Bolex anyone!

[PHOTOTONE]

Older Bolex 16mm cameras took double-perf film. I don't know when the change took place, but the Rex4 and Rex5 will take single or double perf film. The clockwork mechanisms are virtually indestructable. Later Rex-style Bolex will accept motors and crystal sync, for double-system sound. They even made a blimp (soft) for sound work.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

After 25 years of still camera shooting, doing the Bolex thing was was really great. I was excited again about just shooting things to see how they came out on the film and it was a lot of fun. These cameras are also SLRs and are fun to use.

The 16mm cameras are easier to come by, but film costs will be quite high. The 'high-end' 8mm cameras are quite a bit much rarer (especially the two I have shown) but the film costs are one-quarter the larger format.

In terms of how difficult? I would say that all the number little things you need to watch out for would be similar the number of details to watch out for when using a view camera for the first time.

 

[Bosaiya]

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

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[Bosaiya]

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 key to the project is the high frame rate available on the Bolex. Do you have any samples of enlargements from negative cine film laying around? Obviously quality is in the eye of the beholder and they may have different ideas of what to expect.

If it won't work I'll have to advise them to go with HD and pull stills from that, although the framerate will be really low for anything they can afford to rent.

 

[ic-racer]

Here is another 8mm Bolex. This one is an earlier Non-reflex version. It does have some advantages over the later reflex models. 1) Since it does not lose light to the viewfinder, it has an advantage in low light situations. 2) You are required to use the side viewer, which is much brighter than the TTL viewfinders. Again an advantage in low light. 3) This model has the fantastic f0.9 Switar lens. Again useful for low light. They never made an f0.9 for the H8 Reflex. (The H8 Reflex uses "C" mount lenses, whereas this non-reflex uses "D" mount lenses, so I can't put this lens on the other cameras)

That Weston Master II is a cine meter and it still works!

 

[ic-racer]

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.

This was from a post by Helen B, so apparently there are others who like the older non-rex cameras as well.

 

[Kino]

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.

 

[Bosaiya]

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.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[Bosaiya]

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.

That sounds beautiful. I just need to get the client to buy off on it, we'll see.

I've been talking to Kodak but they're saying that their B&W films are too slow at 200asa. They're trying to pimp me on their 7219 Vision3, which sounds nice.

I reckon I could do color reversal and just scan in the frames like normal, then print out or do whatever.

 

[Kino]

I'd go for the color negative; better latitude and resolution than b&w stocks, faster ASA too.

You could build a pre-flashing chamber and get an increase of about 1 stop if need be, but its a real bear to build and tune...

The arcane art of pre-flashing and chemical sensitization chambers for motion picture work is all but dead; pity.

 

[Bosaiya]

And am I more or less correct that at 64fps a 100' reel would get me about one minute of footage?

Ouch.

I can imagine they won't like that too much. Cost-wise, that is.

 

[Kino]

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...

 

[Bosaiya]

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...

That depends on who's footing the bill. To me it's not a lot, but to a them a few hundred bucks profit is probably all they make off a competition. But I don't know for sure, I just want to be able to pass along the most accurate info I can.

I'm keenly aware of screentime, I do video for a living. With some of my top film heroes being Kubrick , Leone, and Kurosawa you might want to rethink how long I can stare at one scene without blinking!

 

[Kino]

I stand corrected!

Good luck with your project.

 

[Bosaiya]

I stand corrected!

Good luck with your project.

Oh I'm just having a little fun. Although I do enjoy Antonioni quite a bit. I remember watching The Seventh Seal with my son when he was one. He liked it.

 

[Kino]

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...

 

[Bosaiya]

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...

I sat through a Warhol Night once. I don't remember what was playing, I just remember endless shots of refridgerators and The Factory. I suppose some people might equate those with the extended work of Mario Bava, but it's a pretty apparent difference to me.

I'm with you, sort of like the time I peed on an electric fence when I was young, an "interesting experience" but not one I'd like to repeat.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I've been loosely following this thread since it started. I've never done any cine stuff but this thread has made me drool. Wish I had several thousand dollars of disposable income to play with. Another one of those "things" I should have discovered long ago.

 

[Kino]

Oh, its an incredible art form and it produces GAS as powerful or worse than still photography!

I have been through Super 8mm, 16mm (Bolexes, Auricons, Mitchells, CPs, B&H DR70s) and the 35mm phase (B&H 2709 hand crank, Mitchell STD, Konvas 35mm and Kinor 35mm kit) and it was wonderful.

Got to get me another Konvas or Mitchell 35 mm soon; the bug is biting again...

 

[Larry Bullis]

Bolex Super 8

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.

 

[fotch]

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

 

[Kino]

What Fotch said...

If i remember correctly, you can do single frame exposures for time lapse with a cable release. I think the socket is either under the finger trigger or near the tripod socket...


Had a friend who used a slow rotation speed AC motor, put an arm with a roller bearing on the end of it (like a clock arm with a bearing on it) and built an adapter so that the bearing made contact with a small arm that pushed the shutter release enough to take an exposure and slip off as it went by...

He used an old synchronous, geared motor that turned at 1 RPM, so he got 24 minutes of screen time compressed into each second ; great time interval to film with!

Of course you can build dimpled cams and vary the rate of shooting, try various motors and such.

Fun stuff...

 

[Larry Bullis]

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

Great. I have a bunch of outdated super 8 film I got at a thrift store (like the camera) and am going to a grape crushing event this weekend. Might be fun. Nothing to lose!

I also have the projector that will show it. fantastic. I had not thought of this as being real. What a surprise!..

Thanks.

L.