Jump to content

Al Debruin

Basic Member
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Simon if you don't mind before I go ahead and try push the lens out could you please elaborate on the process, is there nothing more to it than just gently pushing with something like a thin wooden dowel, no need to remove what looks like a circlip that holds the lens in place?
  2. Through the front pinhole? The cirlip looking thing at the back won't block it?
  3. On the Bolex H-16 the eyepiece screws out and you can easily access the lens from the body side but how do you clean the eye side of the lens through that pinhole? The lens is held in by some kind of clip but from past experience I'm weary of trying to remove that considering one false move may crack the glass.
  4. From what I can deduce the body and lens mount is H-16 for the larger C-lenses to get full coverage of the wider film and the mechanical stuff, the sprockets/pulldown mechanism is H-8 but with an H-16 sized shutter fitted. Does that sound about right?
  5. If you can get hold of a mirrorless camera and a C-mount mount adaptor you can get pretty accurate calibration of the lens's distance scale using that and a measuring tape to ensure the distance from film/sensor plane to the subject is accurate. It's nice to have at least one lens that you know has a correctly calibrated distance scale to check your C-mount mount adaptor/camera combination is set to the correct flange distance, not essential but gives you some peace of mind.
  6. Thanks Simon, if you don't mind me asking approximately which parts would be H-8 and which H-16?
  7. I just got a gap to count the teeth and there are indeed 8 teeth on the prockets. So if I'm understanding this right they use something in the order of an H16 body with C-mount lens mount for full coverage, change the gates to the 8mm pulldown height and the mechanism is a combination of H16 16mm sprockets with adjusted gearing and an H8 pulldown mechanism?
  8. Thank you Nicholas, very interesting info, I had the feeling there was something unusual about the camera. So essentially any modern day Double 8“ film should work, something like the film sold at the link below? https://filmphotographystore.com/collections/movie-film/double-8 What has occurred to me is with the advent of digital and most film being scanned to digital for post the significant hurdle of needing a compatible projector to view the resulting footage has been removed. Once in the digital realm the footage can easily be adjusted to the correct speed and whatever else needs doing. Which means this camera is still a viable option, that's assuming the Double 8 film I linked to above is compatible or if not suitable film is still available.
  9. Here's a little clip showing the format:
  10. It seems these cameras are a hybrid built from parts of an H8 with H16, that would explain the 2 different serial numbers on the body and the confusing mix of H16 parts that don't match other parts. I found the info below courtesy of a post from @Nicholas Kovats "UltraPan8 is a native 2.8:1 spherical ultrawide film format utilizing hybrid Bolex H8/H16 cameras. 1. The format uses 2-perf R8mm film that is 16mm wide and the 1/2 pulldown of the 8mm gate. 2. Running time is doubled relative to standard 16mm filmstock as there are 80 UltraPan8 frames per 16mm foot as opposed to 40. 3. Standard 16mm optics provided full coverage optically centered. 4. The "imaging" area is increased by 90-100% Relative to 8mm/S8 film." What film would it be using, what is "R8mm film that is 16mm wide"
  11. I checked it now and the claw stroke is definitely much shorter on the ultra than on the H16. When set to 16fps going by the speed of the take-up spool spindles the Ultra looks to be running at half the speed of the H16, which would indeed point to it being setup to capture 2 letterbox frames per normal 16mm frame. That is quite an ingenious method to achieve both widescreen and better value for money in terms of film costs, why didn't it take off to any degree, were any cameras released by the established brands or otherwise commercially using this idea? The Ultra's body serial points to it being made in 1945, it's pushing on 80yrs old, what magnificent machines to be so long lived and durable!
  12. I'll compare the claw stroke to an H16, the spool spindles are different to the H16 I have but maybe that's just a revision change. The method that the Widescreen Association used, were they using an 8mm pull down to get 2 widescreen frames per 16mm film frame and if so did they do some shutter speed modification to ensure the frame rate was still correct? Do you have any links to more info about the Widescreen Association, google doesn't bring anything up.
  13. I just realised you are probably using the serial off the film door? That door doesn't look original, it looks like it has the same morrocan leather that came on the H16 and it is quite worn, whereas the rest of the body has vinyl leather and is not very worn.
  14. You wouldn't even need a mask for the projector because the letterbox would be baked into the exposure - outside the letterbox would be pitch black. That may be the answer because it would work well albeit with lots of "wasted" film when shooting. When did anamorphic lenses first start being used with the H16 cameras, there doesn't seem to have been many lens options in that regard?
  15. More digging and the H16 is probably not Super 16mm but just single perf 16mm, the one side of the sprocket with no teeth has some brassing so it was probably modified at some stage. Initially I thought the brassing was really unusual because the amount of film you'd need to run to cause that amount of wear through chrome would be rather extensive and the body otherwise doesn't look overly worn.
×
×
  • Create New...