I thought I had more bookmarked, but these are the
only two found:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/t-anodis.htm
http://w3.uwyo.edu/~metal/anodizing.html

I checked out the link from Roland and it leads to
a ton of links for anodizing aluminum (thanks Roland).

I gather from these sites that it shouldn't cost very
much to do it yourself. On the other hand, it seems like
there's a lot of potential for nasty accidents.

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 20:05, Larry Hester wrote:
> I would be interested in the links Phil.
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Goembel [mailto:phil-goembel@...]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:07 PM
> To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Submini-L] anodizing aluminum
>
>
> Someone's already made some black Minoxes. Check out
> the "Black Trinity section on this page. I've been
> meaning to ask Marty how he did this.
>
> I have some links to some do-it-yourself anodizing
> pages, if anybody's interested. Haven't tried it myself
> (yet).
>
> http://www.minoxdoc.com/variantsl.htm
>
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 13:21, kevin wrote:
> > I was looking around for some possibilities for spiffying up a
> Minolta
> > 16. Came across this page. <http://www.hobbyplating.com/> They sell
> a
> > kit for about $250 that will allow you to anodize aluminum. Its not
> > paint, the color actually penetrates the aluminum. You could color
> > your
> > minolta or even make a black minox. (probably some opportunities for
> > fraud here) Make them any color you want even rainbow.  Looked like
> > fun
> > but the money and the learning curve put it out of my reach for the
> > time. I was more interested in having someone do it for me. Thought
> > I'd
> > pass it along in case anyone else was interested. (like you guys
> > really
> > need another hobby) If anyone does try it I'd like to hear how the
> > experiment goes.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated 2/1/03 1:46:42 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
phil-goembel@... writes:

> there's a lot of potential for nasty accidents.

Yes!

That's why it is important to follow instructions carefully when constructing
the equipment and when using the equipment. But really, it is not a
complicated process once everything is set up.

Roland F. Harriston

Thanks Phil!
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Goembel [mailto:phil-goembel@...]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 2:46 AM
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Submini-L] anodizing aluminum


I thought I had more bookmarked, but these are the
only two found:

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrish/t-anodis.htm
http://w3.uwyo.edu/~metal/anodizing.html

I checked out the link from Roland and it leads to
a ton of links for anodizing aluminum (thanks Roland).

I gather from these sites that it shouldn't cost very
much to do it yourself. On the other hand, it seems like
there's a lot of potential for nasty accidents.

--- In SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com, kevin <kroach@j...> wrote:

> minolta or even make a black minox. (probably some opportunities for
> fraud here) Make them any color you want even rainbow.  Looked like

From discussions with would-be counterfeiters it seems that MINOX
cameras are not great to refinish due to the narrow tolerances of the
shell which forms an integral part of the function--- flashes and
lightmeters, however, with some other "problems" are, in this sense,
"a piece of cake". The pedestrian silver models are eloxidated and one
needs to remove it before one can re-anodize or plate and get the
thickness just right. Insiders have pointed out that most of the
"fakes" making the rounds were manufactured from either blank shells
(before the elox layer) from the production line or assembled using
spare shells amassed in the great spare sell-out following the
insolvence of MINOX a good decade past... it seems that many a gold
A/IIIs or B and many a black of any are more often than not, unless
fully documented with a trail, of perhaps more modern origin than
meets the eye.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

  I'm sorry to have to tell you that a friend of mine recently received an
email from me that apparently had an attachment on it (one that I did not
put there) which was virus infected. Since then, I have suffered a virus
attack today that triggered over a hundred Nortons AV warnings on my system.

   Thankfully, I restored from a clean backup so the problem seems to be
gone, however, just to be on the safe side, I'd like to encourage anyone who
has received an email from me in the past 72 hours to do a thorough virus
check.

   Thanks in advance, take care,

Scott


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

This company sells a kit for the process:
http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/aluminum.htm


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

Hi All,

I thought I would throw in a couple of facts about trying to anodize Minox shell
parts so as to set the record straight on this.  Firstly, the early Minox black
cameras...namely the IIIs which are very valuable are actually painted and not
anodized.  The later black Minox, such as the late B and C and beyond are
anodized.  Second, the anodization process will destroy any metal other than
aluminum so in order to anodize the shell you have to remove the chain plunger
mechanism because it has brass and steel parts in it.  Removing it is not the
problem, re-asembly is.   This is not made to come apart and go back together so
it is very difficult to get this assembly back and working again.  Same with the
flash PC plug.  It is press-fit and is not made to be reomoved from the end cap.
If you tried to anodize that part with the plug in there it would ruin both
parts and you would have nothing.  Third, the alloys used on the two ends of the
IIIs camera seem to be different and take the finish differently so they don't
match too well when you anodize them.  Now obviously, nothing is impossible and
it is possible to accomplish a reasonably good job but not one which could go
undetected by an eye who knows what to look for.

-Marty

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

In a message dated 2/2/03 6:28:04 AM, mdoctor@... writes:

<< The later black Minox, such as the late B and C and beyond are anodized. >>

uh, not my B, marty. It's painted, near as I can tell.

not that it matters, just pointing it out.

ctrentelman

I had thought there were only the black A110, the silver
E110 and the gold atom E110 camera.

The E110 has a very small variation. The green test button
on the back is round or square.

I have yet to come across one in good condition, regardless
of what the seller claims. Two of three the shutter does not
open although all three do react to the light. All have
surfaces scratches. The one that has a working shutter has a
ding! So perhaps the one that is going at $143 (2.5x as
much) is worth it, if it is as clean as it seems.

In an August 97 posting Joe Berenbaum mentioned Classic
Repair Services, the UK authorised service agents who charge
38GBP to service one. This is more than I have paid for the
camera.

Gerald

Early B's (those produced at the same time as the A series) were painted.
It is the later ones that were anodized if I am not mistaken.

John Watson

----- Original Message -----
From: <summicron1@...>
To: <SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: anodizing aluminum - MINOX


>
> In a message dated 2/2/03 6:28:04 AM, mdoctor@... writes:
>
> << The later black Minox, such as the late B and C and beyond are
anodized. >>
>
> uh, not my B, marty. It's painted, near as I can tell.
>
> not that it matters, just pointing it out.
>
> ctrentelman
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

From: <summicron1@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:50 PM
> In a message dated 2/2/03 6:28:04 AM, mdoctor@...
writes:
>
> << The later black Minox, such as the late B and C and
beyond are anodized. >>
>
> uh, not my B, marty. It's painted, near as I can tell.

Late Bs as in Bs with Minox lens, those made after 1973,
very few.

I have heard it claimed that the As and Bs were not painted.
The hard gross finish that I have seen on cameras with
matching boxes indicating a black camera for the given
serial number (some evidence that they were sold from the
factory like that) looked enamelled. They chip more easily
than the black BL, C and LX cameras. The black chains for
all the Bs have the finish chipping/flaking off.

The BL and C had no black chains. It was not until the LX
that we get black chains  with a different finish. There are
B cases with LX type chains. These were made and sold as
replacement cases but independent from Minox.

Some Bs have mis-matched parts to the shell. There have been
reports that Minox were not so careful to match the colour
when assembling the cameras contrary to what I had thought.
I had assumed that like the colouration on the satin chrome
finish cameras this was some how due to aging, sunlight and
the affects of the flash end being outside the main part of
the case. The matching on most cameras is exact, black as
well as satin/chrome, but a mis-match may not be the result
of later service or fake anodizing.

Gerald

Yes, John is correct, this is what I said in my posting, the late B's and C's
and after were anodized.  Don't know exactly when they changed but I would guess
around 1968-69.

-Marty

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: John Watson
   To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:54 PM
   Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: anodizing aluminum - MINOX


   Early B's (those produced at the same time as the A series) were painted.
   It is the later ones that were anodized if I am not mistaken.

   John Watson

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: <summicron1@...>
   To: <SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com>
   Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:50 AM
   Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: anodizing aluminum - MINOX


   >
   > In a message dated 2/2/03 6:28:04 AM, mdoctor@... writes:
   >
   > << The later black Minox, such as the late B and C and beyond are
   anodized. >>
   >
   > uh, not my B, marty. It's painted, near as I can tell.
   >
   > not that it matters, just pointing it out.
   >
   > ctrentelman
   >
   > To unsubscribe send an email to
   > SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >
   >
   >


   To unsubscribe send an email to
   SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

From: "Marty Doctor" <mdoctor@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:12 PM


> Yes, John is correct, this is what I said in my posting,
the late B's and C's and after were anodized.  Don't know
exactly when they changed but I would guess around 1968-69.
>
> -Marty

983169 is gloss finish like the earlier black Bs (e.g.
939342, 813821). The serial number gives it as a 72
production, but also it would expect to be a Minox lens and
is fact a complan lens. There is always a large cross over
in Minox production.

Thanks for the great link! I was wondering where to pick
up some dye.

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 07:34, m005kennedy wrote:
> This company sells a kit for the process:
> http://www.caswellplating.com/kits/aluminum.htm
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

my buddy just bought what he thought was an unused,
mint, boxed Minox GL... after putting a battery in it
found out it is busted:(

looks like a weird sort of failure to me.  The meter
needle is stuck at ~100 and it seems to be shooting
everything at ~1/100 no matter what else, but since it
is shooting at all the electronics are functioning...
any ideas?  isn't that the flash speed? (i tweaked the
flash sensor thing, but it didn't do anything)

thanks,

mark

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Yes, but a bit more complicated than that.  You'd hacksaw the disks off a bit
too wide, then sand the sides on a piece of sandpaper resting on a flat surface.
That would correct the extra width and also get them nicely parallel, if you did
it carefully.  If you used a micrometer and actually measured the thickness, you
could ultimately get them just as parallel as a lathe could, although it would
take longer.

>>> metaphorce@... 01/31/03 02:23AM >>>
This suggests another tack you could take without a lather, too.  If you can
find a piece of cylindrical brass the rise diameter, you could just hack-saw off
disks.

Steve

Michael Taglieri wrote:

> I don't know whether others will consider this germane to the list, so we can
take it off if someone squawks  (It's related to camera repair, after all....) 
I have a little Chinese 7x10" mini-lathe that I got a year ago for about $350. 
It weighs about 60 lbs, so you don't need a dedicated space for it (Nowadays
bigger 7x12" versions are available for less than $300).
>
> The disks could be brass or aluminum, which would be about equally strong and
more readily available, but aluminum is not solderable by ordinary means.  If
the disks are some standard size, I'd just take a rod of the chosen metal, hold
it in the chuck, and use the lathe to slice off bits, as if cutting up a
sausage.  If the disks are a nonstandard size, I'd turn a larger metal rod down
to that size first.  It would also be easy to drill a hole lengthwise in the rod
if you needed central holes in the disks.  I'd need a spool in good shape to
measure and copy.
>
> Finally, it would be possible to turn an entire spool out of a chunk of metal,
but that would be quite a bit more complicated and not something I'd do just for
the cost of materials.
>
> Mike Taglieri
>
> >>> phil-goembel@... 01/30/03 09:02PM >>>
> Well, I want to use fairly thick brass so it doesn't bend
> too easily.
>
> I guess the smaller HIT spool doesn't have to be as strong
> as the larger 127 format spools, but I'm not sure how easy
> it would be to punch as you describe.
>
> I found a tool in a jewlery supply catalog that will punch
> discs without a large guide hole in the center (the problem
> with the tools Tim mentioned), but I'm not sure if the
> diameters available are suitable, and whether the tool is
> designed to work with brass. Probably just with softer
> silver and gold.
>
> Ideally, I was thinking the hole in the discs should have a
> shoulder (sleeve?) to keep it perpendicular to the tube and
> possibly provide enough friction that neither solder nor
> glue would be needed.
>
> Actually, I was thinking of teaching myself machining, so
> I could make my own tools. I have some other things I want
> to do that require the same skills. But it would certainly
> be faster and cheaper if you could make the discs for me.
>
> At the risk of going off topic again, I'm curious about how
> you would approach making the metal discs? We can take this
> off the list if you want.
>
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:32, Michael Taglieri wrote:
> > If you decided to go with heavy plastic or very thin metal, you could
> > easily make a cutter by sharpening one end of a suitable piece of
> > tubing with a file.  Hole-punchers are designed like this with the
> > tubing sharpened on the inside for a clean hole, but for a clean disk
> > you'd sharpen it on the outside.  Pressing against the material with a
> > twisting motion cuts the hole (and maybe a tap with a hammer to
> > help).  For attaching, I think a filled epoxy such as JB Weld would be
> > just as strong as soldering and easier to do.
> >
> > Although I'm not convinced that metal would actually be better than
> > plastic (certainly Minox doesn't think so), I also do machining as a
> > hobby, which explains my occasional accidental posts of machining
> > e-mails here.  If people need metal disks for resurrecting old film
> > spools, I'd be willing to make a bunch of them for the (fairly
> > minimal) cost of the metal (presumably brass?)
> >
> > Mike Taglieri
> >
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



To unsubscribe send an email to
SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My buddy talked to DAG and it turns out the camera
suffered two simultaneous and common GL failures.  The
spring on the rewind broke, fell off and froze the
indicator and the flash swith also failed.

...promised fast turn-around and a very reasonable
price to fix both:)

mark

--- mark hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
> my buddy just bought what he thought was an unused,
> mint, boxed Minox GL... after putting a battery in
> it
> found out it is busted:(
>
> looks like a weird sort of failure to me.  The meter
> needle is stuck at ~100 and it seems to be shooting
> everything at ~1/100 no matter what else, but since
> it
> is shooting at all the electronics are
> functioning...
> any ideas?  isn't that the flash speed? (i tweaked
> the
> flash sensor thing, but it didn't do anything)
>
> thanks,
>
> mark
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I may be confusing them with another brand, but I believe the HIT is a novelty
camera sold in gumball machines.  If so, the tolerances are unlikely to be
rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the many devotees of these cameras).

>>> phil-goembel@... 01/31/03 02:14AM >>>
I've probably been working too long with engineers.
What would be nice is to have the dimensions plus
the _tolerances_.

If you start with a spool which is within tolerance,
but near the limit, your own spool might end up
outside the limit.

For example, I think there's already been some
discussion on this list of what the correct film
width is for the Minox. I wouldn't be surprised
to discover that some of the incorrectly documented
dimensions came from measuring samples that were near
the tolerance limits. Or from measuring a device
(camera or slitter?) that was designed for the worst-
case limit.

But I have been doing exactly what you suggested,
despite all my complaining <grin>.

At some point I'll try to make the info look nice
and put it on a website. Along with all the submini
(HIT, Minolta 16, and Minox) pictures I have yet to
develop and print.

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 00:22, summicron1@... wrote:
> can you not sit down with a micrometer and an existing spool and just
> measure
> things?
>
> I have a nice supply of HIT types film with metal spools if anyone
> wants to
> bypass the machine shop route.
>
> contact me for very low prices and shipping details. Always happy to
> help the
> struggling.
>
> charlie trentelman
> In a message dated 1/30/03 10:11:49 PM, phil-goembel@... writes:
>



To unsubscribe send an email to
SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Believe me, you're not confused. About the only tolerance in a HIT style
camera is being able to tolerate it falling apart in your hands.  Or
being able to tolerate broken, cheep spools, or dealing with black tape
around the back to try to make it light tight enough to take out of the
changing bag.  But for some reason I do enjoy shooting with them
occasionally.  I have some hit camera photos at:
http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/hitpics.html
( My first black and white tet shots)
and
http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/hitc.html
for some incredible color work, and
http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/miniads.html
for some vintage comic book ads for these incredible spy cameras. This
page also has a Steky ad and a Miox ad on it.
I remember having seen these in vending machnes or the 25 cent variety
but never was so luck as to get one.  Always got some cheep plastic
ring!  But I did order them from the comic books when I was a kid.  Used
to send the film off for developing and everything.  Don't have any of
my old pictures from those days anymore..but I think that's probably
because all I ever got back were blurry light struck crap with no
identifiable objects in 'em.  You really gotta work at it to get images
from these
Tim

> I may be confusing them with another brand, but I believe the HIT is a novelty
camera sold in gumball machines.  If so, the
> tolerances are unlikely to be rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the many
devotees of these cameras).
>
> >>> phil-goembel@... 01/31/03 02:14AM >>>
> I've probably been working too long with engineers.
> What would be nice is to have the dimensions plus
> the _tolerances_.
>
> If you start with a spool which is within tolerance,
> but near the limit, your own spool might end up
> outside the limit.
--
Visit Tim's Edsel Emporium http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/
Proud Parent of a BLUES MUSICIAN http://ryanandthedelrays.tripod.com/index.html
"You laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at you because you're all the same."
73's kc0jez

LOL!! :)

ok, seriously... when I slit film using my Minox
slitter minus the center blade I have film that is
about 18.2mm wide and it works in most, but not all of
my metal HIT spools... for what it's worth, gives a
hint at the tolerances.



enthusiastiest, not a devotee :)

mark

...
> I may be confusing them with another brand, but I
> believe the HIT is a novelty camera sold in gumball
> machines.  If so, the tolerances are unlikely to be
> rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the many
> devotees of these cameras).
...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

the subclub says the HIT films are supppose to be 17.5mm wide.
I use 16mm just fine as you can see.
Tim

> LOL!! :)
>
> ok, seriously... when I slit film using my Minox
> slitter minus the center blade I have film that is
> about 18.2mm wide and it works in most, but not all of
> my metal HIT spools... for what it's worth, gives a
> hint at the tolerances.

--
Visit Tim's Edsel Emporium http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/
Proud Parent of a BLUES MUSICIAN http://ryanandthedelrays.tripod.com/index.html
"You laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at you because you're all the same."
73's kc0jez

I love the "brick wall resolution test" Tim!  :0)
Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim & Ronna [mailto:hepcats@...]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 5:19 PM
To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: Home made film spools


Believe me, you're not confused. About the only tolerance in a HIT style
camera is being able to tolerate it falling apart in your hands.  Or
being able to tolerate broken, cheep spools, or dealing with black tape
around the back to try to make it light tight enough to take out of the
changing bag.  But for some reason I do enjoy shooting with them
occasionally.  I have some hit camera photos at:
http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/hitpics.html
( My first black and white tet shots)
and
http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/hitc.html
for some incredible color work, and
http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/miniads.html
for some vintage comic book ads for these incredible spy cameras. This
page also has a Steky ad and a Miox ad on it.
I remember having seen these in vending machnes or the 25 cent variety
but never was so luck as to get one.  Always got some cheep plastic
ring!  But I did order them from the comic books when I was a kid.  Used
to send the film off for developing and everything.  Don't have any of
my old pictures from those days anymore..but I think that's probably
because all I ever got back were blurry light struck crap with no
identifiable objects in 'em.  You really gotta work at it to get images
from these
Tim

> I may be confusing them with another brand, but I believe the HIT is a
novelty camera sold in gumball machines.  If so, the
> tolerances are unlikely to be rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the
many devotees of these cameras).
>
> >>> phil-goembel@... 01/31/03 02:14AM >>>
> I've probably been working too long with engineers.
> What would be nice is to have the dimensions plus
> the _tolerances_.
>
> If you start with a spool which is within tolerance,
> but near the limit, your own spool might end up
> outside the limit.
--
Visit Tim's Edsel Emporium http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/
Proud Parent of a BLUES MUSICIAN
http://ryanandthedelrays.tripod.com/index.html
"You laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at you because you're all the same."
73's kc0jez

To unsubscribe send an email to
SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I have to say, it was your website that got me interested
in the HIT cameras. I feel a bit silly not thinking of using
16mm, since I already have a slitter for it!

On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 17:40, Tim & Ronna wrote:
> the subclub says the HIT films are supppose to be 17.5mm wide.
> I use 16mm just fine as you can see.
> Tim
>
> > LOL!! :)
> >
> > ok, seriously... when I slit film using my Minox
> > slitter minus the center blade I have film that is
> > about 18.2mm wide and it works in most, but not all of
> > my metal HIT spools... for what it's worth, gives a
> > hint at the tolerances.
>
> --
> Visit Tim's Edsel Emporium http://www.uslink.net/~hepcats/
> Proud Parent of a BLUES MUSICIAN
> http://ryanandthedelrays.tripod.com/index.html
> "You laugh at me because I am different.
> I laugh at you because you're all the same."
> 73's kc0jez
>
>                         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>                                           ADVERTISEMENT
>                                                [image]
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

busted GL

my buddy just bought what he thought was an unused,
mint, boxed Minox GL... after putting a battery in it
found out it is busted:(

looks like a weird sort of failure to me.  The meter
needle is stuck at ~100 and it seems to be shooting
everything at ~1/100 no matter what else, but since it
is shooting at all the electronics are functioning...
any ideas?  isn't that the flash speed? (i tweaked the
flash sensor thing, but it didn't do anything)

thanks,

mark



Mark,

It could be the needle is stuck.  My later model Minox camera had this same
problem. Even though the needle was stuck, it was apparent the shutter was
functioning properly.

Steve

No disrespect taken on my part. :-)

It's the incredible fact that you _can_ actually get
a picture out of one, despite the junky construction,
that attracted me to them.

I had to bend the spool holder wider in my HIT camera
to use the plastic spools.

I do tend to over-engineer things. My previous
remarks about tolerances was with respect to all the
different film formats, not just HIT (or Mycro).

On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 15:01, Michael Taglieri wrote:
> I may be confusing them with another brand, but I believe the HIT is a
> novelty camera sold in gumball machines.  If so, the tolerances are
> unlikely to be rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the many devotees
> of these cameras).
>
> >>> phil-goembel@... 01/31/03 02:14AM >>>
> I've probably been working too long with engineers.
> What would be nice is to have the dimensions plus
> the _tolerances_.
>
> If you start with a spool which is within tolerance,
> but near the limit, your own spool might end up
> outside the limit.
>
> For example, I think there's already been some
> discussion on this list of what the correct film
> width is for the Minox. I wouldn't be surprised
> to discover that some of the incorrectly documented
> dimensions came from measuring samples that were near
> the tolerance limits. Or from measuring a device
> (camera or slitter?) that was designed for the worst-
> case limit.
>
> But I have been doing exactly what you suggested,
> despite all my complaining <grin>.
>
> At some point I'll try to make the info look nice
> and put it on a website. Along with all the submini
> (HIT, Minolta 16, and Minox) pictures I have yet to
> develop and print.
>
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 00:22, summicron1@... wrote:
> > can you not sit down with a micrometer and an existing spool and
> just
> > measure
> > things?
> >
> > I have a nice supply of HIT types film with metal spools if anyone
> > wants to
> > bypass the machine shop route.
> >
> > contact me for very low prices and shipping details. Always happy to
> > help the
> > struggling.
> >
> > charlie trentelman
> > In a message dated 1/30/03 10:11:49 PM, phil-goembel@...
> writes:
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>                         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>                                           ADVERTISEMENT
>                                                [image]
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
> SUBMINI-L-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

The fascination is, it seems to me, that you can get a picture out of the
simplest things, because film is such a quasi-magical process.  I believe
that the first photograph that Niepce managed to record was actually made
without a camera in the conventional sense.  He had one of his experimental
plates in a cabinet with his chemicals, and the crack in the cabinet door
acted like a pinhole camera casting an image on the plate.  (Or so I've
heard.)  He didn't know which chemical had been responsible for the
sensitizing the plate, so he repeated the conditions, removing one bottle at
a time, until the effect would not repeat.

If the Hit is light-tight, you could probably expose decently without a lens
at all, just by installing a pinhole.  (It might not be that much fuzzier
than the Hit lens, based on what I remember getting out of the one I had as a
kid.)

I never cease to be amazed that film works at all.

Steve

Mike T wrote:
>
> I may be confusing them with another brand, but I believe the HIT is
> a novelty camera sold in gumball machines.  If so, the tolerances are
> unlikely to be rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the many
> devotees of these cameras).

It depends. "HIT" was originally a brand name, applied to cameras made in the
early '50s by Tougodo which were cheap knock-offs of a very good '30s camera,
the Mycro, made by Sanwa. Tougodo made the same camera under dozens of names and
have given generations of collectors much pleasure. Thus the "Hit type" label
for these cameras, which were almost invariably sold to GIs in occupied Japan as
novelties, or by a couple of magic/novelty shops in New York over the counter
and via comic book ads.

Yes, they were cheap and crappy, but the genre sunk to a new low when production
moved to Hong Kong and we got the gumball cameras you speak of, the Mini Camera
and Arrow. Holy Junk, Batman!

You can actually use the Tougodo products to take actual pictures, if you really
want to. With the gumball cameras, there is room for debate, although I think
the great Marcy Merrill has pretty much settled the question. Go to
http://www.merrillphoto.com/JunkStoreCameras.htm and scroll down until you find
the "Mini Camera" link to view the last word on the subject.

Now, about tolerances: the Sanwa Mycro cameras were quite well made. So were
several others that used the same "Mycro" format film (which is 17.5mm wide, not
16mm, despite what the estimable Mr. McKeown and other researchers report). Hits
per se were not 100% crappy, only about 97.5%, and it may be they are fussy
about spool dimensions. Yes, the Mini and Arrow use Mycro format film, and yes,
you could probably weasle the specifications successfully in those cases. But
probably not with the real cameras of the genre, the Mycros, Tones, et al. So
there is some reason to try and be relatively precise making spools.

Tougodo had been established in 1930 and was named for Admiral Tougo of the
Japanese Navy. They produced a line of imaginatively-named TLRs after WWII,
including my favorite, the Hobiflex (can you spell "hobby"?), the Toyocaflex,
Moonflex, Skyflex, and the previously mentioned Stereo Hit as well as the Hit
collector's Grail, an oversized Hit called "Sweet 16" which McKeown values at
$800 if you can ever actually find one. Some of their '30s cameras were
remarkable, some of the '60's cameras truly excrable -- if you're offered a
Meikai for more than $12 turn it down unless it's the 1937 35mm TLR, in which
case I urge you to call me, real quick. They also made a decent "Toyoca 16"
which should not be confused with the Hit type which they also called a Toyoca.
My, this gets complicated.

They also produced a Leica-like 35mm called the Toyoca 35 that was very, very
well made. I suspect the company was run by people suffering from split
personality syncrome.

Dave The Historian

_______________________
The Frugal Photographer
http://www.frugalphotographer.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Taglieri [mailto:MTaglieri@...]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:02 PM
> To: SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Submini-L] Re: Home made film spools
>
>
> I may be confusing them with another brand, but I believe the HIT is
> a novelty camera sold in gumball machines.  If so, the tolerances are
> unlikely to be rigorous.  (No disrespect intended to the many
> devotees of these cameras).
>
> >>> phil-goembel@... 01/31/03 02:14AM >>>
> I've probably been working too long with engineers.
> What would be nice is to have the dimensions plus
> the _tolerances_.
>
> If you start with a spool which is within tolerance,
> but near the limit, your own spool might end up
> outside the limit.
>
> For example, I think there's already been some
> discussion on this list of what the correct film
> width is for the Minox. I wouldn't be surprised
> to discover that some of the incorrectly documented
> dimensions came from measuring samples that were near
> the tolerance limits. Or from measuring a device
> (camera or slitter?) that was designed for the worst-
> case limit.
>
> But I have been doing exactly what you suggested,
> despite all my complaining <grin>.
>
> At some point I'll try to make the info look nice
> and put it on a website. Along with all the submini
> (HIT, Minolta 16, and Minox) pictures I have yet to
> develop and print.
>
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 00:22, summicron1@... wrote:
> > can you not sit down with a micrometer and an existing spool and just
> > measure
> > things?
> >
> > I have a nice supply of HIT types film with metal spools if anyone
> > wants to
> > bypass the machine shop route.
> >
> > contact me for very low prices and shipping details. Always happy to
> > help the
> > struggling.

I would propose that the pinhole would be much
better... but it would require a tripod.

mark

...
> If the Hit is light-tight, you could probably expose
> decently without a lens
> at all, just by installing a pinhole.  (It might not
> be that much fuzzier
> than the Hit lens, based on what I remember getting
> out of the one I had as a
> kid.)
...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Actually, with modern-speed film (ISO 100) outdoors on a sunny day, I can
expose full-frame 120 (i.e. 6X9cm) at a slightly wide angle (equivalent to
about a 90mm lens) in less than three seconds using a 1/65th inch pinhole.
I've gotten some very nice stuff just by sitting the camera on the hood of a
car and popping the shutter with a cable release.

Shooting on a tiny format with only about 25mm from the pinhole to the film,
the exposure would be much shorter.  Without stopping to do the math, I'm
guessing you could manage about 1/2 second.  You'd want the smallest pinhole
you could use, but that's limited to about 1/100 inch (smaller and you get
too much defraction from the edges), so you might want to extend exposure to
about 3/4 sec, maybe even a full second.  If you kept the pinhole around 1/65
inch, and upped the film speed to ISO 400, you could just about handhold it.

Of course, the Hit might be hard to open and close for that short an exposure
on T, and the I setting must be something closer to about 1/100 sec.  Anyway,
the size of the circles of confusion would be enormous relative to the small
dimensions of the frame, so that the difference between tripod work and hand
holding wouldn't make much difference in the fuzziness of the image.

Steve

mark hahn wrote:

> I would propose that the pinhole would be much
> better... but it would require a tripod.
>
> mark
>
> .

I guess I should have said "support" instead of
tripod:)

Where have you read that all optimized pinhole
formulas break down at a hole diameter of 1/100 inch?
This is not a stated limit in any paper that I have
read.

mark

PS ...as for subminiature pinhole photography:

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/minox_format_pinhole.html

http://www.geocities.com/markhahn2000/minox_format_pinhole_index.html


...
> pinhole.
> I've gotten some very nice stuff just by sitting the
> camera on the hood of a
> car and popping the shutter with a cable release.
>
> Shooting on a tiny format with only about 25mm from
> the pinhole to the film,
> the exposure would be much shorter.  Without
> stopping to do the math, I'm
> guessing you could manage about 1/2 second.  You'd
> want the smallest pinhole
> you could use, but that's limited to about 1/100
> inch (smaller and you get
> too much defraction from the edges
...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com