Contents

Double 35mm format June 2026 Éclair ACL 16mm camera June 2026 The Kodak K100 June 2026 The Original BMPCC Jan 2026 Keystone Reflex Nov 2023 A New camera April 2023 Zeiss Movikon 8 Nov 2022 [Revised January 2023] Keystone Camera Service Manual October 2022 Bell and Howell 240 Setvice Manual October 2022 Popular 16mm Cameras October 2022 Two New 16mm Cameras Announced July 2022 The Additive Colour Tests June 2022

The ABTO System June 2022 Additive Colour Experiments May 2022 Bell and Howell February 2022 Non Reflex Cameras February 2022 Keystone 16mm Camera February 2022 Getting into 16mm December 2021 Kodak 16mm Camera July 2020 [Revised November 2021] Cine Kodak Model BB Junior August 2021 A New Super 16 Camera April 2021 110 Photography Jan 2021

A New Twist on Tradition October 2020 Low budget Filmmaking - Using Film Oct 2020 Real Costs of Using Film July 2021 A Quest For Better Image July 2020 Bell an Howell 16mm Camera June 2020 A New Super 16 Camera June 2020 Affordable 16mm Options Feb 2020 Super 16 lenses Updated July 2020 16mm Filming Feb 2020 16mm Magazine Cameras Jan 2020 Writngs and thoughts on 'film' Jan 2020 The Relevance of Film Jan 2020

Double 35mm format

It is interesting to consider the idea of a Double 35mm format, particularly because, as far as I have researched, it was never suggested, proposed or developed. On paper, however, the concept seems remarkably straightforward. The standard silent-era movie 35mm frame, using the conventional 4-perforation pull-down, measures approximately 25mm × 18mm.

By adopting a 2-perforation movement we are reducing the height of the frame size from 18mm to 9mm and so we get a very wide image, but if we then divide this wide image in half we can fit four smaller images in our conventional silent-era 35mm frame, with each image around 12.4mm × 9mm. For this the film would have to have a 2-perf pull down and be exposed in two passes, in much the same way as Standard 8mm operated.

From both a manufacturing and economic perspective, the idea appears logical. It would reduce film consumption significantly while still making use of existing 35mm stock and processing infrastructure. The closest historical comparison is Standard 8, also known as Double 8 or Regular 8. Introduced by Kodak in 1932, Standard 8 cleverly uses four images out of one 16mm frame, and it economises on film by using 16mm stock. The camera exposes one half of the film's width during the first run, then the reel is then turned over, and the other half of the film is exposed. After processing the film was slit down the centre and joined end-to-end, producing an 8mm-wide film with twice the running length. These days with negative film where film is usually scanned most labs don't slit the film and leave it as a 16mm film strip with two rows of exposures.It is an elegant solution, and it dramatically reduced costs for amateur filmmakers before Super 8 arrived, while allowing manufacturers to continue producing film from an established format.

A hypothetical Double 35mm system [image on the right] would have worked on the same principle. Instead of exposing half the width of a 16mm strip, the camera would expose smaller frames on one portion of a 35mm strip before exposing the remaining area during a second pass. In theory, it would have delivered four times as many images from the same amount of film stock. For budget conscious movie users, the savings would have been substantial, particularly at a time when the cost of film and processing represented a significant barrier to amateur filmmaking.

Yet despite the apparent practicality of the idea, Double 35mm never emerged. The answer to this lies not only in economics but in the historical context of motion-picture film during the early twentieth century. Before dedicated amateur formats existed, some entrepreneurs and small companies were already supplying film to the enthusiasts and home-movie makers by taking standard 35mm stock and slitting it in half to create 17.5mm film. This format was not rigidly controlled or standard and was somewhat unregulated, it appeared during the 1900s up to the early 1920s and demonstrated that there was considerable demand for smaller and cheaper gauges.

However, this practice caused concern among both Kodak and regulatory authorities. The issue was not simply one of market control, but at the time, virtually all 35mm motion-picture film was manufactured on a nitrate base. Nitrate film possesses excellent photographic qualities, but it is highly flammable and chemically unstable. It can ignite easily, burn with extraordinary intensity, and is difficult to extinguish once alight. Cinema fires were common and were caused by nitrate film which was a genuine hazard throughout the first half of the twentieth century. The prospect of large quantities of nitrate-based 35mm film finding their way into private homes was therefore viewed with understandable alarm.

Kodak's response was to create an entirely new amateur format rather than adapt existing 35mm stock. The result was 16mm, introduced in 1923. This was revolutionary because it was designed from the outset for non-professional use and, crucially, was manufactured on cellulose acetate safety film rather than nitrate stock. For the first time, amateur filmmakers had access to a format that was compact, economical, and, most importantly, safe to use and store in the home.

Once 16mm had become established, the need for a format based on 35mm largely disappeared. The introduction of Standard 8 in the 1930s reduced costs even further, and later formats such as Super 8 made amateur filmmaking more accessible still. In this environment, a Double 35mm system would have offered little advantage. It would have required specialised cameras and projectors while remaining tied to a film gauge associated with professional cinema and, historically, with nitrate stock.

Looking back, I suppose Double 35mm remains one of those fascinating "what if?" ideas in film history. Technically, it would have been entirely feasible, and its operating principle was later proved by Standard 8. However, technological development is not driven solely by engineering possibilities. Safety concerns, market forces, manufacturing priorities, and the existence of increasingly successful small-gauge formats all worked against such a system. As a result, while Double 8 became one of the most successful amateur film formats ever created, while Double 35mm remained an intriguing concept that, for good reasons, never progressed beyond a theoretical possibility.

What makes the idea of Double 35mm particularly fascinating to me is that, although it never existed historically, I can see the practical logic behind it more clearly than ever. In fact, it was my own experimentation that led me to appreciate just how sensible such a format could be in the current climate.

Recently, I modified my 35mm Eyemo camera to operate with a two-perforation pull-down. The original motivation was simple enough: to reduce film consumption. Anyone shooting 35mm film in 2026 is acutely aware of the cost of rawstock, processing, and scanning, so any method of increasing running time from a given roll of film is attractive. The conversion worked well and immediately halved my film usage, but I discovered another issue. The resulting frame measures approximately 24.2mm × 9mm and it is an extremely wide image. While this format certainly has a cinematic aesthetic and appeal, I find it too panoramic for much of my work.

And so, this prompted a different idea, instead of simply accepting the wide two-perf frame, I thought why not take the concept further? What if the aperture's width in the camera was reduced and effectively cut in half, creating a 2-perf image that wasn't wide on the 35mm film width, much in the same spirit as the Double 8 principle? Rather than using the entire width for a single wide frame, the film could now accommodate two smaller frames, increase efficiency while retaining many of the advantages of 35mm film.

The more I thought about it, the more logical it seemed. A smaller frame would mean lower film costs, since more images could be obtained from the same length of stock. Equally important, the reduced image size would allow the use of potentially much smaller optical systems. My camera could become lighter, more compact, and more economical while still offering image quality beyond what traditional amateur gauges could achieve.

One of the most interesting aspects is that the resulting frame size remains larger than 16mm. This is important because image quality is not determined by film width alone but by the actual image area being exposed. Even with the reduced frame of Double 35, there is still more exposed negative area available than on standard or Super16mm film. In practical terms, this means finer grain, greater detail, and a more robust image when scanned or projected.

Curiosity eventually gave way to experimentation, and I decided to test the concept for myself. After modifying the camera and creating the necessary aperture arrangement, I shot a roll of Foma BW film to see whether the theory would translate into practice. The results genuinely surprised me. Not only did the format deliver the economy I had hoped for, but the image itself possessed a character and quality that exceeded my expectations. There was a clarity and richness to the footage that reminded me why 35mm became the professional standard in the first place, yet it was achieved with a frame size and film consumption much closer to that of a small-gauge format.

Seeing those images for the first time made me wonder whether the industry may have overlooked a genuinely viable intermediate format. Historically, there were sound reasons why Double 35mm never emerged, particularly the safety concerns surrounding nitrate film and the success of 16mm and later Standard 8. Yet viewed purely from a technical standpoint, the concept makes sense. It occupies an intriguing middle ground: more economical than conventional 35mm, larger and higher quality than 16mm, and capable of using smaller lenses and more compact cameras.

Perhaps that is why the idea continues to intrigue me. It is one of those rare cases where a forgotten path in technological history turns out to be surprisingly practical when revisited with modern materials and modern thinking. Having now built and tested a working version, I no longer see Double 35mm as merely a historical curiosity or an interesting theoretical exercise. I see it as a format that works with stunning results I and can see that it may have far more potential than anyone realises.

Éclair ACL 16mm camera

When discussions turn to professional 16mm cameras, they almost always revolve around the Arriflex SR line or the Aaton models. The Éclair ACL, however, tends to be left out of the conversation. That has always struck me as a bit unfair, because I believe it is a camera that deserves far more recognition than it usually gets.

Part of the reason is simply timing and industry momentum. The Arriflex SR and Aaton systems were hugely dominant in television, documentaries, and commercial production from the late 1970s through the 1990s. Rental houses stocked them in large numbers, film schools trained students on them, and entire crews built their workflows around them. Over time, they became the cameras people automatically associated with "professional" 16mm filmmaking. The Éclair camera company, on the other hand, ceased to exist in the mid 1980s and no matter how good their cameras were they slowly slipped out of everyday conversation.

From my perspective, I have come to feel that the Éclair ACL is actually a more relevant camera for filmmakers today than many of the more famous 16mm cameras. And that's not just nostalgia talking, it comes from spending time with this camera, maintaining it, modifying it, and learning how adaptable it really is.

One of the first things you notice is its size and footprint. The ACL is incredibly compact for a professional 16mm camera. With its 200-foot magazine, it stays small and balanced in a way that feels surprisingly modern. When you're operating it, especially handheld, it doesn't feel like you're carrying a heavy piece of machinery it feels closer to a tool built for movement and experimentation. For filmmakers working today, especially those shooting independently, that smaller, lighter setup really matters.

But what truly makes the ACL special to me is how serviceable it still is today. Many classic 16mm cameras like the Arriflex SR or the Aaton XTR are truly brilliant machines, but they rely heavily on bespoke and complex electronics and systems that are increasingly difficult to repair, making them very expensive cameras to maintain. The ACL is different, because its design is radical, ahead of the times as its fundamentally modular. When you open it up or work on it, you realise how simple the innards are and how much of the camera is mechanical and straightforward. The electronics are minimal and relatively simple, which means there's far less standing between the camera and a functioning repair.

Even the reflex system is unique. Instead of the delicate spinning mirror shutter used in the Arriflex and Aaton cameras, the ACL uses a unique pendulum mirror system for the viewfinder. It's such an elegant piece of engineering that design allows for a shorter flange focal distance, and this ultimately opens the door to using smaller and more affordable lenses, particularly C-mount lenses. For filmmakers today, especially those working outside big-budget productions this flexibility is incredibly valuable.

Then there's the motor system which sits externally, this might seem like a small detail, but it completely changes how maintainable the camera is. If something goes wrong, you can swap the motor rather than tearing the entire camera apart. And the fact that new crystal-sync motors are being produced in 2026 says a lot about how alive the ACL ecosystem still is.

The modularity goes even further than that. The viewfinder, batteries, grips, and magazines can all be swapped and adapted. As an operator, that makes the camera feel less like a fixed piece of vintage equipment and more like a platform you can build around.

From my own experience, one of the most rewarding parts of working with the ACL has been experimenting with the lens mount and figuring out how far I could push its adaptability. Because the camera has such a short flange distance, it gave me the opportunity to try something a little unconventional: I adapted a Micro Four Thirds mount onto my ACL. This single modification has opened up a whole new world of possibilities and now I could use a wide range of affordable Micro Four Thirds cinema lenses, which dramatically broadened the creative options available to me without needing to invest in expensive, traditional cinema glass. It completely changes how accessible the camera felt as a working tool.

Projects like this are what make the camera so engaging for me. It's not just about using the ACL as it was originally designed, but about exploring how it can evolve with the way I like to shoot. For instance, I went a step further and built a custom 100-foot magazine so the camera could accept standard 100-foot daylight spools of 16mm film. The modification made the entire setup noticeably smaller and more portable. It's perfect for situations where I want to travel light, shoot quickly, or work in a more spontaneous way without carrying larger magazines and extra equipment.

There's something deeply satisfying about making those kinds of changes yourself. When you modify a camera like this, you start to feel that it's truly tailored to the way you work rather than forcing your workflow to adapt to the camera. Each adjustment whether it's the lens mount, the magazine, or some small mechanical tweak, makes the camera feel more personal and more capable.

That sense of adaptability is exactly why I think the ACL still matters today. To me, it isn't just an interesting historical artifact from the golden age of 16mm filmmaking. It's a camera that filmmakers can still live with, repair, modify, and genuinely shape around their own needs. When I'm operating it, I never feel like I'm handling a fragile museum piece that needs to be preserved behind glass. Instead, it feels like a practical tool and one that still has plenty of life left in it.

In a time when many film cameras are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain or adapt, the ACL stands out quietly, but clearly. It represents something that's becoming rare: a professional 16mm camera that filmmakers can still truly make their own. Working with it feels less like preserving the past and more like continuing a living tradition of craftsmanship, experimentation, and hands-on filmmaking.

 

The Kodak K100 June 2026

Kodak is famous for its film stock which has been the gold standard of celluloid for generations, but it's not really a company people associate with exceptional cameras. If anything, a lot of Kodak cameras, especially in the Super 8 world, are fairly basic and gimmicky often considered a bit naff; designed for home movies rather than serious filmmaking, almost all are built as cheap accessible and consumer-friendly, rather than being refined or inspiring tools.

With such a reputation, I didn't expect much when I first encountered the Kodak K-100/T. My initial assumptions about this camera turned out to be completely wrong, as it is different, I think it's is a very underrated 16mm camera. For me, it proves that while Kodak may not be remembered as a great camera manufacturer, they got it right with some of their earlier cameras and with this camera they certainly created something honest, durable, and genuinely inspiring to use.

It feels like it comes from a different philosophy altogether, it was targeted at the documentarist, the semi-professional and the 'lone' filmmaker. Unlike Kodak's plasticky Super 8 cameras with limited controls and clunky ergonomics, this 16mm camera is unapologetically utilitarian. It doesn't try to impress you with features, but it earns respect through how solid and straightforward it is. The all-metal construction immediately sets it apart. It's heavy, durable, and the design was popular for education, experimentation, and longevity, this makes sense especially since it was popularly used in film schools across the USA. This isn't a camera built to look impressive on a shelf; it's built to survive being passed from one student to the next for decades.

Working with this camera has been a uniquely rewarding experience for me, largely because it strips filmmaking down to its essentials. One of the biggest benefits, from my perspective, is its purely mechanical nature. I never worry about menus, batteries, or software glitches. Once the film is loaded, the camera simply works, that reliability builds confidence and lets me focus entirely on what I'm seeing through the viewfinder.

I also appreciate how the K-100/T forces me to slow down and be intentional. Every decision such as exposure, focus, and framing has to be made consciously. There's no automation to fall back on, and that has made me a more thoughtful filmmaker. I've learned to read light better and to trust my instincts, skills that carry over to other formats.

On a practical level, the camera's reassuringly heavy, well balanced in the hand, and durable enough that I don't feel precious about using it in the field. That toughness gives me the freedom to shoot in real-world conditions without constantly worrying about damaging the camera.

One of the features I really like is the spring-wound motor counter, which tells you exactly how much power is left in the wind. It's such a simple detail, but it makes a huge difference in practice. Instead of guessing when the motor might run out mid-shot, I always know where I stand. When the camera is fully wound, it can run 40 feet of film in one take, which works out to well over a minute of continuous shooting. That's an incredible amount of runtime as no other spring-driven camera can run for such a long time.

What makes this even more impressive is how it compares to other respected cameras of the era. Take the Bolex, for example, a camera that's legendary, on a full wind, it only gives you about 30 seconds, or roughly 17 to 18 feet of film. With the Kodak, I feel far less constrained. I can let moments breathe, follow action without rushing, and allow scenes to unfold naturally instead of chopping them up to conserve the motor. That extra runtime genuinely changes how I shoot.

The camera isn't completely silent, but it operates very quietly, producing only a faint, unobtrusive noise that blends easily into the background. In most situations, this minimal sound goes largely unnoticed, making it well-suited for environments where discretion is important, such as quiet indoor settings or during moments that require minimal disruption.
The viewfinder is another area that often gets overlooked. It isn't a reflex system, which many people see as a drawback, but I honestly think Kodak nailed the parallax viewfinder design. It's large, bright, and clear, making it easy to compose shots quickly and confidently. There's something very direct about it, what you see is immediate and uncluttered, and I find it easier to stay connected to the scene rather than getting lost in technical precision.

In use, the brightness of the finder makes a real difference, especially in lower-light situations or when working quickly. Framing feels intuitive, and once you get used to parallax compensation, it becomes second nature. I rarely feel limited by the lack of reflex viewing, and in some ways, the simplicity actually helps me stay more focused on composition and movement.

Taken together, the long spring-motor runtime, the very quiet and the excellent viewfinder make this a practical and confident mechanical camera. It's a setup that encourages longer takes, calmer shooting, and a more fluid relationship with what's happening in front of the lens, such qualities that are surprisingly rare in spring-driven 16mm cameras.

The Original BMPCC

Perhaps I was a bit late to this digital party, but I am enjoying using the BMPCC Og, which came out a few years ago back in 2013. Despite its age I believe this camera is so far ahead of its time that its results will SHOCK you!
I must admit it could be the best Blackmagic cinema camera ever? Sure, it has issues and is not the easiest to use, but the images it produces are really incredible.

For me it started when I was out shooting with my 16mm setup, it was not a large or heavily rigged rig, just a straightforward Éclair ACL with a 100-foot magazine, a compact viewfinder, and a C-mount lens. Despite its relatively modest size, I quickly realised that the presence of the camera seemed to unsettle people. As soon as I lifted it to my eye, I could see passersby stiffen up, glance nervously in my direction, or suddenly become self-conscious about what they were doing. After a short while, the tension in the air felt strong enough that I decided to stop filming altogether.

Meanwhile, a friend of mine was shooting alongside me with his BMPCC, the little original camera known by some affectionately as the "Og", is a cinema camera that shoots at 24fps in Pro-Res or Raw in 1080p. The thing is genuinely small, almost unassuming, and people barely registered it. He kept filming effortlessly, blending into the environment while I stood there feeling like I was holding some imposing piece of machinery.

Seeing the contrast between our experiences made something click for me. While I love using celluloid and 16mm, I didn't want the act of filming to disrupt the world around me and make anyone uncomfortable. When I looked over the footage shot on the original BMPCC, I was genuinely struck by how good it looked. I'm not going to fall back on the usual clichés people tend to use, phrases like "it has an organic film look." But as someone who shoots a lot of actual film, I can say honestly that it did resemble film to my eye and the images really did have a beauty, a rich texture and were quietly cinematic in a way that felt unique rather than imitative.

The more I watched, the more curious I became. I started digging deeper and started reading old online forum threads [there are many], comparing sample footage, learning about its dynamic range, quirks, limitations and its unique "Fairchild" sensor, which was apparently designed by ARRI engineers, and this little fact has earned the camera the affectionate nickname of being called the Alexa 'baby.' A wide range of projects have been created with it, from short films and documentaries to full-length features. Perhaps even more impressively, the camera has also found its way onto high-end Hollywood sets, where it's been used as a compact yet capable tool alongside major studio equipment. Eventually, after absorbing as much as I could, I decided to pick up a BMPCC [the Og model] for myself. One of the best things is that I am able to use all of my Super 16 lenses.

Now that I'm using it, I understand why people still speak about it with such affection. The images do have a very filmic character that's compelling in their own right, and I've been genuinely enjoying shooting with it. However, the camera isn't without its issues. Users frequently report frustrations across various forums, from its disappointing battery life to the unreliable LCD screen and the notoriously fragile mini-HDMI port. Despite these shortcomings, each of these problems does have a practical workaround, and many operators have learned to adapt their setups to keep the camera performing reliably.

People keep asking me the same question: whether I've crossed over and started using digital cameras, and if I still going to advocate for film? The assumption seems to be that picking up a digital tool means abandoning everything I say and have said about celluloid. But here's the reality, this isn't some dramatic shift or sudden betrayal of film. I've always used and followed the evolution of digital cinema cameras closely, all the way from ARRI's groundbreaking D20, paying attention to how the technology has changed and where it's heading.

Digital today isn't remotely the same as the video of the of the 1970s and 1980s. The old standard-definition analogue cameras really could churn out rough, often genuinely unpleasant images. Back then, the gap between film and video wasn't just noticeable, it was enormous. But things have changed dramatically. Modern digital cameras are refined, flexible, and capable of producing stunning results. They're part of a completely different era of image-making, one where the debate isn't really about "film versus digital" so much as "which tool fits the story I want to tell?"

So yes, I'm using digital and yes, I'll continue to use and champion film too. To me, they're not opposing camps but two vibrant, evolving mediums, each with its own strengths, aesthetics, and possibilities.

I've come to feel that the "film look" is something that can't be pinned down with a neat definition. I understand this may be unpopular to admit, but I do believe that now a good colourist can produce a convincing "film look" if desired. Digital has its own aesthetic language. The BMPCC Og, in particular, doesn't resemble the lovely, but hyper-clean, hyper-sharp images we've grown used to from modern 4K, 6K, or 12K cameras. Those can sometimes feel almost too perfect, too sanitized, as if all the texture of life has been ironed out. The original Pocket, though, has a distinct charm, its own flavour of softness, richness, and character that sets it apart from many of the contemporary digital cameras. By appreciating digital and the undeniably beautiful looking images captured by the Og doesn't diminish the magic of reel film.

One of the things I genuinely appreciate about the current filmmaking landscape is the sheer range of options available to creatives. We're living in a moment where you can just as easily decide to shoot on analogue film or you can use a digital system, and both paths are completely viable. Of course, the decision isn't made in a vacuum, what we choose is shaped by comfort level, workflow preferences, the demands of the project, and very real constraints like time and budget. But the choice exists, and that freedom is invaluable.

What concerns me is how easily conversations slip into a kind of tribalism: "film versus digital", as if one must triumph over the other. I don't think that mindset serves filmmakers or filmmaking. Instead of treating them like opposing philosophies or rival camps, we should recognise them as different tools on the same creative workbench. Each has its strengths, its limitations, its unique qualities, and yes, its flaws.

The real question shouldn't be "which is better?" but rather "which one helps me tell this story in the most authentic and effective way?" When we take that approach, both film and digital become allies rather than competitors. These two distinct mediums that expand our expressive possibilities instead of narrowing them.

Back to Contents

 

Lots of updates for 2024 - Click here for more information about 16mm motion picture camera developments.

A lot has happened over the summer, it's truely been an exciting time. Our new 16mm camera is being tested with film, we've ventured into the world of shooting with 35mm motion picture film and we're about to launch our YouTube channel. Keep watching this space as there wll be a lot of updates in the coming days, and there are lots of new exciting articles that we'll be sharing here too!

The New Kodak Super 8 Camera

After all these years Kodak have announced [sort of quietly] that there will be a limited edition of this camera for sale, this truly is great news. It's pretty expensive, I do think in an age where most of us feel film is too expensive anyway, where we have to shop around to get raw stock, process it and scan it, the only relief we have is that film cameras, especially Super 8 ones are cheap.

Making a new camera is an expensive affair and I suppose Kodak never was a company that made great cameras, it is a known fact that their Super 8 cameras of yesteryear are quite basic and flimsy, as the consumable - film was their core business. Everyone talks about their film emulsions and not their cameras. Although it would appear that before they got into Super 8 they did make decent cameras. I honestly thought that there wasn’t really a camera and assumed it was a great publicity stunt to sell film and make Super 8 current and more appealing to a new generation of filmmakers.

At 5500 USD it’s far too expensive for most people, and it raises all sorts of questions about the cameras target customer and its features, but hopefully die-hard fans of Super 8 and rental houses will buy it. Until 2014 we were making a Super 8 camera, we even got mentioned in Juergen Losssau’s Super 8 book, but then we stopped for all sorts of reasons, like using Super 8 was getting too expensive, processing and scanning costs were climbing rapidly, Kodak was in trouble and for some reason they discontinued E100D, Fujifilm stopped making motion picture film and generally the future of film and especially Super 8 looked bleak.

Perhaps the biggest reason we stopped making a Super 8 camera was that we realised that there were so many existing Super 8 cameras out there, in fact it seems like there are millions, an abundant never-ending supply of them and all they need is some care and film. Even now when we browse Ebay we see many selling at all sorts of prices from £5.00 to £500, simple point and shoot ones and expensive heavily featured ones, the choice is huge.

Making a Super 8 camera was a great adventure, enjoyable and fruitful, we bought all kinds of cameras, in fact hundreds, expensive ones and the most basic ones and opened them to understand how they worked, we learned about the different types of shutters, claws and intermittent movements, we looked at patents and studied repair manuals, experimented with optics and eventually built a camera, a prototype, a simple, very small reflex camera, with a c mount lens and a range of speeds, but then we decided to stop the project and we used all the valuable learning and expert knowledge to build a simple Super 16 camera instead, while this market is small, it is very popular and there isn’t really an affordable option here.

Learn more at kodak.com/go/super8camera

Click here and please tell us about your experiences using film, whether you're a seasoned professional using film, or just starting out on your film journey.

Keystone Reflex Nov 2023 Click Here for more Keystone Developments

I like using the Keystone 16mm cameras, especially their later models such as the A9, A12, in both their Criterion and Deluxe versions and their last the A15 Newport Deluxe, but all Keystones have a rather poor reputation of being the lowest denominator for 16mm cameras, despite the fact they are very functional and reliable. I know a lot of people will be thinking; Why Keystone cameras? As there are much better cameras out there and they’re right, there are, but in this current climate where 16mm has become very popular apparently the ‘better’ cameras are getting far too expensive.

Unfortunately, Keystones were never taken seriously, and I think it's because the Keystone company themselves referred to their cameras as 'novelty' products, as a company they were popular toy manufacturers of the era, so it was natural for many not to take these so called ‘novelty’ cameras seriously.

Today they are very cheap, easy to use with modern C mount lenses and with new film, which means they are a valuable and practical tool. Their simple construction also means they are easy to clean and fix too which is not the case with most 16mm cameras. When opened they are incredibly simple, there are no hidden surprises, unexpected springs or electronic wizardry to deal with. To understand their sheer simplicity, we just need to look at their Model C, although released in 1931 there weren’t any radical changes in the construction of their cameras until their last camera rolled off the production line sometime in the late 1950s other than the addition of motors and their speed governors.

In the model C we have a large gear that is turned by a hand crank, this gear turns the claw, the shutter and the take up drive, that’s it, it’s so simple, the footage counter is activated by the take up reel and this method remains the same in all their later cameras. The only change in later models was that the hand crank was replaced by a motor. Towards the 1950s it seems their cameras just became glossier and flashier with elegant chrome trimmings and labels such as ‘Deluxe’, but the basics, the intermittent movement, the mechanics never changed. So, understanding them, cleaning, servicing and even modifying them is not too difficult.

I am always being told that these cameras are too limiting as they’re not Super 16 and don’t have a reflex 16mm viewfinder. Well, many 16mm cameras are not Super 16 unless modified and a proper modification is difficult and often expensive, but modifying a keystone to Super 16 is much easier. I admit that the non-reflex aspect can be a pain. I’ve never reflexed a Keystone before, I didn’t think it was possible as I always used a ‘dogleg’ lens [lens with a viewfinder such as the Angenuiex 17-68mm].

In the past few days, I got some new beam splitters [for another camera not the famed Bolex] but I started to think whether these would work with on a Keystone and whether reflexing one was even possible. I used one of these new beam-splitters and started experimenting with a ground glass screen, some mirrors and an eyepiece borrowed from my ACL and after some experimenting and fiddling about with my home-made tools I managed to get it working properly and got a sharp image on both the ground glass screen and in the camera’s gate.

I was so excited that ever since then I have been out and about filming and as expected the focusing and framing is now so much easier. In my opinion this has elevated the practical usefulness of the camera beyond my imagination. I’ll share the results as soon as I finish the roll.

A New 16mm Camera April 2023

It is often said that even the simplest film cameras are capable of producing great results, whilst the camera has to move the film with great care, the lens and the film-stock do most of the work, but even so making a 16mm Camera is not an easy under-taking. It is the age of digital and many say things like ‘Do we really need a new 16mm camera?’ It’s a fair question, but in this rapidly changing environment we need to glance back and take stock. It’s important for us to look back, history is important as it teaches us so many things for our present and future.

Admittedly there a lot of existing 16mm cameras out there, but I believe they are not all suitable for todays’ filmmakers as most were made in a different era for a different generation of film makers. Granted that many of the older 16mm [amateur] cameras are small, but they’re very heavy, noisy and they’ll mostly be standard 16, which means that you will not be able to film in wide screen. Many professional 16mm cameras from the 1970s and 1980s will allow you to shoot the wider Super 16 frame, they are much quieter as they were designed to shoot sound, but they are bigger and can be cumbersome and often require very expensive lenses.

Like many I use older cameras, for sound work I rely on the Éclair ACL and for general filming I have used so many, but my current favourite is the Kodak K100 which I have modified for Super 16. The thing they both have in common is that they are old, and if anything goes wrong with them, I probably won’t be able to get them fixed.

In the last few years, the 16mm format has become very popular and the prices of 16mm cameras have gone insanely higher, even though most of the 16mm cameras out there are difficult to maintain, service and repair. In such a climate I think it makes sense for someone to make a new simple, small 16mm camera. Last year a company called Logmar announced a new 16mm camera, but they shelved the project, perhaps it was too expensive.

I think it’s important that any new camera needs to be ‘cheap’, so that it’s easier for people to be introduced to the format and become familiar with the workflow. We really need a beginner’s camera, something that’s very affordable that costs well under £10.000 but ideally under £5,000. A camera without complicated electronics, menus or a vast array of confusing buttons, just a simple start and stop and possibly a speed dial, a camera that will work with most of today’s accessories such as cages, handles and gimbals that many who are heavily invested in digital equipment already have. We need a very capable camera built to high standards to create Super 16 movies with ease.

The Zeiss Movikon 8 November 2022

I don't normally talk about 8mm cameras, or use them, but this one looks funky, I have never seen a movie camera like this apart from modern digital cameras., it's definitely a very different design and it looks like a stills camera. Apparently the images it produces are incredibly steady, but obviously the images won't be as sharp as 16mm, as four of these little 8mm frames fit in a single 16mm frame, though 8mm does have a certain charm. For those who don't know 8mm film [not Super 8] is actually16mm film which is double perfed and has more perfs, it comes on little daylight spools containing 25ft of film, in reality there's a bit extra, upto 35ft of film. It has always bothered me that most Regular/Standard 8 cameras don't have obvious film loops or a sprocket drive, the claw does all the work.

I don't know if it's fact or myth, but it seems that the Movikon 8's unusual horizontal spool layout and vertical gate is the main reason why the camera produces steady imagery. The film spools sit horizontally but have to twist at 90° to be vertical before and after entering the gate and this twist by default creates two loops which keep the film steady as it moves through the gate and exposed, and therefore there's no wobble or weave in the gate. I have an idea whether the Movikon 8 layout work in 16mm, it will certainly appeal to the DSLR crowd and will work with most of today's accessories such as cages, handles and gimbals that many who are heavily invested in digital already have.

 

 

Popular 16mm

The miain reason why they are popular is because there's lots of them and they are very cheap, the K-3 is the perhaps the most affordable reflex 16mm camera out there, at around £400-£600 and this too with a lens, a bargain for a reflex camera. Additionally they do have a spinning mirror shutter for their reflex viewfinder like the higher end cameras such as the Arri's and Aatons, but that's were the comparison ends as this is not really a professioally well built camera.

It's a very popular camera, the Krasnogorsk 3 known simply as the K-3 was mass produced from the 1970s to the early 1990s. It is a spring-wound 16mm mirror-reflex movie camera and many people love these cameras, but at the same time many dislike them. The main issue is that they have not been made equally, as such they don't adhere to the same strict tolerances, and this means you might get a good one that works brilliantly, or you might get a 'dud' that is plagued with issues. I personally don't encourage people to buy the K-3, it's just that there are much better cameras out there and the K-3 might end up giving you endless problems. Over the years I have had three K-3's and all three have had major issues that couldn't be fixed so in the end I was forced to give up on them.

There are many issues with them, a common one is that the loop formers don't work properly and scratch film, I don't know if they ever did, but it is an easy to remedy to fix by simply removing the loop formers, many users just take the loop formers out. The weakest area is the gate and pressure plate, it's just a simple channel to allow the film to travel through and like the early amateur cameras produced in the 1920s - 1940s, there's no lateral film guide or registration pin which can lead to unsteady footage that wobbles, but the footage can be stablised digitally.

While fairly small the K-3 is a heavy camera, it's noisy and winding the spring motor is tough like a mini workout. I see a lot of K-3 footage on sites like Youtube, but in almost all the footage I see there's a subtle flicker, a sort of pulsating effect, on small computer screens it's largely unnoticeabble, but if you see the footage on a large screen this flicker becomes more pronounced. I think most people don't notice it and aren't distracted by it, but this flicker just doesn't exist in other cameras. There can be many reasons for this flicker but I think the main culprit is the camera's gears, not moving smoothly and therefore exposing frames at slightly different rates, it's either caused by the fact that the cogs/gears are not made to exact tolerances and therefore do no mesh properly, or there is poor lubrication, but it's probably both of these factors.

 

New 16mm cameras Announced July 2022

It's very exciting to hear the news of two new 16mm cameras in 2022. I have followed the numerous online discussions and debates about whether there is a need for a new camera as there so many existing working 16mm cameras out there, but I do believe that we need a new 16mm camera, there are many reasons for this, such as existing cameras are getting expensive to buy, they can be notoriously difficult to maintain and repair as parts and technicians are hard to come by, often the technology and know how of older cameras work is fast or is fast disappearing with technicians retiring or leaving the field. In my opinion existing cameras were made for a different generation and they don't really meet the needs of today's filmmakers; for instance they can be too big, heavy, bulky, and many of them lack video assist. Logmar have a history of making cameras and I am sure that their 'Galapagos', which is a bit boxy looking and is priced at 26,900 Euros [more information is on their website here], will be a well engineered camera. The other camera Y16 [more information is on their website here], certainly has a more attractive design; it's listed at 16,666 Euros. I personally like its design, its ergonomics, its simplicity and its concept of future-proofing via' open source'. I do think that in the future we will have to rely on open sourced projects, as we don't seem to be able to store the knowledge and resources about production processes that are discontinued and if we need them again, we have to bear the entire research and development costs again starting from scratch. Many struggle to understand why these new cameras are expensive, well as a realist designing, testing and manufacturing costs a lot especially for precision products that are made in small quantities; I hope both cameras achieve success.

The Additive Colour Tests June 2022

After the initial success and euphoria all my subsequent tests with the Polachrome film used as a colour filter with black and white 35mm have not gone well. The second time I did this I used [Kentmere] 100 asa I rated it at 25, 35, and 50asa, while the exposures at 35 were spot on, unfortunately I have not been able to get colour on every image, some lack colour completely, while some display weak colours in patches.

There could be a range of issues that contributed to my unpredictable results, like the black and white film that I used, some slight difference in my processing, and scanning, but I think I'm facing two main issues; firstly one of exact alignment between the photo and filter in both the camera and during scanning. The second issue is the possibility that the film has shrunk or expanded during the development, although I might have ruled this second issue out as the sprocket holes on the film and the filter match up exactly.

I think the issue of alignment has to be the main culprit, because Polachrome is incredibly thin, it's flimsy and therefore it's difficult to keep flat, so there is a strong possibility that there was bowing in the camera during exposures and of course during scanning, especially since the black and white film has to be completely flat against a filter during the exposure. I will try again with a new holder for scanning, but if the film was not completely flat during exposure getting colour is going to be impossible. The exampl,e on the left is one of the better ones.

You can see a range of colours in the photograph from blue to green and yellow, there's red and green on the 'give way' sign, but all the colours are weak and tepid. In conclusion I think I am going to have to abandon the Polachrome film as a RGB it's just too unpredictable, I won't do the tests with 16mm film.

All is not lost however as the pursuit continues I do have [never used and new sealed] two Finlay Colour Taking plates from 1929, the plates are glass so flatness wouldn't be an issue and they do have registration edges, but each one is 7" x 5", too big for 35mm and 16mm, so I need to find a way to condense them and make them smaller for a 35mm camera. Even though the plates are new and never been with magnification I have noticed that I can a few blemishes, not from age but probably from the factory. If I capture a plate with my digital camera and I can import it into the computer where I can fix these minor errors, but then I'll need a way to output the plate to 35mm and 16mm acetate somehow if it's possible.

Originally a Finlay plate was placed in front of black and white film in the camera and then a separate plate called a 'viewing screen' was attached to the exposed glass print in the viewer to get colour photographs. I don't know what kind of colour was produced as there are hardly no images online, but I do know that the taking plates or screens had weaker and diluted colours for faster exposures and the viewing plates or screens had more intense colours to compensate for the taking screens weaker colours, they required more light to give better saturation.

Here is the Finlay Plate [below] it has been magnified 20x and even though this is a new plate straight out of its packaging you can see the imperfections;A simpler solution might be to photograph a plate using 35mm slide film, hoping that the slide will capture all the tiny RGB squares, but of course this way I can't fix any of the blemishes and the defects that are present. Slide film like Fujifilm's Provia, might be a good but the choices for slide films are limited, but it might have been good to experiment with a few different brands to see how they behave.

I will use the processed slide [by a lab] as a new smaller colour filter which will be fit inside the aperture of a 35mm camera where the black and white film sit over it, the slide should act in the same way as original Finlay screen, although the slide might introduce artefacts of it's own which could be an issue. The slide film is acetate so there's less chance of it bowing in the camera, it is thicker than polyester so the shots might be soft focus.

I will see how it works, if it doesn't work I think in the end the only way to get decent colour using black and white film might be to colourise footage. I have done this, it's a slow and tedious process, but the results can be very good.

Though I have never been a fan of AI colourisation the new Neural Filter from Adobe Photoshop looks promising as it allows considerable manual control to fix the AI's work so that you can produce more natural colours.

These three images [below] are from 16mm motion picture film, originally Kodachrome. I first turned the image black and white [second image] and then using Photoshop's Artificial Intelligence 'Neural' filter I colourised it [image three], I removed the blue cast and changed the mans shirt colour and added green, probably over saturated the colour. I normally don't like A.I. colourising, but I am pretty impressed with Photoshop's new filter is as it does allow you to make manual tweaks as well. The only thing is Photoshop's quite expensive.

 

 

The ABTO System June 2022

Using black and white film to create colour images! Is it even possible?

While researching 'additive' colour processes I came across a very interesting system from the 1960s where ABC in the United Sates developed a system of shooting normal black and white film and then projecting it and broadcasting it as colour footage, it was called ABTO technology.

The system was aimed at smaller American broadcasters so that they could keep costs low when shooting colour using the ABTO way, rather than getting a colour processor and shooting and processing Kodak's Ektachrome, popular but expensive EF film [using ME-4 chemistry]. At that time for colour broadcasting for local originating, broadcasters had to get expensive colour processors, and while there was a lot of small ME-4 processors for the smaller stations, the volume of film processed was usually very small so the huge expense of new machuinery didn't always make that much sense.

Along comes ABTO claiming to shoot regular black and white film with their special filter called an 'Encoder' mounted behind the lens on the camera, the black and white film would be processed normally with an existing black and white processor, and finally the film would be projected with any projector telecine chain but with ABTO'S colour filter called a 'Decoder' mounted in front of the film but behind the projector lens and the colour camera on the telecine chain would pick-up the image and make a colour video image.

It would have saved money using the cheaper black and white film for the smaller broadcasters who wouldn't need to replace their existing simple black and white processors. But was it too good to be true?

Well, the system sounds very similar to the earlier 'additive' processes, but obviously it didn't take off as there's very little information about it, I have tried and failed as I can't find anyone who has actually heard of ABTO let alone anyone who's used it, I wonder if and how well it worked. I have read the patents and the theory is very interesting. The idea of using black and white film and getting colour images is very intriguing.

 

Additive Colour Experiments May 2022

I have been searching the internet to see if there are people experimenting with additive colour techniques, so far I haven't found anyone who has been looking into this. It started with a question; Can I use conventional black and white film with an 'Additive Colour' filter screen containing mosaic of red, green and blue and get colour images? Finding out has become a scientific and artistic endeavour.

Currently there are a lot of different black and white films to choose from and they are a lot cheaper to buy than modern colour motion picture film and it's even cheaper and easier to process black and white film at home and get professional results. On the other hand colour motion picture films, while they're extremely brilliant they are expensive and complicated to process at home.

With black and white film the technology is simpler and there are many manufacturers across the globe that produce black and white film, there are many different uses for black and white film as well; such as aerial and industrial, technical, sound recording, and graphics such as microfilm.

While I do believe that there's definitely a look, a certain reality and an aesthetic to black and white photography and cinematography, I suppose I am really using black and white film because of the convenience and practicality it offers. I can easily shoot 35 feet of 16mm [which is just under 1 minute at 24fps] load it for processing easily in my daylight automaticSuperior Bulk tank and using the D96 Monobath from Cinestill, which is just one chemical, a lot of water and agitation followed by a few rinses with water I have developed roll of film.

Well, I want to use an RGB colour filter with modern black and white film and after the film is processed I plan to combine the black and white images with the RGB colour filter. But where does one get such a filter from? Modern digital cameras all use additive colour and they have a Bayer filter which is in front of a black and white sensor, the Bayer filter is very similar to the old additive screens, but we can't remove the Bayer filter intact, as far as I know there is no physical Bayer filter, it is fused with the sensor.

I have bought some old Polachrome 35mm film, and I have removed the photographic emulsion off the film leaving just the additive colour filter behind completely intact, removing the emulsion off was eassier than I imagined. I have put this, my new colour filter in my trusted old OM-10 35mm SLR camera and have been out taking photographs with some new black and white film, Kentmere 100 ISO, it's a budget film made by Ilford, but it produces good images, I rated it as 40 and 50 ISO, I think the colour filter absorbs about 50-60% of the light. The photographs from the Kentmere film should be much better than the original instant Polaroid original instant film which would have added its own characteristics to the final film.

After processing the film as normal black and white negative I will scan the negatives by photographing them with a digital camera and will also photograph the colour filter in the same way. In the computer I will combine both images, [but first I will invert the black and white negative into a positive and maybe adjust the contrast and levels]. I will then superimpose the colour filter onto this photograph, making it transparent until we see a colour photograph emerge under it and then I will align both images to eliminate any colour fringing and have the filter and the photo exactly as they were in the camera, this should give me a colour photograph. Judging by the Polachrome slides that I have seen I am pretty sure the colours will be very natural and good.

I am very confident that the experiment will be successful with 35mm and it will be fun, after all this is how all the older additive screens worked, obviously they didn't have help from computers. At the same time I am not sure that this method will be successful with 16mm, it may throw up too many issues for it to work properly with cine film. There are potentially lots of issues 16mm, firstly the film is moving and there's always a certain amount of weave. I am guessing that high end cameras particularly those that offer pin registration do not suffer from weave or wobble. Secondly, the acetate camera film swells and then shrinks [albeit] just by a tiny fraction this could change the alignment from the stationery filter screen even if perfect registration between camera and projector was achieved, but perhaps this may be sorted out in digital post by stabilizing and re-sizing the film, but again I will have to try and see.

In an ideal world such a filter pattern would be affixed to the film stock itself so it is the exact same filter in the exact same relationship in camera and projector and before and after developing. Obviously this is how Dufayolor, Polavision and the Polachrome systems worked with motion picture film, it's unlikely that any film manufacturer would make such a film today. Not only that, but we loose the flexibility of using different black and white films with one filter.

The Bell and Howell 240 16mm Roll film Camera series [Feb 2022]

Originally 16mm was conceived as a consumer format for the home move maker. At the very beginning of 16mm the Bell and Howell camera company introduced the Filmo line of 16mm cameras, these quickly became known for their precision, durability and were adopted by professionals rather than consumers. We know that the Filmo's were being made until 1983 and were a popular camera used by documentary filmmakers and news reporters.

The company was considerably successful with consumers with their 16mm magazine cameras, but in 1956/7, perhaps to win back more consumers, they introduced the 240 series, in many ways this line of cameras are simplified Filmo's, but with new technology added such as loop formers, Sunomatic lens system and other point and shoot features. There were two important factors such as simplicity and economy. The Filmo's weren't simple, the 16mm magazine system was, but it was expensive. However it would appear that Bell and Howell failed to win back consumers as it looks like most of them abandoned 16mm in favour of the new Super 8 format and the 240 series disappeared.

Fast forward to present day we see a lot of 240's being sold at very cheap prices on places like Ebay. The first question we ask is do they work and if so how well? This is a difficult question to answer as most sellers will usually say something like '….after winding and pressing the trigger the camera runs and works as it should…' This is misleading as we can only tell how well the camera functions after running some film through it, we need to see what has been shot with the camera. In reality many see shooting 16mm expensive and complicated so doing a thorough test is often seen as unviable.

What can we expect? I have used many 240 cameras including the British equivalent to the 240T the GB 627 which is very common. Firstly they are standard 16 and not Super 16, they are purely mechanical with spring motors and finally they are non reflex, but accept C mount lenses. I have noticed a few things, like the loop formers aren't working properly, there are two prongs which are pressed when the door is closed, these often need re-aligning. The most common issue that I have come across is that the camera doesn't run at accurate speeds. According to the instructions the camera when a fully wound will run 32 feet of film and at 24fps that is 53.33 seconds and this longer than most cameras even the legendary Bolex cameras but not longer than the K100. I have found that in most cases the camera isn't running at accurate speed settings, with most when I set 24fps the camera runs slower closer to 16fps. To test this you must load film in the camera [preferably dummy film] as all 16mm cameras run a little slower when loaded with film.

Clearly these cameras need servicing they are over 60 years old, but I have not been able to do this completely as I have yet to find a service /repair manual to understand how the spring and the speed governor works, but I have managed to successfully open and clean the cameras myself, I have documented this progress in detail here, but it is tough luck if a part is broken or missing as there are no spares [unless we remove a working part from another camera]. Fortunately, though with today's technology it is possible to fabricate many parts.

Non Reflex cameras [Feb 2022]

Filming with a non-reflex camera shouldn't be seen as a 'no, no' these cameras can be a lot of fun, especially for more informal, 'on the move' filming. Parallax has not been a big issue with me when I use a 16mm and 25mm focal lens, this arrangement works great for me, I use the lens's hyper focal settings and for more critical stuff I measure for focus. If a reflex viewfinder is really needed my advice is to find a zoom lens with a viewfinder and focusing and like the Angénieux L1 or L 2 17-68mm which is pictured below in Decembers article 'Getting into 16mm'.

Most older 16mm cameras like the Cine Kodak K100, The Revere 101/103 and the Bell and Howells 240 series have non-reflex viewfinders, this makes critical focusing and framing tricky, but these cameras should not be dismissed because of this. One can measure for accurate focusing or use the camera's hyper focal setting, while a reflex viewfinder is ideal, it's easy, it's not a must. Remember even professional films makers used non-reflex cameras right into the 1960s and I must stress that non-reflex cameras are much cheaper than the reflex cameras, most 16mm amateur cameras use c mount lenses and there are plenty of these and very popular among many digital shooters who often say that Switar's are the best in their kit.

I would advise anyone who wants to experience 16mm to get a simple 16mm camera, my first choice aas an entry level camera is a Keystone [the last three models., these are simple and easy cameras, Keystones can be easily cleaned, lubricated to work better than new, they are so easy to open and clean, there are not hidden springs to loose and you don't need a technician to service them and when clean they work like a charm. They also work very well as Super 16 cameras, their aperture gate can be easily widened for Super 16 too.

Keystone 16mm Cameras [Feb 2022]

I have mentioned Keystone 16mm cameras many times before, they are the perfect entry level cameras. A Keystone was one of my first 16mm cameras, so in a way it's back to the beginning, they are simply great cameras for beginners as they produce spectacular results. I know a lot of people will be thinking why Keystone cameras, as there are much better cameras out there. It seems that Keystones were never taken seriously and I think it's because the Keystone company referred to their cameras as 'novelty' products. But here's the thing even in this age Keystone 16mm cameras are simple and increadibly cheap and they work surprisingly well.

I am constantly been asked why I talk about the Keystone 16mm cameras. The answer is simple, while these amateur 16mm cameras offer something different, they are the most 'mechanically' simple casmeras, the Keystones are so easy to maintain and fix, you don't need to be a technician to sort them. If you ever open them to clean, there are no suprises and there's no maze of electornics, the mechanics of a Keystone 16mm camera are incredibly simple. Amateur cameras are smaller as they often only can only handle 100ft daylight spools [which are very common today] and they are easier to use and load with film, after all they were aimed at the ordinary person who wasn't a trained camera operator and you can take them with you to risky places. Out of all the Keystones I prefer three models, the ones with a letter followed by a number and then a name, the name is important like the A9 Criterion, the A12 Criterion-Deluxe and the A15 Newport-Deluxe, these cameras date from about 1949 to 1957, they are the perfect entry level cameras. If there is a letter followed by a number only and no name then the camera is most likely for double perf film. To check this just ask to see a picture showing the large sprocket wheel, the one where the film wraps around, and if there are two rows of teeth at top and bottom of it then the camera can only accept double perf film. But all is not lost as you can easily sort this out and make the camera compatible with single perf film by carefully grinding or filing the top row of teeth from the sprocket wheel and then you can use the more common single perf [1R] film.

These cameras, the ones I have come across look hardly used, this is quite normal with a lot of old amateur photographic equipment from this era, even though these cameras were cheap, cine photography was not, it was quite an expensive hobby and as such it was common to use cameras sparingly and bring them out on holidays and special occasions only. So most of old cameras haven't seen much action at all and all they really need is a bit of a clean and some light oil and then they will function perfectly. If the camera comes with a lens it's probably going to be useless, but the good thing is that the lens will unscrew off as Keystones cameras are c mount cameras and this means you can use all sorts of lenses, older lenses, newer lenses, lenses from the Bolex etc.

The only downside is that Keystone cameras like other amateur cameras of this era they do not have a reflex viewfinder. While a reflex camera is ideal, I don't think it's a must, especially if you're new to 16mm and just want to try it out without spending a fortune. I must point out that non-reflex cameras shouldn't be under-estimated, they're can be a lot of fun and are much cheaper than the reflex cameras. I have done two things to my cameras that most wouldn't really do with these cameras; Firstly, I have modified mine to Super 16 by widening the aperture on the gate, adjusting the shutter to accommodate the wider frame and I have moved the lens plate to re-centre the lens. Secondly I have removed the old spring motor and fitted a preision electric motor to run the camera precisely at 24 frames, by doing this I have made the camera much quieter and lighter.

Getting into 16mm - Which camera to choose? [December 2021]

Many people new to 16mm say they want to buy a reflex Bolex, but can't as these cameras have become so expensive; in fact all good 16mm cameras are getting pricey. They then start talking about getting the Krasnogorsk 3 instead [commonly known as the K-3] because these cameras are cheap. I must point out the thing about the K-3's, while these are cheap there seems to be too many inconsistencies with them. Comparing the Bolex to a K-3 is absurd, it's like saying a luxury car is the same as a budget hatchback.

There are few who love their K-3's and talk highly of them, personally I don't have much time for K-3s, there are just too many horror stories with them, they are notoriously unreliable, unless you're lucky enough to get a good one or can fix one yourself, finding someone to service or do a CLA is virtually impossible.

The legendary Bolex are great cameras, but they have become very expensive. Personally I think they are perhaps a little overrated. I think they are too busy; with lots of buttons and knobs, they are loud and heavy and their wind limits shots to 30 seconds. But the thing is there are many people around the world who can fix and service them.

Fortunately, I have discovered that there are many other 16mm cameras that don't have the same 'cult' status as the Bolex, but are cameras that are very good and much cheaper like the Revere 101/103, The Bell and Howell 240 and the Cine Kodak K-100 series. The K-100 is truly an amazing camera - a hidden gem, it is far better camera than a K-3, it's in a different league altogether as it has far less chance of something failing, light leaks or scratching the film. Personally I think the K-100's are seriously "underrated", as many people don't really know how well made they are, and how smoothly they run. I think they should be regarded at being at the top of the 'amateur' camera list in terms of their durability and ease of use. They are incredibly easy to thread film, they work smoothly and quietly [unlike a K-3] and they are very steady and reliable and not to forget they run for ages on a full wind.

The only downside is that the K-100's do not have reflex viewing. While a reflex camera is ideal, it's not a must and I must stress that non-reflex cameras shouldn't be under-estimated, they're much cheaper than the reflex cameras, there are plenty of cheap C mount lenses for them and in most cameras the aperture gate can be easily widened for Super 16. Filming with a non-reflex camera can be a lot of fun, especially for more informal, 'on the move' filming. Parallax has not been a big issue with me when I use a 16mm and 25mm lens, this arrangement works great for me, I use the lens hyper focal settings and for more critical stuff I measure focus.

If you must have a reflex viewfinder, the advice is to find a corresponding zoom lens, for example the Angénieux L 1 or L 2.

A New Twist on Tradition [Revised November 2021]

In today's increasingly competitive world I believe the camera 'person' needs create visual images that stand out. In order to do this the camera 'person' needs a wide spectrum of tools to work with and film needs be there as a viable choice. There is a lot of growing interest in film, especially 16mm from youngsters, but they need a modern camera that is easy to use and has the features associated with today's cinematography.

I believe the Kodak K100/K100T, made from the mid 1950's to the mid 1970's fits the bill it is really an underrated camera, fortunately it was mass produced and so there are plenty of them about. I used one and I liked it very much, I realised that it could be easily modified to suite the needs of the contemporary camera 'person' who is used to digital cameras.

I machined the aperture plate to Super 16, I designed and made a new camera front to re-centre the lens mount and more importantly I reflexed it by using a pellicle mirror and a ground glass. In addition to that using the service manual and I dissasemled it, cleaned it, oiled and lubricated and the reassembled it.

For the K100 instruction manual click here

Cine Kodak Model BB Junior

Recently a 16mm camera that I have come across is the Kodak K100, this was made from 1955 to 1973, after using it I am quite impressed with it..

 

 

A New Super 16 camera

 

Affordable 16mm Options

Back to Contents

 

Back to Contents

 

 

Back to Contents