Mark Dunn

This sounds like a lazy take-up drive. It should pull just hard enough to keep the wind tight regardless of whether a spool or core is used. It needs looking at, because you might get cinch marks when it finally pulls tight, or at worst the slack could jam on the spool flange.

If it's on the front or back surface- it's easy to tell- you could try isopropyl alcohol. I cleaned a 'Scope adapter this way once. You may be lucky if it's the right sort of fungus, and used sparingly you won't cause any damage to the lens or yourself- IPA is much nicer than peroxide.

If you have the option of a 1/4" screw, I have a 1/4" adapter sleeve in mine. The mounting is quite adequate. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/astro-essentials-14-to-38-tripod-thread-adapter.html You should be able to find something in the US for a coupla bucks. One of my tripods (admittedly it's an amateur one) has a locking collar below the plate so you can control how much of the tripod screw protrudes. If yours doesn't have this you may have to do as Dom suggests, or if it has an inset, as another of mine does, replace it with one with a shallower screw. It may seem inadequate, but three turns of thread is quite normal for 1/4" and 3/8" tripods. I think 1/4" is sufficient up to the weight of a K3.

All cameras have a pulldown claw- it's how the film is moved through the gate. Do you mean something else? If the image is unsteady, and you're sure you loaded it correctly, the camera may need adjustment, cleaning and lubrication.

Maybe PM the OP- the model number will be on a plate on the back. I think it's a ST900, in which case it will probably need DR70 DR79 DR83 2 off DR98 but do check with Dwight at cutfilm.com

Just carry on as normal. There's no flicker with LCD/LED- only film or CRT.

I hadn't thought of prints, but Daniel is quite right- no reason not to use one. The perfs are a little different but I don't see why it wouldn't run- even if you don't need it to. They are quite short, so you might not get the "feel" of a full roll, but there are plenty for around £10. Just make sure to get one with a core unless you have some. Most seem to be around 100-200ft.

I remember some Isco anamorphics with large rear elements from years ago. As you probably realise it's a critical measurement. I don't know what you're after but the ISco Ultra Stars I see mostly appear to be projector lenses, which wouldn't have a large rear element (or a focussing helicoid unless it's been rehoused). So watch out for that.

The rear element is about 50mm. in diameter IIRC (I sold my 8Z, which is very similar some years ago) and it's nowhere near big enough to cover the 12-120 at any practical focal length without vignetting. I doubt it would cover any of the BL- mount primes either. I don't know about alternatives.

It's over-development of the negative to increase the sensitivity; another term is "push processing". In that period it was very unusual- Kodak didn't like it and wouldn't offer any sort of assurances if it was done. There were no faster neg stocks until later- I think Fuji A250 was the first; we used it at college in 1981. Kodak was then forced to follow suit. Another famous example of push-processing is "Barry Lyndon".

They're 27mm Ektars, purpose made for the 3-strip. It wasn't an optically demanding application- the shutter was in front of the lenses- so they could be pretty fast. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/cineramacam.htm

After 1973

I have some badly vinegared 1955 35mm. film and it has indeed gone what you could call yellow, although it's more of an orange/sepia sort of tone. It's not a colour you'd choose for a tint. Well-kept b/w film can survive without vinegar syndrome but it's quite rare. Bear in mind that your print may be much later- 16mm. was introduced only in 1923 as an amateur format, and wasn't used professionally for shooting (as opposed to distribution), for decades, so unless your film was shot by an amateur, it's more likely to be a later reduction from 35mm. You'll have to wait and see. If it smells strongly of vinegar the emulsion may be in very poor condition as mine is- cracked and crazed- and the best option for preservation may be a scan.

It's a standard leader that goes directly before the first frame of the reel, so you know it hasn't been damaged and cut short. If there's sound on the print there's a "pop"- one frame of 1KHz sine wave- on the first (and only) frame of the number 2. The last two seconds are blank in case a reel changeover is late- only black film is projected, rather than the countdown. There are 24 frames of each number- back in the day Academy leaders had 16 frames (16 frames is one foot of 35mm) so they ran faster.

Unfortunately he has his own Steenbeck? but isn't running reels correctly on it (you take the plate off). Since this place is two free bus rides from my front door maybe I should drop by and clue him in. That part of Clapton hasn't been creepingly gentrified yet.

Curious about your reasoning. A widescreen print is (was) common enough on 16mm. We even had one at college, paying extra for a burnt-in 1.66 mask on a C-roll.

Sorry if I misunderstood, I took you to mean that the second scan was done not by Pro-8 but by the French outfit.

My understanding is that Pro-8 is used mainly by amateurs, who need something good-looking "out of the box", as it were, as if they'd just put a roll of Kodachrome on a projector. As Frank says, B is a professional scan. A looks fine as it is, but if you needed to match other footage, for example, it would be very difficult to grade. Colour rendering has nothing to do with the camera. This is film, not digital.

It must have been going pretty fast because it's knocked every single one of the wall of cardboard boxes out of shot. You're in LA, right? Angelenos love to put on a good show for the visitors.

I have a source of those now, the Cinema Museum in Lambeth has ordered in bulk for its machines and I get paid in kind (belts, exciter lamps or wine) for working on them. IME the original belts start off light in colour and go that dark brown when they die. They were rubber, but the newer replacements ( since the 90s?) are the polyurethane ones- they start off grey and yellow a bit (I have one from 2005) but they don't become fragile. The rubber vee-belts that drive the plates are much less critical. My logic is that, since cutting on 16mm. stopped in the early 90s, no machine older that that will have had its belts replaced since then, and many machines will have their originals. To clarify for the OP, as you observe, those Moviola spares may be a very different material. It's an American machine so no reason for it to have German-standard DR belts. They certainly look different. I may be fortunate in having a late model (1975) '00 machine with no ICs. Even I can test a resistor.

Sorry not to be the bearer of better news, but if those timing belts are anything like Steenbeck ones, I think you had better start looking for replacements. The dark colour means they are about to tear themselves to shreds. You will be able to mark them with a fingernail. If this has already happened this would account for the lack of transport.

One of mine from a visit in 2012. Old and new. The Ernemannturm at the Pentacon factory by Högg and Müller, 1923, now housing the technology museum. An exemplar of the Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) architectural style.

I assume there was some incompatibility between the sound cartridge and single-frame advance due to the presence of the sound capstan. Anyway, as Joerg says, the problem disappeared along with the sound cartridge 25 years ago.

My Steenbeck has a number of cogs which appear to be made of this sort of material but they appear quite dry- I have greased them on occasion and it doesn't seem likely that they would get oiled often if at all, and the user manual doesn't mention it. Should I be thinking about oiling them? I should mention that the machine was made in 1975 and they show no signs of wear.

Still teal and orange, then.