Simon Wyss

Eastman-Kodak introduced their first panchromatic film in 1925. At that time the asymmetric Taylor-Hobson Cooke Opic lens was already in existence. Its six-elements Double-Gaussian design became the father of all modern systems such as the soon following Baltar by Bausch & Lomb. With six elements the optician can flatten the field, take care of even illumination, correct for almost every aberration, and make sure the entire spectrum of light colours hits the film in one plane. Kinoptik managed to design six-glass apochromats with new sorts of glass. Full spectrum colour correction is not possible with three elements but from four on you can have very good results. An example of that type is the dialytic TTH Cooke Ivotal of f/1.4. The limitations were with the glass, if you don’t mind accepting that Joseph Petzval had only two sorts of glass to work with in 1840. Kodak employed a 1950 Petzval design with the Escort 8 camera of 1964. The Bausch & Lomb Animar 26 mm, f/1.9 is a also a modern Petzval lens. In still photography, especially for reprographic and close-up work, symmetric designs were common. They’re relatively cheap but perform well. Again Eastman-Kodak, the f/1.9 anastigmat for Kodacolor is a symmetric dialytic four-glass lens that can still give stunning pictures. Wollensak and Elgeet have adopted it. When Kodachrome was underway in 1934-35 the optical industry was already aware of new possibilities with the inverted telephoto or retrofocal arrangement. That had come into being for the TC three-strip beam splitting camera. The wide-angle explosion came when those patents elapsed after WW II.

Rare opportunity to remind filmers of and point out to aspiring ones the focusing finders of various cameras. They go back to the rackover system of the Bell & Howell Standard camera which offers a magnified view of the image on a ground glass. Eyemo 71-CA and younger spyder turret models afford it besides Cinex, Eclair, Parvo, Mitchell, and others. 16-mm. cameras with a precision finder are the Standard Paillard-Bolex H, the ETM-P, Bell & Howell Filmo 70-D and younger, Keystone K-56, Fearless, Mitchell, Maurer, Nord, Victor 3-4-5, Auricon 600, and 1200. There are also Double-Eight cameras that allow precise focusing of a lens as well as framing for static shots in conjunction with a rackover accessory: Bell & Howell Filmo Eight T, Paillard-Bolex H-8, Cinekon Eight, Sankyo 8-R/RT, Zeiss-Ikon Movikon 8 aslant, Pentacon AK 8, Specto 88, Arco CR-8, Arco Eight 803 A, Canon 8-T, Bauer 8 und 88 with the aid of inlay prism, prisms usable in many more cameras Here’s a view of the rear of the front of Paillard-Bolex H-9, nr. 8000. Top right is the prism with a frosted face behind the upper lens position in the front we frame and focus on. The prism face lies in a plane with the film’s surface. No flicker, no offence to the lens in taking position, in fact we can adjust a lens while we’re exposing through the other. Can be useful with observations, documentary work, whatnot, of course on sticks. Almost forgot to mention that Daniel Colland of Color Films Archives is going to convert fresh Kodak 5294 into Ektachrome 100 Daylight in 9.5 mm. Information, order form, and bank relation on request

It’s Kodak 3242. Grainless

You have understood that the quantity of light the film receives is compound of the luminous flux and time. While the opening angle of a rotary disc shutter determines exposure time at a given speed of the mechanism it will be the actual construction of the camera and the state it’s in lubrication-wise that make for how fast everything moves. An electric motor also takes time to accelerate. With some cameras the start is very fast, with others slower. You simply cannot calculate nor know unless you bracket exposure or measure revolving rates of your camera with the aid of special equipment. I should advise to take an exposure time prolonged by the factor 1.5 for a beginning, so 1/23th of a second instead of 1/34th for 170 degrees shutter angle.

Different opinion here, about technique. Had you had a contact print made the highlights and the fine shades of bright could have come out. When scanned the grey base of the negative covers these portions. Content is beautiful.

Maybe Foma Bohemia

No, the point about film speed with home movie making was coarseness or finesse of grain.

The sidefinder is accurate enough for general shooting. Do look for an eye-level finder tube with ocular, it will give you a magnified view of the frosted front of the prism that sits behind the upper turret port. A little patience and perseverence For more exacting work a rackover support is used that looks like this: If you have one, let a technician adjust camera and support to each other. From then on you will be able to frame and focus until an object touches the lens (extension tubes). An advantage of the rackover system is that nothing interferes with the optical path meaning you can use almost every C-mount lens there is. You didn’t tell the focal lengths of those lenses. The classical set would include a moderate wide angle, 15 mm, a normal lens of 25 mm, and a double or triple normal focal length tele lens, thus 50 mm or 75 mm (0.7"/1 inch/3 inches). I’d advise that you have the camera and the lenses serviced before use, too. That’ll cost money but defects will be revealed and possibly remedied. Perhaps the mainspring has become tired. That depends on whether the spring had been left wound up for a long time or not. Your model is over 65 years old. I can tell something about the state of the spring within a minute when I have the camera in my hands.

I have the Keystone K-56 Executive. It affords critical focusing through a loupe on a GG.

Simplex Pockette cost $50 in 1932, that would be $1,101.59 today. (different magazine) Filmo 121 cost $67.50 with Cooke f/3.5 in 1935, that would be $1,487.15 today. Magazine Ciné-Kodak cost $117.50 in 1940, that would be $2,533.27 today. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclair_(company) I see a first model Eclair ACL with two magazines, a 200-ft. one attached, as sold after 1973. Angénieux zoom lens

Yes, AR is the abbreviation of Anti-Reflex (treated). About the frontal thread I’m not sure. M 40 × 0,5 it could be. Kern had made aluminium screw-on caps with their name embossed but anything with the fitting thread will do.

It’s a 1943 triplet but of a design different from the f/2.8. You probably have a non-coated one, Kern had begun to bloom glass elements in 1944 and that only partially at first. The 2.8 came in 1949. To clean do remove all hard debris with compressed air or a rubber bulb. With a clean microfibre cloth take off loose particles lightly, apply air one more time, then turn cloth over, wipe with the finger in cloth a bit harder, always in circles from center towards rim. To finish off, wipe over with a soft hair brush such as those that women buy in the make-up department. To use liquids I do not recommend because you might affect the matt paint in front of the first element, smear it on the glass. That would be annoying.

Eyemo takes film on H spools, H for hundred foot. Kodak Technical Pan was available as 150-ft. loads. On so-called maximum capacity spools that have a core diameter of ¾ inch and an OD of 3.74 inches or 95 mm you can wind 185 foot of a stock not thicker than 0,12 mm (0.00473"). That gives full two minutes at speed 24 plus ample leader for threading. Just throw your jacket over the feed spool until film is laced up.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/352144908944?hash=item51fd78e290:g:cQEAAOSwGwFchJyh&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA4IZ6DVfLdjXAri%2FSdxleBv1fet07J%2FDyIEvwng%2Ffi84nBJOZXgHjq4lc7NoL2SqTx5140a0kwYi851VNlpC3p4TXoTzdhyHWFKjNMyGbUKyWIcBgSACg6jZVvPvhO6O8%2BREZumzVxv%2B7GuyTg9qyTSx7iV9HhZZ5vVEcfMYU78CnNnngClytsN0VCkCr468ngt2SXEeYeqtZ8azzPwe7aUeFwuAAOhyiFRQqu%2BCxQUN%2FypD8PRwgbyUAjrDDz0HRUzbMGmCLFwzOq6dbfmTTWBrt6Vw3X53MSFKEjncGDSKz|tkp%3ABk9SR6raudrxYQ

Looks like Arriflex

IF it is a lab stock, it won’t have any anti-halo layer, neither an undercoat nor a black backing. Exposure needs to be spot-on, else one has flare, halos. If it’s really a lab film to be ENC-2 processed, it has an EI of around ISO 20. ISO 1 suggests something different such as a display film for large graphics, shop windows, and the like. Fujiclear maybe. That stock has a dye backing.

I don’t agree with everything you write, for instance I find many parts that are, quite startlingly, of better quality than what was common with the Zeiss-Ikon/Pentacon stills cameras. A lot of problems occured during manufacture of the Contax, Praktiflex and other models well into the late 1950s. Not so with the AK 16. One freedom that camerapeople got with it is left or right eye at the ocular because it is located behind the camera body (not exactly centered, though). It was only in 1973 that a first (western) 16-mm. camera afforded a swing-over viewfinder system for left or right eye view. On an Eclair Camerette 35-16 (1950) the finder tube can be pulled out to allow for left eye sighting. Not good is the use of velvet pads near the film loops. Those are already rather tight and then a braking action from the velvets never helped a trouble-free transport. The magazines or cassettes on the other hand are geared, there are no wire springs or belts. But, one of a number of buts, eleven steel gears per mag. plus a ratchet on every spool spindle make noise. Another freedom of the design is for larger mags. Basically, any magazine size can be made and put on, up to 1200 ft. There were eight film manufacturers behind the iron curtain, Agfa-Orwo, East Germany; Foton, Poland; Fotochema (Foma Bohemia), Czech Rep.; Forte, Hungary; Fotokemika (Efka/Efke), Croatia; Azomureș, Romania; Svema, Ukraine; Tasma, Tatarstan. Foton and Forte made amateur lengths only, the other plants up to 1000 ft. Of course was it not at all easy to procure every raw stock in all these countries. The heydays seem to have been late 60s, early 70s.

If the claw is misaligned or damaged or there’s sticky grease to it, the film section between the loops doesn’t get transported correctly. I can take care of your camera.

I spend a lot of time doing research on film motion-picture equipment and how it was developed. From the Pentacon AK 16 I have abhorred a long time, it appeared ugly to my eye, not well balanced between small magazines and a large body. Now that a client had sent me one I have to deal with it and guess what I found during the past two weeks alone: like other cameras this one simply popped up in 1952, all of a sudden it was there, precisely thirty years after the first model of the Zeiss-Ikon Movikon 16. To help understand what I’m laying out awkwardly let me point to the Movikon K 16. That desing tells clearly: Kodak was not far away. America wasn’t that far away. Pentacon was formed in 1952 as the successor to Zeiss-Ikon. While taking measurements of the FFD that lie around 44,1 mm I read that the Praktiflex SL stills camera has the FFD of 44 mm. A number of 50 mm Biotar (besides Schneider and other lenses) that fit the Praktiflex were already around, so perhaps that had led to the AK 16 specification. Fascinating I find a correlation of mount diameter and flange focal distance. With the Bell & Howell Eyemo it’s 1.5 inches. Here we have 45 mm H 9 vs. not 44,45 mm which would correspond to 1.75 inches but a little less. Now the oil bores. I find them so large and so numerous that I picture Dresden just didn’t grasp the opportunity the designer had given. Felt torches could easily be plugged into the holes, pressed in by small leaf springs screwed down in the vicinity, and fed by felt lines in wire coils. A neat oiling system could be installed that would make the camera a very robust thing. Mitchell had oil wickets on the shafts of the moving register pins that leave a whiff of oil on the steel all the time. Accordingly a very narrow fit can be made. Pentacon’s fits are less tight. In only one place 0,01 mm play is admitted, the runout of the mirror shutter. There are some surprising specialties in these cameras, for example a rigid film canal. No active lateral film guidance. I measure 16,02 mm width on the specimen here. Then the anomaly of the position of the transport claw relative to the aperture. A variable shutter in addition to the mirrored shutter which rather appeals the amateur than pros. In the professional realm fades and dissolves are generally introduced in postproduction by the lab. All in all I have the impression of purchased design, adapted to assembly by only partially trained persons (as a mechanic I see not so well made pinned fittings), and the decision in favour of the turret version where a single lens port model can easily be had. A fresh narrow front and two flat sides.

Tough times for me. Although having explained exactly why and how FRC gears are in use everybody tries to evade the fact and rather bring other ideas. If one studies the oiling system of the Pentaflex 16 one will understand that oil will run along shafts to eventually reach gears. It is well made, oil is being pulled up by the movement of the teeth one over the other. The only drawback is that oil can’t be applied without removal of the RH side cover. There’s no difference of cost in the making of metal and FRC gears, you need a milling device, a controlled movement of the work, and a controlled movement of the tool. With a Steenbeck editor the same, the composite gears should be oiled, not dripping wet, just a bare minimum. Once or twice a year a few drops of a sewing machine oil, wiped over with the finger. Make sure no oil comes in contact with a belt. V belts, by the way, like a tender rubbing with talcum. Yes, all mechanical devices need maintenance. Door locks, water taps, typewriters, cinema projectors, a Merrow.

I must clarify. The Pentacon AK 16 alias Pentaflex 16 is a Bell & Howell design through and through. It has a precursor at least one patent period older. FRC gears are used in such cameras as the Paillard-Bolex H (1935), Miller B De Luxe (9.5 mm, 1938), Revere 88 (1940), and many more. The material needs to be oily, else it’s worn down in short time and that is exactly the reason for the damage you encountered. Had it been oily the teeth would less likely have broken away.

It’s not Bakelite. I praise your inititative. Technically you miss the point that cog wheels made from fibre-reinforced composite can hold some oil and so keep the gear train lubricated. You are so right about people who force things.

Macro work is generally done with focal lengths a little longer than normal. With wide-angle lenses you may find yourself in trouble lighting the object, you have so little room to bring in frontal and front-side light. If that is not a problem, fine. I think you will need an accurate focusing aid such as a microprism array or a split-image screen with the camera. That narrows the choice. There are some smallish Super-8 cameras with built-in macro facility, for example the Bolex 350 macro compact s that attaches well to supports. Closest distance I cannot tell at the moment. The 350 has just aerial view sadly.

Have found the register of this camera too long. Bell & Howell’s specification is 1.5 inches plus or minus 0.0005. That is 38,1 mm but my measurements revealed 38,4 mm. The camera was sold that way! So we machined 0,3 mm down to have 38,09 mm now, aperture plate screwed on. The head of the underlying release anchor trip nut screw I had to grind shorter as well. Remaining problem is only to find lenses that have an [A] or [B] mount. They weren’t marked as such, only from model 71-C on the mount barrels were engraved with a C. The difference lies solely in the rotational orientation of the cameras’ guide prong and thus the position of the index mark. Additionally, nothing younger than 1939 will fit a 71-A, -B or -C.