Simon Wyss

The lightest and the loudest 16-mm. camera. Spring winding crank sits directly in the spring arbor. You should have 25 seconds run on a wind at speed 24. Film guidance at gate rather mediocre The light loss at the reflex finder pellicle is only 8 percent. The shutter opening angle is 170 degrees. Claw leaves film at the +3 position. Do have the camera checked by a technician, if you want to use it in earnest. Flange-focal distance is often off. Maximum lens thread length is 4 mm or 0.157".

The cardioid cam is the fastest moving part. It should be so lubricated that the oily part of grease (which is a matrix that holds oil) or oil is drawn in between the surfaces gliding one over the other. A soft grease can work well but it tends to be pushed away from where it ought to be. Oil has the tendency to leave its work place all the time. The slightly porous fibre material can hold some oil, be it only little. If we look at the early Paillard-Bolex H cameras that have a similar cardioid cam made from steel revolving in a steel frame, we understand that something viscous needs to creep over the parts in order to upkeep a film of oil. The lubrication concepts of film motion-picture cameras differ quite among the many makes. The one question you want to answer is simply, how heavy is the duty I demand.

You’re so right. Why still the idiotic cartridge with that floating film transport concept? Can’t understand it. Also, that they didn’t finish the reflex system by an ocular is beyond common sense. The electric display in addition, then it could fly. The moment you’re tightening the fastening screw of a tripod the camera becomes a flimsy hybrid, not apt for anything. I judge brutally and stand by it. Do I trust the face plate with the lens mount thread and the body, if I want to put a heavier or longer lens on? I don’t. How can I focus really accurately? I can’t. Microprisms, split screen, rangefinder, ground glass? Why not Double-Super-8? All Super-8 film Kodak makes is existing as DS-8 for a moment, namely after perforating. A 50-ft. spool loading camera would have been something, still relatively compact and not so weighy but 50 feet available uninterrupted, a generous gate for good technical sharpness as well as image steadiness. I mean, $5495 . . . The shaky images Kodak is now showing can be had with an M2 from 1965. That one is more compact and lightweight. Same cartridge. I don’t see any progress besides two crystal controlled speeds and free setting of exposure index.

Spur der Steine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alvTj1fWOIk

As much as I know the first 25 mm Baltar appeared in 1939. The yellow-dot version came in 1942, the purple-dot version from 1945 on. Super Baltar 1961

Thank you, shouldn’t have imagined that TTH publish wrong information. Bien que nos renseignements soient faux , nous ne les garantissons pas. Although our informations are false we do not guarantee them. Erik Satie

18 mm wasn’t available before 1945. https://www.fdtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Cooke-Book-2013-FDTimes.pdf

I am not interested in Super-8. The only thing that’s stung me is handcrafted somebody wrote in an E-Mail I got.

Walter Frentz is holding the first 35-mm. camera with a built-in electric motor made by Hans Hodres, Munich.

At the risk of repeating myself I’d suggest, if I found an ear with Kodak, to make little sensitive panchromatic fine-grain stocks, a negative and a reversal one, for all small-gauge cine formats. ISO 12 to 20 or 25, colourless triacetate, an antihalo undercoat. It could mean to revive the entire basic small-gauge market the way it had grown up since a hundred years ago. There have been beautiful films made by Du Pont, Agfa, Ansco, and Eastman-Kodak to stick to America. I think the colour film market is well furnished although an ISO 40 Ektachrome could be very interesting.

ISO 3645 has it all. The camera aperture image dimensions are 0.166" or 4,22 mm height and 0.224" or 5,69 mm width. The maximum projectable image area is 0.158" or 4,01 mm height and 0.215" or 5,46 mm width. The screen is three parts high and four parts wide.

Typo, David intended to write 1.34:1.

Negative Man by Cathy Joritz comes to mind.

The Bell & Howell Color Screen Attachment accessory of 1927 is placed in front of the lens of the Filmo 57 projector. It allows to swivel any of four filters of the hues pink, amber, green, and blue into the light beam at will. It was meant to enhance the moods of black-and-white film scenes.

Am finding that good steadiness. Sharpness is also good.

No adapter can bring the lens closer to the film plane of a C-mount camera. Elgeet’s wide-angle lenses for film movie cameras all have compatible thread lengths. This post-Elgeet Navitar simply isn’t made for your Paillard-Bolex H-16 REX-3. If I can give advice, invest the little money you have in something more valuable for you, a tripod for example or an overhaul of the camera.

Do not use microfilm spools. Some film manufacturers pack stocks on such, unfortunately. They are often too high.

That won’t work unless you shoot macro. The lens needs to be seated against the turret for Infinity in focus. You can screw that lens on a Paillard-Bolex H-16 M. There you have a long mounting thread but no reflex view system. What is it you are finding fascinating about the particular Navitar? It’s a machine vision lens, isn’t it?

The “Academy” camera aperture, if you want so, has the dimensions 0.864" by 0.630" as given by ISO 2906, in force since 1984. It was 0.868" by 0.631" in 1932. I have the impression that you don’t want to understand that the cinema image is outlined by the screen or blinds in front of it. Projector aperture masks serve to cut out a fitting area with a margin of about a palm or less in the plane of the screen. Camera exposure apertures do not determine the aspect ratio unconditionally. They are very often a little wider or higher than the exact 1:1.XXX. And again, no reason to attach little value to the normal image. It has not been invalidated up to this day. I use integers because they leave no room for mistakes. Just the other day somebody cited a technical specification I have given on the lens mount thread of the Meopta Admira 16 electric model A. So many people act so fast and cursorily today, mark-copy-paste incomplete. There stood M 25 × 0,7 on a forum. Wrong. The early mount is M 25 × 0,75. To say nothing of all the ignorants who designate the C-mount thread as M25 or something the like. The M is misplaced, 25 is wrong, and if it were the regular M 25 the pitch would be wrong, too. A space belongs between the M and the figure but that is also not seen. About Super-16 I have expressed myself clearly. Yes, most of the pioneers used aspects different from the 1907/09 standard. Le Prince even had square pictures. Until 1909 Gaumont sold prints with the frame line between a pair of perforation holes. I know the technics of the early cinema rather well.

Yes, and can we please stop using expressions like 1.37? The regular or normal screen aspect ratio is 4:3. The AMPAS camera aperture has an aspect ratio of around 11:8 or 1.375:1. Only a maximum projectable image area on 35 mm motion-picture film is defined by ISO 2907. The projector apertures should be adapted to the screen while accounting for angles and distorted borders by them. The aspect ratio is still 1:1.333. Open gate, full gate, full frame, and the like are all hogwash. We have the silent 4:3 normal image and the 4:3 normal image with (a) sound track(s). Super 35 is also rubbish, there is nothing super to it. Edison, for those interested in history, took part at the Paris congress of international film producers in 1907 where the dimensions of camera and projector apertures were agreed upon. One more time: the normal cinema image is 4:3, still today. It is also in use with the substandard gauges 9.5 mm, 16 mm, 8 mm, and Super-8/Single-8. Television was 4:3 until it got changed to 16:9. CINERAMA, CinemaScope, VistaVision, Todd-AO, Superscope, Technirama, IMAX are special formats. So is Super-16, a blow-up system from 16 mm originals to 35 mm prints of AR 5:3 or 1:1,666. I have something against the digital electronics world disregarding the optics of the photochemical-mechanical cinema.

Leave the grooved fastening ring alone. You can turn the lens relative to its thread by pulling it away from the camera while threaded in, not fully up. There is a spring ring built in.

The Aspheron needs to be screwed in all the way. Make sure the threads are not damaged and clean.

Vinten Scientific: 2-r. Sonoflex Tolana: ? Pentaflex 16: 1-r. Pathé BTL II: 1-r. Nord Professional: ? Morton Soundmaster: 1-r. Maurer 16: 2-r. Debrie CX: 1-r. Ciné-Kodak Special: 2-r., centering film guidance for Kodacolor

Some more 200-ft. (mag loading) cameras Vinten Scientific Sonoflex Tolana Pentaflex 16 Pathé BTL II Nord Professional Morton Soundmaster Maurer 16 Debrie CX Ciné-Kodak Special

We are experiencing the change-over from one era to the next. New generations grow up that don’t have an idea of the 20th century and times before, can’t have. An Arriflex 16 is a relatively simple camera compared to a Zeiss-Ikon Movikon 16, a Facine or a Paillard-Bolex H. But, here comes the big but, its mechanical main group, the claw and register pin control assembly, is demanding. Just like with a discussion momentarily going on at the filmvorführer forum about this very subject I must declare some opinions based on pure illusions. Even as a trained mechanician I did learn a few things when I worked on an Arriflex 16 for the first time. As a sidenote, I write Arriflex 16 without any adjunct because that is its name like ARRIFLEX is the Arnold & Richter designation of the 35-mm. camera they presented in 1937. As I have shown in an article four years ago the control cams stem from a particular sewing machine concept from 1877! Only short-lived success can be had by pouring in oil or smearing grease into places somehow. Where the sewing machine mechanism is capsuled allowing continuous oiling, this mechanism, which is run more slowly, can function greased. But the grease has to be where it’s needed and that only the technician familiar with everything knows. I must keep up a separation between laypersons and initiated. The profession of the mechanic cannot be compromised. Everybody can do to a film motion-picture camera what she/he likes, yet not everyone can bring a jammed or stuttering mechanical camera back to a useful state. Have the darned camera serviced by a goddamned insider.