Robert Hart

The whole affair could collapse into a niche craft sponsoring by small cliques of well-moneyed audiences much like live theatre, opera and symphonic orchestra. John Humble Cit, Joan Humble Cit and the kids may watch extreme low-budget limited-distribution fare when they can afford to take time off from the three jobs to make ends meet. The future may become live interactive alternative reality and gaming but the freedom to indulge in that may also be tied to the future lower discretionary spend of the serfs and time off when other needs to get by can be deferred.

The flicker is consistent with a spring driven camera's centrifugal governor hunting for correct speed while the power of the spring diminishes as it winds down. It is also consistent with a LED flicker artifact introduced by the scanner. However that may be unlikely in a professional level machine. My money would be on the camera's governor. If it is a bell type centrifugal governor, then the friction pads might have become a little sticky if camera lube has crept in. Light fractions in the camera's lube oil might have gassed off over time leaving the remaining lube thicker or even dry. A service by a proper camera tech would not hurt. Those who know all the wrinkles that Bolexes and K3s throw up might be scarce by now.

A reel-to-reel fulltrack playback head connected to a magnetic amp input yields a satisfactory result with sprocketed magnetic film, not an ideal result for post-production but okay for playbacks. I doubt you can buy them as a trade part these days. I used one to build a home-made editor driven by a GM windscreen wiper motor. If the Restroscan transport could be stabilised by adding an inertia wheel in the path, a fulltrack playback head would probably work fine. It probably would not be too hard a task to add a record/playback head for sound-on-film so long as the correct pins are connected or you might erase your sound track. A module which attached to the existing fixing for the two film guides would not be too hard to build. My original playback head for the home-made editor was mounted on a door hinge for the convenience of swinging it aside from the film path. Agfa sound film is thinner and possible a little more fragile as far as edge guides are concerned.

This poor man's ersatz skater is slightly larger than P+S Technik's genuine article. There are also three holes for spiked tripod feet. The wheels are replacement rollerblade wheels. You need to be careful mounting them or your skater will go around bends. This thing is only suitable for prepared surfaces like tabletops, indoor floors or timber basketball courts. If you are a larger rideable skater which is free and not on rails, you will be best served by making a deck with eight wheels in two rows of four so that like a military vehicle, if one wheel goes over a hole, the remaining wheels will keep the deck relatively steady with none of the thump-thump of four wheel arrangements.

I wonder if there might be a revival of the sort of minilabs we used to see all over the place in shopping centres and pharmacies as side hustles for small businesses. They are probably most in landfills or recycled by now. Being able to locally process 16mm film would be a bonus if a minilab could be modified to run 16mm film through. The downside of course would become quality control. The chemicals must be maintained. Stills film I had processed in some third-world minilabs was not all that impressive.

Aapo. Is this the mage you want scanned or is the circuit diagram required? The page is A3. Some of the component valued are covered by the traces. There is a separate parts list.

You might be able to fit a simple ARRI standard to PL-Mount adaptor ring but I suspect that the knurled ring on the front of the adaptor you have illustrated may be wider than the clearance relief machined into the front face of ARRI S/ARRI B to PL-Mount adaptor rings. That knrled section might have to be truned down to the clearance diameter on a lathe. There seem to be Cameflex to PL-Mount adaptors. https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/273975136514

It looks a little like this one. https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/325256615767?chn=ps&_ul=AU&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=705-139619-5960-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=325256615767&targetid=&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9070517&poi=&campaignid=15791083372&mkgroupid=&rlsatarget=&abcId=9300816&merchantid=510825023&gclid=Cj0KCQjwqoibBhDUARIsAH2OpWiUUTifpR8HyCvE254KH3wh7fAC0KzGnhWV_BJ4oo2gV89RIbm8b4AaAg-wEALw_wcB

I think the first Lucadapter may have been for the older Ursa Mini 4K so they have been around for a while. These were my speedbooster mods for "big" Ursa 4K with the modified mount removed and the modified IMS-Nikon F-Mount Speedbooster. Luca went one step better and was apparently able to make a workable Ursa Mini Pro version.

Phil Rhodes. I assume that your comment "moving the sensor closer to the mount" also suggests using another mount system which is closer to the sensor and has universal adaptors. On the SI2K I was able to modify a speedbooster for Nikon F-Mount for the original Blackmagic Pocket camera to offer into the P+S Technik IMS-Mount, (a universal mount) which is just 0.25mm shy of the M/43 flange to focal plane distance. It was doable "just". It could not be done for the Canon EF-Mount. In the Mini Pro camera family, the ND filter wheel enclosure on front and the IR filter, there might be some problems in redesigning the front lens mount support to be closer to the sensor to enable a universal mount system. BM more or less offers this anyway in the Mini Pro camera family with the choice of mounts to fit on front of the existing lens mount support. Lucadapters offer indwelling speedbooster adaptors for the Mini Pro camera family. I am not sure how Luca got around the infinity focus problem but a thicker planar element replacing the existing IR filter would solve it and I think that is how he got around it.

There exists no PL-PL focal reducer. There is also not enough workspace between the PL-Mount and the mirror of a reflex 16mm/Super16mm camera for the optics of a focal reducer to fit. How would I know, some might ask. I have installed focal reducers in the SI2K digital cinema camera and the original "big" Ursa digital cinema camera. Even with the deeper available workspace between rear of the lens and the IR filter in these cameras, it was doable - "just". Before affordable focal reducers like the Metabones Speedbooster came along, folk were using groundglass based non-coherent image relay adaptors like the P+S Technik Mini35, Pro35 and the many alternative adaptors which followed. I tried this in a rough and ready arrangement on a CP16R film camera. The image was not outstanding, primarily due to the relay optics being matched for 1/3" video cameras, not the near-to 2/3" image area of the 16mm film. You lose up to one and two thirds of light in conditions requiring wide open lens aperture and there are two focusing systems to contend with. By the time one could cobble up a means of relaying the field-of-view of a 35mm motion picture frame to the 16mm motion picture frame, it would be far cheaper to buy 16mm/Super16mm motion picture camera lenses and a lot less frustration when using them. Over on www.reduser.net there was discussion about a focal reducer which adapted medium format lenses like Mamiya 645 types to RED cameras. What the distance is between the rearmost optical element of that adaptor and the film plane is I have no idea.

If your aperture was set to f15, (I am assuming the "5" in "15" is a typo and you meant "f16"), then the softening will be due to diffraction. You should aim for a wider aperture in the ballpark of f5.6 by using ND filters or even better, IRND filters. Then I think you will see an improvement. IS0400 may spoil your whites. You might be better off using enough ND to allow you to set your camera's ISO to its sweet setting or even more ND to enable a higher gain setting to protect bright details like clouds in sky and the form of light coloured motor vehicles and the texture of bright walls. Please take more heed of the comments of wiser folk than I who may add comments.

If your camera has a PL-Mount, then a lens sandwich with a Laowa PL-PL rear-anamorphic adaptor behind your lens and the SLR Magic front anamorphic adaptor will confer a 2x anamorphic squeeze. If you want a more distressed look, a Century Optics 16:9 front anamorphic adaptor might do it for you. You would have to find a version with a filter thread mount on the back, not the bayonet mount Sony version. I made a threaded adaptor for the Sony version. This however limits the lenses you can use to lenses with a closely coupled 52mm or 58mm filter thread fronts like Nikons and about 50mm focal length. Any wider-angle lens will vignette. I have machined a new thread for the back of an Ishico Proskar 2x anamorphic projection lens. Infinity focus requires a small mod to the Ishico lens and manging two interacting focal adjustments is as much the irritating challenge on a camera as it is for projection.

There are some C-Mount lenses which are a bit awkward for controllability as they tend to come unscrewed. They are branded Fujian and can be found in 25mm, 35mm and 50mm at f1.7. If you can still find them, a lens which was sweet for contrast was the Cosmicar 22mm to 66mm f1.8 zoom lens, possibly better described as a variable prime. The front optical elements are large and the rear end may not fit in the Eclair C-Mpunt adaptor if it is deep buried in a narrow surrounding. Any specimen you may find may have dried lube which makes them bind so likely will require servicing. I am unsure if it will cover Super16mm. It might vignette from about 22mm to 25mm but who knows?

I thought I had replied and confessed to an error but the reply I cannot find so here is a repeat. - My bad. I mistook Barium for Beryllium Oxide which is the evil stuff.

If it is barium oxide, if you are a kitchen-table engineer with no PPE for yourself and your nearest and dearest, it may be very prudent to leave the stuff alone as it is apparently hazardous.

If your fire is a wood fire which is in the shot, my personal preference would be to replicate a fire which has coaled down to a glow and would be more controllable. Add some variously sized scrunched up chunks of alfoil into cold charcoals or maybe matte-painted stones with few small lamps wrapped with red gel inside the charcoal/foil mix. With careful teasing you may then achieve hotspots of coloured light in the darker coals. Your other lamps lighting your character(s) may need to be connected to the small lamps inside the coals so that all lights can be made to vary or flicker together. You could try covering a gas ring or burner with small rocks and lighting that up. You might control your other lights with something as simple as a human trembling a leafy branch in front of the light. Please heed better advice than mine which may emerge here.

Your roll of film appears it may have been made in March 1987. Here is a website with a bit of information if you scroll down. https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2020/12/film-review-tasma-t-42-400/

The small shutter is part of the main shutter-mirror parking system. When the camera is buttoned off, the motor remains running at a slower speed creeping the park shutter around until it breaks IR light between an emitter and detector. In the manual there is reference to not bending the little wire which feeds to either the emitter or detector because a glass part will be broken.

Slightly offtopic, the proposed new ORWO colour stock could be interesting. It is apparently based on Agfa Gevaert XT320 formulation but seems to have a different look. It's uniqueness may appeal to creative folk.

If you cannot get hold of an underwater housing you might consider finding a thick sheet of white styrofoam about 3ft x 2ft, two pieces of plywood about 4 inches square as washers top and bottom of the styro sheet and attaching that to the base of your camera. If there is a mishap and you slide in, the camera may have half a chance.

You will get better penetration with diesel fuel than cooking oil. You might try some diesel diluted with some automotive acrylic thinner. As the thinner gases off it will leave the diesel behind. Do this outdoors as the fumes are toxic. Be careful with the cooking oil as a preserver. It may gel and over time loctite some things together. Because it is edible, other things may also live on it in the future like mould. You might also try holding a soldering iron tip to the screw heads for a while to soften any loctite that may be on the threads of the screw. If it works for old BSR turntables it might work for your recalcitrant screws. Do not do this if the screws are holding together any plastic parts or you may damage them.

QUOTE: "I'd suggest that the "fold" idea doesn't really account for the fault appearing in shots made a short time apart. Overnight, yes. But only on the first shot of the day." My CP16 only required about ten minutes of rest to make it happen. I should clarify that I was using it in a hot climate. I think the original author of this thread is now on the right track with his most recent reply.

I don't think the scan is bad. So long as the lens aperture is tight, movement of the film off the gate will not affect focus as critically as when the lens iris is opened wide. What I am seeing is consistent with the shape memory of the upper fold of the loop going through the gate and momentarily lifting the pressure plate as if there is a weak spring. The signature double-clatter of some CP16 cameras is the shape memory of the film passing through the gate and momentarily lifting the pressure plate. In the CP16, The film becomes deformed when parked around narrow rollers in the upstream film path within the camera. In the ARRI style cameras, the upstream and outgoing film paths are within the magazine itself. However, as with the CP16, I expect maybe 15-20 frames of film would pass through before the artifact occurred. Your issue is occurring after about four frames which may eliminate shape memory from narrow rollers as a cause. The visual fault in your film is also consistent with the pressure plate being hung away from full contact against the back of the film due to accumulated debris under its limit stop. This might also occur if the magazine is prevented from seating fully home in the camera by worn latching, debris or physical damage having bent something. Is the magazine when latched to the camera snug or a little loose? In that event, the film will be finding its own place between the pressure plate and the gate face and floating in a clearance between the two. As the shape memory of the upper loop fold passes the the gate, the film will momentarily move closer to and away from the image plane until the fold passes and the film settles. The pressure plate as far as I can observe is the smaller rectangle within the longer chrome guide path in the front of the magazine. There may be some other defect if the magazine has been dismantled for servicing and not reassembled correctly. Except for the initial bad frames after buttoning on, the performance seems satisfactory and may not have attracted the attention of the operator or been reported back to the operator by an editor. My bet is that if you shoot in low light with the lens aperture wide-open, whilst your viewfinder image will be sharp, your film image may momentarily sharpen, soften and clarify a little but remain out of focus after the fold passes through. Do you have another magazine to test with? I doubt that this issue will have anything to do with drive motor speed variations. Another possible cause may be that your loading is causing the upper loop fold to be a little tight maybe by one frame and the initial start-up before the magazine film transport responds may be momentarily pulling the upper loop fold snug. If there is workspace within the magazine for the upper loop fold to be one frame deeper then that would be my next trick to try. As a defect, it may have always been accepted as an ideosyncracy of that particular camera. In the edit suite it might not have attracted enough attention to prompt reporting back to a camera department or the operator.

I observe there have been no replies as yet. To have the projector gate modified, the best would be a motion picture camera repair service. Widening the gate would likely be a fairly simple but necessarily high precision task. A simple widening of the gate will locate extra image area away from the optical centre axis. If the light beam from the lamp is narrowly prefocused, there may be delivered an image which is dark in the right side upper and lower corners. A more thorough method would be to move the widened gate slightly to recentre the image to the optical axis but this would be complicated and expensive. What brand and model is your projector? Some projector lenses may deliver a Super16mm image which is vignetted at the right upper and lower corners. I copy-pasted the following list for some european services from this web address. https://re-voir.com/shop/en/content/10-film-services SUPER 8/16mm CAMERA REPAIR/MODIFICATION RESOURCES : BJORN ANDERSSON - BEAULIEU Sweden, Atelier RAYBAUDI - BOLEX France, CINEFIX UK UK SUPER 16, INC. New York, USA, JK CAMERA Oakland, USA, LIST OF GERMAN CAMERA TECHNICIANS Germany, PRO8MM Burbank USA, DU-ALL New York, USA, CLICK & SURR Berlin, Dr. Bolex USA, LES BOSHER UK, MICRODELTA Spain, PIGEON CREEK CAMERA - Bolex Ontario, Canada, L'ATELIER DE CELESTINS Montrouge, France