Felipe Locca

Thanks everyone for the replies, I inched some unimportant developed 135 film I had here whitout issues, and after some research there is a couple scans on youtube from 135 film shot through the Arri 2c, mostly fomapan. So it seems it'll work fine! This friend of mine who has Lucky film lives in a nearby city, and he’ll be coming over soon so we can test his stock. However, I did some research, and it turns out that Lucky has recently resumed manufacturing film, but only 35mm. Was that 16mm stock new? I couldn’t find any reference to new 16mm Lucky stock—only something from 20 years ago. Anyway, If the stock does feel thinner, I’ll start with it, since it’s better to risk damaging the film than the camera, although, the mechanism on the Arri 2c seems pretty tough.

Hello everyone, I just had the oportunity to buy an Arri 2c for a very good price. It appears to be in working order but naturally I need to run some film through it. I have a friend who has few 100' cans of 135 b&w film stored in the fridge, Foma, Ilford and a very cheap Lucky SHD400 chinese film, he offered to share some of it for testing. I'd love to know if anyone here has any experience with running 135 film with KS perfs on the 2c. Considering that the pitch is the same between KS and BH film(at least according to wikipedia), and the Arri 2c does not have a registration pin, It should be fine right? I'm afraid of throwing film "officially" not supported by it's mechanism and messing it up. I could just buy some Double-X later, but this would save me some bucks.

Thanks for your answers! Makes sense, mass and weight and size didn't occur to me! But it seems like a good reason, all the claw movements I've seem look smaller and lighter than geneva drives! Lubrication also seems like a strong factor. I've seem a lot of pictures of claw mechanisms that appear to need a lot less lubrication(Arri 2c comes to mind), and I can imagine the difficulty to implement stronger lubrication in the smaller package of a camera! I also didn't consider how precisely manufactured geneva drives might need to be, didn't even imagined they would need to be hardened! That brings a lot of complexity into manufacturing! Dan and Dom, thanks for your recommendations!

Hello! Sorry if this isn't the right section of the forum for this type of question. I've been doing some reading on the history of motion picture cameras and something got me curious about the mechanics used in them. It seems some early film cameras used the geneva wheel mechanism for advancing the film for exposure. And a lot of projectors have used the same mechanism for decades more. But apparently it didn't took long for camera designers to move away from the geneva wheel to use pull down claws of various forms. I imagine there is some reason for that. First I assumed it could be that pull down claws are more precise or durable, but it seems that projectors kept being designed with geneva wheels through out the XX century. And I got the impression that projectors need the same precision and probably even more durability than cameras, as they might run for a lot more hours overall. Considering the the geneva drive appears to be a lot easier to design, manufacture, assemble and repair, does anyone has an idea on why that happened? The only reason I can imagine is noise, maybe the claw mechanisms are overall more silent. That would explain why the geneva drive on cameras was more common in the early days before sound for film was developed. Also, if anyone has any recomendation of any book or text regarding the history of development of the mechanics of film cameras I'd love to learn more about that!