okto simaia

You’re saying FPP 40 is Plus-X or it’s UN 54?

Anything left? Guessing it's all gone, but since I have a shoestring budget I gotta ask anyway.

Anything left?

...and then at the end he shoots the demo reel handheld so we can't tell anything about the results. 😅

Hey, I'm a crazed machinist with an engineering shop who wants to perforate 16mm microfilm! Let's team up. I was going at this from an entirely different direction: my thought was to try to 3D print punches for fitting to a sprocket wheel in e.g. a synchronizer, since I wouldn't need a perforator that operates at anything close to commercial speeds or efficiencies. If I have to replace a set of teeth every 200' I would be fairly happy. Have you made any progress since this thread was started?

That seems doable. I certainly agree there should be some sort of slip coupling/weak link to prevent the motor chewing up the clockwork of the camera if a jam occurs.

Tri-X still film is rated at 400 ISO. Why is it half that fast when packaged as movie stock?

What's the reference to the original, or do you have the rest of the article?q

It absolutely wasn't. It was not pertinent to the original question, it did not raise new paths of inquiry, and it was phrased in a condescending way. Actually, it makes a couple of false, misleading, and ignorant statements (wrong dimensions, discussing resolution in linear units, not accounting for film's resolution being a fixed physical property not affected by aspect ratio), and it wasn't obvious to OP. Explained in detail by Daniel Klockenkemper.

I hate to dog on someone's hard work, but I'm a machinist by trade, and I have to say that part is really bad. Those aren't "tight tolerances" at all; some of that looks hand-filed. The tool marks and burns on the edge of the pocket above and below the gate are one thing (a thing I would be ashamed of on a part I gave someone for free, let alone charged money for), but the tool marks on the film rails are completely unacceptable. That surface needs to be as close to glass finish as possible. I hope this is a rough prototype, because that work is on par with the original manufacturing...which I think most of us agree is not incredible. This is optical manufacturing. It can't be done on any old J-head knee mill, this needs to be either CNCd or done on a VERY stiff non-adjustable-head machine.

Forgive me if I'm re-treading ground you've already covered, but couldn't you leave the camera in the run position, mechanically, and just start and stop the motor itself?

Seconding this. Still camera gear from Lomo, Kiev, etc has been referred to as FSU for years. I think changing the name for political reasons is pretty terrible, along the lines of the US fad of calling french fries "Freedom Fries" after the French declined to join us in bombing countries that weren't involved. The misdeeds of a country's ruler, despotic or no, don't change the nation of origin of things that country has produced, and a nationality--of items or of the laborers who built them--is distinct from a government. Rather, I think the name should be changed because it simply isn't accurate: many of these optics and cameras were made in Belarus or Ukraine.