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
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by johnielvis
you said PS + softw@re ...
thems is crazy workds jonnielvis!!
Thank you for clearing that , it is very important. I am watching youtube videos , surfing forums and saw some excellent and some horrible videos , most grainy to better than Leica. I dont have an idea why process such varies. I will travel with a meter to know the lens distance to object and focus correctly. %90 of the movies are out of focus.
I learned that Yvar 13mm f:1.9 is a fixed focus lens. Cinematography com members tells older film stocks and tri x is extremelly grainy but 100d have minimum grain. For FOMA regular 8mm film , they tell it has a narrow latitude. KAHL is the color and bw film and development supplier in europe. Dwayne is US supplier , they sell a german brand color film. Telecine is ultra expensive and hundreds per hour to climb unbeliviable amounts.
I am asking if one of my photograph in 50 is successful and if I scan it with famous brand cheap desktop scanner with highest resolution , what would be the comparison with cheap telecine or digital camera shot ?
Scanning single frames of 8mm film on a desktop scanner should give very poor results when compared to DSLR or 35mm cameras. The movie frame is about 1/7th the size of a 35mm frame. Therefore, if we can make a good 11x14 inch print from a DSLR or 35mm film camera, we might get an equally good 1.5x2 inch print from 8mm film. Scanning the film on a desktop scanner should further degrade the image. Most point-and-shoot digital cameras should do much better than this. We perceive the image of a 8mm movie as being better than the still image of a single frame due to our brain integrating several images of the movie for apparent higher quality.
i can't comment on your scanner or telecine shot
because i am clueless in that department, but i have
scanned a bunch of color 8mm that i took years ago
using a now almost 7 or 10year old scanner ...
it wasn't the easiest thing to do and
it was a PITA but it worked ... i guess
i am sure it failed in others' eyes though
( im not a stickler for perfect image quality so i accepted the flaws
as part of the whole .. )
if you can live with the flaws of a tiny negative scanned ... i guess you are good to go
but if you expect it to look well as good as a kodachrome 4x5 negative, you will be disappointed ...