Simon Wyss

bend

I have seen Angénieux lenses bearing that ring, Wollensak, and TTH. For your consideration, the Comat is a dialytic four-glass design, the Super Comat has five elements. In a way, big and heavy lenses contradict the Filmo-8 concept.

Oh, no, that lens lacks an intermediary ring from a special thread* to the 134 turret thread. RMS is metric and Taylor, Taylor & Hobson or the American manufacturer wouldn’t use metric threads. Comat and Super Comat lenses are Cookes which leaves me a bit at loss about the Made in U. S. A. It is a normal lens for 8mm film cameras. May have been Wollensak to sub-treat this. _______________________ * 95/128" or 18,85 mm, 40 t. p. i., 60 degrees flank angle

If you have a jam with polyester film in the camera, it’s not the film. The perforators at Kodak cannot help but cut hole rows as precisely as within half a thou in two directions, hole after hole. If your camera is well adjusted and correctly lubricated, it will transport film at any frame rate. You must bent something to provoke a failure. So everything is fine.

Some confusion. The density of a grey film base can only be of concern when you want to use a behind-the-film reflex finder. Zeiss-Ikon Movikon 16 is a camera having that feature. The photographic coating lies always next to the aperture plate, no difference among film stocks. The last film that was used emulsion back was Kodacolor film which was discontinued in 1935. You should avoid to run the camera at high speeds without film.

The adapter D-mount to 134-Turret is Elgeet nr. 384, like here. Elgeet 386 lets you use C-mount lenses with clip-on Eights. Elgeet 389 serves to put C-mount lenses on a 134 T.

The best thing you can do to a spiral spring is to repeatedly wind it and let it down. Use it. A steel spring is not expensive to make, the problem I have as camera repairer is to find people who still do that. I have one spring maker 170 km from my place. He splits sheet, winds and hardens strips of any size. Most movie camera springs are good, some are excellent, some are not good. The worst I’ve encountered was an original one of an aslant Zeiss-Ikon Movikon 8. Victor 3-4-5 have good springs.

I am always willing to help but I do not support Super-8. It’s a throw-away plastic project from the sixties. The Eastman-Kodak Co. has made many hundred millions net with it. We have been waiting for four years now on an announced new Super-8 camera from Kodak. It is a different company, that is clear. The heritage, though, can’t be changed. Super-8 cameras are plastic graves, almost all of them. Owners almost never want to pay for repairs that involve the remaking of broken or deteriorated parts. We have no spare parts except what is torn from other cameras.

Most probably the reason why the camera has changed possession. It may have gotten a blow that dislocated a mask. These were often glued in. A piece of foam rubber can obstruct the view. If it doesn’t have to be Super-8 for your filming experiences, I’d recommend Double-Super 8 and the older 8mm format. There you have plenty of gear as well but mechanically better and also better in terms of serviceability. What a word! The preciser you ask the better we can help. Got a budget?

I take them for a service, PM please. Happy new year!

A former client of mine has had a setup to film off a computer monitor with some success. He had a Double-Super 8 camera specially adapted. His goal was to take whole movies from DVD to Super-8.

Have just seen a photo of a black plastic microfilm spool 16mm Fomapan R was supplied on. The person had a camera jam due to the spool seizing. Those microfilm spools are too wide around the centre. I can only dissuade from putting such a load in your camera, it should be sent back with the notice that the spool is not conform to ISO 1019. Bad development of things, I must say. https://www.filmvorfuehrer.de/topic/30933-achtung-fomapan-tageslichtspule/?tab=comments#comment-325148

It will be four years next month. Any new news anywhere?

I find this the most incomprehensible topic of modern cinematography. The camera has a reflex finder system but it is not used to determine focus points. It is fully clear to me that one person can’t frame and pull focus perfectly all the time, so an assistant takes care of quick or also elongated focus adjustments. But measuring tape when you can accurately focus on a GG and set marks from there? In the dark, in dim light, filtered, no question, then focusing by the finder can become very difficult, sometimes impossible. Still, with a professional mirror shutter reflex camera I’d rather rely on what I see than fumble around with sagging tape, even oblique as put up by OP. And I know what too long focusing is, have had it as a producer when a camerawoman gave us the curtain behind the interviewed person sharp, the face soft. At ten feet. We had one take. She had an Arriflex 16 SR on tripod. Every cameraperson ought to be able to master that. I don’t understand it. Was the invention of the reflex finder in vain? Camerapeople all weak-sighted? Measuring tape was already unnecessary with the rackover systems of Bell & Howell (1912) and Mitchell (1917). 😶