Simon Wyss

Colour temperature matching wasn’t a subject when Angénieux designed lenses. At the time the R 2 was computed still about half of the production was black and white. If you have the 18,5 mm in ARRI mount, you’d perhaps want to add an S 41, 25 mm, and an S 5, quite rare. Do you have a Kodak Reflex Special?

Are you going to ask a question?

The Xenoplan 6,5 mm is a machine vision lens, isn’t it?

Right you are. I was exaggerating from a couple of Schneider of which I’m not certain whether they were still in original state or not. Two Wollensak Cine Raptar 25-1.5 I also had to free from oily mist on the glass and sticky grease on the iris.

Traditionally it is reckoned with five grams of silver per square metre. That corresponds to oz. 0.17637 per 10.764 sq. ft.

would have, not would of. Please.

From experience with Schneider lenses I tend to assume grease or oil parts of grease have crept down an element. It only takes a well warm summer day. A quote based on photos is no serious offer.

I wish everybody a happy new year! ?️

Very good idea! Lab stocks aren’t manufactured to a reproducable exposure index, they’re just made, so the batches vary somewhat in speed. Labs then bracket in on a given batch. You can assume ISO 8 to 10. Trial and error will tell.

Yes, image negative (internegative) and sound negative are brought into contact with print film raw stock, light shone through. On a sound or combined printer which has the corresponding heads that happens in one pass. The exposed film gets afterwards developed and there is your married print.

Björn seems to be right, for a data acquisiton camera by Maurer.

For £ 708 you can have a reliable 16-mm. camera fully serviced. USSR products are cheap and full of pitfalls. In case of interest, contact me. I shall make an offer for a standard Paillard-Bolex H-16 that gives you a lot of freedom and possibilities.

Kind of 1930-1940s look― Angénieux founded his enterprise in 1935 and had no zoom lens until 1956. Doesn’t fit. Kinetal was a lens line for 16-mm. film with ARRI mount in 1959, doesn’t fit either. Things changed drastically from the thirties to the fourties, colour came in, reflex finder systems were introduced, magnetic sound recording began to be used, glass coating was being applied, the retrofocal lens concept got introduced (for Technicolor), the drama took hold rather than the lighter-hearted pre-war script. You mix up history without knowing. If you want to have a, say, 1940 image, just technically spoken, you work at ISO 50 or 20, a panchromatic stock. Kodachrome had 10 ASA, Kodachrome A(rtificial Light) 16. Non-bloomed lenses, for 16-mm. Taylor-Hobson, Dallmeyer, Meyer, Zeiss, Goerz, Ilex, Kodak, Wollensak, Berthiot. Lesser known makes were Leitz, Graf, Ross, Gundlach, Laack. Cameras would be Bell & Howell Filmo 70, Facine, RCA, Victor, Paillard-Bolex, Ciné-Kodak Special. What was available in 1940 but is no more today: step contact printing with labs, a well established duplication practice, titlers, hot splicers, carbon-arc projection (Strong Junior for example), variable density sound tracks, film clubs. What is it you meant with vintage???

The hand crank doesn’t wind the spring (motor). The long screwed-on and folding wind crank does. I have the impression that the clutch is not engaged, its lever being turned between 0 and MOT.

The run length is constant, given by a gear mechanism. Without that the spring could be wound completely on itself with the danger of tearing it off the hook inside the barrel and unwound until laying on itself outwards. I have used an H-16 the stops removed, the spring pulls just shy of the double frame number, i. e. around 54 seconds at speed 24. Please acknowledge that the speed numbers on that black dial aren’t very precise references, one is best advised to set speed by running full lengths with film while observing a stop watch. First you determine the number of frames pulled through on the counter. It varies a little among examples but remains the same with one camera.

I have seen an ebayer asking $2,700 for a ruined Bolex H 16 Reflex.

Having just ended a complete overhaul of a 1960 P.-B. H-16 Reflex-2 I’d like to state that it’s like night and day compared to before. It takes a little more than some oil for a consistent 27 seconds run (the intended 650 frames), the main spring’s pretension may have to be increased after 60 years or so, but above all the entire gear train should be freed from old grease and correctly lubricated. The governor wants to run lubed in the bearings, drum and brake pads clean. In this case the finder was rather dirty, it now is bright and neat again. In one respect I can return a camera in better shape than it was when sold the first time, it’s a mechanical detail I have learnt to improve. Pailard was a bit careless in two or three places. The frame counter friction for instance can be abolished and replaced by a coupling clip. I find the braking action of that friction unnecessary. On the other hand the spool spindles must have enough pull, only the appropriate treatment of the wire coils will bring that. If a very steady run on a spiral spring is wanted, nothing beats a Bell & Howell Filmo 70 with high-speed governor.

Soft sealant isn’t bad per se, it can be read as a good sign actually because somebody may have taken care of the mechanism. Dry hard original mastic seal tells of decades of no service. I use an acetic-acid base sealant that dries within a day or two. It becomes rubbery soft and dull in appearance. If someone proofs the main plate to the shell, nothing should be smeared around in the film compartment. It’s part of the job to wipe that clean. Last year I have prepared some organic sealant from Greek mastic, turpentine, and soot but it got too thin. Need to buy some more mastic.

If the film had been exposed through the back, sharpness would have lost. I think Aapo has it quite right.

I motivate myself, and I do almost exclusively technical things, by going on walks with a dog, not mine, but its people are glad to have the snout off for an hour or two from time to time. I hunt Google to research subjects that interest me. I watch the clouds.

Yeah. We have to reckon with innocent people at work today. The knowledge around film is getting lost more and more. That the uppermost can of a pile ought to be stacked is one such detail. Those who have an eye for things recognise bottom and top then. The 1200-ft. cans are an option.

In the future have the lab ship 1200 feet in 2000-ft. metal cans and fill the space around the film with cores. Make sure they lock the cans with fresh textile tape. Better still is to avoid 1200-ft. lengths. I have dealt with all sizes of 35-mm. film from 100 to 2000 feet. As a projectionist I know about damage to prints. Cardboard is allowed for snippets and such in a cutting room, never with transports. A pizza is nothing else than a week’s review, you know, kitchen leavings thrown together on some dough, a culinary strafer. Film people should not eat pizze. That’s the plural of pizza. Funnily enough, pizza means also film container in Italian.

Perhaps now, if I tell you that a depth of field calculus is hollow as well without connection to the real world. The very base is the resolution or better resolving power of the eyes. CoC are so-to-say a cheap way around the problem or a shortcut to make an optician’s life easier. S/he just puts a thou diameter in his reckoning, done. Imagine an executive officer with an optical company to rule that lenses be calculated with this or that CoC. Relieves work a lot and there you have the reason why lenses with very high resolving power such as used in circuits photoprinting are expensive. Cine camera lenses are expensive due to fancy mechanics, chauvinism, and a market of shrinking size. To make myself fully understandable, the medium is the worldly termination of theory and calculation. A processed film holds the images as a silver wool suspended in gelatine or as dye clouds in several layers of gelatine. Object edges have been degraded to image patterns. A sensor breaks them down to a raster, the well-known stairs instead of continuous lines. You see, circles of confusion have no value on this plain. Another example is the most subjective judging one makes on the image seen on a ground glass. Light is scattered into a multitude of small shining spots at various angles. When you observe an image on a smooth glass plate you have breathed upon you have refractions in tiny water droplets. Not much comes close to the vision we have by our rods and cones. The retina is the gauge.

A circle of confusion was used as a base for calculation in lens design. You’re transferring it to viewing conditions in a cinema theatre. That’s what is not correct. My main objection, however, is that you omit the medium. Purely abstract values are quite senseless. The eye must be included, correct, and what it sees. There is always a medium, an image carrier, if you want so, film or a pixel screen. Changes everything.

A smudgy ground lens and probably a little dull mirror, too