Bill Munns

I'm trying to compile a list of the common and popular 16mm magazine type cameras of the 50's and 60's. These are the ones I've identified so far: Kodak Cine Cine Royal (I'm excluding the model B and model K as they seem to date back to the 30's or so) Keystone K-50 single lens K-50 twin turret (clockwork) set-up K-56 twin lens (but the un-used lens has a weird sort of viewing glass pointing straight up) Three lens turret model, not sure of the model number Revere Model 16, with kind of Arte deco brown swirl on the sides, single lens I think there are multi-lens variations, not sure. Bell & Howell Model 200, with 20mm lens and exposure setting helper on the face Model 200, but no exposure helper on the face Model 200 twin lens turret Model 200 with three lens turret Model 200 EE has electronic eye light sensor on front, single lens DeVry? Any others that anybody knows about to add to the list, for cameras readily available in America at the time (so no Keiv types which look like B&H knock-offs) If I'm missing any makes or models, I would appreciate any contributions to this list. Thanks, Bill

Rob: Thank you. I was given a magazine loading tutorial by another forum member awhile ago, but haven't tried it yet. But as I'm in So. Cal and Alan Gordon Ent. reportedly does load them, I may be okay. If they don't any more, then I'll set up a nice spacious black box with arm sleaves and rewinds and such so I can practice with blank leader and the door open, until I get the procedure down, and then do it door closed and by touch and memory. I'm still a few weeks from that phase of my work, so I'm keeping all options open at present. If I do load my own, I figured I'd buy some old Kodachrome loaded magazines (never been used) and open them to study the threading loop, plus have some spare 50' reels, and see how full those reels are from the factory. Then I'd rewind to a spool to approximate the reel fullness. All theory now, but will be put to hands on soon. Bill

Charles: Thanks for the film suggestion. On the non-focusing lenses, they caught me completely by surprize (never knew they made them, until my first purchase arrived and I inspected it)and I can see the argument that they were simpler (and thus cheaper) as well as see the prospect that with fewer optical element surfaces, less loss of sharpness. But the Kodak Cine Model E doesn't strike me as a cheap line camera, and looks almost like an Arriflex S16, taking a 100' daylight load. Some of the magazine cameras seem cheaper, but that's just a perception, as I haven't done any research along those lines yet. What I have found was a description that the Ektars, when introduced, were considered the "top of the line" Kodak lenses for 16mm. I want to bench test them to see for myself which resolves sharper. I figure a bench test is better than a guess any day of the week. I right now have 3 of the 20mm non-focusing Anastigmats and hope to get two more (oddly, I get them by buying the camera that they come standard on, because I can't find a seller of the lens alone)so I can test 5 lenses and see any variance of quality. On the 25mm Ektanon, I've only found one so far (a fluke I found on Ebay)but will test it against several 25mm focusing Ektars. Will be intriguing to see what the test results are. Bill

I'm looking to bench test resolution of an array of C mount lenses and wanted recommendations on the film stock which hopefully has resolution higher than the best lens so lens resolution can be studied. One area of the tests is comparing Kodak lenses that focus (like a 25mm Ektar) as compared to a 20mm Anastigmat (which has no focus, comes standard on a Kodak Cine Model E type camera) and test a standard 25mm that focuses and fits a Kodak Cine Royal (has a weird two pin "M" mount twistlock configuration) against a 25mm Ektanon which doesn't have a focus ring and has an intriguing depth of field indicator coupled to the F=Stop setting. It seems in theory that a non-focusing lens has less elements and thus less optical surfaces which might cause lower resolution (obvioully how well polished the glass is could be a factor, but I'll get to that later if I can). So I'm looking for recommendations on film stock with the finest grain. Can be B&W or color, any ASA, just so it's wonderfully fine grain. I'd even consider lab stock, if that would be finer grain and work with it's probably real slow ASA. Thanks for any ideas or suggestions. Bill

Dom: Thanks for the reply. My research shows Alan Gordon in Hollywood does load magazines, and I expect to buy from them, but worst case senario, I'll just learn to load them myself (spent a few years with hands in a black bag,loading Arriflex 35 magazines, so I can load myself if necessary). On the Bell & Howell, when I grind the tab, I will be hooking a shop vacuum nozzle to the camera interior to aggressively suck up the metal particles that grind away to remove the camera ID tab. So I think I'm OK there. On the Keystone, I'll first get a junker and try to remove the aperture plate and grind it and then put it back, before I try it on a working model. I haven't run film through any of them yet, but expect to get into that soon. Right now, I'm simply hoping to hear from others about what type camera they have seen successfully modified to allow the full magazine aperture shape to expose film. Bill

I have been reading about (and seen examples of) a sort of DIY "Ultra 16mm" using a 50' magazine camera and modifying the camera's aperture so the full width of the magazine aperture can capture image content and produce a wider image (I believe it's about 0.450" instead of the usual 0.040" we see in standard 16mm. I want to produce that effect and am trying to determine what types of cameras can be easily modified to accomplish this. Right now, the Bell & Howell 200 looks like the best prospect, because it has an oversized aperture and a little tab apparently soldiered on that (to produce the camera ID shape) just needs to be carefully ground off, and could be done without removing the aperture plate from the camera. I have two such cameras now, and do intend to try it on one to see how easy it is and if it gives the desired results. I also have a Kodak Cine, a Kodak Cine Royal, two Keystones (a single lens version and a two lens "clockwork" version) but none of those look like I could easily modify the aperture plate without taking the plate out of the camera, and I don't yet know how complicated that would be (especially to put it back and expect the camera to work as well). The question is, has anyone here done a Ultra 16mm modification on a magazine camera, (or seens a camera so modified) and if so, what type camera was it. If you've done it, how easy was the procedure. Thanks. Bill

When I posted it here, it had not been answered on the other forum. Bill

I'm trying to identify a strange edge code I've found on four 100' loads filmed in 1967. Since I can't seem to get the image upload to work here in this forum, the image can be seen at this URL: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...c=29111&hl= Taking a wild guess, could it be something Fuji Film imbeds as a latent image in any of their stock? Thanks for any ideas. Bill

In the same URL referenced in the top posting, I have added another comparison if you go down about 4 replies from the top. It shows trees in each film, and in the grainy one, even the sky is riddled with grain while in the sharp image, the man's yellow shirt is a smoth yellow. So the grainy film on right can't even old a solid color like the sky, withough an astonishing amount of grain. Sorry I can't post it here. The image posting process doesn't seem to work for me in this forum. Bill

I'm studying two different film frames I've scanned, both by the same scanning system at 4K. I couldn't upload the image to this forum even though the image was only 93K, and twice got a message of "Upload unsuccessful" so I had to upload it to another forum and it can be seen at this direct URL: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=29020 The left image is camera original and known to be Kodachrome film from 1968 and it has an excellent fine grain and detail. The right image may be a copy, original stock unknown, but it's graininess is so extreme as compared to the right that I can't figure out why. Options I can think of are: 1. Using a high speed Ektachrome, like the 160 ASA maybe? 2. Asking the processing lab to push one or two stops in the development? 3. Copying grain buildup? 4. Original shot on 8 or Super 8mm and blown up to 16mm? 5. ??? I'm open to any idea of why the one is so grainy as compared to the other, when both were scanned by the same device and at the same scanning resolution, and are both shown at equal image size in Photoshop when the composite image was made for display. Thanks for any ideas. Bill

Just curious if anyone knows or can provide links to data on the actual measurable size (or average size) for the emulsion grain particles for Kodachrome 25, measured in microns or fractions of an inch? Also, would the grain particle size be different, in average size, on the different color layers? Thanks for any info on this request. Bill

Patrick: Thank you. Alan Gordon is local for me, so that works perfectly. I opened a magazine I had, and looked at the threading configuration, and it's quite intricate. If I had to learn it myself, it would be a long learning curve. Gordon recommends Fotochem as the processor, and they are local as well. The information is greatly appreciated. Bill

I'm speaking specifically of the 50' magazines which, in olden days, Kodak loaded and unloaded, and the cameraman never did. I am aware of what you are referring to, having operated Arriflex's and Eclain NPR's and loaded those magazines with 200', and 400' loads (in black bags). But the 50' magazine is a vary different type. Charlie Plech was kind enough to supply me with some old loading notes, and both a Kodak and a Ansco magazine, but I don't currently have the darkroom to load and unload (plus learning how), so I am curious if any lab or film supplied does offer services for loading the 50' magazine, as Kodak used to do. I might add the cameras I will be testing are a Cine-Kodak, and a Bell & Howell, both which take the standard 50' magazine type load. Bill

If a person wanted to tesy a 16mm magazine-type camera, taking a 50' load of film, does anyone know if any film supplier in the USA will load fresh film stock into such magazines, and after you film with it, they can unload and process the footage? Or is this something the cameraman must learn to do himself, and buy 100' loads of fresh film, and load the magazine himself (in a black bag or darkroom), and unload it to a film can to be sent to a lab? Just curious if anyone films with old magazine type camera today and has any experience in this subject. Thanks Bill

Added: I found the more recent K-II stocks, like 7270 (K-40) and 7267 (K-25) are listed as short pitch (on a spec sheet from 2002), but I'm wondering about K-II 25 stock from the 60's

Anybody know for certain if Kodachrome II is short pitch (0.2994") or long pitch stock (0.3000"), The ASC Manual doesn't list it, but describes reversal type stocks, intended for direct projection, as being long pitch, and K II was such. Thanks. Bill

Chris: 'Did you scan the projected frame size or the recorded frame size? Generally, film cameras are made to record a slightly larger area than is meant to be projected so there is a bit of room for error in placing the projector mask." I overscan, including bits of the frame above and below, and some sprocket area, and crop. Any chance we could get back to the actual question, which is does anybody know about quality tolerences from other camera lens tests? Thank you. Bill

Patrick: "How did you test the Horizontal AoV on that camera/lens combo? " I set a measure bar at 72 inches from the lens focal center, at a true perpendicular to the camera centered line of sight, and photographed the ruler, and then scanned the processed film at 4K and measured how much measure bar was in the horizontal picture, and then replicated the distance and width in a digital software, and measured the angle from focal center of lens to edge of picture based on those dimensions. Bill

Tom: I've tested one 25mm Cine Ektar and got a horizontal anlge of view (HAOV) of 22.65 degress, on a K-100 camera. As compared to ASC Manual listing of a 25mm lens having a 23 degree HAOV, the lens is maybe 25.4mm, which actually would be a true 1" lens. But there have been claims made by others in another discussion that a lens could be off by 10% of specified focal length, and I personally find that beyond comprehension. SO I'm curious about lens data and quality control tolerances. One frined found data on Kodak slide projector lenses, and their specs stated each lens is accurite to 0.1mm of rated focal length. I'd expect 16mm filming lenses to be at least this consistant, if not more so. But i am hoping to get some data from other actual tests or product evaluations. Bill

Just curious if anybody has information or links on the quality control data for 16mm film camera prime lenses. There is a debate that a 25mm lens, such as a Cine Ektar 25mm, may be off spec in effective focal length by 10%, resulting in an effective focal length of 22.5mm. I find the idea unfathomable, that a lens could be so far off spec, but wonder if anyone has any data or links to data on quality control tests performed on lenses of the same make and model, and how close they are to the described specification, as well as how much variance their might be from one lens to another of the same make and model. Thank you. Bill

Andrew: "Why does it matter what lens this second film you are referring to is shot on? It seems that an overlay would tell you if they used the same lens or not. I'm just a prop guy, so I could be wrong." The second filming (of Jim MacClarin by John Green) appears to be taken from a position slightly farther back (maybe 10 feet back) and seems on preliminary optical analysis to be usinga lens 1 or 2 mm longer in focal length than the original filming camera and lens. So making some determinations about the lens in the second filming may clear up issues of the lens in the original filming. Knowing the lens allows for the prospect of using an optical formula from the ASC Manual to calculate the filmed subject's height, because the lens focal length is one of three numbers put into the formula to solve for subject height. Given there are many discrepancies in the lens issue at present, any method which helps clear this up is of value. And so considering ways to determine the second filming lens may clear up the first filming lens. That's the intention, or should I say, the hope. Bill

Okay, repeating with illustration: I have a composite scan (actually the four corners scanned at 4K with overlap in the middle, and the four scans assembled into the composite scan image) of a 4" x 5" Kodak made transparancy of one frame from the camera original of the Patterson film, and I scanned this transparancy so the full frame width came out to 7552 pixels wide (as shown) On it, I can easily see clear plant twigs or stems in the landscape which are between 3 and 4 pixels wide, in this image. So it appears I'm looking at detail that's about 1/2000th of frame width, or about 0.0002" wide in actual measured size of the image on film, for the camera original. The image shows the full frame reduced 20 times from what's in my computer now (top image), and the red square highlights the area enlarged in the second image, and the red square in that second image shows the final enlargement in the bottom image, which is actual image size of my scan for that portion. There is a solid vertical white line which is 3 pixels wide, as a reference. So those twigs are between 3 and 4 pixels wide in parts, and that's 1/2000th of the frame image width. These twigs are in frame after frame, film version after film version, (to varying degrees, depending on the copy generation) so they are not an artifact induced by any copying process. The Kodachrome II film stock camera original resolved them. Now if this is just a grainy, out of focus, amateur photo hack job by a cowboy with a amateur camera and a poor lens, please show me what a pro can do better with a fine camera, a great lens, and far more cinematography skill. Thanks, Bill NOTE: I had to delete a photo from earlier in this thread so the system would allow me to upload this one.

Quick question for anybody who knows more about 16mm Kodachrome II film resolution. I have a composite scan (actually the four corners scanned at 4K with overlap in the middle, and the four scans assembled into the composite scan image) of a 4" x 5" Kodak made transparancy of one frame from the camera original of the Patterson film, and I scanned this transparancy so the full frame width came out at about 7000 pixels wide. On it, I can easily see clear plant twigs or stems in the landscape which are between 3 and 4 pixels wide, in this image. So it appears I'm looking at detail that's about 1/2000th of frame width, or about 0.0002" wide in actual measured size of the image on film, for the camera original. Just wondering how this compares with the film stock's rated resolution. Thanks, Bill

John: Thank you for your encouragement about keeping this thread on topic. Karl: You are making assumptions about the imagery and film quality even though you have not seen the actual material in it's best form, as i have. So I know there actually is substantial image data worthy of analysis, which may lead to a new understanding of what we see in that film. Bill