Mark Dunn

At 500pps it's sharp at first but jumps out after about 5 seconds, so about 120 frames or 3 feet. I wonder if the film on the supply spool is getting a bit loose and then snatching tight and moving the gate out. I may be talking rubbish but it won't hurt to check. At the same point the shutter timing goes out as there is a bit of smearing (look at the white patch on the chart). It pops back at about 2:35 and the sharpness improves. I would be checking for dirt and film residue, especially around the gate.

Bear in mind that the painting probably hasn't been restored and may have centuries of old yellowing varnish. Quite often when cleaned the old masters, I think the expression is "pop". Separation of dark hair from a dark background is usually a major beneficiary- they were meant to separate. Something the likes of us certainly notice. There are some very good examples on the BBC show "Britain's Lost Masterpieces", which may not be available abroad.

Red and yellow Panavision magazines! Hmm....wow....probably.

Georg Thoma. Bolex set up a new factory to make it. http://www.lusznat.de/cms1/index.php/kinomuseum-muenchen/die-entstehung-der-bolex-16-pro He later got a technical Oscar for the Sachtler fluid head.

The shadows are "milky", as you put it, because by underexposing you have reduced the shadow density to such an extent that at a given print exposure you can't make the blacks dense enough without making the highlights too dark. Push processing would help a bit but at the expense of grain and definition. In black and white stills photography you would correct this by using a more contrasty paper, but you don't have this option in film- you can't control the contrast shot-by-shot. So you avoid underexposure at all costs. In digital, of course, you adjust the contrast in post.

Quite so, 25 years on there's no reason other than custom for a DSLR still to look like a camera that needs two film chambers. But it's still a handy place to put the handgrip. Think Hasselblad. That sort of looks like a camcorder. I mean the 500C- their current stuff has gone back to the rangefinder shape.

Is anyone else shooting their home movies on 35mm? Don't think so. More power to you.

There was only one Kodak neg stock in 1970, 5254. It's my understanding that Gevaert and Fuji stocks were rarely used in the US.

On my monitor these look quite 40s Technicolor.

Well, they've got a bunch of film gear that isn't theirs, so yes. They have a case against the scammers, but good luck with that, the loot's probably in Russia.

I think there's a contributor here working at a co-op in France that still uses a Debrie printer with subtractive filters. Can't recall his name but you could try a search. But I don't think you could possibly tell just from a print how the light had been filtered to make the exposure. The print stock can't tell the difference. Brian Pritchard's website may help you http://www.brianpritchard.com/FAOL/contents/2604200faol/Foncd/TEXTS/sect_7/analy7.html

I have never seen a Minima so this isn't from experience. The flexible spools are integral to the design. AFAICS the spool flanges are actually driven by the sprocket edges, and they are spread apart slightly at the feed and take-up points, then bend back flat to maintain the light seal. So the entire film transport depends on the size and flexibility of the spool flanges. There's no way to make it work with metal spools. Effectively it make the camera reliant on proprietary "software". It needed a thriving 16mm infrastructure, which no longer exists, and relied on a special item from another manufacturer, and that manufacturer's willingness to support it, also gone.

deleted

Sony had another go at the pellicle for their later Alpha stills line, calling it SLT for "translucent", before it jumped on the mirrorless bandwagon. It works very well. I've had an A55/A58 since 2016. Sensor dust is almost a thing of the past. Only drawback- it doesn't work in pinhole mode because the super-high DoF extends right back to the pellicle and sees every bit of the surface like a microscope. It's like photographing through measles.

The shutter speeds are proportional. From that table, at 64pps it would be a quarter of the speed at 16, so 1/140th. Also from the table, the shutter angle is evidently 165 degrees, so working back, the shutterspeed is the usual formula s = 1/((360/165)r), where s is the shutter speed and r the frame rate.

From a discussion in a stills forum, it was suggested that this was a Primo or a rehoused Summicron. I think Primos are black. What does the team think? https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=843649821125782&set=pcb.843649931125771

I don't get the sidebar ads at all on this or any site. Just 2 or 3 banners- top, middle and bottom. Maybe you need to check your adblocker. Firefox/Chrome. I'm no expert, but you may be getting the Norwegian ads because of your cookie settings. I very much doubt Tim is making his fortune from the ads, just helping out his costs. The usefulness of this forum far outweighs any ad problem. I tune them out anyway as I'm not in the market.

I have two entire 3-400' rolls of junk film harvested from lab leaders from the 90s. Some of them are pretty good fragments of comopt prints in various languages. On shows they're great for running on the Steenbeck when the image is going to be replaced by a plate anyway. Some are pretty entertaining as well. One has Michael Eisner, Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger- I've never tracked down the show.

I've just come across your post months late. If it's still useful, you need one DR-70 and two DR-83 belts. If you don't need sepmag drive at all, you only need one DR-83.

The '01 speed selector is a completely different design to the '00 so I don't think I can help directly. It uses a microswitch and a potentiometer to detect the position of the selector. However, I've put a screenshot of schematic of the speed selector from the '01 service manual on my Drive account which may help you. The disc you mention appears to be screwed into place. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KRs4G3kvoEu9dJsJ7cq6SziKW_MMDmzG/view?usp=sharing

If you search on "Bell & Howell Model C" a lot comes up. brianpritchard.com is also a good source. Brian is ex-Kodak. He may chip in here if he's still around.

The first shot-to-shot grading cues were Debrie clips- metal staples attached to the film just before the cut, detected by contacts on the printer. Later, the edge of the film was notched to activate a microswitch. By the 70s, the grader created a punch tape with the printer commands and the cueing was by frame count.

Yes.

On my 1600 the flipper is held in place by spring tension and it's attached to a shaft running through the stack of switches that make up the selector. If yours is actually loose it suggests that something has come detached. My speed selector (what you're calling the flipper unit) is held in by a couple of metal claws screwed to the barrel of the selector which dig into the wooden underside of the table. I wonder if the disc is a modification. It would help if you could post a photograph.