Jump to content

Which Model Bolex for My Scanning Rig?


Topher Ryan

Recommended Posts

I've been toying with the idea of making a DIY film scanning rig. For the film transport, I have considered using a Bolex with timing controlled by a Tobin TTL motor. This could be synced up to a DSLR/macro in time lapse mode or a Machine vision camera.

 

My question here is which model Bolex might be best suited to this.

 

I know I need the 1:1 shaft to use the Tobin time lapse motor, so that narrows it down right away. 400 ft. mag option is preferable, but not absolutely needed.

 

My only experience with a Bolex thus far has been my old non-reflex model. Just today I realized that if I get a reflex model (late serial rex-4 or 5 for 1:1 shaft) I will be shooting the film plane through a beam splitter, right? This is certainly not ideal. How difficult is the beam splitter to remove and later replace? I would think this must be done with care and precision as to not change the effective FFD. Anyone have experience with this?

 

I would want to be able to take the camera off the rig and replace the beam splitter and still shoot with it. The other obvious mod will be the rear pressure plate, cut and back-lit. I will get a spare to hack up and preserve the original pressure plate. On my non-reflex H16, I tried moving the center pressure plate spring to the top screw and adding a smaller spring to the bottom. This retains pressure and opens up the center of the plate to back light mods. I don't even know if the late model pressure plates have similar spring tension...

 

The idea is to use readily available parts that can still be used for their original function (TTL, Rex-5, DSLR, Laptop, External HD, etc.). The main difficulty, as I see it, will be engineering the backlighting/ pressure plate area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant find a pic online at the mo but you'll want a 'security style bolex' (usually painted black) - no spring, no turret, no prism, no nothing really but cheap and all shafts there and waiting and as there is no need for light proofing a 400' modification would be easy to append to one ...

 

easy to super 16 also (cheapest source of spare alu gates I've found btw - dang! secrets out!)

 

Ugly things, like a bolex with it clothes off - you'll know it when you find one (ebay)

 

I tried to do what you are doing and its easy to get preliminary results, perfecting the system takes more and more time and precision - standard diminishing return rules of the last %5 of the work takes %95 of the time ...

 

Gave up and had more fun on other projects - but its certainly an idea waiting to be cracked by a more passionate soul (and probably already has been) - Good luck ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate the tip. According to http://www.bolexcollector.com/faq.html that is the "H16 J". I haven't found any pictures either.

 

When you say it is easier to convert to super 16 do you mean also re-centering the mount, or simply widening the gate with no reflex stuff to worry with? I know that mount re-centering isn't necessary for a scanning rig, but I would also like to use the camera to shoot time lapse. I can't find much info on converting and then re-centering the mount on an M4 or M5. I may be wrong, but it seems that a turret might be easier to shift a few mm than the solid front mount on the M models.

 

If I do go the "M" or "J" route, convert to super 16, and shoot with a pan-cinor viewfinder-style lens, are there any frame lines? I have no experience with that type of viewing system.

 

Feel free to correct any butchered terminology.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd encourage anyone with advice or experience, however negative it may be, to contribute to this idea. I think it would have big implications for Bolex owners as well as low-budget film shooters in general.

 

The technology is all there, getting better and more affordable by the day. The various pieces just have to be put together.

 

 

Film Transport:

 

We already have great scratch-free intermittent movement and have for decades BOLEX

 

 

DSLR's:

 

-The sensor resolution and timelapse post-workflow is already there. (you are basically shooting a time lapse of your processed film)

-I think DSLR's will soon move away from mechanical shutter/mirror very soon, which will fix the problem of shutter/mirror mechanism wear

 

Machine Vision:

 

Another possible option for imaging sensor -- already used by many telecine rigs

An entire industry of miniature backlighting solutions -- as far as quality of light, LED may not be ideal, but for size and heat characteristics it seems hard to beat.

 

http://www.moritexusa.com/products/product...d=26&plid=1

 

Some info I've gathered from the 35mm and Super 8 sections of the site:

 

Paul Bruening scanning 35mm neg with his Mitchell - shows promise for scanning neg and inverting in post

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?sh...c=30502&hl=

 

Freddy Van de Putte's super 8 machine vision rig-

 

http://www.super-8.be/s8_Eindex.htm

 

http://www.vimeo.com/1533163

 

Anyway, like Chris said this is an idea waiting (if not already) cracked. Let's put our heads together...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For your back lighting space consideration:

 

post-24902-1238223509.jpg

 

Rex V pressure plate

 

 

If you can't get some kind of LED solution right in there, I reckon you'd be forced to use a mirror...

 

For anyone who's never tried it, that pressure plate assembly comes out in seconds with no tools, just unscrew that lower post by hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another lead...

 

It seems like this fellow might know how to make this work:

 

http://www.jkcamera.com/accessories.htm

 

Check out the 90 degree viewing prism, for his optical printer, that goes in place of the pressure plate. I know you probably don't want film moving against that, but it gives me hope that he could produce and sell custom pressure plates for this application.

 

Looking around that site, Jkcamera certainly seems poised to make this idea a reality... (at a great price, please ;) )

 

Does Mr. JK post here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another bit of brainstorming after a little sleep:

 

My first thought upon seeing JKcamera's 90 degree viewing prism was to bounce the backlight off of something similar.

 

But my thought this morning is that if you have trouble fitting backlighting in the pressure plate area, why not send light in from the front where you've got plenty of room. What a novel idea, light entering the front of a camera through the lens port... Anyway, then you would mount your digital camera at ninety degrees and shoot from the side into a modified version of that viewing prism. Then you could take the elements out of an old c-mount lens and fashion your backlighting/diffusion etc into a screw in housing with ready-made aperture control (the lens housing).

 

Someone in the 35mm discussion of DIY scanning rigs suggested that you could use a firmware setting or hack to lock up the DSLR mirror and keep the shutter open, then control your exposure by flashing your backlight. Well, since we are sending light in through the front and using a timelapse motor the amount of light of light for each frame would be controlled just like shooting a timelapse normally. I am picturing the lighting locked inside an old lens housing, light tight...

 

If there was issue pointing the DSLR into an area surrounded by shiny, reflective metal you could create a matte to block all of that out, perhaps by purchasing a second side door and cutting it and adding whatever other little mods would be needed.

 

Then again, shooting in from the side you introduce a mirror which is just one more thing between the sensor and film to detract from image quality. Are extremely high quality mirrors hard to come by? I don't know much about photographic mirrors, it may be less of an issue than I think. Oh, and one more image flip in post, but that will obviously all be automated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you get too busy with the hardware I suggest taking some snaps of some frames with an ideal backlighting set up then getting your post flow worked out, it aint as simple as a series of inverts...

 

You can get an image sure, excuse the lack of correct terminology and real experience but its the chore of getting the information as nicely distributed over the 'bits' (and channels) as possible that is tricky... This is what commercial scanners excel at.

 

You'll need a different process for B&W, neg and reversal and the trickiest (and most common): color neg

 

I dunno, Maybe some sort of HDR approach could work ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you get too busy with the hardware I suggest taking some snaps of some frames with an ideal backlighting set up then getting your post flow worked out, it aint as simple as a series of inverts...

 

You can get an image sure, excuse the lack of correct terminology and real experience but its the chore of getting the information as nicely distributed over the 'bits' (and channels) as possible that is tricky... This is what commercial scanners excel at.

 

You'll need a different process for B&W, neg and reversal and the trickiest (and most common): color neg

 

I dunno, Maybe some sort of HDR approach could work ?

 

 

This thread posted yesterday shows some results with fairly optimal backlighting (canon flatbed scanner), scanned neg and then flipped and color adjusted in photoshop:

 

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=37662

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In real laymans terms (as that is what I am) when you 'color adjust' after the fact - for example, accounting for the orange cast - you are losing a bunch of information, in effect reducing the relevant bit depth of the image (much more so in particular channels than others)...

 

Again, sure your image looks fine, but you are painting yourself into a corner in terms of the ability you would otherwise have for further dramatic adjustment/interpretation that you could have if you sorted out this stuff at the front end (filters, non-destructive adjustments on the DSLR).

 

I reckon this is the real nut to crack when it comes to home built scanners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one of those JK gate prisms and used it to line up my non-reflex Bolex on my animation stand. Since it's hard to get my eye close to the prism I simply used a small light to shine through the prism to project the gate onto my animation board. I later got one of the Bolex gate focusers. The JK prism is held in pace with the same post for the pressure plate. The Bolex focuser uses a magnet to hold it in place. But it has a built-in focusing eyepiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I have one of those JK gate prisms and used it to line up my non-reflex Bolex on my animation stand. Since it's hard to get my eye close to the prism I simply used a small light to shine through the prism to project the gate onto my animation board. I later got one of the Bolex gate focusers. The JK prism is held in pace with the same post for the pressure plate. The Bolex focuser uses a magnet to hold it in place. But it has a built-in focusing eyepiece.

 

Hi Herb,

 

got any pictures of the set-up?

 

Cheers, Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one of those JK gate prisms and used it to line up my non-reflex Bolex on my animation stand. Since it's hard to get my eye close to the prism I simply used a small light to shine through the prism to project the gate onto my animation board. I later got one of the Bolex gate focusers. The JK prism is held in pace with the same post for the pressure plate. The Bolex focuser uses a magnet to hold it in place. But it has a built-in focusing eyepiece.

 

Could you see the perf-side edge of your image with either of those? It seems that the plate guarding the pulldown claws might be in the way of that edge. But with the correct angle it might just squeeze by.

 

I'm guessing it's the "prismatic focus"? listed on this page:

 

http://www.bolexcollector.com/accessories/view40.html

 

I guess it makes sense that some of these same hurdles have already been crossed for rotoscope setups with the Bolex. Did you make a semi-permanent setup with the backlight?

 

 

In other news:

 

I was running some old film through my Bolex at 8 fps with no pressure plate at all. It seemed to handle this fine. Do you think this would wreak havoc on the perfs at 1 FPS or slower? This will be a stationary camera running VERY slow, so I think some of the film guiding features could be sacrificed. I guess I might need some form of pressure plate to be sure the image plane is consistently flat against the gate. Speaking of magnets, something magnetic coming from top and bottom posts, leaving the center open, would be interesting and possibly save space. It might tend to bounce, but in this application, everything will be well at rest during the critical moment.

 

What are some other non-bolex cameras out there with a 1:1 shaft that I might feel less guilty about hacking up? I can almost see a straight shot through the back of my H16, but not without significant casualties. That cheap security-issue M5 is sounding better and better.

 

I've got to remember that once I start cutting holes and doing irreversible damage to the camera, I'm probably better off using a projector, steenbeck, or optical printer... Not giving up that easily though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you see the perf-side edge of your image with either of those? It seems that the plate guarding the pulldown claws might be in the way of that edge. But with the correct angle it might just squeeze by.

 

I'm guessing it's the "prismatic focus"? listed on this page:

 

http://www.bolexcollector.com/accessories/view40.html

 

I guess it makes sense that some of these same hurdles have already been crossed for rotoscope setups with the Bolex. Did you make a semi-permanent setup with the backlight?

 

 

In other news:

 

I was running some old film through my Bolex at 8 fps with no pressure plate at all. It seemed to handle this fine. Do you think this would wreak havoc on the perfs at 1 FPS or slower? This will be a stationary camera running VERY slow, so I think some of the film guiding features could be sacrificed. I guess I might need some form of pressure plate to be sure the image plane is consistently flat against the gate. Speaking of magnets, something magnetic coming from top and bottom posts, leaving the center open, would be interesting and possibly save space. It might tend to bounce, but in this application, everything will be well at rest during the critical moment.

 

What are some other non-bolex cameras out there with a 1:1 shaft that I might feel less guilty about hacking up? I can almost see a straight shot through the back of my H16, but not without significant casualties. That cheap security-issue M5 is sounding better and better.

 

I've got to remember that once I start cutting holes and doing irreversible damage to the camera, I'm probably better off using a projector, steenbeck, or optical printer... Not giving up that easily though!

 

I can take pictures of the prisms if you like. As for the backlight it was a simple grain of wheat bulb wired to a AA cell battery pack. I would use it with several cameras I tested on my animation stand including a Kodak Cine Special and B&H 240. The non-reflex Bolex cameras I have are an M4 and an M5. I also have a Rex5 and using the prism I found the viewfinder did not exactly have the same coverage. The viewfinder cutoff a bit around the edges. It makes a difference when filming a 12" wide animation field. Now this was a while ago and I had dismantled my old stand but I'm thinking of rebuilding it, this time a Mitchell camera. As for non-Bolex cameras to consider for your rig there is the Kodak Cine Special. There is a lot of space behind the gate since the pulldown claw is below it. I knew an animator who replaced the Bolex on his animation stand with a Cine Special because he said they had more steady registration. I got two old Cine Specials gathering dust in my collection. They're old and heavy cameras but still work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'd love to see the prisms if you have time to snap a few pictures.

 

I was looking at some pictures of the cine-special. Are you referring to the 200 ft. mag version, because it looks fairly cramped inside the 100'.

 

What will be the advantages of using the Mitchell for your stand? Will this be a 16mm or 35 Mitchell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't most of this system been somewhat worked out by the folks at Moviestuff? Using an LED source in a projector hooked to a computer that does frame by frame advance. Uses a magnifying lens to basically blow up the image of the open projector gate (Aeriel image) and capturing with a good quality (all the way up to a Red One if you want) video camera not as video but as sequential full frame grabs in RGB space. Software that plays back the sequential files at any frame rate to any tape device.

 

Just the other day I had a short conversation with Justin Lovell of Frame Discrete and Roger of Moviestuff, the maker of the systems. Justin uses several of these in different formats, and who I have had several transfers done from Super 8, 8mm and 16mm color negative stock at Justin's place. Spoke briefly in emails with Roger about using a digital still camera with the system due to it's high pixel count. Seems to me a digital still camera already has many more pixels than HD so good stuff.

 

The explanation I got was that there is still a limitation on the number of frames a DSLR can take as there is still the issue of the mechanical shutter. Yes, you can lock up the mirror but you still have a physical shutter.

 

To get around that, you would need a digital camera without a physical shutter, an electronic shutter is needed, which leads right back to video cameras.

 

Anyway, I always applaud ingenuity but you might want to see what all they have worked out and backward engineer to use a camera as the gate for your version. I believe there is a version out there I saw on retro thing that uses a Moviestuff system with a Red One as the pickup device. In fact, here's the link to that device. Blow up Super8 to 4k anyone?

 

http://www.retrothing.com/2008/03/our-resident-re.html

 

Even better link:

http://onsuper8.blogspot.com/2008/03/red-o...mm-at-last.html

 

Sean

Edited by Sean McHenry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, as a (highly compressed for the web) glimpse of this system Justin uses, you can check out this little short I shot for the NIN online contest thing. Preface: I shot this on my old Bolex H16 non-reflex using really old, storage conditions unknown Vision 250D stock I picked up for testing. I desaturated it in Avid. There is a little of the natural uncorrected color in the outside shot at the end. The shots in color of the little girl were desaturated in post with a little Gaussian blur as well.

 

Still, even in this you can see it came out pretty well. This was a direct conversion from negative film Justin did for me.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PFt6144kHI

 

You can see more of this process in another short and come to think of it, the open shot is in full natural color in this one - Chemical:

http://sites.google.com/site/deepblueeditf...e/film-projects

 

Other stuff on that site done in varying formats and various transfer methods including projection onto a sheet of paper and captured with a Panasonic DVX100 in 24p mode. Don't want to drag this off topic. The idea here is just to show you what can be done with a very similar idea using a projector as the gate mechanism.

 

Sean.

Edited by Sean McHenry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen moviestuff and jkcamera outfits and while they look great, I don't have a few thousand dollars to spend. I want this to be way cheaper than those and much more versatile and compact.

 

The rig I am trying to make will make use of things that I (and many hobbyists) already have. Keep in mind, most of these tools will also still be functional for acquisition.

 

Time lapse motor

 

Bolex camera

 

Common laptop with beefy processor and image processing software

 

DSLR - Now I hear you on the shutter life, but I never use my DSLR anyway, and honestly don't care if I have to spend 150-200 bucks IF the mechanism wears out. IF this rig works I will have saved $150 many times over by doing it myself.

 

second, more complex option- machine vision cameras and/or lighting - I've seen some pretty reasonable prices on this equipment.

 

Here is the dream:

 

Go out shooting for a day with your bolex,

 

send out film or self-process at home

 

mount bolex with tobin TTL on the simple rig base, remove pressure-plate by hand, install custom pressure-plate/backlight in minutes with no tools, go snag girlfriend's DSLR from her backpack, mount that with the macro lens on the rig base via tripod thread. connect to laptop and external hard drive, open the Canon/nikon/etc DSLR remote firing software as if you were shooting timelapse dumping files to drive. etc. etc., you get the point.

 

I wouldn't necessarily plan on using this rig for really important shoots. I wouldn't expect this to do everything the big rigs do, but It would be nice to feel free to experiment and use my cameras much more often, only swallowing the raw stock and maybe processing cost.

 

Once you got the basic setup working, you would be free to experiment with your backlighting, digital acquisition device, post workflow. AND it would be flexible to easily accept new lighting, software, DSLR/sensor technology as it rolls out and becomes more affordable. (I think mechanical mirrors and shutters are on the way out, lot's of people are shooting timelapse on their DSLR...)

 

I think there's plenty of small guage film hobbyists out there that can't really afford to use their cameras due to the cost of quality digital acquisition.

 

Long story short: I patent the rig parts :angry: ,market it like the RED, become filthy rich, buy Kodak's facilities, re-release all their retired stocks, retire myself to the sunny beaches of Rochester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'd love to see the prisms if you have time to snap a few pictures.

 

I was looking at some pictures of the cine-special. Are you referring to the 200 ft. mag version, because it looks fairly cramped inside the 100'.

 

What will be the advantages of using the Mitchell for your stand? Will this be a 16mm or 35 Mitchell?

 

The 200 ft. mag is roomier than the 100 ft. ones.

 

I recently got a Mitchell 16mm with a Tobin time lapse/animation motor. I want to use it for cel animation because it has pin registration and the rackover allows me to accurately line up the camera. I do eventually want to get a 35mm Mitchell as well. I have a lot of 35mm short ends sitting in cold storage I want to use. Because of the weight of the 35mm camera I may have to build a horizontal animation stand like the kind used by the old Fleischer Studio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 200 ft. mag is roomier than the 100 ft. ones.

 

I recently got a Mitchell 16mm with a Tobin time lapse/animation motor. I want to use it for cel animation because it has pin registration and the rackover allows me to accurately line up the camera. I do eventually want to get a 35mm Mitchell as well. I have a lot of 35mm short ends sitting in cold storage I want to use. Because of the weight of the 35mm camera I may have to build a horizontal animation stand like the kind used by the old Fleischer Studio.

 

Hi Herb-

 

Do you know if or where there are any pix of the Fleischer stand? I'd be curious about rigging something similar. Do you know how they kept their art flat? Did they use a vaccuum similar to a pre-press plate camera?

 

And Topher, why don't you modify a 16mm projector? It seems like a much easier modification, and those things are both very cheap and very plentiful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love living out of a backpack or a car, so if it doesn't fit in a backpack, it's too big!

 

A bolex with a TTL on it is probably the smallest, lightest step-controlled (400') film transport out there, attach a lightweight base, DSLR and light to it and it's still tiny.

 

What do you guys think about the registration of the Bolex for this? Is a projector any more accurate?

 

How about taking footage shot with a non-bolex and scanning it in the bolex... will it be registered a little off? I put some kras footage through my h16 and, I recall it seemed slightly off vertically. A projector would deal with that better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Herb-

 

Do you know if or where there are any pix of the Fleischer stand? I'd be curious about rigging something similar. Do you know how they kept their art flat? Did they use a vaccuum similar to a pre-press plate camera?

 

And Topher, why don't you modify a 16mm projector? It seems like a much easier modification, and those things are both very cheap and very plentiful!

 

If you buy the "Gulliver's Travels" or "Popeye the Sailor Meets Sindbad the Sailor" DVDs there should be an extra documentary that was made about the Fleischer Studios when it was located in Florida. There are scenes in the camera department showing the horizontal animation stand in use and even some scenes of the 3D setback that was used in some of their films. According to a former Fleischer animator they used lathe beds for their camera stands. From what I read these stands were destroyed when Paramount took over the studio and moved it back to New York. So none may exist. Disney's original multi-plane animation stand still exists. This blog also discusses these unique animation stands:

 

http://deneroff.com/blog/2008/03/04/willis...ptical-process/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This blog also discusses these unique animation stands:

 

http://deneroff.com/blog/2008/03/04/willis...ptical-process/

 

(apologies for diverting the thread a bit here....)

 

Thanks for that great link- I've seen pictures of Lotte Reininger's vertical stand before, I like how it looks like it's made out of telephone poles and railroad ties!

 

I had been messing with an old Automax 35mm camera to mount on a vertical stand; the placement of the mag on the back of the camera seems better, weight-distribution-wise, than the top mounted mag of the mitchell, plus it's about 20lbs lighter, but I don't really have the expertise to rig the motor electronics for single frame (the wiring/electronic guts had been removed, so just the power and clutch wires from the motor remain) I should probably just 'bay it.

 

A Lathe bed idea seems simple, maybe with a glass plate to hinge and snap down over the art to keep it flat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(apologies for diverting the thread a bit here....)

 

Thanks for that great link- I've seen pictures of Lotte Reininger's vertical stand before, I like how it looks like it's made out of telephone poles and railroad ties!

 

I had been messing with an old Automax 35mm camera to mount on a vertical stand; the placement of the mag on the back of the camera seems better, weight-distribution-wise, than the top mounted mag of the mitchell, plus it's about 20lbs lighter, but I don't really have the expertise to rig the motor electronics for single frame (the wiring/electronic guts had been removed, so just the power and clutch wires from the motor remain) I should probably just 'bay it.

 

A Lathe bed idea seems simple, maybe with a glass plate to hinge and snap down over the art to keep it flat?

 

I might be able to do something with that AutoMax having machinist and electronic experience. I can make an animation drive for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...