Erik Emerson

Hi…. I’ve recently come into possession of an old Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon 18-90 f/2 zoom lens that’s been modified with the addition of a V3 Angénieux “dog-leg” viewfinder. Lens is more or less “permanently” attached to the front plate of an old Photo-Sonics 1VN. Guessing the assembly was once part of a PS Actionmaster 200. Lens and finder, and camera body for that matter, appear to be in decent shape considering their age…but could use a little cleaning. Schneider s/n suggests the lens is from 1979 or 1980. Same type of finder as can be found on a vintage Angénieux Type 10x12A or Type 10x12B 12-120mm Zoom. Looking for a service manual or some other technical data for both the Schneider lens and the Angénieux finder. Photo-Sonics and Schneider have kindly checked, and neither has anything for gear of this vintage. Photo-Sonics is out of the camera business altogether. No reply from Angénieux. Typically I rely on my friends at Otto Nemenz International…but this setup is a little outside their wheelhouse. Might any of y'all have literature for the Schneider lens or the Angénieux finder? Or, might anyone be able to recommend a possible source? Thx!!

Late to this party! Had my hands on one of these maybe 20 years ago. Was chatting with the late Derrick Whitehouse at Whitehouse AV about some N-9 type gun cameras I have, when he said he had something cool to show me....and he brought out the EMP. If I remember it right, he was asking like $2500. And if I'd had that to spare I'd likely have bought it. The impressions that I got were that, while similar in some ways to the N-9...particularly in terms of size and daylight magazine loading, the EMP was significantly lighter. That's due in part to the plastics that make up the outside of most of the body and mags. Also the N-9 has kind of a heavy duty 3-speed gearbox for frame rate, as well as motorized shutter angle control and overrun control. EMP has none of that...crystal (!!!) 24 or 25fps is all you get. Like the N-9, single claw with no registration. Claw is on the "correct" side, so perhaps S16 conversion is possible? And I could be mistaken (it's been 20+ years), but I feel like the movement was based on one of the CP cameras...simple, quiet, and serviceable.

NASA did indeed use multiple formats at multiple locales for each launch at least into the early '00s. When I was based out of Orlando I did a tour of the photographic unit at Kennedy Space Center....IATSE Local 600 was making an effort to introduce freelancers to the NASA "Missile Cameramen". Never quite worked out scoring work, but was still a fascinating tour. Most of the cameras were indeed Photo-Sonics. They ran 16mm at 500fps...as I recall, most of those were KB-19As and 1Ps. 35mm ran at 48fps & 24fps, and sometimes up to 360fps as memory serves...I think those might have been 4Es. The 70mm cameras were Hulchers...and those ran at something like 10 or 15fps. Cameras were rigged in pairs & trios out of phase with one another so that while one takes the exposure, the other(s) are advancing to the next frame. This way there's not a moment that's not photographed from any given vantage point. Cameras were rigged inside fire boxes a day or two ahead of the scheduled launch. And if I'm remembering it right, air was removed from inside the boxes and replaced with nitrogen. In spite of the protection of the fire boxes, the heat was still intense at the close setups...so hot that the front elements of the lenses were damaged every time. Contractor had a lens grinding and coating facility on site for this reason. Front elements were treated kinda like brake rotors. After they were gathered post-launch they'd be measured. If they were within a certain spec, they'd be re-ground and re-coated and reinstalled. The front elements that were out of spec were replaced with new. The focal lengths of the lenses on some of the tracking cameras were measured in feet rather than millimeters....those were typically set up miles away from the launch pads. The tracking cameras btw typically had larger magazines than the stationary units. Post-launch, the cameras sat untouched until clearance was given by EPA or some such agency. Sometimes hours later...sometimes longer. Rocket exhaust is pretty toxic. So that had to dissipate to acceptable levels before crew could be allowed in to retrieve the gear. That's presuming the launch was a success at the platform. In the event of a disaster on or near the platform, clearance could sometimes take days. Once clearance was issued all cameras were retrieved, downloaded, and inspected. Film developing was on-site for a time. In the late 90s or early 00s a film lab based out of Miami bought the 16mm and 35mm processing machines and moved them to their satellite office in Orlando. 70mm developing remained on site, while 16mm & 35mm was delivered to Orlando. That lab has since ended film developing. No idea what became of the processing equipment. Johnson Controls was the contractor who handled the photography at the time.

Back in the late 80s / early 90s as a student at UF I used to use these 50' Kodak mags in N-6 type GSAP gun cameras for skydiving. Got a simple jig from the late Jesse Chambless to spool off roughly 50ft onto the little plastic cores, then I'd just load the mags myself. Eventually I added a 2nd "hole" into the jig so I could spool off 100ft darkroom loads for my N-9 mag. The N-9 was a completely different gun camera system than the GSAP. Anyhow the 50ft Kodak mags aren't all that hard to load. Just gotta be sure the "ratchet" mechanism on the pressure plate isn't busted off. In a manner of speaking it acts as a sort of reg pin. The claw in some magazine cameras fully disengages the perf before travelling back up for the next frame. But in others, for instance the Bell & Howell Type N-6, the claw is basically a wedge....camera only moves it up and down, and it engages the perf via spring pressure. If the "ratchet" bit on the pressure plate is busted off, the claw on this type of camera will move the film upward in the gate during exposure. So if you've got some empty Kodak mags and some spare gun camera type cores, it's a plausible idea to load / download them yourself, have 'em developed at Spectrum and have the lab hold onto your cores. They'll do Ultra-16 for a small upcharge. It should be noted that the Kodak mags are mostly pretty simple pressed metal. It's not the precise machining you'd find in an Arri or Aaton or Photo-Sonics magazine. To my eye, some of them are just gonna scratch. The reason I say "to my eye" rather than "in my experience" is because I only have experience using two labs for film shot those types of magazines -- the long since closed Jernigan's Motion Picture and Video Service in Gainesville FL, and Continental in Miami. Jernigan did my Plus-X and Tri-X Reversal. And guess what? Film was often scratched, had uneven density, had intermittent bleach spots and veins, and frequently had dirt & dust at the head & tail. I didn't know any better at the time. Now while that would be appalling for a modern lab to put out, I kinda wish I'd taken advantage of it back then....would've been great for music videos. Maybe the drifting density and bleach spots are something b&w reversal film is more prone to than neg? Earl Jernigan's lab was left over from when tv news segments and UF football games were shot on film. I learned quite a bit from Earl in my formative years about how motion picture labs function. As an aside, I didn't know at the time that Earl was Tom Petty's uncle. Found that out shortly before graduating. It was pretty cool decades later when I was working with Tom on the Runnin Down a Dream documentary being able to share stories with him about ol' Earl. Dude was genuinely and pleasantly surprised when I dropped his uncle's name! All that said, I imagine that at some point next year I'll pick up some 2R film at FPP if I can't source it locally. Likely develop and maybe even scan at Spectrum, particularly cuz FPP's turnaround time seems more for hobbyists than pros.