Simon Wyss

The optics, by the way, are that of the 1924 Perlynx of Hermagis. Berthiot bought Hermagis in 1934 and continued the dialytic four-elements design as Cinor B, later as Lytar. Thanks to the additional strongly positive rearmost element to a triplet the field is flat and evenly illuminated. In short, a good lens for a decent price

It’s the ISO II M 38; pitch 0,5 mm. You’ll never measure the major diameter of an internal thread with home instruments. What you can measure is the minor diameter which should be between 37,459 mm and 37,599 mm.

As most of you know I am into mechanical cameras. I have an evergrowing list of abandoned ciné cameras. Ikonoskop A-Cam DS-8, never built, 2007 Arriflex DS-8, 1967, fourteen examples built Optikotechna OP 8, Double Eight, prototype, 1939 Heurtier Zoom Reflex 8, Double Eight, prototype, 1963 Cine-Nikon 8, Double Eight, prototypes, 1955 Carena 8, Double Eight, turret for three lenses, prototype 1958/59 Bilora Cine Bella, Double Eight, prototype, 1958 Беларусь (Belarus), Belomo, similar to Bauer 88, predecessor to later LOMO cameras, prototype, 1959 Bauer 88 DRS, Double Eight, prototype, ? Optikotechna OP 16, prototype, ? Leitz Schmalfilm-Kino 16-8, never built, 1937? Eclair KMT, André Coutant, 16 mm, both prototypes vanished, 1960 Bell & Howell Filmo, 17.5 mm film, crank, 1917 Leitz, 35 mm, magazine for 130 meters, allegedly 1911 Buckingham Silent, Henry Laurie Buckingham, Mordialloc, Victoria, Australia, 1976. https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/87409-a-tiny-2-perf-camera-what-you-think/ ARRI Valencia; 3-perf. film advance, mirror shutter, speed up to 250 fps, prototype, 2008? Howell-Dubray Economic Wide 46 mm, Spectacular Wide 52 mm, Extreme Wide 61,3 mm, 1930 Le Prince, paper strips 1¾“ wide (44,45 mm), strip advanced from lower to upper spool, variable shutter (at standstill), twin lenses, allegedly two examples, one survives with the Science Museum, 1888

So sheet film isn’t professional stock? Now you can laugh at me.

Of course I can’t, there’s none on the boxes. It wasn’t the film anyway.

I’d rather look at film images from Ukraine made with a spring driven Eyemo, even a few days later, than what’s delivered today along the electronic chain. One cameraperson who can keep the camera on a tripod, a monopod, placed on something, and who can set focus. Today we haven’t even lip-synch reports on the telly, from TV stations where there should be technicians. It’s not about fake news, it’s nothing useful at all.

The spring is prone to jump off its arbor. USSR didn’t care for a hook proper. Repair job

Squeeze films into the internet? That, of course, demands some sort of garlic press for them.

No, I don’t. RTM is only a cloak, the company which holds that brand is Mulann. https://trademarks.justia.com/880/48/recordingthemasters-88048226.html

Because the takeover took place in January 2015.

Again wrong. In Créteil Pyral has sold Pyrolac recording disc blanks from 1926 to 1951. The enterprise goes back to the poudrerie du moulin blanc in the Costour valley, which was founded in 1876. From around 1950 on European film production moved from optical sound to magnetic recording. That was a chance for the company. Later move to Avranches. The Film Processing Corporation of Mountain City, Tennessee, got wound down in 2014 by Kodak. ATR in York, Pennsylvania, manufactures magnetic recording tapes. Basically, they could also make magnetic film. Their PET foil is 0,036 mm or 0.001417" thin.

In view of wide images we should perhaps ban vertical videos. Superscope was 1:2 out of the regular full frame under the squeeze factor of 1.5. Often copied for home wide screen images from 16mm and 8mm film.

Another killer sentence of a non-informed. https://www.recordingthemasters.com/perforated-audio-tape/?v=1ee0bf89c5d1

16mm sound projectors can be had for $50 today. Why scan film? No, the correct answer is: projectors were made by the tens of thousands.