Jump to content


Photo

K3 accessories, need help identifying


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 05 October 2008 - 01:52 PM

Posted Image
50 asa 7.5 meters (color? process?)

Posted Image
(85B? Looks a little yellow, probably too old ... )

Posted Image
(UV Fitler?)

Posted Image
(ND Filter, x4 = 1.2?)

Also: My new k3 had a modification done to it on the plunger that activates the film gauge and loop formers, it had a small 1-2 mm thick piece of rubber glued to it which i removed because it was preventing the door from being sealed 100%. But perhaps it helped stabilze the film better, engaging the loop formers farther? Any advice on loop formers or this modification is appreciated.
  • 0

#2 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 05 October 2008 - 04:46 PM

Posted Image
(85B? Looks a little yellow, probably too old ... )


It's a 'yellow' filter, used with black & white film to alter the contrast and the way the B&W film responds to the colours in front of it.

What you identified as a 'UV' filter may be the 'closeup' filter. Try putting it on the lens and see if you can now focus on objects nearer to the lens (you won't be able to focus at infinity though)

It depends how the neutral density is measured as to how many stops compensation is needed. If it is x4, ie. a quarter of the brightness, then it cuts the light by 2 stops.


The best advice I can give about the loop formers is to remove them! It's dead simple to form the loops and thread the film manually, and with the formers gone there's no risk of scratched film. There have been various posts in the past about how you can remove them yourself.
  • 0

#3 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 05 October 2008 - 06:20 PM

Throw out the film--7 meters is just 21 feet.

And keep the filters for the hell of it, but don't use them.

Get into the P-series Cokin filters.
  • 0

#4 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 05 October 2008 - 11:04 PM

It's a 'yellow' filter, used with black & white film to alter the contrast and the way the B&W film responds to the colours in front of it.

What you identified as a 'UV' filter may be the 'closeup' filter. Try putting it on the lens and see if you can now focus on objects nearer to the lens (you won't be able to focus at infinity though)

It depends how the neutral density is measured as to how many stops compensation is needed. If it is x4, ie. a quarter of the brightness, then it cuts the light by 2 stops.


The best advice I can give about the loop formers is to remove them! It's dead simple to form the loops and thread the film manually, and with the formers gone there's no risk of scratched film. There have been various posts in the past about how you can remove them yourself.


Hi Ian, thank you for your post. I guessed the yellow filter was an aging 85 because I also have another one that I didn't post a picture of with markings like the one pictured except it's a lighter grade; 1,4x. I also have another one that I think is light yellow with markings like this: yФ-1x

Thank you for identifying the F-1734, I verified it is a closeup filter that allows focusing at one meter instead of two.

On the loop former issue, yes I did see the thread where someone was having problems with scratches. I have shot a K3 without loop formers and the one particular camera had an issue with a bouncy or jumpy image so I'm concerned about getting rock solid registration. I guess I'm wondering if loop formers can help with registration without scratching the film. The plunger I spoke about in my first post extends the loop formers outwards so I imagine they tighten the film going behind the pressure plate.

Throw out the film--7 meters is just 21 feet.

And keep the filters for the hell of it, but don't use them.

Get into the P-series Cokin filters.


Thank you for your post Ira. I guess I'm curious about the film even if it's only a small test strip. At the very least I could use it to test for scratching.
  • 0

#5 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 06 October 2008 - 01:53 AM

...I have shot a K3 without loop formers and the one particular camera had an issue with a bouncy or jumpy image so I'm concerned about getting rock solid registration. I guess I'm wondering if loop formers can help with registration without scratching the film. The plunger I spoke about in my first post extends the loop formers outwards so I imagine they tighten the film going behind the pressure plate.



I'm certainly not an expert in such matters, but I don't think the formers can do anything to improve registration. I removed the formers in my own K3 and the registration is as good as can be expected for such a camera - there is a little movement, but it isn't dancing all over the place.

By the sounds of it, the modification to the plunger on your camera will mean when the side of the camera is replaced the formers will be moved further away from the film path, reducing the chance of scratches by ensuring the formers are well away from the film. The formers shouldn't touch the film at all whilst running, so I can't see how they would tighten the film behind the pressure plate. As I understand it, for good registration the film either side of the pressure plate wants to have as little tension as possible on it, so when the pull-down claw has moved the film into position, it remains stationary.


Ian.
  • 0

#6 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 October 2008 - 02:15 AM

By the sounds of it, the modification to the plunger on your camera will mean when the side of the camera is replaced the formers will be moved further away from the film path, reducing the chance of scratches by ensuring the formers are well away from the film. The formers shouldn't touch the film at all whilst running, so I can't see how they would tighten the film behind the pressure plate. As I understand it, for good registration the film either side of the pressure plate wants to have as little tension as possible on it, so when the pull-down claw has moved the film into position, it remains stationary.


The plunger forces the loop formers farther apart from each other, so they move tword the film when the cover is put on. The modification seems like it may have forced the loop formers even farther twords the film, so it appeared to me that perhaps it was to make the film more taut around the pressure plate. The same plunger affects the film remaining meter caliper as well so perhaps it was to address an issue with that. I have little experience servicing these cameras so I'm not sure what to think about the loop formers and this user modification that mine came with (and I subsequently removed!).

I'll be performing some tests, hopefully this week. I'd rather not have to modify the camera if it's not necessary.
  • 0

#7 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2427 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 06 October 2008 - 02:31 AM

The film is standard-8, 25'. It will run in a 16mm camera- it just has twice as many perforations. But it won't run very long. Forget the process except at great expense. In any case, it expired in 1989. I'd keep it as a curio.
  • 0

#8 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 06 October 2008 - 02:52 AM

The plunger forces the loop formers farther apart from each other, so they move tword the film when the cover is put on. The modification seems like it may have forced the loop formers even farther twords the film, so it appeared to me that perhaps it was to make the film more taut around the pressure plate. The same plunger affects the film remaining meter caliper as well so perhaps it was to address an issue with that. I have little experience servicing these cameras so I'm not sure what to think about the loop formers and this user modification that mine came with (and I subsequently removed!).

I'll be performing some tests, hopefully this week. I'd rather not have to modify the camera if it's not necessary.


I must admit I can't visulise how modification to the plunger could make the formers move closer together, but no matter. On a similar vein, I read a post where someone was having severe image stability problems on a different make camera which doesn't have loop formers. It turned out he'd made the bottom loop too large, so when the pull-down claw tried to move the film down, the loop collided with a metal plate positioned below. If your loop formers were too close together I suspect much the same thing would happen for you.

The only sure way would be to pass some film through the camera and try it. Even if you removed the formers yourself, it would still be possible to replace them again afterwards if you changed your mind. The procedure isn't irreversible.
  • 0

#9 Olex Kalynychenko

Olex Kalynychenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine

Posted 06 October 2008 - 02:59 AM

Posted Image
50 asa 7.5 meters (color? process?)

Russian, Svema Color reversal CO-50D, 50 ASA film, perforation DS8 ( double Super 8 ) film,
for DS8 cameras with ( two stripes Super 8 from every side )
10.5 m roll.
Svema color reversal technology processing, like old ORWO process with 25 'C.
Can be process with E-6, but, with 25..30C and color balance can be change.
But, the film can have old date manufacturing and will need use more long time of processing at all steps.

The perforation of film do not compatible with 16 mm cameras.
At box of film must be print of nulber of emulstion and final date of processing ( I think, up to 1993 )

16 mm cine cameras can use of D8 ( Doulble 8 ) film.
  • 0

#10 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 22 October 2008 - 10:44 PM

Thanks Olex, I knew you could identify that film!

I must admit I can't visulise how modification to the plunger could make the formers move closer together, but no matter. On a similar vein, I read a post where someone was having severe image stability problems on a different make camera which doesn't have loop formers. It turned out he'd made the bottom loop too large, so when the pull-down claw tried to move the film down, the loop collided with a metal plate positioned below. If your loop formers were too close together I suspect much the same thing would happen for you.

The only sure way would be to pass some film through the camera and try it. Even if you removed the formers yourself, it would still be possible to replace them again afterwards if you changed your mind. The procedure isn't irreversible.


You were right. After loading the film with loop formers intact I realized that the film goes on the inside of the loop formers, not the outside. So the modification I mentioned in my first post was to prevent the loop formers from scratching the film as you pointed out in a previous post.

The loop formers, as has been said other places, are the number one cause of scratches in the K3's and mine was no different. I ran 10 feet of unprocessed film through it and there were scratches easily seen by eye. So onto removing the pesky things. This video was extremely helpful:



After removing the loop formers I ran some more test film and it seemed unscratched. I just got some processed 7285 back from the lab today and was surprised by how steady the image was compared to my previous k3 experiences. One thing that the loop formers informed me of was how big to make the loops. In the past I would make larger loops which in retrospect may have caused the steadiness problems. I think I remember reading in another thread Olex recommending the small loop at the top, and the top loop former is indeed smaller. I took a snapshot of how big my loops were, I'm not sure if it's 100% correct but I got very good results:

Posted Image
  • 0

#11 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 23 October 2008 - 04:19 AM

Great news that you've got the camera sorted!

I usually set my top loop just large enough that the film isn't tugging or pulling at the pressure plate as it curves away from it. But to be honest I've tried it with different sizes and not noticed much difference in the results.
  • 0

#12 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 23 October 2008 - 04:44 AM

I keep seeing warnings on how it's more difficult to put the camera back together, but what's the difficulty? Lining up the screws with the holes?
  • 0

#13 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 23 October 2008 - 04:54 AM

I keep seeing warnings on how it's more difficult to put the camera back together, but what's the difficulty? Lining up the screws with the holes?


The tricky bit is the winding ratchet drives on a square at the end of the clockwork motor, but the pawls which engage with it are on the reverse of the plate you remove.

Reassembly really isn't particularly difficult: Take the gear out of the canera and put a smear of grease on the ratchet gear and engage the pawls, which will hold it in place. You can now carefully turn the plate upside down to reinstall it in the camera, making sure the square hole engages with the end of the shaft.

The issue is covered at the bottom of this page. I wouldn't recommend trying to get the pawls to engage with the ratchet gear still fitted to the motor - take it out and fit it to the baffle plate to begin with.
  • 0

#14 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 23 October 2008 - 06:31 PM

This is scaring the crap out of me now:

I've never even HEARD of the word pawl before, and now I'm supposed to WORK with them?

I WANT MY MOMMY!!!!!!

Edited by Ira Ratner, 23 October 2008 - 06:33 PM.

  • 0

#15 Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Other
  • England

Posted 24 October 2008 - 01:40 AM

This is scaring the crap out of me now:

I've never even HEARD of the word pawl before, and now I'm supposed to WORK with them?

I WANT MY MOMMY!!!!!!


Think I'm the wrong shape to be anyone's mommy, but try this for explanation. As for comfort: It really isn't anything to worry about! If you can master using a screwdriver to get the thing apart, putting it back together isn't really any more difficult.

Just be aware the ratchet wheel may lift off the shaft with the baffle plate then fall off before you've turned it over. Nothing to worry about, but don't be suprised if you hear something drop! The ratchet pawls and their springs are captive, so you can't loose them. When it comes to reassembly, put the ratchet wheel in place on the baffle plate, turn it over then position it all in the camera. If the ratchet hasn't registered on the square shaft of the clockwork motor, then the baffle plate won't sit down properly - try turning the winding handle a little to get it to seat down.

Don't be afriad, the camera's chunky and robust. Take your time and you'll be fine. The photos on the K3camera website show you what to expect on the inside.


...right, where's my pinny? There's washing up to do! ;)
  • 0

#16 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 24 October 2008 - 07:16 PM

Okay--I'm going to do this tomorrow. (Florida's tomorrow, anyway.)

I start shooting in a few weeks, and I know this is the right thing to do for the K-3.
  • 0


CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Glidecam

Visual Products

Opal