air (and the shutter). You can use almost any optics there are, be it a C-mount one, be it a LEICA lens via the original Leitz adapter or something else. For framing you employ a side finder attached to the camera lid. If a zoom lens, I’d search for a modern one. There are very compact ones, not that long and wieldy. TV lenses can be so-so, some are excellent.

A third approach could be to purchase a bayonet model, SB/SBM/EL, and a Vario-Switar 12,5 to 100 (Aspheron or not). This is a sturdy and optically satisfying equipment. It all depends on which direction you’re taking in cinematography.

I really wish I had this sort of sage advice before I had bought my Rex 1 a few years back lol. I was really hooked on the reflex idea and I’m slowly realizing that it might not have been the deal breaker I thought it was at the time. 
 
I really would not be opposed to getting a Non reflex body - but unfortunately where I am (Canada) even those are getting very difficult to find. Or are missing parts like the critical finder loupe, etc. 

Using Leica M glass is sort of a wild idea, I never realized they made an adaptor for that…

1 hour ago, Dom Jaeger said:

You should have no problems with focal lengths longer than 50mm, and even under that you will probably be OK unless you shoot at wide open apertures.

When using heavy lenses you should definitely be using the bottom lens port locking screw to help keep the turret stable, but it doesn't really help with the top of the turret potentially deforming. As zooms became more prevalent, later Bolex models introduced a top lock for the turret, which helps with that. It's something that can be retro-fitted to earlier models like yours. It depends somewhat on just how heavy  and long the lens in question is. Avoid transporting the camera with heavy lenses fitted, or subjecting the camera to bumps and knocks. 

I agree that the price for some C mount lenses has become rather ridiculous, but you should be able to find 3 to 6 inch teles for around $100.  For example:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/256875339492

https://www.ebay.com/itm/387268208684

https://www.ebay.com/itm/226182882613

https://www.ebay.com/itm/326255729161

 

Lovely! Thanks for the info and some options. Man, the Rex 1 sometimes bugs me lol. It never dawned on me that there is a lower or upper turret lock depending on the model. Are C mount TV lenses just generally a no go? Even if I were shooting outside stopped down? 

6 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

It does, with my brain and soul.

Where does this obsessive wish come from to have large lenses on a camera that was made for smaller, more compact, more lightweight, and optically perfectly fit ones? I don’t get it.

C-mount optics are good enough, actually better, can be had for little money and look exactly right. Also the choice is wide. It’s vast.

I agree that it does not look great and takes away from the mobility of smaller cameras.

I have nothing against C mount glass either! But I’m not sure about the affordability of it. Som Berthiot or the Angenieux 12-120 are like well over a grand. If there are cheaper zoom options I’m all for it! Just I don’t know where to look…

Hi all, lately I’ve been eyeing a telephoto lens for my Bolex. However, as is no surprise, the prices for a lot of the classic ones are now crazy. I do have a good amount of Nikon F mount lenses for my SLRs and I know there are adaptors. I’m just curious for those who have used Nikon F lenses on a Bolex, is there anything I need to be aware of? Certain focal lengths that won’t work or shooting wide open creating issues with the prism on my Bolex? It also seems to me that a big Nikon lens mounted on the front of a Bolex is putting a lot of weight on the turret, does this cause issues?

thanks so much!

51 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

The key should wear a piece of round wire as open ring near its joint. This ring snaps into a grooved bushing of the camera which may be engraved WIND. Give the folded-down key a dry blow with the palm of your hand to attach it.

Yes! That did the trick! Thank you so much

Hi all, 

I am hoping one of you with more experience can help me out with my Filmo 70DR. Earlier today I was out shooting some film when I noticed the winding key was loose. I pushed it back in and it seemed fine but when I hand the camera to my friend the key fell out. Now it seems like this is suppose to happen, but how do I get the key to stay back in without it falling out every time I tilt the camera? It had never done this before and I’m not sure exactly what I did to cause this.

Any advice would greatly help me!

best,

Andrew

8 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

Hi!

There are some smaller companies that used reversal stocks for some of their prints, e.g. Mundus Film in Germany in Super8. Some of them might have used the same stock as used by amateurs. However, the majority of prints was done on special print-stock - at least 95%.

You can find some information regarding edge codes under these two links: 

https://www.filmpreservation.org/userfiles/image/PDFs/fpg_10.pdf

https://www.filmkorn.org/deciphering-edge-marks/?lang=en

But there‘s generally only little information about Regular8-, Super8- or 9.5mm-prints on the net that I’m aware of. There’s much more information for 16mm, e.g.:

http://www.paulivester.com/films/filmstock/guide.htm

Sometimes, the information about 16mm print stocks also applies to smaller formats  But there are always exceptions… .

Good luck!

 

BTW: When the prints are in color and from before WWII, you might find some information here:

https://filmcolors.org/timeline-of-historical-film-colors/

 

 

 

Thanks for this! I have not heard of Mundus Film before and was not able to find much...something I will need to look into more. The tricky thing about edge codes on 8mm is that it was handled by a different division within Kodak - so the edge codes are the same as 35/16 but were recycled more frequently and therefore the standard edge code charts are more or less useless. I believe the one link you posted that leads to a chart made by an archivist at the East Anglian Film Archive makes not of this. 

However you're spot on about the lack of info on the net. I have found more or less all I need about 8/s8 used by amateurs - however it's the reduction print stuff that is really difficult to find. 

The search continues! Thanks for the help. 

7 hours ago, Mark Dunn said:

8mm. prints were usually made 4-up on pre-perforated 35mm. wide film or 2-up on 16mm. and slit afterwards. Conventional edge codes would presumably have impinged into the image area so wouldn't be used, and the positioning would mean that most of the prints couldn't reproduce them.

Do you have some edge-marked prints? The one Super-8 print I have, a Tom and Jerry cartoon, has a clear rebate in any case, a by-product of optical printing.

I have seen a few examples of un-slit 35mm prints of 8mm/S8/9.5mm and at least on the S8 one I saw it did have "Eastman color" on the far edge - so I would assume that perhaps that one print of the 4 would have edge marks, but I am not sure. I also do not have any 8mm reduction prints in hand so I cannot say for certain. 

Your answer about the print you have with the "clear rebate" does answer my suspicion that they would have a clear base - although as Joerg answered above, some might be on reversal with is confusing. 

I guess what I am trying to determine is whether or not one could identify a year of manufacture based off the edge codes of a reduction print and not based off say the filmed content. I thought for sure someone would have over-scanned one of these and put it up on the internet somewhere but that is not the case. 

Thanks for the help!

Hi all, 

Not sure if this is the correct place for this question but hoping someone can help. I am looking for information regarding edge code markings on 8mm prints - so for example a reduction and abridged print of a Universal monster film from the 1930s. Did these prints have the same edge code markings as 8mm for amateurs used? I am assuming the edges would be clear and not the characteristic black of in-camera reversal stocks. 

Any information and especially photos would be greatly appreciated! 

Thanks, 

Andrew 

7 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

It’s Comat, not Comet. The Super 0.7" is a four-elements dialyte.

My apologies. My phone either wants to correct that to “combat” or “comet.” Thanks for the information.

7 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

You can actually use RX lenses on cameras that are not reflex Bolexes, but at wide apertures you will get aberrations that will make the images a bit soft and hazy. If you stop an RX lens down three stops or more from wide open, the aberrations will be far less noticeable. Test your Switar out, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Any brand of sewing machine oil, or clock oil, should be fine.

 

Awesome, thank you. This is sort of what I was thinking, I just don’t have the technical knowledge to be sure. I did manage to score a 0.7” B&H Super Comet for super cheap, surprisingly. Perhaps that says something about the quality of the lens. I’ve got some very expired Kodak EXR that would be great to test the Switar.

2 hours ago, Charles MacDonald said:

the Bolex lenses are only for a bolex.  you should use a regular C-mount lens.  B&H often shipped these with "Comat" lenses  (Super Comat C-Mount Lens)  you will need a viewfinder objective that matches the focal length of your lens.  If you are lucky you will have a couple of the objectives in the turret and can pick a lens to suit.

since the B&H Filmo oil is no longer made.  Many folks will use a VERY SMALL drop of sewing machine oil.  (This is what I use, but I am not sure of their is not a better product to use)

I can't quickly find a good like to a 70DR user manual, although Archive dot org has a manual for an ealier version.

Okay great, thank you! I guess I foolishly thought that any C mount lens would work. I was hoping to put my 10mm Switar and just use it for a simple wide set up, but I guess I’ll need to keep looking. I guess it’s best to avoid TV lenses as well since I don’t want to waste money of out of focus film. It seems like a lot of folks use them and get decent results though.

can I ask what brand of oil you use? Is all sewing machine oil the same?

Hi all, 

I recently acquired a B&H Film 70 DR and have a few questions about it. First, I see there are various areas where you can insert oil, what oil should I be using for this? I have seen some say a sewing machine oil? But I am wondering if there is a specific brand or type people are familiar with. 

Second, since it is a C-mount lens, am I able to use RX Bolex lenses on it? I am just curious what the lens calibrated for the prism would do without a prism? Likewise, there are a number of cheap c-mount tv lenses on the market, if I am not too concerned about quality (which I am not) would these lenses work on this camera?

Any other information on this camera would be greatly appreciated since I do not know much about the various B&H 70 models.

Thanks so much,

Andrew 

Hi all, 

Reaching out for some help from someone smarter and more experienced than I. I am hoping someone could explain the difference in how the Braun Nizo line and the Eumig 881 work regarding long exposures.

Because I have a Nizo 480 in hand, I understand that by locking the shutter open, I can then use the intervalometer function as means of controlling my exposures. If I set the intervalometer to 30 seconds, I will be exposing each from for that period. I could then either increase or decrease the exposure time to my needs. 

However, I do not have the Eumig in hand and therefore am trying to understand it based off the manual, which I find to be a bit confusing. Am I correct in understanding that the Eumig determines the length of an exposure in "long time" mode based off the light meter reading? So unlike the Nizo, I am not able to control the exposure time but most rely on the cameras internal meter to do it for me? 

Hope that makes sense! As you can tell I am trying to work this out in my head with little experience so anything regarding this help! 

Best, 

Andrew

Hi all, 

I am wondering if the Aspheron 5.5 wide-angle attachment will work on an early non-preset kern 10mm? I have found competing information, with some saying it will not and others saying that with the use of step-up rings, it will mount fine. I guess I am wondering if one uses step-up rings, will that effect the ability for the lens to get a good focus on the wider image? 

Any thoughts, suggestions, or experience with this is appreciated! 

Best, 

Andrew

Hi all, 

I am wondering if the Aspheron 5.5 wide-angle attachment will work on an early non-preset kern 10mm? I have found competing information, with some saying it will not and others saying that with the use of step-up rings, it will mount fine. I guess I am wondering if one uses step-up rings, will that effect the ability for the lens to get a good focus on the wider image? 

Any thoughts, suggestions, or experience with this is appreciated! 

Best, 

Andrew

36 minutes ago, Simon Wyss said:

It’s a 1943 triplet but of a design different from the f/2.8. You probably have a non-coated one, Kern had begun to bloom glass elements in 1944 and that only partially at first. The 2.8 came in 1949.

To clean do remove all hard debris with compressed air or a rubber bulb. With a clean microfibre cloth take off loose particles lightly, apply air one more time, then turn cloth over, wipe with the finger in cloth a bit harder, always in circles from center towards rim. To finish off, wipe over with a soft hair brush such as those that women buy in the make-up department.

To use liquids I do not recommend because you might affect the matt paint in front of the first element, smear it on the glass. That would be annoying.

Awesome! I appreciate the information. The lens is marked with AR, which I would assume would be a coating on the front, but I have limited knowledge of lens coatings. Either way, I will avoid liquids and follow your advice. 

A follow up question, can you (or anyone) recommend a lens cap for this, or what size I should be looking at? It came with a much more contemporary plastic one but it doesn't really fit. 

Thanks, 

Andrew 

Hi all, 

I recently acquired a Kern Yvar 75mm f/2.5 and have a few questions on the lens. I cannot seem to find much information on the f/2.5 other than it was made sometime in the late 1940s before switching to the 2.8 model. Does anyone have experience in the 2.5 version? How does it compare to the others? (note: that is not a big concern of mine, I am just curious about it). 

Second, the front element is pretty dirty and I am wondering if there are cleaning solutions I should avoid or that others would recommend for cleaning the lens. I know some lens cleaners can take the coating off a lens and since this is so old I am a bit hesitant to start that. 

Any other information of thoughts would be appreciated. 

Best, 

Andrew 

14 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Has someone filed the bottom of the gate? Normally you would have a thicker frameline..

Because lenses invert the image, the top of the image is at the  bottom of the gate in camera.

That is an interesting question, I cannot say for sure. I know the camera had been previously CLA'd, but unsure if there was any work done on the gate. Why would someone file the gate? and if so, could that be the cause of this phantom white line for some reason? 

32 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Looks like the edge of the gate is reflecting the white clouds?

I had wondered that as well, but it appears on frames that are not clouds, perhaps that was not the best example to grab an image from. 

Hello, 

Reaching out with a question about this light (whiteish) line that appears on the top of the frame (about where the underline is). It appears on every frame, obviously most clear in areas that are darker. I have also noticed it in the bottom right corner as well, but not as bad. I am wondering if anyone had an idea or guess as to what this might be? Is it a registration issue or something with the pressure plate? The camera is a Rex 1, shot with a 25mm on 250D. 

Thanks, 

Andrew

Edit: sorry it is hard to see, I couldn't upload a large enough image. 

Hey all, 

Sorry for the question but I am new to this. I was out shooting with my Bolex Rex 1 and lost track of the remaining footage and ended up shooting for probably a minute or less with no film passing by the gate. I was shooting at 24fps and am wondering if and why this is bad for the camera? I know running at fps rates above 48 is bad without film (or so I have heard) but is shooting off a minute of blank footage at 24 bad? Other than the loose take-up reel which will probably now have light-leaks...

Also, I noticed a number of red/brownish fibres that had collected around the gate/pressure plate area, what are these from and why are they there? Is it static that builds up around the gate the causes these to collect? 

Cheers,

Andrew 

27 minutes ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Ok well that sounds like the focus barrel is on the wrong side of the stop. So regardless of the marks, can you focus at any distance closer than infinity? How far does the barrel turn, only a small amount?

The stop screw is the large screw in the knurled band around the focus barrel. There will be three smaller screws as well - don't touch them as they hold the focus calibration - but you could try undoing that large stop screw and turning the focus barrel so the distance marks are in the range of the index line, then put the screw back. Make sure you don't screw the focus out to the point where it looks like it might unscrew completely, go back the other way if so. The focus barrel should travel from infinity down through all the marks and stop past the minimum distance mark. 

I was able to focus at closer distances yes, and the barrel turned the full amount. However, in my haste and curiosity I did as you suggested and now I believe I have made a royal mistake by that. I was able to shift the barrel but now a gap as opened up between knurled ring which fits flush with the camera body and the smooth ring between that and the focus knurled area...which is not good. And I cannot seem to get them back flush again. Also, it no longer turns as it did, it is pretty much jammed up. Looks like I am going to need a crash course on lens repair here. 

5 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Stopping down any lens will increase the depth of field (making slightly out of focus things get sharper) and will also reduce the lens aberrations (which could be both inherent and introduced by age or wear). So yes, it's normal that stopping down will make a lens appear sharper or more contrasty, some lenses more than others. 

However there could well be issues making your 10mm perform worse than it should. 

Firstly, is it an RX lens? For reflex Bolexes, RX lenses are recommended for focal lengths of 50mm and under. If it's not labelled RX, the reflex prism in your Bolex will introduce more abberations when your aperture is wide open. Stopping down past around f/3.5 makes them diminish.

Secondly, the lens itself may need back-focus adjustment. Perhaps it is not quite reaching infinity focus before hitting the infinity stop. Check the focus at closer distances using your eye, not the marks. (Make sure to properly set the eyepiece diopter). See if the focus mark matches the distance to subject. A Bolex tech can adjust this for you if necessary.

Thirdly, the lens may have coating damage or internal fog causing the image to appear muddy. Usually you can see this by holding the lens up to a strong backlight. If so, it may be repairable by a lens technician.

Lastly, the camera viewfinder may need cleaning to give you the clearest image possible. Wide angle lenses in particular can be hard to judge focus in small viewfinders like the one in a REX 1, and any internal fog or fungus will only make that harder.

The easiest way to sort all this out is to have the camera kit checked and serviced by a good Bolex technician, which I would heartily recommend to anyone who has just obtained a Bolex and wants to use it.

Hey Dom, thanks for the response. The lens is indeed marked RX, so I do not think that is the issue. It also does not appear to be fogged or have any mould on the inside. And since things seem nice with the 25mm and the diopter has been adjusted, I do not think it is the camera either. The camera was also serviced in 2021. 

I will try using the focus method you suggested. However, this leads me to another question that might be more difficult to fully explain. For whatever reason, the marks do no align. The aperture marks match up with the white/orange centre line (between the aperture ring and focus ring) but the only focal distance marking that matches the centre line is the infinity marking. From there I can only turn the focus ring counter clockwise, meaning none of the distance markings match. This had me really puzzled because it renders all the D0F preview dots completely useless. Again, no idea if that makes sense or is normal, but I cannot measure any distance and match it up with the lenses because I have no index on the lens as to what the distance is. 

I do not want to sound too conspiratorially with this suggestion, but could someone conceivable place an RX cutter ring on a non RX lens and try and pass it off? Is there any way of distinguishing the difference beyond the RX markings? 

Thanks

deleted