16mm film for Minolta 16

[alfredian]

I now have three ( 3 ) Minolta 16 cameras, including cassettes. Where does one get 16mm film - even for "bulk loading" the cassettes? The owner's manual explains how to reload the cassette in the dark, and I got a single cassette (Minox B-format) of ISO 25 B&W for Xmas that I'll reload.

B&H has 8mm in 100' reels for retro-movie makers, but what about 16mm? And----developing reels. I saw an auction on the 'Bay a year or so back where somebody was including some 16mm stainless reels in a heap of 35mm & 120 stuff, but nothing since then. Some apare cassettes would be cool, too.

I mean, talk about "stealth"! and these little cameras have both aperture & time settings as well, plus one came with slip on filters - #1 & #2 close-ups, I think.

A family friend had one of these gems in his little collection of gear back in the late Sixties, when I was in high school. I've craved one ever since. Any clues are helpful, thanks.

 

[FrozenInTime]

To get minox film I made up a film slitter - to cut it down standard 35mm film.
Subclub will give you an idea of how easy they are to make:

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/splitter.htm

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Minox B cassette will not work in the Minolta. The Minox is 9.5mm film, the Minolta is 16mm. Post an Image of the cassette, easy to tell by looking.

You should be able to use standard perforated 16mm movie film.

It has been a while but: the later Minolta 16mm cameras (The Minolta 16QT maybe?) produced a larger image than did the original Minolta 16 and 16-II. I have not used my Minolta 16 in 30 years, but still have a couple of Minolta Sub-Mini's.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I now have three ( 3 ) Minolta 16 cameras, including cassettes. Where does one get 16mm film - even for "bulk loading" the cassettes?

You load these yourself. What film? Depends upon the model. Most can take 16mm movie film and most even double 8 (with the MG-S and Qt the image area overlays the perfs). In general the best film is unperforated 16mm film--- no need to slit film. My favorite for these is Kodak Imagelink HQ microfilm. Its slow and trickier to develop as one needs to tame the contrast--- microfilm is designed for 1:1000 contrast--- but its resolution is high and better suited to the higher enlargement ratios one tends to use.

The owner's manual explains how to reload the cassette in the dark, and I got a single cassette (Minox B-format) of ISO 25 B&W for Xmas that I'll reload.

MINOX is a very different format. Minox film is 9.5mm wide.

B&H has 8mm in 100' reels for retro-movie makers, but what about 16mm?

You need film with a width of 16mm.

And----developing reels. I saw an auction on the 'Bay a year or so back where somebody was including some 16mm stainless reels in a heap of 35mm & 120 stuff, but nothing since then.

You need a Jobo 1502 reel (its for 16mm/110 format) for Jobo 1500 series tanks. Everyone made 16mm format reels but today? Should, however, be relatively easy to find a reel through the typical 2nd hand channels and markets.
Without a reel for a first experiment? Just tape the film (emulsion side out!) to a strip of 35mm clear leader (one can make some putting a strip of 35mm film in fixer until it clears and then washing). Load the leader and it loads the 16mm strip. Tape its end in place.. and develop..

Some apare cassettes would be cool, too.

Spare cassettes are, unfortunately, more difficult to source than film. MINOX in this regard is much easier--- and cassettes pre-loaded with fresh film are still available in (some) shops.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

MINOX format

MINOX format

Since these messages are archived and often read out of context:

If someone wants to slit film for the MINOX they should not use 9.5mm but 9.3mm as the target width.
Minox film is called 9.5mm for historical reasons as a nominal width despite the observation that cassettes won't take anything wider than 9.4mm--- factory loads are approx 9.3mm wide and commercial slitters seem to produce stripes of width between 9.2mm and just over 9.3mm.

 

[ZorkiKat]

You should get SINGLE PERF (perforations running only on side) 16mm if you opt to respool movie stock for the Minolta 16. It works, but the perfs will be on the upper -depending on how you spool the cassette- part of the picture. One perf will usually show per frame. You have the option of cropping it, in which case your picture format may be 8x14mm instead of the 10x14.

The Kiev 30 cassette should fit in the Minolta 16 too. The Kiev 30 was strongly patterned after the Minolta 16.

The Kiev 30 came in a kit which included a reel adapter for the Russian (Zeiss copy) developing tank and a frame mask which fits on most 35mm negative carriers for negatives. Both accessories may be useful for Minolta 16 negatives too. The frame mask can sometimes fit in some scanners- I used it for my old Pacific Image 1800 scanner to scan my 16mm subminis.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

You should get SINGLE PERF (perforations running only on side) 16mm if you opt to respool movie stock for the Minolta 16.

Its "could" rather than should. The Minolta 16mm does not use perforations so unperforated film is ideal.

It works, but the perfs will be on the upper -depending on how you spool the cassette- part of the picture.

Depends upon the camera model--- the later ones used a larger frame format.

The Kiev 30 cassette should fit in the Minolta 16 too. The Kiev 30 was strongly patterned after the Minolta 16.

The older Kiev cassettes (for Киïв Вега) fit but the Kiev 30 cassettes don't! While the Kiev 16mm cameras started off as copies of the Minolta 16 they did develop their own character.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Its "could" rather than should. The Minolta 16mm does not use perforations so unperforated film is ideal.
Depends upon the camera model--- the later ones used a larger frame format.

I stand by the term "should"- not on basis of whether the camera needs perforations or not- in which case, not- but rather on how much the perforations would intrude into the picture area.

And please note that I included a qualifier: "if you opt to respool movie stock for the Minolta 16" in my original "should" statement: If the user decides to use 16mm movie stock instead of slitting film from 35mm or any wider stock.

A single row of perforations running on one side will mean that only one side will be affected by perforations. Hence if any subsequent cropping is done to crop the perforation(s), less of the already small picture gets to be removed.

A double perforated stock will mean that two sides will have perforations breaching into the frame. Should these be cropped, more of the picture will be cut out.

The single-perf is a SHOULD if less cropping is to be made. Double perf will do (COULD) if the user doesn't mind losing a lot of the negative, or if he doesn't mind including perforations running on the top and bottom sides of his [horizontal] submini photos.

Depends upon the camera model--- the later ones used a larger frame format.

The larger the picture aperture, the more concern should there be for using perforated film.

The older Kiev cassettes (for Киïв Вега) fit but the Kiev 30 cassettes don't! While the Kiev 16mm cameras started off as copies of the Minolta 16 they did develop their own character.

Thank you for the correction. Its the Minolta cassettes which fit any of the Kiev/Киев cameras.

 

[ZorkiKat]

taping film for processing?

taping film for processing?

Without a reel for a first experiment? Just tape the film (emulsion side out!) to a strip of 35mm clear leader (one can make some putting a strip of 35mm film in fixer until it clears and then washing). Load the leader and it loads the 16mm strip. Tape its end in place.. and develop.

You'll need to use the right tape for this. There is the splicing tape used for lab processors, which is best to use because they are largely chemical and heat resistant. Good quality masking tape may work too. Duct tape, perhaps.

Most of the common adhesive tapes will deteriorate in high-alkaline developers. Almost all of them will not likely survive the entire processing cycle without detaching. None will survive colour processing. I've always seen tape (masking or similar) left at the end of the strip, which was initially used to attach the film in respooled cassettes, floating in the solution at any stage of the wet processing steps.

 

[sevo]

Most of the common adhesive tapes will deteriorate in high-alkaline developers. Almost all of them will not likely survive the entire processing cycle without detaching. None will survive colour processing.

Really? I've never encountered graphics quality tape that came loose (other than "easily detachable" types, and even there it was not the adhesive dissolving but their intended low adhesion). At least Tesa and 3M crystal clear tape will survive any process I've ever used (including Ciba), and are the technological base of masking and splicing tapes used throughout the industry.

You must attach it to the blank acetate on either side, as the emulsion will soften in the developer - not even special tape could stick there, as the emulsion itself will eventually come off. Large labs with continuous processors use a welding system with special tape and a electric splicing press that removes or displaces the emulsion - something you cannot emulate at home.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

I stand by the term "should"- not on basis of whether the camera needs perforations or not- in which case, not- but rather on how much the perforations would intrude into the picture area.

If "should" then you need to point out the need for perforation? There are none.

And please note that I included a qualifier: "if you opt to respool movie stock for the Minolta 16" in my original "should" statement: If the user decides to use 16mm movie stock instead of slitting film from 35mm or any wider stock.

While most 16mm film stock is available with single edge perforations many are available with two edge perforations and some without any perforations.
Most 16mm microfilms are also without perforations.

A single row of perforations running on one side will mean that only one side will be affected by perforations.

And you see this as something highly desirable?

The larger the picture aperture, the more concern should there be for using perforated film.

Correct. And since the Minolta 16 cameras don't use perforations there is no reason to use film with them unless one has no choice..

Thank you for the correction. Its the Minolta cassettes which fit any of the Kiev/Киев cameras.

Yes.

 

[MartinP]

If you use plastic reels then an old one can be attacked with a hacksaw and 24-hr epoxy to make it the right width, though the loading would be more tricky unless the last 'click' of the separable halves was coincidentally in the right place. I saw someone use a self-modified reel like that while at Uni umpteen years ago, but I'd guess the reel-halves wouldn't rotate or come apart afterwards. it could be a temporary solution though. For occasional use the idea above of taping the 16mm film, emulsion-out, to a piece of clear 35mm could be a simpler and effective plan.

As for the film-stock, the problem would be needing to get too much 16mm movie, or micro-, film rather than not being able to get any at all ! The stockists of that stuff have long reels and perhaps a large minimum order too.

 

[alfredian]

THANKS, ALL! Amazing forum for help

THANKS, ALL! Amazing forum for help

Thanks everybody. I didn't know about the 9.5 vs 16mm overall film-width difference. Now I have an excuse to buy a Minox B. Seriously, I did locate Minolta 16, kiev etc compatible cassettes, complete with fresh film, on eBay. I wasn't using the proper name/terms at first, but hit on both B&W (Kodak XX & Tri-X) plus color film in the Minolta 16-compatible cassettes. There's also a supply of XX and Tri-x in 100' rolls (for reloading) from a couple sources, including Pennsylvania (USA).

Thanks for the 35mm-dummy-leader idea. I was going to barber-pole the B&W onto something & do it in a 1-litre tank (extravagant use of chemical) but will now staple the 16mm to a scrap length of 35mm stock, backer-to-backer.

A couple of the film-cassette sellers post notes that you can send the color stuff off to be developed, sometimes via Freestyle. The color film tends to be Fuji. I have a little Minolta 16 projector and will inquire of DR5 as to getting B&W slides made.

In another vein, I shot & mailed off my last roll of Kodachrome 64 yesterday. I'll use my new-old scanner to upload a lifetime of 'chromes and see how they look. Thanks again, alfredian

 

[ZorkiKat]

Really? I've never encountered graphics quality tape that came loose (other than "easily detachable" types, and even there it was not the adhesive dissolving but their intended low adhesion). At least Tesa and 3M crystal clear tape will survive any process I've ever used (including Ciba), and are the technological base of masking and splicing tapes used throughout the industry.

You must attach it to the blank acetate on either side, as the emulsion will soften in the developer - not even special tape could stick there, as the emulsion itself will eventually come off. Large labs with continuous processors use a welding system with special tape and a electric splicing press that removes or displaces the emulsion - something you cannot emulate at home.

Please read my original statement: I referred to "Common" tapes, not the industrial or graphics types which you never usually find at home or in the office.

The splicing tape used by labs- in the automatic film processors used there, film is taped to the leader tablet which leads the strip through all the processing steps- is quite strong enough to withstand the corrosive and high temperature c41 chemistry. Most of the common tapes will have their adhesives decompose in such environments.

The splicing tape used by labs, like the Identification Stickers they use for films, will stick on either base or emulsion side and will not peel off by themselves under the strain of chemistry or temperature. If you have this tape, the 'taping' method suggested here could work.

 

[ZorkiKat]

If "should" then you need to point out the need for perforation? There are none.



Yes.

Did I say there was? I already explained why single perf should be selected over double perf WHEN cine stock is used. Read my previous posts carefully.

Using 16mm cine stock can be a most convenient way to get film for 16mm subminis. And if they are to be used as a matter of choice or availability, the single perf is best since they have less of the perforations to get into the picture....this is was I have been saying all along.

PLEASE DO NOT CHOP MY STATEMENTS AND TWIST THEM OUT OF CONTEXT.

Most 16mm microfilms are also without perforations.

.

You are right that some 16mm microfilm are nonperforated. But they usually come only in line/graphic (high contrast) stock, if found. You may say that this can be modified by processing, but why bother if there are stocks with 'pictorial' qualities available as 16mm single perf stocks?

There's Tri-X 320, Plus-X 80, and even Ektachrome. Are there microfilm stocks with continuous tone panchro sensitisation with speeds of ISO 320 or 80? Is there a 16mm microfilm stock which produces colour transparencies in the end? Can s 16mm microfilm stock be processed in C41 to get a funky looking colour negative?

Slitting these and colour negative types from 35mm is the other option to get these film types into a 16mm cassette. But you'd need a slitter for that, and not all people may like slitting their film.

And you see this as something highly desirable?


.

Did I? This is what I said:

Double perf will do (COULD) if the user doesn't mind losing a lot of the negative, or if he doesn't mind including perforations running on the top and bottom sides of his [horizontal] submini photos.

You missed the word "IF". There were two. I said that it is in the preference of the user if he wants to include the perfs. I know some people who like to include the perforations in their photos.



/

 

[alfredian]

Single-perf in 100' reels

Single-perf in 100' reels

The Pennsylvania source has XX and Tri-x in single-perf reels. I don't know what is/was standard issue in the Minolta 16 cassettes - unperfed or single-perf. My next stop is to download a manual from orphancameras.com and sent Steve B. another $3. They may show a pic or diagram of what the film/negs/slides actually look like.

Somebody is peddling some 16mm in Minolta cassettes with a Rollei label on the box. I forget what's supposedly inside.

And all the digital folks get to do is worry about software compatibility & file sizes. Get real, get wet, get down.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

The Pennsylvania source has XX and Tri-x in single-perf reels.

Trend among submini cognoscenti is to do very large scale enlargements rather than scale prints to negative size. A MINOX negative, for instance, is only 8x11mm large. A Minolta 16 negative is 10x14mm--- the MG-S upped the format to 12x17mm. If you consider 8x10" prints from KB (24x36mm) as a reference a Minox "large" print would have 1/10 (88/864) and a Minolta around 1/6th of the area (140/864). In other words: for what one uses 10x magnification for enlargement in KB one uses, resp., 30x and 25x. The standard 10x15cm print size from the drugstore is already over a 10x enlargement with a Minolta negative--- you need more than 10x enlargement with Minox for a 9x13cm print.
Despite this I have 30x40cm prints made from Minox negatives--- and even a few 40x50cm (for these one needs to modify the Minox enlarger or use a single surface mirror for projection as the pole is not long enough). One of the challenges (quirks) of submini is the want to get the highest quality large enlargements possible out of the tiny formats. Since these cameras are also light and have small shutter movements--- allowing for hand holding at slower shutter speeds--- and have excellent depth-of-field one tends to grab for higher resolving, sharper and slower films rather than faster and grainy. APX25 was the standard MINOX B&W film--- which I have used to excellent results even indoors without flash.
Films like Tri-X or even Plus-X cine are, in my educated opinion, less than ideal for submini work. Color motion picture stocks are even less appropriate as they tend to be remjet coated--- a sticky lubricant mass of great utility in a cine camera but demanding special processing to remove.
The objectives in Minolta and Minox cameras are high resolving. The Siebert designed Minox COMPAN is, in particular, one of the highest resolving mass market objectives ever made: we have gotten over 170 lp/mm to film (nearly diffraction limited). By using high resolving film such as Agfa Copex Rapid AHU or Kodak Imagelink HQ (even a touch shaper!) and taming contrast for pictorial tonality one can get amazing results. A friend of mine, Marcus Dunkmann, used to show at Photokina what was possible with a Minox 8x11mm negative. Ludwig (Gigabit Film), Schain (SPUR) and Zeiss (using SPUR) used to also show off using KB..

 

[FrozenInTime]

Despite this I have 30x40cm prints made from Minox negatives--- and even a few 40x50cm (for these one needs to modify the Minox enlarger or use a single surface mirror for projection as the pole is not long enough).

One thing to look out for is the Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X 30mm f/2.8 enlarger lens.
This is designed for sub 35mm formats and is retro-focus, so it focuses on normal enlarge lensboards ( Leica V35 and LPL7700 in my case).
I've made 12"x16" minox prints using this combo for Fuji 800 neg film - the grain looks really sharp.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Wow. Quite a few Sub-Mini Fans.

I picked up a Yashica Atoron Electro a couple of years ago- has a zone focus lens on it. Electronic Shutter. Uses Minox film. Not the Selenium Meter version, this one was circa 1971 or so. F2.8 lens. Not as small as a Minox, but very pretty.

But when I do pull out the sub-mini for shooting, it will be the Tessina. Uses standard 35mm film, loaded into special cassettes. 25mm F2.8 Tessar lens. About the same size as the Minolta 16, a bit smaller.

 

[Edward C. Zimmermann]

One thing to look out for is the Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X 30mm f/2.8 enlarger lens.

Its OK for Minolta format but the best solution for Minox is the Minox enlarger. The Minox enlarger has the 15mm COMPLAN (later the Minox) 1:3,5--- again, of of the highest resolving ...---- and use a kind of modified point source illumination. The Minolta even in a point source enlarger does not come close. Minolta, however, made another 30mm that they used in an Enla-Head.
Another interesting 30mm is the Anaret 1:4,5/30mm--- I had one but gave it away to a friend since I did not need it.
Personally I've found among the ~30mm objectives the Rodagon 1:4,0/28mm to be superior. It covers half-frame (18x24) and is optimized for enlargement ratios of 5-30x (the standard 50mm Rodagon and APO Rodagon are, by comparison, optimized for 2-15x).