Erkan Umut

Hi Folks!

Does anyone have the instruction manual of Silma 8S macro zoom camera?

Scans will be highly appreciated.

Best

Erkan

Dear Members,

I am a Prof. of Cinematography, and desperately need help.

I am looking for a member whose has engineering knowledge and/or is interested in the subject.

I have a 6-page Chinese (S) engineering document (in .doc or .pdf) related to the 35mm movie projector framing device specifically.

Can anyone help me?

Your help will be highly appreciated!

Best,

Erkan

OMG, it's so nice to hear from Charlie again!!!

The lamp is 6V 10W.

A photo tutorial will be posted soon...

Dear Bengt,

I wish I had one.

What I need is an instruction manual for my document collection.

Best,

Erkan

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pathe-Electronic-Duolight-DS8-and-16mm-Service-Manual-/400346559320

Thank you Mark!

Its a service manual.

I am looking for the instruction manual of PATHE ELECTRONIC DUOLIGHT in any language.

Thank you very much for your attention!

Hi, Erkan. When you say "share" do you mean scans of the catalog or the original printed catalog? Glenn

Hi Glenn!

Absolutely scans of the catalog.

Many thanks!

Erkan

Hi Folks,

Does anybody have the following catalog to share?

Many thanks for all your efforts!

This is the working link for the Cinema Products CP-16R Operations and Maintenance Manual:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/82962359/Cinema-Products-CP-16R-Operations-and-Maintenance-Manual

Enjoy!

By the way, some of us warned about this before: Our subject and purpose of this post are for a new-born Super 8 camera. Why do we jump to other formats and cameras? :D ;)

You can modify the gate of a regular 16mm camera for Ultra 16, which is a lot less than the cost of a brand new camera. There are a lot of these cameras around and possibly the only thing wrong with some is they just need new/refurbished electronics.

Exactly Brian, so correct!

Guys, please don't understand me wrong, but will we want to go back to the end 1800's and the beginning to 1900's?

More sophisticated cameras do need a group of engineers, technicians, etc., as well as more complex manufacturing facilities. Don't be dreaming so much! Even you want to copy them! History tells everything...

Some cameras accept replaceable 2-perf. movements by native design, not all. But some houses offer the custom-built movements to the non-replaceable cameras.

But the ARRI cameras having the 2-perf. mounted, due to low torque, may cause jams in the magazines except AATON specially built for it.

Its definitely not a new approach. The exactly same format called TechniScope, designed by Italians, was available on the market in the 60s and 70s.

sure but guys ..come on ... try to understand what i am saying ....

 

sure , there must be some SRIII in good shape or Aaton minima... but

first , those video assist are truly terrible ( mostly ntsc and black and white )

second they are heavily used (10+ years ...)

 

i go to ebay from time to time and everything that is no SRIII ( meaning SR or SRII) feels incredibly used and as said above video assist is bad ...

 

in here i was trying to feed the idea to get a Krasnogorsk-3 ( http://www.k3camera.com ) but with LESSE concept (battery, Crystal sync, hd color video assist and audio ) ...

 

 

Well looks like no one wants it ...so they probably won't consider it ... (i am a bit amazed actually how so many have jumped in to say NO! ... , i still think you have no point because a Krasnogorsk-3 but with LESSE concept does not exist ...

 

 

anyway

Never worked with an SR-3 having a bad video assist and B&W before... Maybe you point out the SRIIs having the VAFE made by PHILIPS. 10 years are nothing for those workhorses just after a general overhaul.

Then your source should be not eBay with cheap priced offerings thrown away from rental houses. Try other dependable sources such as Visual Products, Inc. in the States, or pay more on eBay for individually used equipment...

Forget about to take your time and spend your money with a K-3, even you cannot thread film automatically without frills. Thou its steadiness is not so bad, I and Mr. Kenneth Richter (designer of the RICHTER Auto-collimators and small EMP 16mm helmet cameras, won a Technical Oscar) had checked the steadiness at my home in Istanbul in 1991. When you hit the camera somewhere, you gonna loose its TTL exposure meter system instantly...

I don't think there'd be a market, there's so much cheap used super 16 gear available and those cameras have a life of over 20 years, if not longer.

I agree with Brian completely!

For Super 8, a sophisticated camera well described before, it is a need.

But for Super16 and 35mm, there are a lot of 2nd hand sophisticated cameras already on the market.

Indeed. I find the aperture ring way too friction-less though when used on another camera... is there any trick to make its movement a bit more smooth?

Once I have tested it: Leaving a lens in cold helps, causing to force the internal grease viscosity gets solidified. But not a proper solution...

By the way, interestingly, I never faced with that problem, a lens behaves different when used in different camera mounts in same type...

In my opinion there are a few that are very good for film use like the one mentioned the Computar 12.5 - 75 TV zoom, I have this lens, it's available new and it’s a very fast lens and does produce sharp images, I have used it for 16mm and Super 16 not Super 8, the non zoom Cosmicar/Pentax 16mm and 25mm lenses are also very good for both Super 8 and Super 16. The best CCTV zoom lens for Super 8 I found is the Pentax 8-48 which is also available new.

By the way, I am the admin of the popular ECLAIR 16MM COMMUNITY @ http://eclair16.com.

We have been discussed these lenses among the followers a lot of time. They have got good results when the correct lenses are used.

Yes, PENTAX and Cosmicar offer good manual lenses as far as I know. I don't like the new manual lenses with the locking mechanisms on the lens barrels...

 

Thank you for bringing this one up Erkan, I had been contemplating it for some time. Seems they are still available new from one source. I can live with a twiddly smooth aperture but when you say the results were "not bad", how do you mean it specifically? Not bad in comparison to other TV lenses? or compared to the Fujinon 1.8 / 7.5-75mm? or to other cine specific C mounts generally? If I'm reading it to mean not bad in your experience, it would be a good bet, but asking just making sure... :)

You are welcome by all means!

I should check the film I've shot again just to be more specific and correct, but I have no Telecine possibility at home to share with you unfortunately, and I do not want to transfer it to digital using my projector thou my ELMO is one of the good models.

In any case, it may be not correct to compare it with the TV Zooms. I never try to compare it with Kern lenses, etc. of course. But its OK for its price, and available as brand new. Also, its made in Japan from a good company at least. Worth to try...

Certainly, keep away from the lenses Friedemann told before. But this lens and similar are different than those. Let me check my literature as I have almost all the documentation form serious manufacturers.

What I know exactly is I've tested several times for the back focus on the eclair ACL II and FUJICA ZC1000 C-mounts for its clearance to the mirrors. Everything is proper and perfect. Good built quality.

Hope this helps for now.

computar CCTV lens, made in Japan - C-mount - f/1:1.2-16 plus Closed, F=12.5-75mm (very reasonable priced, Cons for filmaking: a little smoother aperture friction than I used to)

I had used it on a FUJICA ZC1000 New once, the results were not bad...

It's too dark vor 50 ASA most of these days... Anyway, I plan to shoot some cartridges on the weekend (all three kinds of Vision), then send them to Andec and afterwards to Scanning. Stay tuned.

 

(I so wish I had José Luis' Indi&Cold Models here...)

Come to Istanbul we gonna have clear days following. I'll show you the best viewpoints... :) Otherwise I'll use my Nikon :) :)

I've been away for about a week or so and so much has happened in that time. What a great talk. It's taken me hours to read through all the posts.

 

Great to read Friedmann's detailed knowledge on Super8 transport.

 

I'm not sure that Chabatt's counter-arguments (based on stories from old film magazines) act as a good counter-argument. Such magazines might be proof of something, but proof of what? That early Super8 filmmakers were happy with the design of the Super8 cart? I'm sure they were. But that doesn't really mean anything. I'm sure the filmmakers building the first 35mm cameras, with a hand winder were very happy with their results. But that doesn't mean the camera couldn't be improved. I mean I was very happy with the VHS camera I was using back in the day. Doesn't mean I wasn't then suitably impressed when S-VHS came out.

 

To say something is "good enough" (or whatever other compliment one can muster) does not mean that something else can't be done to make it a little better.

 

Friedmann is right. Many have been calling for an improved Super8 camera for a very long time. I don't offer any proof here, but it's there to be found in a search of film forums. But the call is from a different kind of filmmaker than those represented in the old consumer magazines. Many of the filmmakers targeted in those magazines were those who didn't really care about the deep details. They wanted something easy to use, for home movies. But Super8 was also adopted by those familiar with 35mm and 16mm, and it was these film-makers (not the original target market for Super8) that would start to argue for a better Super8 design.

 

My favourite post over the last few weeks is from Matt Stevens:

 

"Great information. This continues to give me a woody"

 

Me too.

 

C

We had been missed you Carl! Welcome again our optics expert!

Last night, I made some observations using four S8 gates, molded plastic/machined metal plates, 60X magnifier, and electrical micro contact sensors. The results were so clear: The people, who advocate the need of a pressure plate/pad are so right! There is no any contact between the plate rails and film back absolutely. And I am ashamed!

The obsessive passion with the almost all branches of motion picture technology and reading a lot of rare documents in the field for nearly 30 years made me blind and tired. If I were an engineer, would be a very bad one, hopefully I am not, but a technologist. :)

Read carefully, Tom, once again. Read carefully! There are two people behind this camera.

 

...

 

Boy, it again smells so incredibly troll-ish here.

Dear Friedemann,

Please don't throw these words.

People may think that "It also smells that you are the third person or guaranteed a free camera"...

Dear Lasse,

Also you mention: "if the playback speed varied that would be noticable only as "lip sync" problematic - you wouldt be able to tell if it was running too slow or too fast (unless we are talking many fps difference)".

Small format sync difference could be more understandable due to the slower speed than larger formats!

Film transport speeds, mm/sec. @ 24fps: 456 for 35mm film, 182,98 for 16mm, and 101,5 for Super 8/Single-8.

Dear Lasse,

I was busy with my toys including several camera gates with various heat treatments and finishing quality, also one of them adjustable lateral guides (you mentioned as side stabilizer), as well as a 60X magnifier. :)

You mention:

A ) It was a cost adder hence less money in their pockets

B ) They didn't think the consumer's had the brains to figure it out (loading is no longer trivial)

C ) Perhaps they didn't have the skills to engineer it in the first place

Probably, you are not serious, or angry for some reason. Anyway,

"Eastman Kodak's head designer team: Jasper S. Chandler, the father of the system and the 1974 presented 200-foot sound film cartridge; Evan E. Edwards and Lloyd Sugden, the two fathers of the cartridge.

Evan A. Edwards and Lloyd Sugden had the responsibility for cartridge design.

Edwards was a specialist in molded parts, having worked on the Instamatic 126 cartridge (1963), the Pocket Instamatic 110 cartridge (1972), and held numerous patents on injection molding, molded products, and injection molding machines.

Another major consideration in designing the new cartridge was to achieve absolutely smooth transit of the entire 50-foot length of film through the cartridge, essential for steadiness of the film image. To study the dynamics of the film transit, Edward’s group constructed a “dynamometer camera.” This ingenious device continuously measured and recorded the force required to move each frame through the film gate. The pull-down claw, just a quarter-inch thick, was equipped with a strain gauge. Thus force/displacement graphs could be plotted over a wide range of temperatures and humidity levels.

The final cartridge design was an assembly of six injection-molded parts, each of different composition depending on their function, and one phosphor bronze spring, bearing on the pressure plate, all manufactured to extremely close tolerances. To avoid the film plane positioning inaccuracies to which previous magazine designs were subject, the new cartridge had a spring-loaded pressure plate behind the film. When the cartridge was inserted in the camera, that plate pushed the film into the camera’s film gate where three locator studs arrested the pressure plate and film in precise position relative to the optical system.

Large scale testing of the cameras and cartridges was considered imperative. While cartridges were tested at Kodak Park, the Apparatus Division made over 100 trial cameras that were given to employees to test on weekends. Over 300,000 cartridges and 15 million feet of film were tested before the system was released to the public".

1) Single-8's pressure plate was designed for more rewinding possibility, not for steadiness!
2) Super 8 design killed the Regular 8 having the metal pressure plates!

Note: Dr. Arthur Cox, the father of Photographic Optics Science (his successor is Sidney F. Ray nowadays), was the head of designing of the optical components of the Bell & Howell Super 8 cameras.

Do you believe your A, B and C?

Thank you for your time and patience!

Best,

Erkan

I don't want to be off-the-topic, but I believe the pressure plate and the others are somewhat related to the topic, and gained popularity in the recent posts.

I wonder that why didn't the engineers add a pressure plate provision for Kodak's cartridge (although it is called pressure plate by engineers, pad is the same jargon), and other following manufacturers? Why did the pressure plate become available so late for the Super 8 cartridge for a long time? Why did many finest camera manufacturers leave the cartridge faith alone? Forget Kodak, what about the giant Bell & Howell Manufacturing Co.?

Because of the polyester base is thinner? Because of the Single-8 cartridge needs it and the cameras should utilize it for this reason?

By the way, this is very interesting statement: "... Super 8's plastic pressure plate could be molded with far smaller tolerance than Single 8's metal version could be machined." on Wikipedia

And we see the plate does not contact fully on film in camera designs for other formats to minimize the surface stress and friction, according to my belief...