The prism system in the Bolex H series reflex cameras makes for a very dim image in the viewfinder. It's positioned behind the iris so you have to open it wide to focus, then stop down to shoot. Plus, like you said, you only get 20% of the light. I don't think that would be a problem with the digital finder on the new Kodak camera since the brightness could be adjusted. On the Bolex Super 8 cameras like the 155 and 160 the reflex image is split before the iris so you always have a bright image, but you don't get the depth of field. Many of the reflex lenses were made the same way. I've used a Beaulieu with the mirror and I think it works fine, the flicker doesn't bother me though.Bolex models with a reflex finder used a prism which diverted about 20% of the light from the optical path into the viewfinder. Beaulieu, in my opinion, had a better system where the mirror on the rotating shutter provided an image to the reflex finder between frames as the film advanced. Yes, there was some flicker.
It would've been nice if the new Kodak camera had either - I'd think a prism solution would be much less expensive and far more reliable than an electronic viewfinder.
Let's get REAL: Pro photographers used Kodachrome 25 and 64 until something called "FUJICHROME VELVIA 50" appeared, with ultra saturated colors, quicker processing, and fairly good image stability; they migrated en masse to it (and then to Provia, Astia, and the new Ektachromes), and Kodachrome died because of lower demand.
ads.
Kodak’s brouhaha around a new camera and Ektachrome cannot conceal what they’re about.They want us to buy cartridge after cartridge, by the bars still better. They want consumers to consume like mad
The Beaulieu reflex cameras have oscillating shutters, not rotating ones. The system is also called Guillotine after the device of Dr. Guillotin. Like the (little) play in the roller bearings with a spinning mirror shutter the Beaulieu system also suffers from an always present little amount of play between the guide grooves and the mirror slide. The non-availability of precision ball bearings was said to have been an obstacle to the introduction of the ARRIFLEX. Only a prism or a pellicle is immobile once installed. It is, however, possible to reduce roller bearing play to zero, also that of an oscillating shutter but I have lost all interest in tinkering with Beaulieu cameras.Beaulieu, in my opinion, had a better system where the mirror on the rotating shutter provided an image to the reflex finder between frames as the film advanced.
Whoop, you know what type of mirror shutter is in there? If not a spinning one, it must be an oscillating shutter. Or is there a pellicle?
Thanks for the honesty. Should never expect anything like that from Eastman-Kodak. If they’d at least state exposure time per frame, would be something solid for a change.
A Beaulieu R 16 has 144 degrees equivalent shutter opening angle, a Beaulieu R 8 around 105 degrees. Same goes for Ercsam Camex Reflex 8.
The Beaulieu reflex cameras have oscillating shutters, not rotating ones. ...
...Do you swim to and fro or do you have a little rubber boat for moving?
Here is a pic of a Beaulieu MR8. You can see the movement, how the claw and the shutter slides are actuated.
...
I think that Super8 and 16mm film alone may be attractive enough for Kodachrome, especially if Kodak are successful enough with their marketing of the new camera etcI think it is reasonable to say that Kodachrome might be revived if the two following conditions are met:
a) a very great (not to say huge) increase in slide film sales, that creates the necessary large scale for the economic viability of the product;
b) some reason that makes Kodachrome more interesting than E-6 technology. That's probably storage stability, although, if condition a) is met, one could not rule out emotional/irrational/aesthetic reasons: sometimes difference is a quality in itself, "personality" so to speak.
Point a) is unknown, it's in the future, maybe a dream, maybe not. It's a hope, but hoping is sweet in itself!
Point b) is not very clear to me.
At the moment, is it fair to say that existing E-6 products fare worse than the last incarnation of Kodachrome as far as storage stability is concerned?
Supposing the answer is yes, would the economic investment in reviving Kodachrome be inferior to just the investment needed to create E-6 material with superior archival qualities? Or is Kodachrome "intrinsically" superior as far as archival qualities are concerned to E-6 products in such a way that the latter will never match the former?
I agree it was something Kodak did very well.The biggest reason for reviving Kodachrome would be some market reality that mandates centralized, high volume processing. Kodachrome was at its best when that was the nature of the market.
I agree it was something Kodak did very well.
Even here in New Zealand, their service was great, I just posted the film to them, and they sent it on to the lab and we got it back.
I did not mind the wait, and I couldnt care less if i had to wait a month to get my film back.
Its not like I dont wait at the moment for my E6 film processing!
So which is it? "Investigating what it would take" or "decided Ektachrome was the better choice"? Which statement was made first? Or is it just a case of the left hand not talking to the right?
Yes, it was the red ends on the film cassette that indicated processing included.
“Weiler’s Law”People are (except for PE) really, really underestimating the enormous undertaking it would be to re-establish a Kodachrome processing pipeline.
People are (except for PE) really, really underestimating the enormous undertaking it would be to re-establish a Kodachrome processing pipeline.
“Weiler’s Law”
Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn’t have to do it himself.
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?