Ruben Arce

I doubt the lens is damaged. What that person told you is pretty much the same I'm telling you. When the "Focal Flange Distance" changes the collimation is lost and a parafocal lens won't perform as expected. That doesn't mean the lens is damaged is just that the light rays are not converging at the exact distance they should. This issue is known as "Back Focus" on ENG cameras where the focal flange distance can be adjusted by a piece on the lens. In most cinema cameras that is not possible. A technician makes sure Focal Flange Distance is correct and your lenses should perform as expected. As I said before what you see is what you get. You mention you tried a couple of prime lenses and you didn't have any problem with those. What you see on the viewfinder is what film is going to capture. If you use the meteor on the same way, adjusting focus on a given position your images should be in focus, as soon as you zoom in or out that is going to change. Lenses sometimes lose the ability to focus to "Infinity" when the Focal Flange Distance is not correct (Depending on the current distance between the mount of the lens and the film plane) if the FFD is shorter you can focus to infinity, but you lose power on the close end. You can test the lenses viewing trough the viewfinder yes, and you can get usable in sharp images just by focusing at certain position and not using the zoom. If your lenses are not capable of focusing to infinity I would consider that a problem, but still you can survive without it. There is no way you can fix this issue. If you truly need the camera to be precise, get it serviced, which is a good idea any ways.

I would say that is exactly the problem. I'm not against converting cameras, actually I have converted a few including a K3, but you need to know that as soon as you remove the gate to widen it or replace the original mount you are changing the focal flange distance of the camera. Some people assume that this technique of zooming in, focusing and zooming back should always work and that is not the case. Not every lens is a "Parfocal Lens" to begin with, actually most modern still photography lenses are not parfocal and for that reason the image doesn't stay in focus when you zoom out. I understand the Meteor is a parfocal lens, but a lens must be perfectly collimated to the camera in order to perform as expected. I imagine you bought a camera from eBay that was already converted. Converting the camera is not difficult, but not everyone can set "focal distance flange" to the right distance. This doesn't mean you are not going to get images in focus, this just means that the lens is not going to perform well as a parfocal and if you try to set focus using the witness marks on the lens images are not going to be sharp in focus neither. You don't have to touch the spinning mirror shutter or the focusing distance to convert the camera, so if you see images in focus in the viewfinder, they should be in focus on your film. Try to fine tune the diopter to a point where you can see the grain on the focusing screen and you should be fine. If you really need the lens to work that way or to use witness marks on the lens take the camera to a technician and she/he can shim or machine the mount in order to get the focal flange distance right.

There is no such a thing as Super 16 film. There used to be single and double perforated. Most modern cameras (after WW2) take single perforated film and for years Kodak has been selling single perf mostly. If you have double perf film you can use it with most cameras, but if that camera has a S16 frame the image is going to be on that second line of perforations. The SR1 was designed to take single perf, so assuming that that specific SR1 has never been converted yes, you would get a 4:3 image. When using double perf on a R16 camera the extra space on the film remains unused. A SR1 can be converted to S16, so as you can see if you have single perforated film it will capture the aspect ratio that you camera has. Regular 16 if the camera is untouched, Super 16 if the camera was converted.

Thanks Simon, well I was thinking a fine file, then different grips of sand paper with water or oil and polish it at the end. I was curious about the reason for corners to be rounded that's all.

I understand you are a camera technician Simon. Would you say it's safe to carefully file corners to make them sharp? I'm not going to do it with my NPR, but I may do it if I convert a K3 again.

Simon Wyss, Now that you mention this... Was there a reason for manufacturers to make gates with rouded corners? Are sharp corners more prone to scratching? I know there is a reason for sprocket holes to have rouded corners and it totally makes sense talking about film, but I don't see a reason to don't have sharp corners on gates, and because of that roundness I loose a few pixel lines on my scans. I may be greedy, but when shooting with small formats that is important.

I have seen two versions of the gray Scoopic, one is very old and it doesn't have a focusing mark, but the newer version has it on the film compartment door. The trigger of the old version cannot be locked and it has only 3 screws on the tripod plate screw vs four on the other model. Both of them are gray Scoopics, but there are difference between them.

I just checked one old Scoopic (gray) that I have and I didn't see any difference when I changed the aperture. It's an old camera that I haven't tested, so it may be stuck as well, but I wen't from wide open to f22 and I didn't noticed any change.

Wow! incredible work Uli Meyer. Talk about amazing image quality, cameras, lenses, extremely clean scan, good cinematography, acting and beautifully composed images. I thought the prices going up on film cameras was my imagination, but by looking at your short film I can see why.

I used one of those battery holders to power my Scoopic MS and they work just fine. If you look at the specifications of the original battery it only has 500mah, that's nothing compared to what batteries can do today. I have a couple of options, but I think I'm going to have groups on series and then in parallel. AA rechargeable batteries have around 2,200mah, that's four times the amperage of the original battery. The only problem I saw was charging them, but having those 2 groups mentioned before and considering that DC travels on one direction I can have 2 ports to charge the batteries separate, but when they have to work together they will. I couldn't find a charger to will work with 20 -24v other than drills ones and other tools chargers, but by separating the batteries in 2 groups I can re-charge them with an inexpensive adapter. I haven't receiver my camera yet, but just by looking at the size specifications on the manual of the original battery I see a few options with rechargeable batteries.

Nice Story Gareth, Did you find someone in Australia who can service your camera? I just bought one too. It's just the body, but I have some plans for it. The first project is going to be designing a battery and 3D print it. I have a conversion in mind and then if everything works it will be out to get a CLA. I would like to know about the advances that you make with your camera. keep it up.

Surprising! I was expecting something closer to 52mm, but actually pretty good. It means a lot of lenses can be mounted using adapters. Thanks Jean-Louis

Hello peeps, I've been trying to find this info for a long time, but I couldn't find anything. I already checked all the threads on the CP section, so I have to ask: Does anyone knows what's the focal flange distance of the CP-16r? Thanks

Hello peeps, I've been trying to find this info for a long time, but I couldn't find anything. I already checked all the threads on the CP section, so I have to ask: Does anyone knows what's the focal flange distance of the CP-16r? Thanks

I think it looks great. The paint job may look a bit different but that may be because you are comparing it to an old paint job and time has changed it, but over all I think you are doing a great job. I've been dreaming about doing the same with other cameras, and I'm going to try, I can do the cleaning, paint, leatherette and other things. I think the technology we have these days can help old cameras in so many ways. Batteries are different, 3D printing, lighter electronics and more affordable, nicer tripods and camera stabilizers that can be used with analog cameras even when they didn't designed them thinking about them, In my case I still need to send it to a technician to get the camera LA'd but I guess I can make the job easier for them and I can spend hours doing stuff they wouldn't do. Good job Lucas, keep it up. It's exciting seeing what you are doing.

Very interesting, I'm glad to know several people around the world have similar ideas. following.

Simon and Dom, thanks a lot for all that useful information. Thanks for the details and for using technical terms, it really helped me to understand the concepts. I know the Scoopic is not a professional camera but still it's a decent one to practice and learn and this specific camera looks like new. I don't see any marks on the pressure plate or the gate and in general looks like someone bought it filmed a few rolls and film and never touched it again. I really appreciate the info. So do I Will, last year only I spend over $3,500 on service, modification and conversion of a couple of cameras that don't generate a penny right now. I try to support technicians and Kodak, so we can continua to use the medium for some time. Unfortunately we all are going to retire or die, companies don't like sharing their service manuals and instructions and no company is putting film cameras out anymore. As I mentioned on my original post I do like doing this kind of stuff, but there are no schools where I can go. I would happily work for free for a year as an apprentice if a good technician wanted to tutor me. As a child I disassembled most of my toys so it's part of my nature and even when I would not mess with the transmission, I like changing the oil of my car. I've been working on a series of modifications for the Scoopic M or MS, those modifications make the camera much more versatile and easy to use in several ways and I'm doing that with modern easy to find and inexpensive items, so I wanted this camera to try to expand those accessories and modifications to the gray Scoopic, I never intended to use it, unfortunately it didn't work and I have to do something about it. I cannot talk about those modifications yet since I'm still working on them, but my technician saw them and he was impressed and happy about what I was doing with the Scoopic and with my NPR, I told him get ready because when people see this they are going to ask you to do it for them, so at the end this can bring more work to those technicians and I may work with him or them to make it happen. As I mentioned before I'm not sure a camera technician would spend 5 hours cleaning a camera or painting it, but I could do that, they can do the magic and people who don't care about this stuff can grab a like new camera and shoot film with it.

Dom Jaeger, I really appreciate your input. I know it has been discussed here before, but people seem to avoid mentioning brands or specifics and that was what I wanted, but you are totally right, I know you are knowledgeable about the topic and it just makes sense. You pointed me in the right direction talking about bearings and gears or points of contact or friction. I noticed on some of the gears there is something that looks like graphite, but then again it is old and doesn't look like it's doing it's job. I have learned a lot with this camera, but it really made me think what would've happened if I have sent the camera to a technician. The camera was in extremely bad condition inside and out, of course I cleaned the outside and now I have spend at least 5 hours cleaning the inside and I still have to redo the light seals, keep cleaning and put it back. My point is if a technician charges $400 to CLA a camera would they spend 10 hours cleaning and restoring those things? It doesn't make sense, so probably they would oil it, make sure it runs and sent it back to the costumer, so now I'm thinking I can clean it up, I can carefully re-do the light seals, clean everything else and send it to my technician (If he agrees) to properly lubricate it, collimate the lens, adjust the shutter and the optics and send it back. I know some people don't like continuing the work of someone else, but I already did the labor, and I mean I did it consciously, so now he could do the precision work that the camera needs to perform well and if that's not the case I can lubricate it, put it back and hope for the best. Dom, this camera it's like a K3, it's a "main board" and a shell. So when I disassembled it Didn't really messed with the shutter mechanism, it is still together and connected, so I hope I can make it work later. I did messed with the lens because I had to, as I mentioned on my original post the prism was out of place, so I had to do it, but in theory if I you don't remove the lens out of this "Main board" collimation should be intact since the gate and the lens are attached to this hole thing. It's an interesting camera. Any thoughts on the graphite grease and if any modern good quality grease can replace it would be appreciated.

If the camera you are talking about looked like it came straight out of a chicken coop... This is the one, but you should look at it now, man it was like a new camera. Paint, glass and everything else (but the prism) is in great condition.

I know some people on this forum feel like nobody should touch a camera if he or she is not a technician and at some extent I agree. I have a couple of nice cameras that I love and those cameras have been properly maintained by technicians and I know how expensive it can be and I paid to get it done, but some times there is no technician whiling to work on your camera (Nikon R10) and some insensible people in GA are happy to say send the camera we can fix it, I sent its they said Nikon doesn't sell parts any more... Are you kidding me? You didn't know that? I opened the camera and fixed it myself and I did a clean job not like that guy. In a different case I just got an extremely dirty gray Scoopic, after hours cleaning it it was like new, but no image on the viewfinder. I noticed a rattling noise in the light meter area, I checked for light on the gate and there's none, so that's the prism out of place. I paid $130 for the camera, and just sending it to the east coast is going to cost me that much, not mentioning the $400 + that it's going to cost to get it fixed, but my main point is I have a Scoopic MS and I bought this camera to do some experimentation, I never intended to use it, so my options are selling the camera for parts or trying to fix it myself. I got the service manual, it was kind of scary the amount of things you have to remove to get acmes to the main part, but I did it and when I was there it was so dirty, the light seal foam solidify (very common issue) and there was a messed inside all over the place mixed with dust and there was the prism just out of place. I started cleaning all the mess and I can see how the camera appreciate what I'm doing. Every time I clean something it feels like the camera is going to be better, even if I don't add lubrication I'm eliminating that dust and the friction that it causes, I'm feeling confident that I can put it back and the camera will work again as a U16 camera. Again I know some people think is not a good idea, but I'm very detailed oriented, I know how to use tools, I understand how cameras work, I have time and patience, I can solder, I have made repairs on still photo cameras and I want to do it, because I want to learn. I have searched for schools and I couldn't find one and there are a copule of mediocre camera shops here where I live, so no way to ask someone to tach me. I know it's a long post but I needed to make a point. Now what kind of lubricant shouldI use on gears, plastic, metal, joints? Grease or oil and what kind? Even more important, what are the guidelines to use either one? I know oil must be applied in very small quantities, if you can comment on that I would really appreciate it too and again even better what are the rules, guidelines or principles? Thank You so much in advance and sorry about the long post.

Luigi, The film shows two different problems, jitter and out out focus. I didn't comment on the jitter problem because one I agree with Tyler and second I know that a converted K3 will be unstable. The moment you decide to unscrew a part of a camera you are messing with parts that must be perfectly aligned and you will have to pay a cost for doing that, still I would really like to find a virgin K3 with the only intention of modifying it it to S16 and document the process. I think the K3 is what it is... a beautiful camera that can teach you a lot, a camera that you can use to learn, and a camera that you can love, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an affordable camera with no crystal sync motor, with no orientable viewfinder and video tap, it's just a K3

The meteor lens is very good really, but when you have a converted camera you cannot take advantage of it because it will vignette on the wide side as you can see on your film. I think M42 lenses are the way to go, considering that the crop factor of S16 is 3X I don't think you need to have more than two lenses most of the time. You already have a 50mm x 3 =150mm and a 85mm = 255mm I would suggest searching on eBay for a 28mm f2.8 those were very common and you can find an inexpensive one. For the wide angle end there are two good options, the Peleng 8mm which is equivalent to a decent 24mm on FF and the Zenitar 16mm, you can buy those brand new and they won't break the bank. I have a film on YouTube titled "Santa Monica on Super 16" I whot that one with a converted K3, and Zenitar 16mm, Vivitar 28mm f2.8, Super Takumar 50mm f1.4, a 85 and a 135mm.

No problem, well since you have the original ring you can put it next to the one mounted on the camera and you will see they are not exactly the same. I'm not looking at your camera, but I know those adapters were poorly machined. Is not a good idea to change the mount now, the gate was widened and the center of the new frame (S16) is not the same as the previous one (R16) if you change the lens you would get a weird effect when you zoom in and out, maybe not on the viewfinder if it was not widened but on the film for sure. The other factor is even if you use still photography lenses designed to cover a much bigger area you would be using the side of the lens. Most lenses have the best optics in the center, and the last factor is going back to the original mount would not fix the problem because it was touched. If you want to have perfect collimation you don't mess with mounts, as soon as the original mount was removed the colimation was lost. Now collimating a mount is not impossible, is just a matter of having the right distance (45.46 mm) between the mount and the film plane, but when you don't have the tools and the experience it can be complicated. When I converted my camera I got it close to proper focal flange distance using sand paper to reduce the size of the adapter, but it can be challenging. I would suggest getting some M42 lenses, they are inexpensive and have good quality with the benefit that they cover the S16 area without a problem so you would not get vignette. Personally I don't like using zoom when I'm filming so that was not exactly a problem for me.

I can tell right away that your camera was modified to S16, and nothing weird going in when you zoom in and out means the lens was re-centered as well. I'm going to assume you converted the camera yourself or that a technician did it but he or she didn't collimated the lens, or maybe you just bought the camera already converted. I converted my camera myself and I bought the re-centering ring and I can tell you it was poorly machined and it was bigger than the original one, that is something that changes the focal flange distance of the lens and it causes it to lose collimation. I know what you mean by back focus, but in cinema lenses and specifically on the K3 lens there is not a back focus ring like the one on lenses used with ENG cameras. If you want to use the zoom in, focus, zoom out, shoot technique you will have to get the camera /lens collimated by a technician who is going to measure the distance from the lens mount to the film gate and make physically make changes to the mount or shim it to get proper distance. If you don't want to spend the money or if you can survive without zooming while filming and the zoom in, focus, zoom out, shoot technique your film should be in focus if you just focus by eye. It can be complicated with wide angle lenses, but that's the K3. A good idea to make sure you are getting the best results out of the viewfinder is to adjust the diopter to your eye by setting the lens to a blurry or out of focus position, point the lens towards a light source and fine tune the diopter to the point where you can see the grain on the ground glass as sharp as possible.

There are a lot of factors in every camera, some manufacturers publish important information like how much light is lost on the prism & T vs F stops for example, but Super 8 cameras were not intended to be used by professionals back in the day. The info that you are looking for can be reverse engineered (Depending on your knowledge and experience) by using a gray card and a light meter. When it comes to light meters nobody can give you straight facts, some manufacturers use 18% some others use 13, 12 and 12.5% so at the end of the day I have learned to just call it middle gray, whatever it is and it works for me. The Nikon R10 is rated on F-stops not T stops so you can typically say you are loosing 1/3rd of a stop there (-1). The shutter angle is 160° instead of 180° on most professional cameras. On my Sekonic 558 I would just adjust the shutter angle and it would not be a factor anymore, but if you have a fixed shutter angle of 180° on your meter, I would compensate another 1/3rd for that (-2) That's because I tend to put my exposure on the hot side but you could consider it 1/48th of a sec or 180° as mentioned before. The third factor would be the prism and since I couldn't find the "filter factor" of the prism (like in the Bolex) I would say add another 1/3rd. (1 full stop) Every time I shoot negative I "over expose" it by two thirds, no matter what just because there is were I like my exposure and because rating it that way I get less grain. So I would personally compensate by one and a half stop. If I were shooting 250D for example, I would just tell my meter I'm shooting ASA 80 and I would forget about all those factors. In the case of the Canon Scoopic for example, the manufacturer rated the lens on T-Stops meaning they already considered all the light loss factors on the prism and the lens. In the case of mirror shutter cameras like the K3 that is not a factor, but you may still have to compensate if your lenses are not marked on T-stops. Finally, I would test those meters against a modern reliable meter. I haves some of those on my collection and I can tell they are not accurate anymore. I have a Sekonic like that one and I know it doesn't use batteries, they use selenium cells or something like that which is not accurate this days. You can always find the difference against a modern/reliable meter, compensate for that difference using ASA or ISO and use it normally. Just my two cents. This video is very informative and it has a formula you may find helpful,