I love cine cameras. I've never used one but they sure do look pretty. Is it difficult to get in to? Aside from sourcing the film, developing and projecting it.. ? It looks like a lot of fun. And those cameras, they look so shiny and full of metal.
Have anyone tried enlarging 16mm stills from their films? If so, what is the quality like in, say, 8x10 (or even 5x7)? I have a project that would be ideally suited for this, providing the enlargements worked out okay.
-B
My main issue with doing this is the fact that I shoot reversal movie film. But if one were to use negative film, the Bolex 16mm will give quality enlargements.
I frequently enlarge 16mm negative film to 8x10 with excellent results with a 16mm still camera. Quality is better than the movie camera because the film runs sideways and the image size is almost double.
The non-reflex version has an effective shutter angle of 190°. That, along with the lack of beam splitter loss, is why I have ancient non-reflex H-8 and H-16s as well as a few reflex versions. You can't have too many.
If this project involves arresting fast movement, you might be disappointed as the "normal" shutter speed @ 24fps is 1/50 non-reflex and (if memory serves me correctly) around 1/80th for reflex versions.
Good point!
The motion is fast, but ultra sharp is not critical, I think.
Basically there's an Olympic weight lifting gym - Clean & Jerk, Snatch, etc. The excercises are over in about a second from start to finish. They want to get stills of the action for the records, to show the athletes in order to improve technique, etc.
I figured if I ran the camera at 64fps there would be a lot of frames to view. There are loads of posters on the walls from the 60s, the hey-day of Olympic weight lifting, showing long sequences like that. I reckon they must have been shot with something like that. These were at competitions so I highly doubt anyone was bringing in giant lights and ultra high speed cameras. They're gritty, but pretty incredible. I can't find any of the in-action sequences online, but it's pretty obvious they're stills pulled from film.
It doesn't need to be anything like bullets through fruit.
A second-hand non-REX 16mm with B&W negative film would probably be just what you want. You should be able to get reasonable enlargements from that. At 64fps you going to be around 1/200th of a second for each frame. If you get one with the variable shutter you can get around 1/400th of a second.
16mm runs 45 feet a minute @ sound speed (24 fps), so at 64fps, you'd get --
100 feet x 40 frames per foot = 4000 frames / 64 fps = 62.5 seconds "real time" shooting but 2.7 minutes playback @ 24 fps.
I don't think the per frame cost is THAT much and one minute of screen time is a HUGE amount of time.
Don't think so? Try to stare at a point on the wall for a full 60 seconds. It is a long time...
I stand corrected!
Good luck with your project.
For real, uninterrupted fun, try the original "Empire State" by Warhol or Michael Snow's "Wavelength".
For me, it turned into a perverse testing of willpower; an interesting experience nonetheless...
Anyone had experience with the Bolex 150 Super? Got this at a thrift store. It's missing its lens shade and the rubber eye shade has rotted away, mostly, but the camera seems to work.
I have one very similar, the Bolex 155, Super 8. I haven't used it for many years. Mine also has the eye piece rotting away. Built in folding lens shade. Great camera, built in macro close ups, zoom lens. I may have the instruction book somewhere. I also have the Bolex light that attaches to it.
Best movie camera I ever owned.
Try it, you'll like it. Good Luck
Jim
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?