Jump to content



Photo

Where to buy lens set for B&H Filmo?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2832 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 24 January 2018 - 01:30 PM

Both as far as I can remember-  I've got b/w neg in the junk can but I haven't seen a daylight spool of Tri-X since 1982.


  • 0

#22 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1982 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 24 January 2018 - 02:44 PM

That emulsion did look yellowey, like color stock. You could process the first foot or two of film yourself to see the edge number, stock ID.  Ccarefully remove the spools, rewind in the darkroom....This is assuming that there is something valuable on the exposed film, not just someones old camera test, or a scratch test. I would just biff it. Get a lomo tank and do some camera tests with whatever B&W stock you have...


  • 0

#23 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 January 2018 - 02:57 PM

Hi Gregg, it is nice to hear from you again.

 

I'm not interested in seeing what is on the film, to be true, because only 15 feet or so have been exposed. I'm only interested in actually using the film, because there is still some 80 feet of it in the daylight spool and I would be interested to experiment with "found film". It's not a big deal, but given the current cost of film I thought I'd not let it go to waste.

 

It does look like colour stock. Whether it's reversal or negative, it's impossible to tell at this point.


  • 0

#24 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2832 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 24 January 2018 - 03:02 PM

Sorry, I didn't notice the stock in the photographs.
Yes, that's colour film. As it's single-perf, it can't have been run and re-laced because then the winding would be incorrect.
Edit: just noticed that you know that already.
It would take a clip test to identify the stock but you could try it with b/w chemicals in a bucket in the dark.
Perhaps the seller has some clues about where it came from an how it's likely to have been used- if from an amateur it's almost certainly Kodachrome.

 


Edited by Mark Dunn, 24 January 2018 - 03:11 PM.

  • 0

#25 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 January 2018 - 04:34 PM

Hey I just noticed the film is wound emulsion out. Interesting. In the manual it shows the feed spool inserted the opposite way from how my camera is loaded.


  • 0

#26 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 January 2018 - 04:50 PM

I unrolled the bottom spool and found this number perforated into the film:

 

wbdl5u.jpg

 

"0-72671-7202"

 

Would this help identify it?


  • 0

#27 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 24 January 2018 - 05:10 PM

I wanted to edit my post, but, mystery solved. It's Kodachrome 25, Kodak 7267. Completely useless in 2018 unless I'm to expose it and process as B&W.


  • 0

#28 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1592 posts
  • Other
  • Near Basel, Switzerland

Posted 25 January 2018 - 02:34 AM

What I thought.


  • 0

#29 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2832 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 25 January 2018 - 04:55 AM

Hey I just noticed the film is wound emulsion out. Interesting. In the manual it shows the feed spool inserted the opposite way from how my camera is loaded.

Weird. Camera original is always supplied EI. I wonder if it has been run through once and rewound, incorrectly, EO by hand, because with single perf the camera can't do it.

Presumably then it's been used as a loading roll. You can safely assume it's useless as camera film, I think.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 25 January 2018 - 04:55 AM.

  • 0

#30 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1592 posts
  • Other
  • Near Basel, Switzerland

Posted 25 January 2018 - 05:14 AM

Samuel, the cheapest stock you can use is black-and-white print film. Labs have long rolls of positive stock. You can build a good relationship with your favourite lab by buying, say, 400 foot of ORWO PF 2 (version 3) or Eastman 7302 from which you fill 100-ft. spools.

 

Those films are not sensitized, by nature only sensitive to ultraviolet, violet, and blue. Colours come wrongly, yellow-orange-reds are rendered darker than with panchromatic film (too light in the negative). But you have a fine-grain emulsion that develops within three or four minutes and that you can print on yourself with the camera (50-ft. lengths). I find filmmaking with positive stocks very instructive, basic. You’d start with an exposure index of ISO-ASA 10 in daylight. Trains one to larger lens stops, shorter depth of field, the discipline of focusing. Early Kodachrome had the EI of 10.


  • 0

#31 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 25 January 2018 - 02:26 PM

Weird. Camera original is always supplied EI. I wonder if it has been run through once and rewound, incorrectly, EO by hand, because with single perf the camera can't do it.
Presumably then it's been used as a loading roll. You can safely assume it's useless as camera film, I think.


Is it possible that it was respooled from a 400ft core? Either way, I'll just save it for fun experiments.


You’d start with an exposure index of ISO-ASA 10 in daylight. Trains one to larger lens stops, shorter depth of field, the discipline of focusing. Early Kodachrome had the EI of 10.

 
 
Dankesehr, Herr Professor, but I live in a city where it's darker outdoors than indoors for half the year, and indoors the lights are not that bright, I can't imagine using 10 ISO in this part of the world. But when I move back to CA, ja! Natürlich ja!


I have the Filmo oiled, I'll break out the Sylvania Sun Gun II and do a test roll today! Maybe even a registration test, depending on how far back I can rewind the film. Thank you all for helping with this project.

By the way, I do love my projector, but the British-only version by Bell & Howell and Gaumont is actually better: takes 1200ft reels.
  • 0

#32 Doug Palmer

Doug Palmer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 26 January 2018 - 04:53 AM

Thank you, Simon. I thought I'd add this picture of the matching projector!

 

filmo11.jpg
 

The Bell & Howell Diplomat 173 is probably the best projector I've ever had so far. If it were a sound projector, there would be no need for me to buy another one, ever. Operation is a bit more involved than later projectors and the Run-Rewind lever seems to not matter much unless in Rewind position (the neutral position in between doesn't prevent normal operation). I'm willing to bet it will never jam or scratch the film.

Beautiful. Sorry to use your word Mr. Trump, but nothing else is sufficient to describe it.

 

And so steady and kind to the film. Actually I butchered mine to convert it into a single-frame projector, and regret it a little. Added a Leitz slide projector, also butchered, as the light source. Great for doing optical effects on a white card.


  • 0

#33 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 29 January 2018 - 05:16 PM

It's clear that this camera will see limited use as long as I live here in this place that the Sun forgot.

 

I went outside to take a lightmeter reading in "daylight" (ha). I get f/2.0  for 160 ISO (Tri-X) at 18 fps. My Filmo does 16fps, but the meter, a Sekonic Litemaster Pro L-478D-U, doesn't read that. But I wouldn't take the Filmo 70-DR outside anyway because it's raining. As usual.


  • 0

#34 bradley hayman

bradley hayman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • rochester ny

Posted 19 February 2018 - 12:39 PM

WOW!  I'm so jealous!  I've stumbled into buying 3 cheap Filmo 70s (1 DA and 2 DR).   I used to repair and/or tinker old watches so the ability to open these up and repair them appeals to me.  All three appear to be running normally after some oiling or adjusting.  But none of my 3 look as immaculate as yours!  Nice find!

 

I think, like yourself, I'm a little skeptical of the critical focus device.  Have you been able to focus any of your lenses using the critical focus?  I happen to have a c-mount Canon TV 16 lens (25mm) that focuses perfectly on my Eclair NPR but for some reason can't focus at all on either of my Filmo DR cameras.  I'd love to test these cameras out, but if I have to get out the tape measure for every shot, it will add a lot of time.  


  • 0

#35 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1229 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 19 February 2018 - 02:35 PM

Thanks Bradley, I'm going to do a off-the-wall transfer later tonight from the results. I did use a tape measure for focusing and it came out a lot better than the Reflex focus on the Canon 814XL-S I also used. I was so worried about the focus not being reflex. It turned out to be great. From now on all my home movies will be made with the 70-DR


  • 0

#36 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1592 posts
  • Other
  • Near Basel, Switzerland

Posted 20 February 2018 - 10:06 AM

There were only two brands to feature the rackover focusing system for small-gauge film, Bell & Howell with the Filmo models and Paillard-Bolex with the H models. I have just now finished service on an H-8 with three lenses and rackover accessory for a twenty years young customer who sais to be experienced in 16. Filmo 70s have a 15-diameter magnification of a center spot of the frame whereas Paillard offers only six and eight times magnification. The optics of the Bell & Howell critical focusing device can be adjusted to one’s eye. One needs a screwdriver with a fitting blade. In doubt leave the preparation and cleaning of this to a technician. The inner optics are lacquered, should not be disturbed, the distance of the ground surface to the lens seat.


  • 0

#37 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1592 posts
  • Other
  • Near Basel, Switzerland

Posted 28 October 2018 - 05:28 AM

There were only two brands to feature the rackover focusing system for small-gauge film, Bell & Howell with the Filmo models and Paillard-Bolex with the H models.

 

I must again correct myself, there were three. Bell & Howell, Paillard-Bolex, and the French E. T. M. (Marcel Beaulieu). The P 16/9.5 camera was never given a slide base, though. Bell & Howell Co. offered a focusing alignment gauge for the Eyemo, too.


  • 0


Metropolis Post

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products