Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
Nicholas Kovats
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:21 pm
- Real name: Nicholas Kovats
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
My H8 spindle adapters arrived today. I will not be able to test them in my Ultrapan8 camera until I have exposed my latest 25ft roll of E100D film.
Nicholas Kovats
Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm
Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm
-
Nicholas Kovats
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:21 pm
- Real name: Nicholas Kovats
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
swaschka,
bitworks.org in Toronto scans my 16mm wide UP8 footage on their custom sprocketless 16mm transfer bay.
I am aware of a similar rig at cinelicious.tv in California. You may wish to research which post houses utilize the following sprocketless 16mm wide rigs, i.e.
1. flashscan made by mwa-nova.com A fellow board member by the name of Kent utilizes one and now offers a custom wet-gate option.
2. the incredible Müller HM machine made by filmfabriek.nl. It now has an inline wet-gate option included in the standard setup.
UltraPan8 CAN be scanned on a standard 16mm sprocket transfer bay. However you will typically end up with 2x stacked UltraPan8 frames per scanned 16mm frame. You will then need to extract them and then stich them into sequential JPEGS or TIFFs with such programs as After Effects. I have no experience with this method.
My preference is simplicity.
bitworks.org in Toronto scans my 16mm wide UP8 footage on their custom sprocketless 16mm transfer bay.
I am aware of a similar rig at cinelicious.tv in California. You may wish to research which post houses utilize the following sprocketless 16mm wide rigs, i.e.
1. flashscan made by mwa-nova.com A fellow board member by the name of Kent utilizes one and now offers a custom wet-gate option.
2. the incredible Müller HM machine made by filmfabriek.nl. It now has an inline wet-gate option included in the standard setup.
UltraPan8 CAN be scanned on a standard 16mm sprocket transfer bay. However you will typically end up with 2x stacked UltraPan8 frames per scanned 16mm frame. You will then need to extract them and then stich them into sequential JPEGS or TIFFs with such programs as After Effects. I have no experience with this method.
My preference is simplicity.
Nicholas Kovats
Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm
Shoot film! facebook.com/UltraPan8WidescreenFilm
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
I am refering to availability, and price; not optical quality. You know, as I mentioned: 16mm lenses in the range of focal lengths: 5mm-7mm are not common at all and if you find them they are not cheap.freedom4kids wrote:Lunar,
Can you please clarify what you mean by "...the wide angle lens for this format can be a real issue."
Are you referring to price or optical quality?
This is why I mentioned the Switar 10mm lens + Century Optics 6mm attachment made for these lenses as a possible route. Bolex made their own wide angle attachment for the Switar 10mm lens. Called the Bolex 6mm Aspheron or something like that. But it is SO expensive.
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
You'll discover that once you place these adapters it will be so hard to take them off. This may make it harder to use 25ft rolls with round openings.freedom4kids wrote:My H8 spindle adapters arrived today. I will not be able to test them in my Ultrapan8 camera until I have exposed my latest 25ft roll of E100D film.
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
freedom4kids, thanks. i sent an email to bolextech to get the details on my conversion. im pretty excited.
as for the wideangle lens debate guys, dont forget this is essentially the same result as anamorphic 2.0. so you are doubling the final image horizontal while leaving the vert standard. only better because you are using twice the film surface not compressing twice the photons. 8mm is basically 4:3 so this is 8:3. which in essence is the equivalent of one half the focal length of the particular lens. the resulting image will NOT have better vert resolution than standard 8mm. or would be the same as 1/2 cropped 16 (which would be a bad idea). so you are working in 8mm terms. so a 15mm lens will be vert a 15mm but horiz a 7.5mm. so whatever the lens is that will not vign on 16mm horiz will not vign on this. thats what you have to check. even some pretty expensive 16mm lenses can vign if not adjusted prop. all relevant if it is 16mm scanned. 2.66 is wide enough for me. the rest is going to get cut.
as for the wideangle lens debate guys, dont forget this is essentially the same result as anamorphic 2.0. so you are doubling the final image horizontal while leaving the vert standard. only better because you are using twice the film surface not compressing twice the photons. 8mm is basically 4:3 so this is 8:3. which in essence is the equivalent of one half the focal length of the particular lens. the resulting image will NOT have better vert resolution than standard 8mm. or would be the same as 1/2 cropped 16 (which would be a bad idea). so you are working in 8mm terms. so a 15mm lens will be vert a 15mm but horiz a 7.5mm. so whatever the lens is that will not vign on 16mm horiz will not vign on this. thats what you have to check. even some pretty expensive 16mm lenses can vign if not adjusted prop. all relevant if it is 16mm scanned. 2.66 is wide enough for me. the rest is going to get cut.
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
swaschka -
I personally know about these calculations and take them into account. This format is easily more than 2X. More on the order of 2.2X. But will assume, as you mention, that it is 2X --
Can you clarify following: are you saying that a true wide angle lens of say 6mm or 7mm is not needed because even with a 15mm lens one is getting the equivalent of 7.5mm on the horizontal (or with a 10mm Switar one will get the equivalent of 5mm on the horizontal)?
I personally know about these calculations and take them into account. This format is easily more than 2X. More on the order of 2.2X. But will assume, as you mention, that it is 2X --
Can you clarify following: are you saying that a true wide angle lens of say 6mm or 7mm is not needed because even with a 15mm lens one is getting the equivalent of 7.5mm on the horizontal (or with a 10mm Switar one will get the equivalent of 5mm on the horizontal)?
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
lunar07:
it depends on how you look at the format. and what you plan to do with it. stnd 8 is 1/4 of stnd 16 which is less than 1/4 of stnd 35 (total neg area that is. twice as wide, twice as tall). assuming that the lenses are designed to produce the same cone of light at the rear which they are not.... a 10mm lens on an 8mm gate is zoomed in compared to a 10mm on a 16mm gate which is zoomed in compared to a 10mm on a 35mm gate. if you bought an 8mm, 16mm and 35mm standard projector they would all be lensed to provide an image on a standard screen at a standard distance. now when you scan to replay on hd tv which is 16:9 you would get bars on the side but the same image just gradually clearer based on negative size (assuming no crop). because 8 and 16 are 4:3 35 is more, cant remember what, 1.37 or something to that affect instead of 1.33 but still bars on the sides. now if you shoot anamorphic negative and stretch in di you change that based on the compression factor of the anamorphic lens. 1.5, 2.0 etc. you then remove the side bars on hd for the 1.5 and go to horizontal bars on the 2.0 because you are compressing twice the light via anamorphic lens essentially providing two side by side negatives. which is what ultrapan8 is. essentially 2.0 anamorphic 8mm. but its not anamorphic its twice the neg of reg 8mm. so you need 16mm lenses to remove the light fall off at the sides. but its still a modified 8mm neg cause a 16mm chopped in half is a waist of film as 16mm is 4 times the resolution area of 8mm. so yes if you were planning to lens an 8mm camera at a FL of 10 to provide a specific linear field of view for a scene you could do the same with an ultrapan8 neg and a 20mm. however you will lose image height of the same scene. ultra pan8 is only twice as wide, its still only 1 8mm frame tall. thats why you need an 8mm front end of the bolex. so the questions are best asked in this priority... what linear field of view do i need? what subject height best captures the scene? what distance will my camera be? exteriors no biggie. interiors eeeh you see where this is going? then what image quality is required for the final result. small web based. large web based. projected. select your negative. with the neg size determined and the scene size and dist from camera set, you determine the lens needed. ultrapan8 is prob little over 1/2 stock production cost of 16mm stnd or anamorphic. which is 1/4 the cost if not less than shooting in 35mm. so your budget will also determine your negative size.
sorry for the rambling. so yes... if you needed 10mm on 8mm to get your width, with ultra pan 8 you can use a 20. both lenses will need to be designed to project on 16mm film. cause of the neg width on ultra pan. yes i realize its bigger than 2.66. but a scosh more or less bar on an hd tv is prob no big wow. get a prismatic focuser and check the lens on the gate.
it depends on how you look at the format. and what you plan to do with it. stnd 8 is 1/4 of stnd 16 which is less than 1/4 of stnd 35 (total neg area that is. twice as wide, twice as tall). assuming that the lenses are designed to produce the same cone of light at the rear which they are not.... a 10mm lens on an 8mm gate is zoomed in compared to a 10mm on a 16mm gate which is zoomed in compared to a 10mm on a 35mm gate. if you bought an 8mm, 16mm and 35mm standard projector they would all be lensed to provide an image on a standard screen at a standard distance. now when you scan to replay on hd tv which is 16:9 you would get bars on the side but the same image just gradually clearer based on negative size (assuming no crop). because 8 and 16 are 4:3 35 is more, cant remember what, 1.37 or something to that affect instead of 1.33 but still bars on the sides. now if you shoot anamorphic negative and stretch in di you change that based on the compression factor of the anamorphic lens. 1.5, 2.0 etc. you then remove the side bars on hd for the 1.5 and go to horizontal bars on the 2.0 because you are compressing twice the light via anamorphic lens essentially providing two side by side negatives. which is what ultrapan8 is. essentially 2.0 anamorphic 8mm. but its not anamorphic its twice the neg of reg 8mm. so you need 16mm lenses to remove the light fall off at the sides. but its still a modified 8mm neg cause a 16mm chopped in half is a waist of film as 16mm is 4 times the resolution area of 8mm. so yes if you were planning to lens an 8mm camera at a FL of 10 to provide a specific linear field of view for a scene you could do the same with an ultrapan8 neg and a 20mm. however you will lose image height of the same scene. ultra pan8 is only twice as wide, its still only 1 8mm frame tall. thats why you need an 8mm front end of the bolex. so the questions are best asked in this priority... what linear field of view do i need? what subject height best captures the scene? what distance will my camera be? exteriors no biggie. interiors eeeh you see where this is going? then what image quality is required for the final result. small web based. large web based. projected. select your negative. with the neg size determined and the scene size and dist from camera set, you determine the lens needed. ultrapan8 is prob little over 1/2 stock production cost of 16mm stnd or anamorphic. which is 1/4 the cost if not less than shooting in 35mm. so your budget will also determine your negative size.
sorry for the rambling. so yes... if you needed 10mm on 8mm to get your width, with ultra pan 8 you can use a 20. both lenses will need to be designed to project on 16mm film. cause of the neg width on ultra pan. yes i realize its bigger than 2.66. but a scosh more or less bar on an hd tv is prob no big wow. get a prismatic focuser and check the lens on the gate.
Re: Bolex H-8 Spindle Adapter Needed
the real problem for me is the cost of the conversion. i rcvd an email asking for $700 to do the conversion. utilizing an h8rex latest model 4 or 5 whichever has the round I T switch. its a very cool idea. but i cant justify the cost. so again... if anyone would like to trade a very clean h8rex for a very clean h16 rex to keep your conversion costs down, i'll be glad to do so. no point or angle intended to the conversion. just would rather take an h16 put a PL adapter on it and shoot a prime anamorphic for handheld.