Mark Dunn

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.

For my own use I'd be awfully tempted to use a bit of camera or electrical tape. Unless it's being sold on.

Not that much. A redhead is 800W and a 60W LED is about 500W equivalent. Depends on the modifier of course but nothing like 5x. You don't say what sort of work you're doing, so two heads may or may not be pretty minimal kit, but it's possible that the problem is how you're using the lights rather than the raw output.

I would consider a referral from Jean-Louis to be as good as money in the bank.

Stills, I think. There were some very compact 35mm. cameras early on but I don't think this is one of them. Just a simple box camera, rollfilm at a guess, plates required a bit more machinery..

The volumes of production, and consumption, are very different when comparing consumer and media lighting. Tungsten will continue to be popular to some DPs for its unique qualities. Unlike the consumer market, where tungsten bulbs are now too expensive to buy and run where they are even still available, the price of lamps, and of running them, just isn't that significant in the context of a film budget. It will continue to be worth someone's while to produce them IMO. Of course, for independents, LED fixtures are a boon, particularly for practicals. Who puts a hot photoflood in a lampshade anymore?

deleted due to ignorance

I agree- if you were promised an in-sync sound transfer, you should get one. Sounds (!) like the picture scan and sound transfer have been done separately.

Those are cheap, but as you note, no mounting holes so the rig would be rather more makeshift. They also have crimped-on leads so the wiring might not be so easy.

I think the only way to do this without a rescan would be cutting up the sound into separate shots and, matching sync by eye, shot-by-shot. It would be very laborious. Only certain projectors were externally speed-controlled, when running separate magnetic sound in sync, but even then the requirement was that they ran frame-for-frame- the speed could still vary. +/- 0.3% is quoted for my Steenbeck. That's about 0.1fps, potentially a few seconds over your 2-minute scene.

Just change the plug. I'd consider it an everyday domestic job with ordinary hand tools- it's less powerful than an electric kettle. There must be plenty of tutorials on Youtube.

The camera aperture determine what goes on the film. Projector aperture is always smaller, to allow for slight variations in camera gate position between cameras when material is intercut -not so relevant for IMAX but the principle remains. You don't want to run the risk of projecting the frame edge, which might show dirt or some other marks. But regardless of camera aperture, the AR you see is what's projected, of course. A little more may come off on the screen masking.

Oh it will be shrunk. I haven't come across any film under 30 years old that isn't. The question is whether it's too shrunk to run in a camera, and you could only check that by running it. Up to 1/4% runs with care on a Steenbeck, albeit a bit noisily. As you say coated white leader doesn't usually shrink, that's what I use as a gauge. I think polyester sound spacer is immune, but lightstruck black leader isn't. An easy way is to cut 100 frames as a gauge, and remember that a perf is one-fifth of a frame in height, so if the 100 frame length of film is 1 perf shorter, it's shrunk by 1/5%. Not that you need to know the percentage, just if it runs OK. But you sometimes find out things you don't need to know on this forum.

If you can get yourself to Cricklewood in 1980, I see from my Samuelsons catalogue that you can rent 2 "Samcine shoulder type" 400' mags for £7/day? if you can only get back to 1984, it's gone up to £12. https://www.samuelsonfilmservice.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/SFS-1984-Catalogue.pdf

I'm probably wrong about this, but it looks to me as if those mags fit tightly behind the camera body and with the straight viewfinder you may be too far back for comfort. I wonder if they were intended for use with an elbow-type finder. You're probably not going to be sending them back to the US if unsuitable.

I would certainly be out in the garage with that having a tinker. But I'm not sure I'd want to drill holes in anything that looked that nice and that had resale value. Most of the things I mess with are much nastier, or unseen. Maybe something would clamp on instead. The Sammys manual disappeared after '85. The 86-7 one is just a spiral-bound catalogue. I still prefer my scruffy 1980 edition from film school with the annotations and phone numbers of long-gone labs and dubbing theatres. Sammys themselves, of course, are now gone, sold to Panavision and literally- Sydney Samuelson died last month at 97.

Maybe a bungee cord, but.....too bad. No easy mod comes to mind.

I think this should be regarded as a curiosity. You have two different stocks, 30 and 36, of different speeds so they might both need testing, and even if successful you can't assume that any other can is in good condition. Assuming you don't plan to use them yourself, as Aapo says they are a collector's item. Every other aspect of production (process, scan) would be at full price, so there would need to be a heavy discount for the risk. Unless the nature of the project takes it into account.

No, it's not something I would ever need for stills, which is what it was bought for, just offering a few thoughts since I acquired a macro lens. I'm sure Nikkors are at least as good as Tamron, they should be at the price! A teleconverter costs you some loss of quality, so you may be no worse off cropping in as an alternative. There have been tests that seem to support this. That eyeball ECU seems to be no more than 1:2. As you've found out, a macro lens at full extension is effectively an extension tube. Anyway as I always say, when you've alread bought something, stop looking at the alternatives, it's better for the nerves.

The extension tube will cost you light, but good macro lenses (and Micro-Nikkors qualify!) are so eye-bleeding sharp edge-to-edge, even wide open, that you may be able to shoot 1:2 and crop in post. This will help with your DoF. Incidentally the quality tends to go off a cliff smaller than f11 or 16. And I'm only talking about a Tamron 90mm. My Best. Glass. Ever. Fly's eye sharp.

No, because of physics, unless you have a room full of complicated stuff. Maybe the rabbit hole told you that Germany used hydrogen because the US had a helium monopoly and wouldn't supply it to anyone else.