| Author |
Message |
    
CJ
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 05:54 pm: | 
|
Anybody read this book?
It's by Eric Ambler. I'm about 30 pages in, and I just thought I'd mention it. Thus far, it includes a Contax RF in the plot, and a somewhat terse exchange with a Commissaire regarding the images on the film it contained:
"I can see," I said patronizingly, "that you are no photographer, Monsieur. That is not cinematograph film."
"No?"
"No. I admit that it looks a little like it.l But you will find that cinematograph film is a millimeter narrower. That is a standard spool of thirty-six twenty-four by thirty-six millimeter exposures for the Contax camera."
If anybody's read this already, (it was first published in 1952) please don't mention any plot spoilers! :-)
I'm merely recommending this novel because it's the ONLY book I've ever read which has so much vintage camera tech content!
Also--if any of you can recommend fiction works which contain camera & photography content of this type, please share the titles.
-CJ |
rick oleson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 06:45 pm: |
|
haven't read it, but i have seen it - this is the one with the Contax II on the cover?
... is cine film REALLY a mm narrower than 35mm still film???????
: ) = |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 08:24 pm: |
|
Not by my understanding,have read that sprocket hole pitch is slightly different for cine neg and print stock,but no mention of width difference.circa 1940 Kodak listed 135 cassettes and a daylight loading spool of 35mm film for Contax cameras (ref 235 or something similar).
All 35mm still film was originally standard cine stock and the original Leica evolved from a device to enable test exposures on early cine stock to be carried out simply,so that the movie could be exposed correctly.The only difference between cine and still stock that developed fairly early on (1920s/30s?) was the need for specific emulsions for still stock.Nowadays the cine stock is lubricated and emulsions much more specialised.
I suspect the reference might be poetic license.I remember reading a detective novel set in late 30s.The hero ran around in a tuned supercharged Bentley,his man servant did the tuning (ex-army 1914/18).At 100 mph he could drop it into FIRST for extra acceleration!!Must have made quite a noise!
Glenn |
CJ
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 09:24 pm: |
|
Rick
Yep; that's the one. The cover photo must've been completely obvious to Contax guys, but a year ago I wouldn't have known it from a Canon or Vivitar...
The giveaway--for me, at least--was the circular turret (film winder? I dunno) next to the gentleman's gloved fingers. |
James Jones
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 08:57 am: |
|
Back in the '70's I tried that movie film that was sold by Seattle Film Works (Eastman 8564 or something like that) and I remember that the sprocket holes were slightly different than regular Kodak 35mm film. I don't think the width was less, but then 1mm difference is hard to notice. |
Mark Pearce
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 02:31 pm: |
|
Regardless of the cover, Ambler writes a great thriller. You MUST read 'Journy into Fear'.
Top |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 04:34 pm: |
|
Rick,
I offer a solution to the 1mm extra quoted in book.As I said Kodak offered in 1940 a 235 loading for film,which was a Daylight loading spool of standard 35mm film for the Contax camera.At the same time the standard 135 cassette was offered also.
My solution is that the 235 SPOOL was 1mm larger between the flanges.The only way I can see 35mm film being wound onto a daylight loading spool,would be to have a paper leader to keep light out.To be 100% light tight the paper leader needs to be wider than the film stock,hence wider spool.
The large assumptions made here are that the 235 spool went into a special Contax reloadable cassette and that the standard 135 cassette did not fit the 1930/40 Contax,or that the Contax behaved like a normal roll film camera.
However I cannot see how a spool with paper leader could be loaded directly into a sprocket fed camera,as if it were a normal roll film type.Well I can, but you would get bits of paper from the teeth punching the paper leader.
In the quote the author is referring to 'a standard spool for the Contax'so perhaps we are on the right track.
Anybody know exactly what the 235 daylight loading spool of 35mm film, listed by Kodak in 1940 was?
Glenn. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 05:46 pm: |
|
Found part of the answer via Google.235 was a daylight loading spool of film for both Contax and Leica reloadable cassettes.The film stock is standard 35mm width.So is it the spool flange to flange distance that is 1mm larger?
Glenn. |
Mike Kovacs
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 08:48 am: |
|
Any chance you can scan the cover? The circular turret that rests in the accessory shoe of my Contax II is a multiframe viewfinder for the 28, 35, 50, 85, 135 lenses. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:17 am: |
|
There seems to be very little information about 235 spools on the web. Some sources say that it had a paper leader, some others say they were paper wrapped.
Since these spools were designed to be used in Leica reloadable cartridges, I rather believe the latter is the case. The Leica reloadable cartridges look similar to 135 cartridges but have a rotating cover at the slot. The cover is rotated to the open position when inserting the cartridge into a (bottom loading) Leica and turning the bottom latch key - it had a notch inside which meets the cover pin.
Also, at least in eastern Europe they sold 'lab packages' of 135 film in the 1970s - 135 film rolled on spools which would fit into standard cartrides and had to be loaded in a darkroom (I think they had a plastic wrapping then). I think the 235 spools were very similar and had a paper wrapping only but not a leader.
The spools used in the Mercury cameras had unperforated film, similar to 35mm film in width but with a paper leader. |
charlie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:23 am: |
|
Isn't that 828 film? |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 08:06 am: |
|
No, 828 film was 'semi-perforated', with one hole per frame, and AFAIK had complete paper backing - very similar to the stuff Kodak loaded into 126 cartridges.
Mercury camera film was a specific size, on a special tiny die-cast spool with notches at the ends of the shaft to couple with the advance mechanism. I found one in a grab box with some other photo stuff (i.e. very rare 6x6 and 6x4.5 masks for a french Kinax 6x9 folder) I bought from an US guy. I think the label says it expired somewhere in the 50s. |
Glenn Middleton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 06:28 pm: |
|
Winfried,
The 1940 Kodak catalogue definitely says that 235 spools were Daylight loading for Contax cassettes. As an avid user of the Leica reloadable item, I can only see a paper leader allowing this to be done.Or am I missing something?
I seem to remember in the early 50s, as a 10 year old loading his 127 Vest Pocket? folder, that inside the outer box the roll of film was wrapped in paper. Would you know if this recollection is correct?Perhaps the 235 film had a paper leader and was paper wrapped also.
Glenn. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 12:13 am: |
|
127 film has a paper leader AND a paper backing. I don't think that 235 film had a paper backing.
But here is another idea: if the 235 spools have a paper leader AND a flanged spool maybe they were inserted into the (reloadable) cartridges and the paper leader was pulled out after loading until the perforated part of the film appears. Some windings of paper leader around the wound film would block the light if there is a snug fit between the paper leader and the spool flanges. The paper leader would be cut off in this case.
This would be a possiblity to load the spools into the cartridges at daylight AND to use such a film in a camera which needs perforation holes. |
Jim OConnell
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:18 am: |
|
How very strange. Half an hour ago, I was looking through the junk bins at a Tokyo camera shop and was puzzling over an old leica reloadable cartrige that had about a 4mm opening with an internal door of some sort. I was wondering how it was possible to use it without leaking light into the whole roll.
Using a paper leader would certainly explain it.
Thanks, all, for answering a question I hadn't thought to ask... |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 08:34 am: |
|
The Leica cartridges (at least the ones I have, I think yours are the same) can be loaded into the camera at daylight. The internal lid slides well over the opening and fits snugly to the outer case. I have used them several times when I used a bulk loader. |
Winfried
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 08:36 am: |
|
...and of course I did not use a paper leader. |
