Mark Dunn

Still teal and orange, then.

Not sure about the EXR, but all the Ektachromes bar the 100D are VNF; the process was discontinued in 2003, the '50 is in 90s plastic boxes and the ones in cardboard (the can is inside) are pushing 50 years old. Not a good buy to put in a camera.

I see two on ebay in the US here https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/195405959442?hash=item2d7f1a5112:g:j~sAAOSwo6FjRCbb&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAwNsy8bZ6z2945iK%2FeGrwKQFUAYIbOmFjxuWQ0ns5zI9SwZ%2BMMa2A9kH9mAH8kP2xxMJm6X2gPPWSeFR28iYOKQxVYfiK9bhzTSNBBDCokEfsO5kPpVAGWiVxbc9tCt24JxYsHqqBVWwek2P4lsGNSmTE6MtMWDeYZRdYUP9pQRFveEdErCxs%2FZeYpJ7A8Kw7xQyHLUF92ZCpXY%2BMYsELBZrh93%2FmajcSjjLGXeqVzeFD28BtuaowHH%2FgFrjx3ChRvg%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR_LJiaPmYQ

What? Tarpaulin is virtually opaque. It's not diffusion, it's a flag.

I'm thinking of something we used to hang a quilt. It doesn't look like what we usually call bamboo, but it may be the heart wood from it- looks like this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Green-Flower-Sticks-Cane-Support/dp/B00N4ZM7DQ/ref=sr_1_51?keywords=Canes&qid=1679396045&sr=8-51 I think you'd want them as long as you could get, steam in a curve and join them with tape or ferrules. Just an idea, it's not something I've tried. Wire might work if you can buy it coiled. But I think wood would be easier to work with.

If you form the fabric into a spiral, there's no limit to the size except the practicality of handling. Support could be canes steamed and joined into rings, like a sort of huge china ball, or even a spiral, like the material itself. A spiral may be self-supporting to some extent.

Yes, straight across. The Steenbeck isn't intended to work this way so there isn't always enough tension to achieve a tight wind. I just did it as an experiment. Hand rewinds will probably work better.

Emulsion Out. All I said was that I personally use a Steenbeck. I find a flatbed more convenient than rewinds, but I don't see why they shouldn't work, with care. If you are going to rewind onto cores for the lab you will need split spools as well. https://www.sprocketschool.org/wiki/Split_reel

Seeing where that comes from, I don't think anyone is going to be able to buy one for a long time.

I see what you mean, you've rewound EO. Then just rewind, still EO, and you change from B to A wind. Your method will work but I don't know how you're going to do your rewinding- the twist through 180 degrees (you still have to rewind) works on a flatbed like the Steenbeck.

1) Wind onto spool with a twist. 2)Rewind onto another spool. Or 2 then 1- it doesn't matter. Just tried it on the Steenbeck.

B/W( contrast) filters are in solid colours- red, green, blue, yellow and orange. Red, green and yellow contrast filters look nothing like colour conversion filters. A CC blue is much paler than a contrast blue filter, and a CC orange filter is more of a brown colour. You should be able to tell by comparing the seller's images with images from a search on, say, the Tiffen or Lee websites.

I'd say there would have been no reason for anyone to film a colour chart because MP Kodachrome was always intended, and used, for projection. The idea of scanning it, in an era when scanning was an expensive professional preserve, would hardly have arisen. The only possibility as Karim says might be stills. Commercial photography stills intended for reproduction would have included a colour chart, but one would expect that to be on sheet film, and that was discontinued in the 1950s. You can sometimes buy Kodachrome slides reasonably cheaply on ebay. If you choose the scene carefully it might help you.

Indeed he did. The famous example is "2001" where he worked out a scheme with Geoffrey Unsworth to establish a relationship between the exposure of the (then peel-apart b/w) Polaroid and the 65mm. exposure. The famous example is the the high-key bedroom scene towards the end. They have the shutter speed and stop written on them. But there are examples from several of his films. Just search on "Kubrick Polaroid"..

Save for the intensity, that looks awfully (word chosen carefully) similar, with the ragged streaks. Even the frequency (about 2.5sec at the start) is the same, getting shorter towards the end, about 1.5sec.

deleted

By the looks of it I'd say the sun is quite low and not far out of shot.

There may be unsilvered glass on the edge of the shutter which could be blackened. Likewise the back of the lens barrel, if there are bare patches of metal. Techniscope home movies in Chalk Farm rock btw.

Well, in the world of photography Hasselblad were are good as it got, but the key word is were. That's a 2011 piece so he's probably discussing lenses designed in the 60s and made in the 70s. There was another generation of Zeiss Hasselblad lenses in the 80s with newer coatings- T*- but that's probably as far as they went. In medium format there never were third-party lenses- you got what the manufacturer provided, Zeiss were the best, but of course the enlargement required in stills photography was much less. So you probably never got to find out how sharp your lenses were- they were sharp enough. I remember once doing a selective enlargement the equivalent of about a 50" print that was still sharp. But today, you'd get better from any DLSR from 20MP up, and from a digital Hasselblad, well, no contest.

No chance of any movement (haha) by the seller? There's a reason it's been up for sale for 3 years............

Er, so is the OP.

Can you put up a photograph, with a ruler for scale? Might be easier to offer ideas if we can see it.

Lenses designed for non- reflex Bolexes will not focus correctly at wide angle on a reflex model as a correction is needed to allow for the reflex prism. Those corrected lenses have the RX designation. http://www.bolexcollector.com/articles/07_03_21.html OP's lens has its own reflex system with the "dog-leg" finder. It predates the reflex Bolex.

Off a single wall outlet, yes, but our 1991 ring main has 32A breakers, so 7kW. Minimum for an individual leg is supposed to be 20A. So you'd connect the others in a different room. If not, the breaker wouldn't trip, but you'd be over-running the room wiring a bit. The 3kW limit is based on the highest rated plugtop fuse, 13A. Before circuit breakers you wouldn't test the house fuses with anything more. So in a house without a modern consumer unit, definitely 3kW. I am not an electrician and I am talking about non-US 230V mains.

Always useful but less of an issue outside the US (OP is in the UK) as we have 230V. You can easily run two blondes and a set of redheads off a modern domestic ring main.