You are right indeed. My mistake. M-Mount. Those interested in
shooting in the telephoto range could put a Summicron lens and use the
sweet spot of the glass.

Yes the Kish lenses are interesting, but since the camera has a
PL-Mount one could use cinema 16mm lenses like Zeiss T*. The problem
is that they are hard to find. It seems that many people understood
that the only real thing left for the digital world are lenses. “Real
” in this sense: manufatured without cynicism, the cynicism of
built-in obsolescence.

Why not use a film camera? Maybe these providers of ersatz experiences
will realize one day that they tried to kill film too early.

Very best,

On 6 November 2013 19:38, Nicholas Kovats <> wrote:
> I think you meant to say Leica-M Bayonet Mount which has a slightly
> larger FFD than the classic C-Mount, i.e (27.80 mm vs 17.53 mm). Using
> larger format lenses on your camera is actually not a bad idea. This
> technique utilizes the sweet part of the lens - the optical center
> with reduced aberrations irrespective of the corresponding
> magnification effect.
> Indeed,  one the lightest handheld ultrawide spherical hybrid film
> cameras out there.
> I have been tracking the development on and off since it's inception.
> It is not an official Bolex product but an "approved" relationship
> with it's developers regarding permission to utilize the Bolex brand
> name.  Bolex Switzerland has confirmed this.
> I believe the two leads are based in Canada. Their C-mount lens
> prototypes are interesting, i.e. no iris or focus barrels (fixed) ->
> I see it as an other attempt to digitally replicate predominately
> analog phenomenon. Why not use a film camera? :)
> Cheers!
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Marco Poloni <> wrote:
>> Hello Nicholas,
>> (I prefer to cc frameworks rather than not, hoping that this
>> discussion is interesting to everybody).
>> Indeed the best way to use the Leicina seems to be to have two lenses,
>> the Optivaron zoom and the Cinegon. I have looked for quite a while
>> for a 6 to 7mm prime lens that could be mounted onto the Leicina,
>> because it uses the Leitz C-mount which means that it can, in theory,
>> receive any Leitz lens. The problem was invariably the focal length.
>> One would need a super-wide angle lens for SLR photography, to have a
>> normal field of vision for Super-8mm. This means, in theory, lots of
>> aberrations, but the fact is that to my knowledge no such lens exists.
>> Thanks for your explanations. All clear now. I think that one of the
>> beauties of your UP8 3.1 DS8 specification is that it runs through
>> Bolex cameras, which are so reliable and small as we know. So the
>> “ratio” so to speak between the format and your camera's weight is
>> pretty amazing. In my memory the Arri ST is quite bigger than the
>> Bolex H16, and the Krasnogorsk, which I've handled but never owned,
>> isn't probably as versatile as the Bolex.
>> By the way, on another thread, have you read that Bolex is preparing
>> to launch a Digital Bolex camera, the D16, produced with two
>> developers from L.A.? I am not ideologically opposed to digital, I am
>> just waiting to see footage that I fall in love with. This hasn't
>> happened yet... but the material I've seen online (Vimeo and youtube)
>> is pretty good, with a deep colour space. The camera produces a 2K
>> image in “S-16mm” mode, at 12 bit 4:4:4 colour depth, in Adobe
>> CinemaDNG mode.
>> Very best,
>> Marco
>> On 5 November 2013 18:26, Nicholas Kovats <> wrote:
>>> Hi Marco,
>>> My pleasure.
>>> I agree. The 10mm Leitz-Schneider Cinegon focusing barrel does not
>>> have the smoothest transition from macro to infinity. It is an
>>> ambitious design with a very wide focal range, And technically it
>>> might be better to segment both functions with two separate dedicated
>>> lenses, i.e. macro + wide/normal/telephoto.
>>> The UP8 3.1 DS8 gate is larger by 39% then the the UP8 2.8 R8 gate.
>>> The UP8 3.1 DS8 frame width is greater than Super 16. :) Here are the
>>> detailed specs, i.e.
>>> Yes, the full 16mm width of Double Super 8 or Regular 8 film is
>>> exposed with either the classic Super 8 or Regular 8 pulldown. Note
>>> that the Regular 8 pulldown is exactly half the pulldown height of
>>> Standard 16mm.
>>> NO standard Regular 8 slitting of the film, please! It would slice
>>> your ultrawide images exactly in half. These are standard Bolex single
>>> claw pulldowns which rely on the Bolex pressure plate for stability.
>>> Double pulldown claws are quite rare in 16mm cameras with the
>>> exception of  exotic high speed instrumentation cameras such as the
>>> Photo-Sonics Actionmaster 500fps camera, i.e double pulldown claws in
>>> conjunction with two perf 16mm film stock (now rare) and two
>>> registration pins at the film gate in the resting position. I have
>>> this camera and I did consider converting the 16mm pulldown to regular
>>> 8. But it would have been prohibitively expensive.
>>> This conversion would work as 2 perf R8 and 16mm share identical
>>> perforation dimensions. Which is another key UltraPan8 2.8 concept. It
>>> was key knowledge gained when I discovered that both Bolex H16 and H8
>>> camera systems shared similar transports, optcs, mechanics, etc. I
>>> plan to run Regular 8 film in this camera to prove my point.
>>> In fact 2 perf Regular 8 IS technically 16mm film! But with 160
>>> perforations per foot compared to 16mm's 80 perforations per foot.
>>> Regular/Standard/Normal 8mm and Standard 16mm film are very beautiful
>>> interchangeable and intimate twins. :)
>>> Best regards,
>>> Nicholas
>>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Marco Poloni <> wrote:
>>>> Hello Nicolas,
>>>> Thanks for sharing your footage. I have never tried the Cinegon lens
>>>> because as sharp as I read it is, there's something odd to it for me.
>>>> Firstly because it's a 10mm, i.e. a quite narrower field than the 7 to
>>>> 8 mm that would correspond to the “normal” field of vision for S-8mm.
>>>> It is, in my view, a bit too narrow for landscape work. Secondly
>>>> because the focus dial basically does not transition very
>>>> progressively from macro positions, e.g. 1 foot distance to infinity,
>>>> so I had issues about its use for portrait work. This being said, a
>>>> friend of mine has one, I am keen to test it.
>>>> I find your UltraPan8 3.1 footage really sharp, sharper than on the
>>>> two other films. Wow. To be sure I understand you properly: when you
>>>> say “It utilizes the full width of Double Super 8 film” you mean that
>>>> you are exposing a width of 16mm (minus the two rows of sprocket
>>>> holes), leaving the film unhalved during development? And is your
>>>> camera pulling the film with two claws for increased stability?
>>>> Very best,
>>>> Marco
>>>> On 4 November 2013 19:42, Nicholas Kovats <> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marco,
>>>>> Interesting results and I slightly prefer the more muted V3 50D color
>>>>> negative. But the reversal really "pops". I miss shooting with my
>>>>> Leicina Special but I have the 10mm optic and not the zoom. Very sharp
>>>>> Super 8 transport and optics. Here is a sample of my more experimental
>>>>> work shot with my Leicina setup using very outdated Kodachrome 40
>>>>> stock from 1981, i.e
>>>>> Here is a sample of my ultrawide film format called UltraPan8 3.1. It
>>>>> is my current film based obsession. It utilizes the full width of
>>>>> Double Super 8 film. Modified hybrid Bolex H16/DS8 camera. Ektachrome
>>>>> 100D,  i.e.
>>>>> Here is another test I did with my other variation of this format
>>>>> called UltraPan8 2.8. It utilizes the full width of Regular 8 film.
>>>>> Modified hybrid Bolex H16/H8 camera It is a spherical hybrid format as
>>>>> there is no anamorphic compression lens used. Standard 16mm optics,
>>>>> i.e the optical center. The best part of the lens. Film is V3 50D
>>>>> color negative, i.e.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Nicholas Kovats
>>>>> Toronto, Canada
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Marco Poloni <> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Frameworkers,
>>>>>> I would like to share some materials with you. I just uploaded on
>>>>>> Vimeo two rolls of Super-8mm test footage.
>>>>>> I made those to challenge some assumptions and ideas about the format.
>>>>>> My own, but also some I read on emails in this community, as of May
>>>>>> 2013 if I well remember, about scanning S-8mm negative film stock.
>>>>>> I needed to verify things for myself before starting a large project
>>>>>> in S-8mm, and to understand what could be done with the medium in a
>>>>>> digital workflow. As a friend appropriately said, the nice thing today
>>>>>> is that with a good and well-calibrated digital projector, one can
>>>>>> project 8mm footage in large, theatrical formats, and get amazing
>>>>>> results.
>>>>>> Here are the links:
>>>>>> Before reading further please be aware that I am writing from a
>>>>>> European perspective. Hence the work with labs and facilities that are
>>>>>> not too far away.
>>>>>> Don't look at the footage for aesthetic quality. It's a purely
>>>>>> technical test. One roll is Kodak Vision 3 50D, the other Fuji Velvia
>>>>>> 50D. I used a Leicina special with a Schneider Optivaron 6-66mm/1.8 at
>>>>>> about 10mm focal length. As many of you know, it's one of the best
>>>>>> lenses ever built for this film format.
>>>>>> Exposure was measured with a lightmeter.
>>>>>> The footage was developed at AndecFilm in Berlin and scanned at
>>>>>> Ochoypico in Madrid in AppleProRes @ 10bit 4:2:2 with a bit of noise
>>>>>> reduction in post-scanning.
>>>>>> Of course the Vimeo files are quite compressed.
>>>>>> I am pretty happy with the results with the negative film. The image
>>>>>> has a very good dynamical range and is sharp. The only issue are some
>>>>>> tiny flashes, the size of dust specks. I have not yet figured out what
>>>>>> they are.
>>>>>> In my view the footage could only get better with a prime lens. I
>>>>>> projected the footage five meters wide in a film theater equipped with
>>>>>> a good Panasonic projector, and was surprised how well the image held.
>>>>>> Conversely, the reversal film suffers from the comparison. Limited
>>>>>> dynamical range, much contrast, lack of information in dark areas.
>>>>>> Also, there is more mechanical movement because I did not use a
>>>>>> pressure plate.
>>>>>> To be fair, in my limited experience, post-processing facilities seem
>>>>>> to be good either in scanning negative or reversal film, but not both.
>>>>>> I have had terrible results with negative film from a lab which is
>>>>>> excellent with reversal. Conversely, Ochoypico, in my view, excels in
>>>>>> scanning negatives.
>>>>>> I will be happy to read your reactions and critiques.
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Marco
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> “A brave flat world.”
>>>>>> marco poloni
>>>>>> usedomer strasse 8
>>>>>> d – 13355 berlin
>>>>>> gsm de +49.163.6294080
>>>>>> gsm ch +41.78.6322028
>>>>>> skype marcopoloni
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> --
>>>> “A brave flat world.”
>>>> marco poloni
>>>> usedomer strasse 8
>>>> d – 13355 berlin
>>>> gsm de +49.163.6294080
>>>> gsm ch +41.78.6322028
>>>> skype marcopoloni
>> --
>> “A brave flat world.”
>> marco poloni
>> usedomer strasse 8
>> d – 13355 berlin
>> gsm de +49.163.6294080
>> gsm ch +41.78.6322028
>> skype marcopoloni


“A brave flat world.”

marco poloni
usedomer strasse 8
d – 13355 berlin
gsm de +49.163.6294080
gsm ch +41.78.6322028
skype marcopoloni
FrameWorks mailing list

Reply via email to