Gregg MacPherson

I don't think we have a problem with"flash rust". I was worried about unreacted Ospho in seams. I think it's designed to be painted over. Dribbled in paint over unreacted Ospho? May be better than nothing. I'm leaning to the Dan Kessler way now, just do what I need to. Actually there is very little rust on the inside of these lights. Maybe the seams will be OK for another 60 years or so. I cleaned a name plate and saw they are type 406, No916. I think they started making these in 1940.

You could check for light leaks into the MB. Throw a black cloth over the MB and lens and they will dissapear

@George It looks like an old version of what MR call a Baby Solar spot. Looks almost identical to this... http://www.theoldcinema.co.uk/1940%C2%92s-50%C2%92s-Mole-Richardson-Film-Light-on-Stand-c-7_117-p-8584 Mine has the odd kink in the yoke that you see here. My yoke is cast brass. It's possible that was a copy made here, so may not be the original yoke. Looking at the front of the light there is an extra sliding control rod on the bottom right that I think is just to give hard stops to the bulb position. The fllod/spot range is really wide. At 8' the flood is about 8' wide and the spot is about 1-1/2' wide.

Looking again at these old lights, The cushion for the lens looks like aesbestos. I'm guessing that there is a replacement part that is not. I can't see the separate part in the drawings to get a part number, but I just asked MR about this part in an email.

That may be almost the only option. I had a quick look at what car restoration guys do. Sofar (speed reading) it looks like rustkiller such as Ospho in a seam would need to be sealed. I don't think I can do that.

I think Cinetech may be gone. But does anyone sell parts for them? Drive gears, belts, gear box parts. Does anyone know if the gear clearance in the gearbox is adjustable? Cheers.

Thanks for the ideas you guys. Cheers, Gregg.

I never thought of fresnels as hard sorces. I supose they are if they are big enough and far enough away. Barring that the "source" is the size of the lems. Compare a fresnel to an open face quartz light with nothing in front, with the same reading on the subject. A single 1K fresnel about 12' from subject has actually a slightly soft look. But I supose it's all relative, hard/soft.

Any advice for seams where one can't get in. I think there are a few spot welded seams.

Hey George, That was actually a quartz conversion I did, not tungsten. The steel for the body must be fairly good, because the paint was failing and crap steel would have quickly rusted to nothing.. But there is only a light spotting of surface rust coming under the paint. The only thing I was unsure about for a repaint or restoration was where spot welded seams have no great protection. I guess one can just seal that in with new paint over the top. Very likeable old lights. When they are unusable they will get turned into reading lamps, then later perhaps, lawn sculpture. Cheers, Gregg.

Looking again at your photo. Where are the possible places to locate the support on the lens. It's hard to read the photo. If the support is forced towards the rear, maybe you could just make a heavy aluminum cheeze plate out of something like 75x12mm section. The camera base and the lens support are screwed to the cheeze plate. Threaded holes go along most of the length so you can mount on a tripod wherever you want. Cheap, quick, easy to do.

You may get some long term useful value from the suport rig if it conforms to one of the standards. Meaning rod size, spacing and position relative to the lens axis. From what Dom says on the lens height, and just looking at the physical size of the lens you are using, You should go for 19mm rod geometry. The 100mm studio rod geom may work, but you would need steel rods rather than aluminium. Bear in mind that the stiffness rather than strength is normally the governing design issue. O'Connor have a nice drawing showing the different rod geometries relative to the lens axis. http://www.ocon.com/labs/rod-standards.html If you can befriend someone with a basic mill/drill you could probably cook something up in 2-4 hours. I have seen some inexpensive 19mm rod bases that were mass produced, probably for the Red camera owners. But you really need a smallish base for the camera, a larger base for the tripod and a small base to sit your lens support on. These three can shift along the some long 19mm rods to give the support and balance that you need. So cheaper to build it yourself. For the surfing shoot rig you may not have many configuration changes, so you could just use set screws rather than clamps to fix the roods. Meaning use your thumb screws as set screws. Not as good as clamps, just a lot easier to make if you are in a hurry. Re the tripod. Get something big. O'Connor 50s are cheap. Cheers, Gregg. PS. Didn't they make you change your name yet?

Surfers like being filmed. You probably don't have to ask them. The long lenses come up because many good breaks are a long way from the shore.

Some cross pollination with the BMC user forum on the S16 lens coverage issue. Someone just posted that they have tested coverage for a full set of 16mm (S16) MKIII Zeiss primes. Confirming (pictures to come) what most of us had assumed from the image circle data. There is a really nice frame grab with a 16mm format Zeiss SS 12nn at the top of this thread, showing the vignette and the loss of illuminance at the corner. http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?4473-Zeiss-Arriflex-16-12-T1-3

I look forward to reading about it. Hopefully you get some good interviews. Cheers, Gregg.

I thought the Cookes came down to 12mm and the Zeiss Ultras came down to 14mm. So the obvious question is did they add 16mm format lenses to that? I bumped into a similar thread on the cinematography mailing list. http://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/%5Bcml-pro%5D%20Cooke%20lenses%20for%2016mm.htm Scrolling half way down, Ramiro Civita writes... "...Recently while at ARRI (Munich) I've asked if an Ultra Prime lens could be used in Super 16. The answer was a typically bavarian one: it was not designed bearing Super 16 in mind (if one could fit the UP to the SR anyhow). If I'm not wrong the circle of confusion of a 35mm cine lens averages 0.025mm and that of a 16mm lens 0.017mm (sorry can't remember the figures in inches). Simply stated the smaller the format the smaller the circle of confusion needed for that lens to render acceptable images for a given projected (or printed sice) in relation to its viewing distance....." Several people writing there who are using 35mm format (cine) primes for !6mm or S16 and very happy. I assume peoiple use S16 lenses for the wides, but haven't heard much explicitly yet.

Did "The Rum Diary" and "Vera Drake" ony use 35mm format primes? No 16mm format primes?

Sorry Lonny, I don't know the NPR. I was just trying to encourage you to have adequate power supply to the camera, to remove that uncertainty. There are several NPR guys who may notice your thread and give some ideas. Cheers, Gregg

Get yourself a multimeter so you can check the battery voltage whenever you want. Fully charge the battery using an appropriate charger for the correct length of time.

Mediocratizing it? I wish I could say I invented that word.

How do such cameras work? Are they still intermittent movements or do they use revolving prisms or such

Trying an attachment again. If anyone recognizes this adapter and knows who made it can they let us know. Thanks.

Trying that attachment again. Having trouble. David, if you send me an email address I can send a set of photos direct to you. My email is viz(at)xtra.co.nz

I'll try to attach pictures of that PL adapter now. The grinder marks on the front don't affect the function, but they are not pretty, so maybe the price could come down. If anyone recognizes it and knows who made it can they please let us know.

Most people are. Perhaps that's why it's all happened this way.