A Comeback for Magazine 16mm cameras ?

[Doug Palmer]

I see that The Film Photography Project are now supplying 16mm b/w and colour film in 50ft Magazines.  I'd guess there must be many, many of these  old 16mm cameras in people's  cupboards and attics.  And although the years have probably taken their toll,   I bet a large proportion are still in useable condition.   And as the 50ft magazines were always more expensive than rolls of film on spools, it's likely they had less wear. 

The FPP is US-based.  So the costs of shipping may deter some in other countries. But it's good they are offering various film-stocks including Ektachrome.  As the film is double-perforated I guess they have re-perfed some.  They also emphasise the fact the magazines themselves can be temperamental due to their great age.  I wonder if that happens in practice?   Those  I've used have worked OK.  It was a great design.   They enabled folks who could afford it (inc our old Queen !)  as well as others on expeditions etc, to carry a compact movie camera everywhere and get quality results.

https://filmphotographystore.com/collections/movie-film/products/16mm-film-magazine-16-bundle-film-develop-scan

[Doug Palmer]

I don't know how much these cost when new.  I'd think probably much less than spool-loading cameras as they weren't as complex.  Perhaps many were bought by not so wealthy people,  and then only used once or twice a year, when the cost of film sank in.

 

[Charles MacDonald]

And if you read the fine print, most folks selling the magazines have a hefty deposit to get the magazines which have not been made for many many years to be returned to be refilled.

I understand that FFP arranged to get some unperforated film from Kodak, and had it perforated 2R by a firm in Europe.

 

[Simon Wyss]

Simplex Pockette cost $50 in 1932, that would be $1,101.59 today. (different magazine)

Filmo 121 cost $67.50 with Cooke f/3.5 in 1935, that would be $1,487.15 today.

Magazine Ciné-Kodak cost $117.50 in 1940, that would be $2,533.27 today.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[Doug Palmer]

2 hours ago, Simon Wyss said:

Simplex Pockette cost $50 in 1932, that would be $1,101.59 today. (different magazine)

Filmo 121 cost $67.50 with Cooke f/3.5 in 1935, that would be $1,487.15 today.

Magazine Ciné-Kodak cost $117.50 in 1940, that would be $2,533.27 today.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Thanks Simon !  So you'd have to be getting good earnings to afford them.  Their smallness was maybe attractive, especially for the wives ?       I guess the large 100ft loaders may have cost even more.          Regular-8 was getting nearer....

[Jon O'Brien]

The old magazine 16mm cameras look really fun, and that's a great point that a lot of them probably saw not much use at all. It would be great if the price for processing was pretty comparable with the normal daylight spool cameras. But then again the temptation to start collecting such cool little magazine cameras would be high ?

[Simon Wyss]

I have the Keystone K-56 Executive. It affords critical focusing through a loupe on a GG.

[Gary Davis]

I took the bait and shot a movie on a B&H 200T which I purchased for $25 on eBay!  I used C-Mount lenses I already had for my Bolex, and fortunately, I had exactly ONE finder lens, from another 200T I purchased that didn't run.

I am thrilled that FPP made these cameras useful again, but their service is impossibly slow: 4-6 weeks plus shipping time.  (It also took about 10 days to get the film).  The camera jammed A LOT which I was able to clear by quickly popping-open and re-closing the door.  Before my second day of shooting, I removed and reinserted the magazine and it worked a lot better.

What, if anything, will I get on the film?  Still waiting for the movie I shot in June!*  FPP says the film is developed, awaiting scanning, but they won't email you scans - return by mail only.

I already bought ANOTHER mag camera that seems to run - Kodak Cine-Royal 16 for $15.50, including a 25mm lens!  I haven't decided if I want to spend another $100-$120 on film.  This lens stops-down to F/22, which makes shooting Ektracrhome practical - I think people would have a real problem shooting ISO 100 color reversal on a sunny day in a cine camera at F/16!

For my 200T project, I decided to shoot B&W reversal ISO 50, at 16 fps.  I've never shot at 16 fps for 16 fps playback, and I'll be interested in "the look."  Of course you get more running time, almost 2 minutes from a mag.  The B&W reversal film was $20 cheaper than most other stocks, and it's projectable!

For one-roll projects, magazine film is actually cheaper than 100' rolls, simply because there's only half as much film.  (I asked FPP if they'd accept a 50' roll from my Bolex and they said "no").  As to the "magazine deposit," in the U.S. that's simply paying for the processing and scanning in advance, although it's possible they have different rules for other countries.

Again, I'm THRILLED at the idea you can make a 16mm movie for $150 total: camera, lens, film, develop, scan, and shipping four ways!  (add $20 for color).  The snail-speed and uncertainty of the process are the drawbacks,

And the cameras are literally the size of a cellphone!  At least in two dimensions... ?

--Gary

*in fairness to FPP,  I shipped the film "Priority" on June 29, so they're still well within their 4-6 week estimate.

 

[Gary Davis]

Links to my processed film at the end of this message!

I did finally get my 16mm magazine B&W reversal film back from The Film Photography Project (FPP), and if you'd like your film to look like it was developed 100 years ago, FPP can do that!  But if you're hoping for modern processing, or to get your film back in less time than it takes to sail from New York to England... and back... three times!... you may be out of luck.

Despite my reservations, since I had already purchased another 16mm magazine camera, I shot a second FPP mag - this time loaded with Ektrachrome.  I was hoping to get the second roll back before reviewing FPP, but it's been well over five weeks since they received my film, and no word yet - except for an email that they had "checked-in" my film, a full week after they received it.

FPP says they are "passionate" about film, and I believe them!  But, their passion has not led to a professional business model.  How can it take a week to log incoming mail?  How can it take 4-6-8 weeks to process and scan film?  AND HOW CAN THEY DO SUCH A HORRIBLE JOB OF PROCESSING?

It appears that in the past, FPP did "home processing" of customer's movie film, but more recently they updated their website to say that they send your film to "a trusted commercial lab" for processing.  I asked Michael at FPP if he could tell me which lab processed my B&W reversal film, so I could bring up my issues with them, but he refused, saying that was confidential information.  He also couldn't say if my film had been developed in a standard "continuous processing machine" or some other way.

Four problems with the results: the film is badly scratched, it's filthy, there's a "mottled look" or uneven development of the light/clear areas (Michael referred to this as "bleach staining"), and finally, the end of the roll is spotted as well as covered with dust and filth.

As to the scratching, Michael points out this could be the magazine or the camera (I'll add: or their double-perfing procedure).  Here's the interesting part: to the best I can tell, the magazine camera never actually touches the film (except the sprocket hole) - the focal point is inside the magazine.  FPP claims ownership of the magazines, so any way you look at it, FPP scratched the film.  And the scratches that start at the beginning of the roll, seem to get worse as the roll progresses.

I was expecting the film to be scratched, based on other samples of magazine film I've seen, and I was expecting the transfer to be "a bit dirty" because FPP never claimed to have an ultrasonic cleaner, but I wasn't prepared for HOW dirty the transfer would be, or for the uneven (mottled) development.  It's true that in the 1920s, movies seemed to have uneven development in the midtones and dark areas - I don't recall this in the light areas like I'm seeing in film FPP processed in 2023.  But I'm certain the industry fixed this problem by the 1930s, because Technicolor wouldn't have worked, if the three negatives all had different densities flickering around the picture.  I can't really explain the "spots" towards the end of the roll either - they don't specifically look like water spots - maybe dirt on rollers?

As I mentioned, Michael from FPP blamed this on "reversal" film.  As it happens, I have some 16mm B&W reversal film that I shot in High School in 1972, and scanned to HD around 2010.  I've included a link to a sample of that film for comparison.  There is simply NO mottling of the clear areas, the film isn't nearly as dirty, and surprisingly, there's not a single scratch on a film which was edited on a viewer and projected at least 15 times.  (Manual-threading projector).

In 1972, I was shooting "surplus" film and sending it to the cheapest mail-order lab.  That didn't take more than a week or two and clearly the results were fantastically better.  The FPP film looks like it was processed in a gravel pit and dried in a laundromat.

I don't know what caused the uneven highlights, but I do have a theory.  Kodak recently announced a new developer and bleach for B&W reversal processing - the bleach presumably less dangerous, and the developer enhanced to work with the new bleach.  Perhaps the lab (or kitchen or wherever FPP developed my film) used the new bleach but not the new developer.  This is just a guess - perhaps they just used chemicals which were too old.

AND DESPITE ALL THIS, I sent more money to FPP for another mag of film.  And when I sent it back, I asked if they'd please send it to the "good" lab for processing ? 

FPP has recently switched to Internet delivery of small 1080p files (at my suggestion!), and based on the paperwork they sent with the Ektachrome magazine, I was hoping to see my color movie in only 3-4 weeks.  Alas, even Michael said that was impossible, and as the weeks tick by, I can only say: shooting real 16mm movies with a $15 camera is a tantalizing project, but waiting for FPP is excruciating.

And yes, I did considering opening the magazine, putting the exposed Ektrachrome in a can and sending it to Spectra Film for processing - and even sending the magazine back to FPP as a courtesy (and perhaps they'd refund the processing/scanning fee, although I wouldn't count on it).

BUT, the purpose of this experiment was to test FPP's "closed loop" (and current monopoly) on 16mm magazine film, so I felt I had to give them another chance to see if their results with Ektrachrome might be better than the B&W reversal.  I'll provide an update when I finally get it back.

A few more notes about the film links below.  After shooting about 100 "single frames" with the B&H 200T, the camera began to jam.  I quickly learned I could "clear the jam" by popping open and closing the rear door where the magazine slides in, but the jams became more frequent.  Curiously, the camera always jammed with the shutter closed, so there are no "flash frames" - but this jamming accounts for the "jump cuts" in the first half of the film.

After shooting the first two scenes (people on the Santa Monica Pier, and people getting off the train), I tried removing and re-inserting the magazine, and this fixed the jamming problem!  But something else curious happened.  If you look at the sprocket area on the left, you'll see a "shadow" between the holes which appears rock-steady before I re-seated the magazine.  But this area is a bit jumpy after I fixed the jamming!  Also you can see a bit of "pull-down jitter" in the highlights of the subsequent train scene.  I don't find either of these problems objectionable (for a 60 year old, $25 camera) but it would have been interesting to see the results if the jamming hadn't started.  In retrospect, shooting hundreds of single frames may not have been the easiest load for an old camera.

A final note: I shot the B&W film at 16 FPS and decided to accept FPP's 16 FPS scanning - despite my concern if 16 fps was a valid rate for digital movies.  But, FPP didn't really scan the film at 16 FPS - they scanned it at 24 FPS, and printed every-other frame twice.  This is similar to the "3-2 pulldown" used to transfer 24 fps film to 30 fps video, but for several reasons, it's more disruptive.  In my opinion, the "jerky motion" this produced is slightly noticeable in playback, but just slightly, and since I was looking for a "different" look to the motion in shooting at 16 FPS, I don't find it objectionable in my film.  Especially not compared to the scratches, filth, spots, and mottling!

---Gary

First is the raw footage including sprocket areas (2 minutes), then a nice 52-second edit.  The final link shows my 1972 B&W reversal film for comparison.

comparison B&W reversal film from 1972: 

 

[Gary Davis]

Just hours after I hit "send" on the above message, and precisely 6 weeks after I shot it, I received my Ektrachrome mag back from FPP.  I'm pleased to say the developing was MUCH BETTER, and I'm very happy with how the film turned out!

I had this roll scanned at 24 FPS and honestly it moves too fast, whatever speed the camera was actually running at, so I'm going to slow it down and edit it before I share it here... just two stills for now.

An interesting factor of the Kodak Cine Royal Magazine (16mm) camera is that it fully-exposes the area between the left sprocket holes, making an "Ultra-16"-type project possible.  As you can see below, you can actually get a native aspect ratio of 2:1 !!  The problem is, the picture is not particularly sharp (it looks better in motion), and it would be difficult to "frame" your images, although with the zoom viewfinder on the Kodak, it might be possible.

You can make a very wide, somewhat blurry movie on a very cheap camera with very expensive film!

However, since this movie is actually about tall buildings, I won't be doing that here.

Now, I said the processing was almost perfect, but as with my B&W roll, the film was dirtier at the beginning and end of the roll, than in the middle.  If this is soft dirt, it may not matter as I plan to get the film properly cleaned and rescanned at FILM-TECH.  And as it happens, I'm not using my first or last take anyway so it works out okay.

BUT, I was wondering how long the usable length of the film really is: a 100' daylight spool has about 105' usable feet if you unload it in the dark.

The magazine loses about 1 1/2 feet through its internal threading, but you'd expect FPP to give you extra film to account for that.  They don't.  The TOTAL length of my processed film (based on time) was 48 1/2 feet.

The beginning and end weren't ruined, by any means, just a bit dirty; while the center of the roll was, thankfully, spotless!  About 5 feet at the beginning of the roll and 2 feet at the end had some dirt.  So in all, I got at least 41 feet of clean film - 1 minute 8 seconds at 24 fps!

Did I mention - not a scratch at all!  So they question of how/why my B&W project became so scratched, remains a mystery.  (it was a different camera, probably a different magazine and possibly a different lab).

Finally I'll say: the exposure on ISO 100 Ektrachrome at F/22, 24 FPS on a sunny day, was absolutely perfect (which is why I shot this film at 24 FPS instead of 16 FPS like I used for the ISO 40 B&W).  So I really would NOT recommend shooting Ektrachrome at F/16 or 16 FPS, unless you have a cloudy day or an ND filter!

--Gary

 

[Simon Wyss]

It’s a pity that so many players don’t understand the thing about film lengths.

Everyone needs additional footage for threading up a camera. After initial cemented-on paper leaders the raw stock manufacturers changed to the simpler solution of more stock for the purpose. So a 400-foot portion measures something between 406 and 415 feet. The manufacturers give different amounts. Verne and Sylvia Carlson published numbers in their PROFESSIONAL CAMERAMAN’S HANDBOOK for Agfa-Gevaert, Fujifilm, Eastman-Kodak, and Ilford.

The unwritten base of a fruitful cooperation between cinematographers and those who process motion-picture film is the nominal length. It should be respected by both parties, that is no more than 4000 frames exposed on a 100-ft. roll. It takes that little discipline to stop shooting when the counter reaches the mark. The lab people should respect the nominal length as well. A few additional frames on both ends left intact, then spacer added. If the exposed length exceeds the nominal length, we have an ever-increasing affair. I don’t know the right expression in English.

Michael Raso should be aware of these intricacies and take care that you can expose 2000 frames with a 50-foot magazine. By the way, there are a number of 50-ft. spool cameras for 16-mm. film.

[Frank Wylie]

The film lab needs to splice your film to the processing leader and you give yourself added protection by NOT shooting important footage at the very start or tail of a roll or magazine for that fact and others.

Film is most susceptible to damage and injury at the head and tails of a roll.

The few extra feet you "waste" are not really waste, but insurance from damage.

[Gary Davis]

I got the Ektrachrome back in the mail on Monday, a mere 46 days after I mailed it in (and so quickly, only because the Post Office did an uncharacteristically fast job on "Ground Advantage").

I'll offer both the raw version with the sprocket area, and a nice 68 second edit below.

I've left in the first take of the "title" only to show the lab dirt.  I agree that it's great to skip the first and last few feet of the roll, but that's a lot easier to do on a 400' roll which has extra feet, than a 50' roll which doesn't!   Anyway, Michael at FPP said to just run off a few frames at the head of the roll, and it's really difficult to tell when the magazine is over.  The 16mm magazine has the footage counter built-into the magazine, which is sortof a cool idea, except I found it nearly impossible to read even with a magnifying glass and a flashlight!  (And of course, I don't like the idea of shining a light directly on my film to read the counter... although this seems to be harmless).  And because the film is inside a metal magazine inside a metal camera, it doesn't make much of a sound when it rolls-out.

But I am generally happy with the results!

--Gary

The full roll and sprockets:

A nice 68-second edit:

 

[Frank Wylie]

" It's true that in the 1920s, movies seemed to have uneven development in the midtones and dark areas ..."

*SIGH*

No. 

The copies you watch may have this issue, but it is most certainly due to poor storage, copying or any number of factors that impact a 100+ year old film screened today.

I can assure you, having handled hundreds of original negatives from that period and earlier, the quality of the images from that time period were equal or superior to anything made today.

Film was considered a disposable medium; perishable due to it's subject matter like a newspaper.  There was no ancillary markets to monetize other than 2nd and 3rd run theaters and the "junk men" of distribution who ran the prints until the sprockets burst.  Many camera original negatives were chopped-up and the silver reclaimed because there was no future perceived value of the content, therefore battered prints are the only surviving elements today.

Only a very small percentage of the entire output of motion pictures from 1897 to the end of the Silent Era survive as camera original negatives. Of that small percentage, only a small percentage of those are in very good condition, but the ones that remain in good condition are usually stunning in their clarity and detail.

I can't tell you how many times I have timed an original from the 'teens or 'twenties for a screening, only to have some member of the audience insist the print was "digitally mastered", despite me telling them to their faces it came straight from the original negative.

Were there poorly produced and processed films of that era?  Of course, but by in large what you see today as poor production values were introduced in the intervening years by poor storage or handling.

I don't mean to single you out or embarrass you with this information, but it's something I see and hear on a daily basis online and in person that makes me cringe.

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Frank Wylie

[Gary Davis]

So your point is - the lab FPP is using for B&W reversal film is worse than any lab ever?

[Eric Eader]

Doug,

In the 1955 released film, 'Summertime' directed by David Lean, photographed by Jack Hildyard, starring Katharine Hepburn and Rossano Brazzi,  Miss Hepburn uses what appears to be a Bell and Howell AutoMaster 16mm magazine camera for almost all of the first hour of the story, taking it with her to film everything she sees.  She even makes a magazine change 2:22 into the movie while on the train, and for all the world gives a good impression/simulation of being a knowledgeable photographer,  winding after every shot, rotating lens changes, and making aperture adjustments/setting distance etc.

If she didn't know anything about using a movie camera before, she certainly could not have had a better coach than Mr. Hildyard, could she?  And, she made it look easy.

 

[Gary Davis]

Interesting!  I understand that the late Queen also enjoyed the format... and I'll bet it didn't take her 6 weeks to get her film processed!

[Mark Dunn]

11 hours ago, Gary Davis said:

Interesting!  I understand that the late Queen also enjoyed the format... and I'll bet it didn't take her 6 weeks to get her film processed!

Well if she used Kodachrome, I expect the film at least went to Box 14 in a limo..........or Kodak collected it.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Mark Dunn

[Erik Emerson]

Back in the late 80s / early 90s as a student at UF I used to use these 50' Kodak mags in N-6 type GSAP gun cameras for skydiving.  Got a simple jig from the late Jesse Chambless to spool off roughly 50ft onto the little plastic cores, then I'd just load the mags myself.  Eventually I added a 2nd "hole" into the jig so I could spool off 100ft darkroom loads for my N-9 mag.  The N-9 was a completely different gun camera system than the GSAP.

Anyhow the 50ft Kodak mags aren't all that hard to load.  Just gotta be sure the "ratchet" mechanism on the pressure plate isn't busted off.  In a manner of speaking it acts as a sort of reg pin.  The claw in some magazine cameras fully disengages the perf before travelling back up for the next frame.  But in others, for instance the Bell & Howell Type N-6, the claw is basically a wedge....camera only moves it up and down, and it engages the perf via spring pressure.  If the "ratchet" bit on the pressure plate is busted off, the claw on this type of camera will move the film upward in the gate during exposure.

So if you've got some empty Kodak mags and some spare gun camera type cores, it's a plausible idea to load / download them yourself, have 'em developed at Spectrum and have the lab hold onto your cores.  They'll do Ultra-16 for a small upcharge.

It should be noted that the Kodak mags are mostly pretty simple pressed metal.  It's not the precise machining you'd find in an Arri or Aaton or Photo-Sonics magazine.  To my eye, some of them are just gonna scratch.

The reason I say "to my eye" rather than "in my experience" is because I only have experience using two labs for film shot those types of magazines -- the long since closed Jernigan's Motion Picture and Video Service in Gainesville FL, and Continental in Miami.  Jernigan did my Plus-X and Tri-X Reversal.  And guess what?  Film was often scratched, had uneven density, had intermittent bleach spots and veins, and frequently had dirt & dust at the head & tail.  I didn't know any better at the time.  Now while that would be appalling for a modern lab to put out, I kinda wish I'd taken advantage of it back then....would've been great for music videos.  Maybe the drifting density and bleach spots are something b&w reversal film is more prone to than neg?

Earl Jernigan's lab was left over from when tv news segments and UF football games were shot on film.  I learned quite a bit from Earl in my formative years about how motion picture labs function.  As an aside, I didn't know at the time that Earl was Tom Petty's uncle.  Found that out shortly before graduating.  It was pretty cool decades later when I was working with Tom on the Runnin Down a Dream documentary being able to share stories with him about ol' Earl.  Dude was genuinely and pleasantly surprised when I dropped his uncle's name!

All that said, I imagine that at some point next year I'll pick up some 2R film at FPP if I can't source it locally.  Likely develop and maybe even scan at Spectrum, particularly cuz FPP's turnaround time seems more for hobbyists than pros.