Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,650   Posts: 1,481,302   Online: 842
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: Bolex anyone!

  1. #31
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,933
    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!



  2. #32
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,933
    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.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    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.

  4. #34
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Bosaiya View Post
    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.

  6. #36
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    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.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    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.

  8. #38
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    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.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    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...

  10. #40
    Bosaiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sumner, Washington
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by Kino View Post
    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!

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin