I bought Lens Paillard 13mm f :1.9 Yvar AR D Mount for C8.
WOW---reminds me of Walden "economy" where he lists all the costs of living in the woods--last detail.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
Yes I agree--black and white is best considering cost. A THOUGHT: get filters and do three color on the black and white film. Since you will have very many frames, you can do three color pictures--you'll need a tripod but it is a promising idea. Red, green, blue---then you can put together after scanning for composite trichrome shots with better quality than one single frame.
the yvar is very good lens--all of bolex lenses are very good lenses--so long as they are still clean and haven't been tampered with they perform.
Yvar 13 mm f :1.9 and Yvar 13 mm f :1.8 difference
John Elvis ,
And it reminds me how sellers want to skin us with postal charges , 100 grams and 1 kilogram shipment is 25 dollars to here. Round trip costs 65 dollars for 25 dollars film. And processing , telecine... But if you have more finance than me , if you can afford it , it really worths. Thats the strong point. May be I can go in to it with 3 -4 months break.
I bought my Yvar at mint condition.
I want to ask is there any quality difference between two lenses ? I have 1.9 and there are tens of them at the market. But everyone with a digital camera uses 1.8. I astonished with the quality of 1.8 but mine -1.9- samples are rare and colors are death.
Is this a web search luck or are those two lenses are excellent ?
Mustafa, homework first, then purchases. Too late for that. See http://www.bolexcollector.com/
Mustafa, homework first. In post #3 you mentioned seeing loveable 8/8 color footage. Kodachrome, not E-6. Kodachrome is gone, finished, kaput.
Re lenses, Kern made three grades of lenses for Bolexes. Bottom-of-the-barrel, Pizar. Mid-range, Yvar. Top-of-the-line, Switar.
Bolex made more than one grade of camera. You bought near the bottom of the barrel. For what you want to do, you really need a variable shutter. You should have done your homework.
John Nanian wrote
Not quite. 8/8 has one perforation/frame, so does 16. 8/8 has, therefore, twice as many perforations/length as 16 and 8/8 cameras won't feed 16 mm film.
the camera is a double-8 mm camera meaning it takes 16mm film
In post #6 in this thread, Ektagraphic reminded us that Foma makes b/w 8/8 film. Mustafa, if you're willing to shoot b/w you can process it yourself, there's no need to send it out. Processing tanks for small gauge cine film are still available.
In post #12 in this thread johnielvis suggested trichromy with b/w film. This is a non-starter, the C8 isn't pin registered and with such a tiny format good registration is necessary for trichromy.
Thank you Dan,
I jumped to the ebay offer. It was cheap. I am happy I bought mid range lens. I saw my lifes best samples with 1.8 but I dont know how the 1.9 was and samples are not good but they are rare and bad work for Bolex cameras.
I will follow foma or if I can find ORWO route and process at home.
Someone suggested C8 is a 1/25 speed camera , In my view I can make many subdued winter time photography.
What about the telecine , what is the file size per frame , cost and availability to make one by one frame file recording
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
i guess what i was trying to say is that double 8 is wider than straight 8 since it is put through the camera 2x i should have said it is "sort of like" 16mm film
(double wide ) so you can put it through 2x ... unfortunately it ISN"T 16mm ... ( sorry if i confused you umut! )
you might want to check out this archived website, its got a ton of stuff
that might be helpful ...
Interesting thread, I greatly enjoyed my Bolex B8 when I was young. I can still project the old Plus X and Kodachromes and they look great for what they are. Yes, cine film makes a great many exposures per roll. BUT, my goodness, the frame size is so tiny! In my opinion, enlargements from 8mm, S8 and even 16mm are mostly pretty awful. The grain is HUGE, and the low speed, fine grain films are long gone. Well shot 8mm with a fine camera (like a Bolex) looked okay as a moving image, not so good as a still. Telecine is not going to work so great as a way to transfer the individual images for stills use. It is a relatively low resolution way to digitize motion picture film and works well for a moving image, individual frame grabs are not that great. A 2K scan would be way out of your price range. Maybe use one of the old movie film enlargement attachments from the old days that you would attach to your SLR. Adapt one to a DSLR and you have a very inexpensive high resolution digital capture. Have fun with your project.
STUFF AND NONSENSE! (I've ALWAYS wanted to say that to Dan Fromm!!!)
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
three color process has been done succcessfully from the beginning with no pin registration. If the films are scanned, they can be registered perfectly with photoshop or some other software such as image stacking software for HDR--this is regularly done these days.
Originally Posted by johnielvis
you said PS + softw@re ...
thems is crazy workds jonnielvis!!
Yeah..I hated doing photoshop when I did my first three-color film composites. Felt like a traitor--then it got easier. I've only ever used photoshop and scanning for three color pics so far, however--only when absolutely necessary.
I suppose the 8mm can be projected with 3 color filters--say all mounted on the same slide and somehow made to converge--only way is 3 lenses, right?