In a message dated 11/9/09 2:21:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
MTaglieri@... writes:

I agree  that the 35mm has the best resolution, but they're all similar.
The most  surprising thing is that the 4x5 resolution and pictorial photo are
so  bad.  Could the camera have been out of alignment or the lens  dirty?


>>

I doubt it. I used a 10X loupe to focus and it's a top notch Fujinon 150mm
lens at its best f-stop. The glass is nice and clear. I've made 8 foot
prints  with it that are stupendous. I'm not surprised by the resolution tests.
That's  exactly what is expected, but many are surprised that a 4 element
submini lens  has superior resolution to a 6 element large format lens that,
by  itself, cost much more than the entire submini camera. But the
large-format  approach wins out in real life because the negative is so much
larger
and needs  much less magnification.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are some posts on lens resolution on the photo.net Minox forum. I read
that the Minox Complan (IIIs/B/some C) lens has a resolution of 177 lp/mm, while
the Minox lens (LX, later C) is 163 lp/mm. This compares to about 60-80 lp/mm
for good quality prime 35mm lenses, and typically less for medium format. This
means that film resolution is likely to be the limiting factor for Minox
enlargeability unless one is using specialized films. It interesting to see this
demonstrated.

-Anthony




________________________________
From: "xkaes@..." <xkaes@...>
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 1:51:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Digest Number 2140



In a message dated 11/9/09 2:21:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
MTaglieri@legal- aid.org writes:

I agree  that the 35mm has the best resolution, but they're all similar.
The most  surprising thing is that the 4x5 resolution and pictorial photo are
so  bad.  Could the camera have been out of alignment or the lens  dirty?

>>

I doubt it. I used a 10X loupe to focus and it's a top notch Fujinon 150mm
lens at its best f-stop. The glass is nice and clear. I've made 8 foot
prints  with it that are stupendous. I'm not surprised by the resolution tests.
That's  exactly what is expected, but many are surprised that a 4 element
submini lens  has superior resolution to a 6 element large format lens that,
by  itself, cost much more than the entire submini camera. But the
large-format  approach wins out in real life because the negative is so much
larger
and needs  much less magnification.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nice work, thank you for the time and effort put into making the tests. I do
have one nit to pick though. You realize of course that you just shot down most
of my excuses for buying a bigger 'better' camera?

ku7j5 wrote:
> Nice work, thank you for the time and effort put into making the
> tests. I do have one nit to pick though. You realize of course that
> you just shot down most of my excuses for buying a bigger 'better'
> camera?
>

If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all the excuses you
could ever want to buy a medium or large format.  Otherwise, just get
set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or Minolta 16 with good,
slow film.

--
If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

'Grif' wrote:
>
> One thing I wish,,, a 16mm rangefinder a guy could afford.
>

If you don't dawdle, you might still be able to get enough 110
cartridges to reload for a bit, one of the Kodak Pocket Instamatic line
had a fully functional rangefinder (as well as automatic exposure for
ISO 100 and 400, detected from the cartridge, and a built-in strobe).
The K batteries are long gone, but if you can find a shell you can
"reload" those too (and if you're careful and good with glue, you can
probably make a shell).

--
If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Na just needed something to complain about. :-)

Just gave my Hasselblad stuff to my daughter. After a several years dry spell
I'm getting back into processing and printing my own Minox negatives. I
typically print 5x7 and seldom anything over 8x10 so after the relearning curve
and with a bit of care everything should be good.

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, Donald Qualls <silent1@...> wrote:

> If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all the excuses you
> could ever want to buy a medium or large format.  Otherwise, just get
> set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or Minolta 16 with good,
> slow film.
>
> --
> If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
> it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
>
> Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com
>
> Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
> and don't expect them to be perfect.
>

I found that 5x7's were the sweet-spot for Minox printing (with slow films)... I
was never happy with any 8x10's I did due to spots, streaks, scratches etc...
but for 5x7's spot-all was fine and I got impressive prints.

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, ku7j5 <ku7j5@...> wrote:

> From: ku7j5 <ku7j5@...>
> Subject: [Submini-L] Re: for all you skeptics
> To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 8:58 PM
> Na just needed something to complain
> about. :-)
>
> Just gave my Hasselblad stuff to my daughter. After a
> several years dry spell I'm getting back into processing and
> printing my own Minox negatives. I typically print 5x7 and
> seldom anything over 8x10 so after the relearning curve and
> with a bit of care everything should be good.
>
> --- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com,
> Donald Qualls <silent1@...> wrote:
>
> > If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all
> the excuses you
> > could ever want to buy a medium or large format. 
> Otherwise, just get
> > set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or
> Minolta 16 with good,
> > slow film.
> >
> > --
> > If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally
> get what you want,
> > it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
> >
> > Donald Qualls, aka The Silent
> Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com
> >
> > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what
> they're worth
> > and don't expect them to be perfect.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...!
> Groups Links
>
>
>     SUBMINI-L-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

In a message dated 11/9/09 6:40:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
anthony_kosky@... writes:



There are some posts on lens resolution on the photo.net Minox  forum. I
read that the Minox Complan (IIIs/B/some C) lens has a resolution of  177
lp/mm, while the Minox lens (LX, later C) is 163 lp/mm. This compares to  about
60-80 lp/mm for good quality prime 35mm lenses, and typically less for
medium format. This means that film resolution is likely to be the limiting
factor for Minox enlargeability unless one is using specialized films. It
interesting to see this demonstrated.

-Anthony


>>

You are right. If I had used a grainier film, the differences between the
formats would have been more obvious. That would have been just like making
bigger enlargements than I did. Under either of these conditions, the
larger  formats win sooner. Just one more reason to use the finest grain film
you
can as  the format size drops. Any interesting result from my report was
that I  basically made my first 16x20 from Minox -- and on APX25 the results
are pretty  darn good. A 20x24 would be very reachable.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/9/09 5:56:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
ku7j5@... writes:

Nice  work, thank you for the time and effort put into making the tests. I
do have  one nit to pick though. You realize of course that you just shot
down most of  my excuses for buying a bigger 'better' camera?


>>

Yeah, but bigger film camera prices have dropped, just like smaller film
cameras, since the dawn of the digital age. Lens prices too. You can buy an
entire darkroom for $50. No excuses.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/10/09 4:01:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
markhahn2000@... writes:

I found  that 5x7's were the sweet-spot for Minox printing (with slow
films)... I was  never happy with any 8x10's I did due to spots, streaks,
scratches etc... but  for 5x7's spot-all was fine and I got impressive  prints.



>>

I have the same problem. I get virtually no scratches with Minolta 16, but
they are pretty common with Minox -- even with different cartridges and
cameras  (all IIIs). I use the same slitter for both, so I know that is not the
problem.  But I've got a good supply of No Scratch and Spotone.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have a couple 8x10's on my desk that were taken moments apart from the same
tripod.  One was taken with a Rollei 35SE and the other with a Minox B.  You
can tell which was taken with which camera but you have to have them side by
side and REALLY look hard to see any difference.  The Minox neg was made on
APX25.  The Rollei was on Delta100...

Speedy

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, mark hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:

From: mark hahn <markhahn2000@...>
Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: for all you skeptics
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 12:37 AM







 









       I found that 5x7's were the sweet-spot for Minox printing (with slow
films)... I was never happy with any 8x10's I did due to spots, streaks,
scratches etc... but for 5x7's spot-all was fine and I got impressive prints.



--- On Mon, 11/9/09, ku7j5 <ku7j5@yahoo. com> wrote:



> From: ku7j5 <ku7j5@yahoo. com>

> Subject: [Submini-L] Re: for all you skeptics

> To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogrou ps.com

> Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 8:58 PM

> Na just needed something to complain

> about. :-)

>

> Just gave my Hasselblad stuff to my daughter. After a

> several years dry spell I'm getting back into processing and

> printing my own Minox negatives. I typically print 5x7 and

> seldom anything over 8x10 so after the relearning curve and

> with a bit of care everything should be good.

>

> --- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogrou ps.com,

> Donald Qualls <silent1@... > wrote:

>

> > If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all

> the excuses you

> > could ever want to buy a medium or large format. 

> Otherwise, just get

> > set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or

> Minolta 16 with good,

> > slow film.

> >

> > --

> > If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally

> get what you want,

> > it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

> >

> > Donald Qualls, aka The Silent

> Observer   http://silent1. home.netcom. com

> >

> > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what

> they're worth

> > and don't expect them to be perfect.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------ --------- --------- ------

>

> To unsubscribe send an email to

> SUBMINI-L-unsubscri be@yahoogroups. comYahoo!

> Groups Links

>

>

>     SUBMINI-L-fullfeatu red@yahoogroups. com

>

>

>




















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/10/09 7:04:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
speedgraphic@... writes:

I have a  couple 8x10's on my desk that were taken moments apart from the
same  tripod.  One was taken with a Rollei 35SE and the other with a Minox
B.  You can tell which was taken with which camera but you have to have  them
side by side and REALLY look hard to see any difference.  The Minox  neg
was made on APX25.  The Rollei was on  Delta100...



>>

Any even when you can tell the difference, sometimes you prefer one over
the other for different reasons. I love the look of my "grab shots" taken
with  my Minolta MGs and Ilford HP5 (ISO 400). The grain is obvious in an 8x10,
but it  makes the pictures look more candid and casual. I don't get the
same "feel" with  APX 25 or Delta 100, although I use them as well. I have an
MGs loaded with each  of these films all the time.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So,,, Donald.  How many lists to both of us show up on?  Optics, anodizing?
machining?  Way too many toys ;-) so little time :-(

-----Original Message-----
>From: Donald Qualls <silent1@...>
>Sent: Nov 9, 2009 5:47 PM
>To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Submini-L] For all you skeptics
>
>'Grif' wrote:
>>
>> One thing I wish,,, a 16mm rangefinder a guy could afford.
>>
>
>If you don't dawdle, you might still be able to get enough 110
>cartridges to reload for a bit, one of the Kodak Pocket Instamatic line
>had a fully functional rangefinder (as well as automatic exposure for
>ISO 100 and 400, detected from the cartridge, and a built-in strobe).
>The K batteries are long gone, but if you can find a shell you can
>"reload" those too (and if you're careful and good with glue, you can
>probably make a shell).
>
>--
>If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
>it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
>
>Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com
>
>Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
>and don't expect them to be perfect.
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to
>SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
>
>
>

Not directly about 16mm, but does/will relate a bit.

Back when, I had the choice of a Nikon with two lenses, or a Hasselblad with an
80 for about the same money.  (not a lot of difference in the payments).  Based
on film cost and so on, I picked the 35mm.  Used it for years, PanF and
Panatomic X at asa's around 16, fighting dust, I didn't like grain.  Learned to
carry my own available light;-) Total fight in the darkroom.

Friend loaned me a Mamiya C33 while he was on the government sponsored field day
to Vietnam.  What a treat.  Same basic results, but now I had an asa of 125,
could use the "other" available light.  Darkroom was much different to get
really good 11x14's, a lot less fuss.  Not that the 35mm didn't do the job, just
that so many of the totally fussy issues could be dealt with a lot easier. 
While I had both systems, I used them for totally different things.  I did the
fussy stuff in the C33, loaded up the Nikon with Kodacolor X and just had a
ball.

I'm getting older, I now understand that a visegrip and hammer does not replace
a socket set.  Makes the hobby a lot more enjoyable.  Just got a pile of film
for the Minolta MG16, film holders loaded for the 4x5, and yes, the Nikon still
sits behind the front seat, but now it's back to being loaded with asa 100 color
negative film, doing what it and I do best with 35mm.  The fussy stuff is now
getting bigger with even less issues with dust and spots.

I even use my digital as a "poloroid" finder for the 4x5.  Really handy tool. 
Even keep it around working on the old bronco.  Much more reliable than my
memory.  Even use it to document working on some older cameras when they start
getting taken apart.

So, no, I'm not going to replace 35mm with my 16, it's a totally different show,
and I've even embraced the "grain" with 16mm. (asa400).

Anyway, just some random thoughts about the hobby and my take on it.  Some of
the best advise I think I've gotten about photography.  One Camera, one lens,
one film, one year.  Just can't do it... too many toys ;-)


-----Original Message-----
>From: Donald Qualls <silent1@...>
>Sent: Nov 9, 2009 5:43 PM
>To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: for all you skeptics
>
>ku7j5 wrote:
>> Nice work, thank you for the time and effort put into making the
>> tests. I do have one nit to pick though. You realize of course that
>> you just shot down most of my excuses for buying a bigger 'better'
>> camera?
>>
>
>If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all the excuses you
>could ever want to buy a medium or large format.  Otherwise, just get
>set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or Minolta 16 with good,
>slow film.
>
>--
>If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
>it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
>
>Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com
>
>Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
>and don't expect them to be perfect.
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to
>SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
>
>
>

5x7 is my favorite as well. I'm rather a fanatic about dust in the camera or the
darkroom when it comes to the Minox so my 8x10's usually come out okay with a
bit of spotting. If I know before hand that I'll probably want bigger than 5x7 I
use a 35mm (sp500)

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, mark hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
>
> I found that 5x7's were the sweet-spot for Minox printing (with slow films)...
I was never happy with any 8x10's I did due to spots, streaks, scratches etc...
but for 5x7's spot-all was fine and I got impressive prints.
>
> --- On Mon, 11/9/09, ku7j5 <ku7j5@...> wrote:
>
> > From: ku7j5 <ku7j5@...>
> > Subject: [Submini-L] Re: for all you skeptics
> > To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, November 9, 2009, 8:58 PM
> > Na just needed something to complain
> > about. :-)
> >
> > Just gave my Hasselblad stuff to my daughter. After a
> > several years dry spell I'm getting back into processing and
> > printing my own Minox negatives. I typically print 5x7 and
> > seldom anything over 8x10 so after the relearning curve and
> > with a bit of care everything should be good.
> >
> > --- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com,
> > Donald Qualls <silent1@> wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to make LARGE prints, you still have all
> > the excuses you
> > > could ever want to buy a medium or large format.�
> > Otherwise, just get
> > > set up with a reliable way to feed your Minox or
> > Minolta 16 with good,
> > > slow film.
> > >
> > > --
> > > If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally
> > get what you want,
> > > it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.
> > >
> > > Donald Qualls, aka The Silent
> > Observer���http://silent1.home.netcom.com
> > >
> > > Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what
> > they're worth
> > > and don't expect them to be perfect.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe send an email to
> > SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...!
> > Groups Links
> >
> >
> > � � SUBMINI-L-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>

I received them following from emoscop.

We are sorry to advise that we do not carry this accessory anymore, as
production has been stopped for the EMOSCOP. We are only selling out the stock
of complete sets.

Kindest regards,

TOBI DOERINGER
EMOSCOP

Picked-up a Minolta 16-II and am now in need of a film splitter!  Anyone got a
used one to part with for a non-usurious price?  Many thanks.

John M.     <john2k_99@...>

Thanks for sending this out.  I've wanted one of these for many years and kept
putting off buying it.

________________________________
From: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
ku7j5
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:53 PM
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Submini-L] emoscop... getem while you can.



I received them following from emoscop.

We are sorry to advise that we do not carry this accessory anymore, as
production has been stopped for the EMOSCOP. We are only selling out the stock
of complete sets.

Kindest regards,

TOBI DOERINGER
EMOSCOP




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
----------
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose, distribute or
copy this communication.  Please notify the sender that you
have received this e-mail in error and delete the original and any copy of the
e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
---------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Now that I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my tools
were calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or converting but
when it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to 0.003936996 in. converting
becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004 but the mental anguish
remains :-)]

Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining now it is back to work.

In a message dated 11/20/09 7:32:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
ku7j5@... writes:

Now that  I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
tools were  calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or
converting but when  it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to
0.003936996
in. converting  becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004
but the mental  anguish remains :-)]

Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining  now it is back to work.



>>

This is a good point, but one think to keep in mind -- not all dimensions
are the real dimensions. For example, 35mm film is not 35mm wide. I don't
know  why or how it got to be called 35mm film, because when it was created,
it was  not 35mm wide.  Go figure. It is really 34.8mm wide. That 0.2mm
difference  can have adverse effects in a slitter.

W.K..L. Dickson, in an article written for the SMPTE Journal in 1933,
described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and
Kinetograph.  It gives us a look at how 35mm still cameras evolved. Dickson  was
a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in
1887.  By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using
multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.  In  late
1888, Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at  the
New York Camera Club, which Dickson attended.  He immediately open
discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George
Eastman, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new
flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman
requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater
flexibility  of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the
product
right  from the beginning.  Dickson's account gives the impression that the
flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison
  experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his
first  50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that
"All these  samples and experiemnts were made exclusively for us by Mr.
Eastman, who took an  ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."  The
Edison people had to  cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear
what width the 50 rolls  were. Dickson goes on, "At the end of the year 1889,
I increased the width of  the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4, then, to 1 inch
3/4 inch high. The actual  width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for
perforations now punched on both  edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture,
which perforations were a shade smaller  than those now in use. This
standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with  only minor variation,
unaltered to
date."  This was true in 1933, and it's  still true today.   It's
interesting that he gives the dimensions in  inches, not millimeters.  If you
measure
a piece of 35mm film, you'll see  that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across
(only 34.8mm).


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What an interesting story - it something I've always just taken for granted,
that "35mm" film was so-named because it was, well, 35mm across. I suppose its
still easier than calling it "one-and-three-eights" film. Although we do call
"two-and-one-quarter" film just that, and not "57.15mm" film (I suppose we could
just say '57mm' or '58mm' to be easier...). I will agree with the original
poster that using metric measurements makes converting much easier... although
it doesn't seem common among machinists.

Jim Brokaw




________________________________
From: "xkaes@..." <xkaes@...>
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Rosielily@...
Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 6:47:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Slitter assembly tweaking stage.



In a message dated 11/20/09 7:32:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
ku7j5@yahoo. com writes:

Now that  I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
tools were  calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or
converting but when  it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to
0.003936996
in. converting  becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004
but the mental  anguish remains :-)]

Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining  now it is back to work.

>>

This is a good point, but one think to keep in mind -- not all dimensions
are the real dimensions. For example, 35mm film is not 35mm wide. I don't
know  why or how it got to be called 35mm film, because when it was created,
it was  not 35mm wide.  Go figure. It is really 34.8mm wide. That 0.2mm
difference  can have adverse effects in a slitter.

W.K..L. Dickson, in an article written for the SMPTE Journal in 1933,
described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and
Kinetograph.  It gives us a look at how 35mm still cameras evolved. Dickson  was
a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in
1887.  By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using
multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid.  In  late
1888, Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at  the
New York Camera Club, which Dickson attended.  He immediately open
discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with George
Eastman, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's new
flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman
requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater
flexibility  of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the
product
right  from the beginning.  Dickson's account gives the impression that the
flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the Edison
experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his
first  50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that
"All these  samples and experiemnts were made exclusively for us by Mr.
Eastman, who took an  ever-increasing interest in what we were doing."  The
Edison people had to  cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is unclear
what width the 50 rolls  were. Dickson goes on, "At the end of the year 1889,
I increased the width of  the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4, then, to 1 inch
3/4 inch high. The actual  width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for
perforations now punched on both  edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture,
which perforations were a shade smaller  than those now in use. This
standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with  only minor variation,
unaltered to
date."  This was true in 1933, and it's  still true today.   It's
interesting that he gives the dimensions in  inches, not millimeters.  If you
measure
a piece of 35mm film, you'll see  that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across
(only 34.8mm).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My presumption is that we call it 35mm from the Leica and the first still
cameras for the format out of Europe.  Does anyone know?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@...> wrote:

>
>
> What an interesting story - it something I've always just taken for
> granted, that "35mm" film was so-named because it was, well, 35mm across. I
> suppose its still easier than calling it "one-and-three-eights" film.
> Although we do call "two-and-one-quarter" film just that, and not "57.15mm"
> film (I suppose we could just say '57mm' or '58mm' to be easier...). I will
> agree with the original poster that using metric measurements makes
> converting much easier... although it doesn't seem common among machinists.
>
> Jim Brokaw
>
> ________________________________
> From: "xkaes@... <xkaes%40aol.com>" <xkaes@... <xkaes%40aol.com>>
> To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com <SUBMINI-L%40yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: Rosielily@... <Rosielily%40aol.com>
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 6:47:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Slitter assembly tweaking stage.
>
> In a message dated 11/20/09 7:32:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> ku7j5@yahoo. com writes:
>
> Now that I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
> tools were calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or
> converting but when it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to
> 0.003936996
> in. converting becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004
> but the mental anguish remains :-)]
>
> Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining now it is back to work.
>
> >>
>
> This is a good point, but one think to keep in mind -- not all dimensions
> are the real dimensions. For example, 35mm film is not 35mm wide. I don't
> know why or how it got to be called 35mm film, because when it was created,
>
> it was not 35mm wide. Go figure. It is really 34.8mm wide. That 0.2mm
> difference can have adverse effects in a slitter.
>
> W.K..L. Dickson, in an article written for the SMPTE Journal in 1933,
> described his central role in the development of Edison's Kinetoscope and
> Kinetograph. It gives us a look at how 35mm still cameras evolved. Dickson
> was
> a researcher for Edison, and was put onto the Motion Picture project in
> 1887. By 1888, he was able to make some sort of motion pictures using
> multiple rows of tiny shots on Carbutt's stiff sensitized celluloid. In
> late
> 1888, Eastman's company gave a private demonstration of a new product at
> the
> New York Camera Club, which Dickson attended. He immediately open
> discussions with the Eastman company, and was soon dealing directly with
> George
> Eastman, who supplied them with many samples of short lengths of Eastman's
> new
> flexible film. As Dickson worked with the stuff, he came back to Eastman
> requesting finer grain, greater sensitivity of emulsion, and greater
> flexibility of the base. He worked very closely with Eastman to refine the
> product
> right from the beginning. Dickson's account gives the impression that the
> flexible film we know today was developed with a lot of input from the
> Edison
> experimenters to meet motion picture needs. He states that he received his
> first 50-foot rolls of film from Eastman in the spring of 1889, and that
> "All these samples and experiemnts were made exclusively for us by Mr.
> Eastman, who took an ever-increasing interest in what we were doing." The
> Edison people had to cut and sprocket the stuff themselves, and it is
> unclear
> what width the 50 rolls were. Dickson goes on, "At the end of the year
> 1889,
> I increased the width of the picture from 1/2 inch to 3/4, then, to 1 inch
> 3/4 inch high. The actual width of the film was 1 3/8 inches to allow for
> perforations now punched on both edges, 4 holes to the phase or picture,
> which perforations were a shade smaller than those now in use. This
> standardized film size of 1889 has remained, with only minor variation,
> unaltered to
> date." This was true in 1933, and it's still true today. It's
> interesting that he gives the dimensions in inches, not millimeters. If you
> measure
> a piece of 35mm film, you'll see that it's exactly 1 3/8 inches across
> (only 34.8mm).
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/20/09 2:17:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
tomnetch@... writes:

My  presumption is that we call it 35mm from the Leica and the first  still
cameras for the format out of Europe.  Does anyone  know?


>>

The same, exact film had been used for decades in earlier cameras, but it
was never called 35mm. Why would Leica call film that was not 35mm,  35mm?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances don't you?  The
difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which is very small.  I'm sure
that many "35mm cameras" would work perfectly fine if the film used was actually
35mm in width and not 34.8mm.

Tom Nelson wrote:
> My presumption is that we call it 35mm from the Leica and the first still
> cameras for the format out of Europe.  Does anyone know?

Story I heard a long time ago was that Kodak's first slitters were
imported from france and were designed to slit cigarette paper, and thus
they were calibrated in MM.  They probably were adjustable in increments
of 5mm.

The Nitrate stock that Dickson was using probably changed dimensions in
the processing baths.  Kodak called it 35mm when they started to sell
it, it may have been 35mm then, and the dimensions have changed over the
years, a small amount smaller would prevent the film from catching on
the edge of the camera gate for example.

The perforations for negative film went from .1870 inch to .1866 inch
between centres when safety film did not shrink as much as Nitrate did.
   Positive film, (and still film) is still .1870  The perforations have
also changed shape over the years with Movie negative having what are
called "bell and Howell" perforations while positive and still film have
what is called Kodak Standard.

The Leica camera was originally fed with short ends of Motion Picture
stock, with film made specially for it later once the format caught on.

--
Charles MacDonald                 Stittsville Ontario
cmacd@...              Just Beyond the Fringe
http://www.TelecomOttawa.net/~cmacd/
No Microsoft Products were used in sending this e-mail.

mark hahn wrote:
> geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances don't you?
> The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which is very
> small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work perfectly fine
> if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not 34.8mm.
>

For perspective, this difference is about the same as the thickness of
common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the thickness of 35 mm
still film stock.

--
If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

In a message dated 11/21/09 12:25:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
silent1@... writes:

mark  hahn wrote:
> geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances  don't you?
> The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which  is very
> small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work  perfectly fine
> if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not  34.8mm.
>

For perspective, this difference is about the same as  the thickness of
common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the  thickness of 35 mm
still film stock.


>>

Great, but when you are cutting Minox film that is 9.2mm, if you cut it
9.4mm, it won't fit in the cassette.. So sometimes the 0.2mm does matters. If
it  doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but to some people under some
circumstances,  it does matter. I'm sorry I tried to enlighten you regarding
this
detail. You  can bet it will never happen again.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ohhhh,,,,, somebodies forgot their happy pills!

   It's just film and a hobby.  The really big thing...It's not going
to mess up anybody's Christmas no matter who's right.

   I'll bet you won't even remember this in a week when you wake up
Saturday morning.


At 11:30 AM 11/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 11/21/09 12:25:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>silent1@... writes:
>
>mark  hahn wrote:
> > geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances  don't you?
> > The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which  is very
> > small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work  perfectly fine
> > if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not  34.8mm.
> >
>
>For perspective, this difference is about the same as  the thickness of
>common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the  thickness of 35 mm
>still film stock.
>
>
> >>
>
>Great, but when you are cutting Minox film that is 9.2mm, if you cut it
>9.4mm, it won't fit in the cassette.. So sometimes the 0.2mm does matters. If
>it  doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but to some people under some
>circumstances,  it does matter. I'm sorry I tried to enlighten you
>regarding this
>detail. You  can bet it will never happen again.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe send an email to
>SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links
>
>
>

xkaes@... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/21/09 12:25:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> silent1@... writes:
>
> mark  hahn wrote:
>> geez guys, you do understand the concept of tolerances  don't you?
>> The difference between 35mm and 34.8mm is only 0.2mm which  is very
>> small.  I'm sure that many "35mm cameras" would work  perfectly fine
>> if the film used was actually 35mm in width and not  34.8mm.
>>
>
> For perspective, this difference is about the same as  the thickness of
> common 4x5 sheet film stock, or about half again the  thickness of 35 mm
> still film stock.
>
>
>>>
>
> Great, but when you are cutting Minox film that is 9.2mm, if you cut it
> 9.4mm, it won't fit in the cassette.. So sometimes the 0.2mm does matters. If
> it  doesn't matter to you, that's fine, but to some people under some
> circumstances,  it does matter. I'm sorry I tried to enlighten you regarding
this
> detail. You  can bet it will never happen again.
>
>

As suggested, tolerances matter, and often they're best considered as a
percentage of the total dimension.  For Minox film, 0.2 mm is more than
2% of the final width, in a high precision system (there's only 0.6 mm
clear film on either side of the frame).  Minolta 16 film cut that much
too wide will make a cassette fail to close, also, though the cameras I
have will tolerate the variation if you can get the film to advance.
For 35 mm "double frame" Leica/Kodak format, that amount of variation is
just over 0.5% of the width, and there's plenty of tolerance in the
cameras.  This same issue arises with other slitting situations, of
course; when I slit 120 to 127, I have to contend with either having the
strip narrow enough to be loose in the spool, or having film too wide to
fit a 127 developing reel (though that same problem hasn't arisen in
cutting 120 to make 828; perhaps I just don't cut precisely enough to
notice, or perhaps the backing on 828 isn't as much wider than the film
as it is in 127).

For my own contribution above, it's worth noting that if you somehow
manage to double load 4x5 film in the holder, the extra thickness will
result in very noticeable focus error because the emulsion will no
longer be in precisely the same position as the ground glass.  There
surely are situations in which that much change matters, and others
where it doesn't.  All I was doing is pointing out how big or small 0.2
mm is in real world dimensions.

--
If, through hard work and perseverance, you finally get what you want,
it's probably a sign you weren't dreaming big enough.

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer   http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, "ku7j5" <ku7j5@...> wrote:
>
> Now that I am at the finishing stage of making my slitter I dearly wish my
tools were calibrated in metric. I'm comfortable working in both or converting
but when it gets down to plus/mins .1mm which converts to 0.003936996 in.
converting becomes a major pain. [Yes it is just rounded off to .004 but the
mental anguish remains :-)]
>
> Okay, finished my coffee finished my complaining now it is back to work.
>
An update of sorts.

This slitter is a crank type that started as much because I wanted to play with
my unimat lathe/mill as for  any other reason (my flatbed slitter works just
fine).

After measuring a dozen or so cassettes that ranged from 9.2456 to 9.3472 mm.
depth (using a B&S vernier depth micrometer) I have opted for a 9.24 width and
will shim from there if necessary.

My two cents worth on the "tolerance" thread.

My observation from many years in photofinishing and some camera repair is that
the equipment that film goes through has relatively loose tolerances in the
advance and take up areas. The film plane and pressure plates are close to dead
on and the rest are in the ball park. It's not a matter of sloppy work but an
acknowledgment of the conditions that a camera will be used under. They are
expected to work in -double digit to + triple digit temperatures and similar
extremes in humidity. Toss into that brew some degree of dust as well as the
normal bouncing and banging in everyday usage. In those conditions if they were
made to be both functional and have super close tolerances throughout the price
would make the most expensive camera today look cheap.