Simon Wyss

Robert, somebody has to tell you, the video is plain awful. Why not spend a little money on a professional scan? Victor’s career is an interesting story, the more I appreciate that you care for an Ultra. An f/3.5 lens is most probably a triplet. I don’t know who furnished the camera optics to Victor. Possible are Wollensak, Graf, Bausch & Lomb, ILEX, Goerz American, Gundlach, Dallmeyer, Steinheil, Meyer, Wray. I’d say Wollensak.

Moritone of C. T. M., from 1930 on Intercine, Milano, Italy, was another brand. https://www.filmlabs.org/docs/MoviolaMagnasyncCatalog E-181.pdf

The brands I know are Wilhelm Steenbeck, Germany Union, Germany Lytax, Germany TOBIS-Klangfilm, Germany KEM, Germany Pentacon, Germany Schmid, Germany Arnold & Richter, Germany Prevost, Italy Oude Delft, Netherlands Atlas, France Muray, France Moritone, France Kägi, Switzerland There were additives to the Moviola for the three essential sound carriers just like on a flatbed editor. You have one gang for (original) dialogue, one for effects, and one for music. So the complete machine affords four strips of perforated material running parallel. The Moviola thus gets larger to the LH side. There were different arrangements for two images for example, accompanied by one or two sounds. The many rollers serve to give the sound carriers tension over the magnetic heads and to align all bands foremost on the LH side for becoming marked.

Now that you’ve discovered my thread at MF let me copy-paste what stands there: The two groups on the right I am not able to disassemble, the left one is heavily lacquered and the right one has an inner tube crimp-locked. I should have to bend it back inwards which I dislike. Perhaps you want to go further than me.

As you’re asking, way more common in Europe. We have only very few Moviola editors. Having worked at Steenbeck tables for years I can point out these advantages: film can be handled from core to core on plates, the weight of a roll is taken off the film itself, one has the perfect overview of what is content and what isn’t, especially with the audio bands (dialogue, effects, music) when using spacer of a different colour than the magnetic stock has, the revolving prism optical arrangement allows for high speeds in moving the strips forth and back, one has space on the table to pile up rolls and tools Inconvenient are the sheer size of flatbet machines, Prevost from Italy were the largest, immense, monstrous, and the weight. A Moviola is so much easier to move around and to move oneself around it.

I have here ISO 5768, 1981 edition. In it is stated 12,52 mm.

I can tell by the photo that the aperture is not wide enough. Is it according to ISO 5768?

Call me a relic, call me what you will; say I’m old-fashioned, say I’m over the hill The Arriflex 16 is a professional camera because it has a true mirror shutter reflex finder, a registration pin as close to the optical axis as is possible, and accepts various drive units from crank gear to pressurised air to crystal-controlled electric motors. And magazines. There are a few technical weaknesses to it, for example the inaccurate meter counter. It cost around 15,000 Deutsche Mark in its time. I also find about a grand appropriate today. The Paillard-Bolex H-16 is an amateur camera. A PL-mount or the Bolex bayonet doesn’t change that. Lateral film guidance is the wrong way round, aperture plates are often not plane-parallel, the aperture itself can be a little askew relative to the plate, the sprocket rollers’ geometry corresponds to full pitch perforated film, short pitch or shrunken stock tends to climb on the teeth (therefore the loop restorer), the double-prism reflex finder introduces astigmatism and blur, if not answered by special RX lenses and or lenses stopped down to f/3.3 or more. A new camera had cost around 5,000 Swiss Francs. An H body alone is not worth more than $400 nowadays. A rarer model such as an H-16 S-4 can fetch up to $600. Everything else is rip-off.

Yes. Who takes responsibility today for her his doing? You can’t trust anybody anymore. I know what can go wrong at a film lab, I had one myself. The stock is ORWO N 74 because that’s the only ISO 400 panchromatic negative film available in 16 now.

That’s a misconception. The printing heads are farther apart. The correct picture-sound displacement is achieved by a corresponding lace-up of image and sound negatives.

Design 70 cameras and magazines are interchangeable. Same goes for the 35-mm. magazines between models 2709 and 71.

Method Califorcia?

Really good work. I think you nailed it entirely. It’s now about either finding a replacement plunger or making a new one/have one made that is long enough. MTE may have spare parts.

Thanks for the photos Now I see that this was a -R turret the teeth turned off. The earlier turret is a piece of sheet steel drawn or pressed to the form, lacquered over. (the R stands for Revolver, in German; another Bell & Howell secret that puzzles me; K stands for Kassette, also in German, meaning film magazine; I continuously do research on the company and its products; it has perhaps to do with Bruno Stechbart, a Polish-German immigrant and B. & H. assignor) My English is not as precise as I wish it were. If I can put it like that: let the release plunger roll over a smooth flat surface such as a pane of glass or a measuring stone. That way you can detect hickups, bumps, nicks. This is a chromium plated brass part, if I remember correctly, so it’s wise to smoothen it out non-abrasively. The shaft of a screwdriver can be used or a pin driver’s. Work it over the burr in order to form the metals back to shape. Check, repeat until satisfactory. The bore in the camera frame can also be ironed out a little, the combination of both sides should give the desired result. As already said, less (to one side) is often more. Work to the main frame should be done away from the innards. —— Right, everything should be removed from it. 🤪

You have that bolt in a leaf spring with tongue. The tongue falls into recesses of the turret for RUN, if I remember correctly. This group should function faultlessly, may need cleaning and a little grease.

The Wollensak Cine-Raptar ½ in., f/1.5, from 1953 has eleven elements in seven groups. It had cost $99.68. https://alphaxbetax.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/1953-wollensak-masterpiece-cine-raptar-lens-selector.pdf

No. In case everything is adjusted correctly and functions properly the open loop formers are out of the way of the automatically threaded film. You can, of course, provoke scratches by lacing the film by hand, making one loop or both too wide or too tight. There are people who force the lid on the housing against the resistance of the loop former lever pointing downwards and or a/the film guide/s around the sprocket rollers open. With the spring-loaded guides and automatic opening loop formers from serial nr. 178471 on that problem went away until the introduction of the film guides retaining fork of the magazine models. Guides and formers must be unbent, adjusted, free from bruises. Older examples tend to have the chromium plating flaking off the loop formers. I can only recommend to follow the instructions Paillard gave, with one exception. The film’s head is better cut to the form of an arrow precisely the way Paillard discouraged to do. Automatic threading then always works faultlessly. Most built-in cutters are blunt anyway. A pair of scissors in the camera case is worth gold, especially for polyester-base film.

Congratulation 🏅 Good black-and-white photographs!

The assumption is correct. The stop hook is a passive connecting part, it stands close to but free of a recess in the main group on one side, in the groove of the release button on the other. Spring force turns the main group and thereby pushes on the hook at a certain point. That helps the release button up. As Robert says it’s not wrong to clean everything but I do not lubricate the release buttons. Less is sometimes more.

Thanks for this, wasn’t aware of the information with Magnatech Series became shorter after Percy was president, Bell & Howell was on the decline. Logically the models got compartmentalised, discerned by small differences, and four or five digits numbers were practical. No comparison to the thirties, when Filmo and Eyemo were sold in tens of thousands. Would you be interested in a stabilising base? I plan to make a saddle that gives the camera rigidity on a support in all three axes.

I’m impressed. Isn’t it a 70-KR? Not sure about all the Bell & Howell nomenclature, the serial number is preceded by a K, so perhaps a pointer

White sewing machine oil, household oil, bicycle oil, anything that flows. No grease. You have steel on steel with the fastest moving parts, grease would only be pushed aside. Oil sparingly.

I should say the same about the filter piece. Previous owner was obviously not fond of glass filters on each lens. Throw it away. The shutter has a bent-up rim that runs in a circular groove. You have to make sure nothing rubs anywhere. Shutter blade is aluminium, lacquered black. You can clean the entire group in a solvent to have a blank shutter, then work on it. For removal undo the two slotted flat head screws and the two guide posts. The main group (shutter and cams) must spin easily and fast on its shaft. If you retract the group, you have access to the central shaft which is bored through so that a drop of oil given in at the front center can run to the group. You might perhaps drown the front in a solvent as well to free the bores, if clogged. Small interdental brushes help. There may be a thin washer under the shutter group. Bigger issue is the damaged cam. I should disassemble until I have the main group free so that I can go dress the cam with a cotter pin driver and hammer. Gentle work on hard wood or a block of steel Finally fresh lacquer sprayed onto shutter blade, enclose gear with tape.

See cinetinker, Filmo is similar to Eyemo, although not identical. https://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2013/06/inside-bell-howell-eyemo.html

Yeah, relax, I’m here. Let me just lay out how a functional Filmo 70 or Eyemo 71 behaves. From that you can draw your conclusion. A winding key or crank, have a look at your key to see the ratchet, goes directly into the spring core, a part to which the inner end of the mainspring is connected. The outer end is attached to a bolt that sits between main frame and main plate, its left end can be seen in the upper LH corner. To the LH end of the spring core is attached the upper stop gear. Now if you’d wind the spring and let got the key, it would swoop back at once until the stop given by those gears. In order to hold the energy you are giving in a sling-on spring acts on the spring core or arbor. In one direction it opens lightly, you can turn, in the other direction it clings firmly, the spring is held. The mechanism is driven by the first gear of the train on the spring core, halted by an arm that you push out of the way when pressing the release button. The arm is located in the front. It catches the main group which consists of the claw cams and the shutter. When you depress the release button and remove your finger slowly it will stay down. By depressing again and lifting quickly the release comes up. The release button locked down a normal Filmo 70 can be turned by hand with a crank in the according bushing, under the spring bulge and a little to the front on the RH outside. One turn of the crank moves 20 frames in either direction. When you turn backwards you are winding the mainspring through the aforementioned sling clutch. Turning forward is possible unlimited through the mentioned slipping clutch. So you can add an electric motor and just let it drive the mechanism and with it the film as much as you desire, the clutch simply slips along. Your example may have alterations done to it that we don’t know until the mechanism is removed. Please be careful, if you dismantle, there may be a spiral spring present. Excuse me, was absent with mind about the release. You have the push in-pull out release button lock.