Simon Wyss

August 1930 introduction of model DA, you had the choice between one and two sides. From around 1933 on one side only. Not possible to answer

My painful experience laid down in an article, https://www.filmvorfuehrer.de/topic/17051-darf-ich-vorstellen-path/ If you have someone add dowel pins to the front, you can sleep quietly. That is indispensable but then still the mechanism is tricky to adjust. When the gears were new everything was fine. Today you may encounter worn teeth that degrade the value drastically. There are better 16mm film cameras.

Of course. Processor mag leak unlikely Film manufacture incident is also a possibility. The soft, not sharp edges of the light flares as visible in the YT video point away from camera. Static discharges make rather distinct marks mostly, not so probable either, and the OP states he had similar flares in warmer climate. Could be an operator with torch light at perforator.

Not necessarily. I have earnt my living as a developer with two labs for years and can disclose that smaller portions are usually assembled to larger rolls at a rewind table in the dark. Things can happen there, from static discharge flashes when cranking fast to a cell phone lighting up or a lighter being sparked―no, that was in the older days when operators even smoked cigarettes over celluloid. Really. One has to develop a sense for lab people.

To my eye nothing in camera but rather a lab issue. The film also looks dirty in one place where flashes occur.

Fresh raw stock or respooled film?

Vague double question See that the spring is tensioned, mechanism STOP. Now the shutter shuts all light from the lens port, you can swap lenses safely. With an EBM model the mechanism comes to an undefined halt. An EL always stops shutter closed.

Have a look. https://archive.org/details/TNM_Kodak_Reflex_Special_Camera_16mm_20170801_0307/page/n7/mode/2up

The Arriflex 16 St is a not so good camera in several points. One is the hidden pull springs to the film side guide leaf, a user-unfriendly construction. One is the primitive fixation of the sprocket-rollers guide arm. One is the not existing enclosure of the mechanism or its openness to the motor port. All sorts of debris, dust, and snow can fly in there, if you’re not cautious enough. Another weakness is the error with the metric counter, it’s 7 % off. The imperial counter is accurate. I could enumerate more details. A 16mm camera somewhat underrated is the Kodak Reflex Special. Kept in

Thank you, Tyler. It’s a tiring fad but each generation has them. We had long hair, platforms, and Super-8.

Yeah, it’s the same design. TTH’s Monital line were lenses by SOPELEM, the fusion of OPL and Berthiot in 1964. Through all the lenses I have become acquainted with some favouritism has gotten hold of me, especially when it’s about diaphragms. A Pan-Cinor 150 I had here lately excels as a lens that has a rugged diaphragm. Its smaller siblings for 16-mm. and 8-mm. film yet have such crown leaves. Berthiot had begun with that already in 1935.

If it’s of any value, here’s a read about similar diaphragm leaves with Wollensak. http://forum.mflenses.com/c-mount-wollensak-raptar-6-inch-f-4-5-cine-telephoto-lens-t75457,highlight,%2Bwollensak.html

Interesting. My way would be to punch out the crowns in order to install solid pivot rivets. Have never done that because I would need a die for the repeated precise alignment of the blades plus fitting rivets. No client pays for that.

Same idea here, someone had a go at it. The switchgear can become puzzled, if the knob screw has been loosened. That switch should flip around very easily. Service!

These elder Cooke lenses have more than two threaded tubes in them, I know the system. You may want to call https://cinevisuals.com/cine-lens-service-repair/.