shooting 16mm, without a meter.
- Thread starter RC23
- Start date
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
RC23 said:
Compensation will depend on the exact code of the filter. They all have numbers and/or letters codes. It may go from 1 1/2 stops to three stops or more.
There should be tables somewhere on the web. Load a smaller ASA value on the photo camera. The good thing with light meters is that they usually had markings on the wheel for inserted filters compensation.
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
Robert86 said:
You probably mean reflected or spot meters. No camera can use incident metering, because for that you would need a semi-sphere.
Spot meters are a special type of reflected meters, measuring a small center area, usuall 1 degree. Some cameras, photo, digital or video, do have spotmeter capability. Even more if they can zoom in.
Incident meters, like the Spectra, Sekonic and Minolta, use a translucid semi-sphere that only let's through 82% of the incident light. It's like measuring continuously a 18% gray card, which in fact it does, because inside the ball there's a reflected light meter.
It was a great invention by Norwood, because the round surface simulates a face, making it easier to average the different light values illuminating the face.
There's also a flat translucent accessory, which allows measuring each light individually.
A great tool.
chromekoda
New member
Well, the real shutter speed is very likely 1/65 but one must count that part of the light is going to viewfinder. There is piece of glass between the lense and filmgate that divides the picture to viewfinder and to gate at the same time. This causes some loss of light and that's why the "real effective shutter speed" is about 1/80 when measuring the light. It might vary a bit depending the model of the Bolex.
My Old Angenieux (9,5-57mm for example) zooms have actually two scales of apertures one starts from 1,6 (F) and on the other side it starts from 1,9 (T). The Switars I have always used as a T stops but probably they have F stops. I've allways exposed as if the Bolex has 1/100 shutterspeed, and old cinematographer said that as a rule twenty years ago. It is easy to remember and compensates to a right direction most of the issues that have been said already.
My Old Angenieux (9,5-57mm for example) zooms have actually two scales of apertures one starts from 1,6 (F) and on the other side it starts from 1,9 (T). The Switars I have always used as a T stops but probably they have F stops. I've allways exposed as if the Bolex has 1/100 shutterspeed, and old cinematographer said that as a rule twenty years ago. It is easy to remember and compensates to a right direction most of the issues that have been said already.
Last edited:
cyclone
Well-known member
I agree with chromekoda. I've had a couple of Bolexes and unless I figured 1/80, I was always a bit underexposed. The prism in front of the shutter diverts a small amount of light to the reflex viewer - so you are working against 2 light baffles: the shutter and the prism. The prism is also the reason that Bolex's rx lenses are sharper than other c-mount lens used on the Bolex - the focal plan is shifted ever so slightly by the light passing thru the prism. Bolex knows this and has compensated with their line of rx lenses. Consequently, the other rule of thumb with the Bolex is, that if you are using a non-rx lens, don't shoot more wide open then f4. It'll probably end up soft.
cyclone
Well-known member
Yes, all the way up is fully open. There should be a locking position there, but to play it safe, I've actually taped the lever in that position - yeah, I'm paranoid. But I can't count the number of times after a shot, I've thought about the position of that damn variable shutter lever Most models have a small flag that appears at the bottom of the viewfinder frame indicating that the shutter is not fully open. But who's looking at the bottom of the frame when there's action happening in the middle of the frame and you're trying to capture it!
chromekoda
New member
All this that cyclone said about the lenses is very true as far as I know...
There are two types of Switars, AR and RX. ARs are for the cameras that do not have reflex viewfinder.
About the filters:
They sound like filters that could be used for B&W but there is no way to say anything about them without seeing them. The only way to check how much they take light is to have a 1 degree spot meter and measure the greycard through the filter and then without it and compare the results, how much light is lost. This should be done under very controlled conditions. I would not use them...
BUT THERE MUST BE AN EMPTY FILTER HOLDER IN THAT PLACE OR A PIECE OF BLACK TAPE OVER THAT HOLE. IF NOT, YOU WILL GET LIGHT ON TO NEGATIVE FROM THERE AND THE RESULT WILL BE VERY LIKELY FOGGY FROM THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FINAL PICTURE. You know, it is on the left side but the picture is "recorded" upside down.
This happens forexample if the sun hits that side of camera, I have seen that few times.
There are two types of Switars, AR and RX. ARs are for the cameras that do not have reflex viewfinder.
About the filters:
They sound like filters that could be used for B&W but there is no way to say anything about them without seeing them. The only way to check how much they take light is to have a 1 degree spot meter and measure the greycard through the filter and then without it and compare the results, how much light is lost. This should be done under very controlled conditions. I would not use them...
BUT THERE MUST BE AN EMPTY FILTER HOLDER IN THAT PLACE OR A PIECE OF BLACK TAPE OVER THAT HOLE. IF NOT, YOU WILL GET LIGHT ON TO NEGATIVE FROM THERE AND THE RESULT WILL BE VERY LIKELY FOGGY FROM THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE FINAL PICTURE. You know, it is on the left side but the picture is "recorded" upside down.
This happens forexample if the sun hits that side of camera, I have seen that few times.
Last edited:
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
chromekoda said:
Well, as a matter of fact I can´t really swear what was the actual speed we used when we shot with the H16. It was many years ago. But I think the 1/3 stop increase shouldn´t make quite of a difference. In those times we shot in B&W and we made lab tests to get to the real film sensitivity. That value was then analyzed on the negative, with a microscope (no print), to get a complete gray scale. And that value was then loaded into the light meter.
So the prism correction was certainly incorporated into that final ASA value.
Yes, the 9.5/57 was one of last 16mm zooms released by Angenieux, in the late '70s, along with the 10/150. They had both markings.
No, AFAIK the Switars were always F stopped, never T. It was never much of a problem though.
chromekoda
New member
carlmart, thank you and Ok, I believe you. It is better to think Switars as having F stops anyway.
I still use my Bolexes atleast once a year. I have one "homemade" Super 16 where the viewfinder is rebuild aswell and a regular 16mm one. The Super 16 one I use mainly for timelapse. Last time I was using the regular one I had russian made anamorphic lense-element from seventies (I guess) in front of the 25mm Switar and it worked very nicely. The camera just became so clumsy and front heavy, the focusing had to be done in both lenses...
It is just so pleasing, like meditating, when working with Bolex. They are so well made and there is a lot of watchmaker's philosophy in them. It is allways good practise to play with Bolex, both for the hands and mind. Specially when using long exposuretimes, like 2 sec or 8 sec per frame, and various ND filters.
Normal people also react so differently to them... Bolexes create a lot of positive communication when it is seen on the field.
I still use my Bolexes atleast once a year. I have one "homemade" Super 16 where the viewfinder is rebuild aswell and a regular 16mm one. The Super 16 one I use mainly for timelapse. Last time I was using the regular one I had russian made anamorphic lense-element from seventies (I guess) in front of the 25mm Switar and it worked very nicely. The camera just became so clumsy and front heavy, the focusing had to be done in both lenses...
It is just so pleasing, like meditating, when working with Bolex. They are so well made and there is a lot of watchmaker's philosophy in them. It is allways good practise to play with Bolex, both for the hands and mind. Specially when using long exposuretimes, like 2 sec or 8 sec per frame, and various ND filters.
Normal people also react so differently to them... Bolexes create a lot of positive communication when it is seen on the field.
Last edited:
Yeah, I was filming some kids playing the other day in my suburban neighborhood. Created some real interest in what was going on. Gave them a nice history lesson. 
I still dont get why people bother using 16mm for stopmotion/timelapse though..
its bettter just to use a digital still camera.
unless of course you want that 16 look.
I still dont get why people bother using 16mm for stopmotion/timelapse though..
its bettter just to use a digital still camera.
unless of course you want that 16 look.
chromekoda
New member
About the timelapse tools, digital vs filmnegative:
I guess one has to work with the tools that are available and that the cinematographer knows best. The last works where I've used timelapse were shot totally on film.
I bought my first digital stillcamera few months ago so I am a newbie with them...
The films benefits is/was the wide dynamic range, I really do not know how good digital stillcameras are nowadays in this sense.
In a difficult conditions, where the amount of light varies alot you can get very pleasing results with film.
When I am shooting timelapse, I never change the T stop, as long as I think the shot is one continuity.
Sun - cloudy -sun, rainy, from dawn to day....
In a situations like that I let the brightest moments go 2-3 stops over, and then I just trust that the film's wide latitude will take care of the rest. (this is not scientifical "the best", it is just how I remember I did last time).
Afterwards in the post, when transfering the shots to video, it is quite easy to dig from 16mm negative very pleasing and realistic results if the color gradist is good one.
Specially with timelapse it is of course very good to see the whole shot in a real time 24/25 fr/sec first and then make the best possible exposure for it. Negative films wide latitude is very helpful there. (sorry about my english, it really is not my native language)
I guess one has to work with the tools that are available and that the cinematographer knows best. The last works where I've used timelapse were shot totally on film.
I bought my first digital stillcamera few months ago so I am a newbie with them...
The films benefits is/was the wide dynamic range, I really do not know how good digital stillcameras are nowadays in this sense.
In a difficult conditions, where the amount of light varies alot you can get very pleasing results with film.
When I am shooting timelapse, I never change the T stop, as long as I think the shot is one continuity.
Sun - cloudy -sun, rainy, from dawn to day....
In a situations like that I let the brightest moments go 2-3 stops over, and then I just trust that the film's wide latitude will take care of the rest. (this is not scientifical "the best", it is just how I remember I did last time).
Afterwards in the post, when transfering the shots to video, it is quite easy to dig from 16mm negative very pleasing and realistic results if the color gradist is good one.
Specially with timelapse it is of course very good to see the whole shot in a real time 24/25 fr/sec first and then make the best possible exposure for it. Negative films wide latitude is very helpful there. (sorry about my english, it really is not my native language)
Last edited:
Carlos_E._Martinez
Well-known member
RC23 said:
The main reason I shoot in video is because shooting film is too expensive. Even more nowadays with present transfer techniques, which allow you shooting in almost any media type and get very good results.
But editing is no doubt better handled in a video medium, which is why editing and audio post, effects and all else is now made in video.
There's one area where film is still king, which is contrast latitude. And, in spite of what I constantly read, I am not so sure video will reach it soon or ever. Every time film takes a step forward, video ends up being a lot behind.
As you may know, most films or TV series are shot in film (16 or 35mm), transferred to video, edited, processed and then transferred back to film on theatrical projects. But shooting is still in negative because you will have a better master.
What video is is more practical, particularly for documentaries. The limited magazines are a problem.
But for shooting lapse, if you can afford a 16mm camera, or better S16, you will end up with more flexible master. You will still have detail in the shadows and in the highlights, which is what photography is mainly about. Then you can copy it anyway you want.