Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) : Discussion and Group Therapy Thread

[Zenith]

Good grief! Film is still available? I have an F4 (not that I've used it for years).

Yes. It's a bit like vinyl records, or these days maybe CDs. At one time they had a fanatical following. In the early 70s there were Sunday supplement full page ads for rival SLRs, Olympus, Pentax etc. They have may have been superceded, but many consider they have a certain something which has never been quite matched.

A couple of years back I was walking down the street and there was a young woman about 20 with a Pentax film camera. I commented on it and she said this was real photography. It conjured up images of Cartier-Bresson, who thought cropping a photo in post capture was disgusting manipulation.

I've been machining lignum vitae today. Lovely stuff. The tree is a protected species, but 1950's lignum vitae lawn bowls aren't. I cut a cuboid roughly 25 x 25 x 80 (mm), then popped it in the lathe to turn it into a 21mm diameter cylinder. Drilled it axially 8mm, and voila! I have a handle to go on an M8 stainless bolt that will screw into a swing arm to make something that looks rather like a starting handle, but will actually enable me to manually turn my lathe in a controllable fashion when screwcutting.

I'm vaguely aware of the exceptional properties of lignum vitae and why it was used for ships propeller shafts and bowls.

[bd139]

Will note how far down the rabbit hole this photography thing is going ... this was shot on Ilford HP5 on a Nikon F80 and developed at home
DSC_0506.jpeg

Yes, something has been lost with the almost passing of film photography. I remember the magic of seeing an image appear in the developer solution, then the fixer, then the final wash, then if you were well set up the glazing plates. Black and white has something of its own, especially for portraits.

Then there were transparencies. Also there was lugging round an SLR and lenses.

These days most of my photos are taken with a Nikon point and shoot, which I rescued from being thrown away. It's really a modern day Instamatic, but much more versatile. Yes I ought to have a mobile phone. There's curious dichotomy. It isn't worth anything, maybe £10 at best, so if I'm going out I slip it in my pocket and if it was lost, so what? But I'd hate to lose it.

Keep it. Don't lose it. Very handy things.

Surprisingly film isn't even not even remotely dead. I didn't realise this until recently. There's a bit of resurgence I've noticed in separating activities from the mobile phone. This is a good thing. Makes people look and think and consider more. I've sort of regressed to the mid-90s when I shoot black and white though on and off even on digital cameras.

This was actually a hobby of mine from around 1990 to 2003 and I did develop and print a lot of stuff back then (which I need to scan still really)

Anyway some modern stuff. On my slightly newer digital camera (South Kensington tube):

DSC_0463.jpeg

But modern phones are reasonably good still (monument to the bridge across the Warsaw ghetto):

IMG_1091.jpeg

[bd139]

Good grief! Film is still available? I have an F4 (not that I've used it for years).

I wish 35mm Kodachrome 64 was still available. Then I could continue to take stereo photos with my Stereo Realist camera.

They still make 35mm colour reversal film. It is quite frankly bloody expensive though.

[bd139]

A couple of years back I was walking down the street and there was a young woman about 20 with a Pentax film camera. I commented on it and she said this was real photography. It conjured up images of Cartier-Bresson, who thought cropping a photo in post capture was disgusting manipulation.

He was right. I shoot a lot of the time with a prime lens (40mm f/2 on digital, 50mm f/1.8 on film) and you move your arse if something is not in the frame. No excuses!

[Zenith]

Keep it. Don't lose it. Very handy things.

Surprisingly film isn't even not even remotely dead. I didn't realise this until recently. There's a bit of resurgence I've noticed in separating activities from the mobile phone. This is a good thing. Makes people look and think and consider more. I've sort of regressed to the mid-90s when I shoot black and white though on and off even on digital cameras.

With digital photography, a lot was gained, but some things were lost. Since the process of taking a film photograph was more expensive and more cumbersome, more thought was put into taking a picture. Did you ever wonder when you were going to get to the end of a 36 exposure cartridge? Then there was keeping track of the slides or prints and the room they took up. This is hardly a problem in the days of 2TB SSDs, because you can flip through a load of pictures in no time at all and they take no real space. If you want a print you can rattle off something fairly OKish on a laser printer, or haul down to Tesco etc and produce a really nice hard copy for two or three quid. But I often use my camera to take pictures of things I'm dismantling or other things like that. Looking through the images after is easy, and I usually conclude I didn't take enough. I wouldn't have done that with a film camera.

[tggzzz]

Good grief! Film is still available? I have an F4 (not that I've used it for years).

I wish 35mm Kodachrome 64 was still available. Then I could continue to take stereo photos with my Stereo Realist camera.

They still make 35mm colour reversal film. It is quite frankly bloody expensive though.

Stereoscopic needs the fine grain of 64ASA. Larger grain cannot be ignored by the brain, because it is interpreted as a depth variation.

I want archival lifetime. My lifetime at least, but maybe the lifetime of these...



https://vintagestereoscopicglassslides.wordpress.com/

There's no good way to see a stereo picture on a computer display; direct to eyeballs is best. It is pleasing to watch visitors viewing them: they don't skim; they do stop and stare, their eyes wandering slowly around the scene.

You really need to zoom in on those photos, e.g. to see the delightful expression on he diners' faces. Even those are only 300dpi; the slides are higher resolution (possibly 1200dpi); 600dpi was the best resolution available when I scanned them, last millennium.

How do you view them? With either of these...




I've been clearing out my collection a little bit, and have put some up for auction at Flints. Subjects include Victorian pierced tissue slides of stately interiors, Edwardian family snapshots and "art studies", and even some 50's "art" and "glamour" studies for viewers given away with Weetabix

"Art" => flowers. "Glamour" => underwear

[tggzzz]

Did you ever wonder when you were going to get to the end of a 36 exposure cartridge?

Frequently. Also whether I had already exposed that spool.

Then there was keeping track of the slides or prints and the room they took up. This is hardly a problem in the days of 2TB SSDs, because you can flip through a load of pictures in no time at all and they take no real space.

No space: yes. No time: no, since there are so many and you cannot find the one you want.

If you want a print you can rattle off something fairly OKish on a laser printer, or haul down to Tesco etc and produce a really nice hard copy for two or three quid.

Yes, except I avoid Tesco whenever possible

But I often use my camera to take pictures of things I'm dismantling or other things like that. Looking through the images after is easy, and I usually conclude I didn't take enough. I wouldn't have done that with a film camera.

Just so.

Every single camera is crap, unless it is available and working when you want it. That's a significant advantage of modern digital compact cameras. Decent ones allow focussing down to 1cm, which is great for components and Tek 475 mechanisms
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/re ... msg1438311

[bd139]

Keep it. Don't lose it. Very handy things.

Surprisingly film isn't even not even remotely dead. I didn't realise this until recently. There's a bit of resurgence I've noticed in separating activities from the mobile phone. This is a good thing. Makes people look and think and consider more. I've sort of regressed to the mid-90s when I shoot black and white though on and off even on digital cameras.

With digital photography, a lot was gained, but some things were lost. Since the process of taking a film photograph was more expensive and more cumbersome, more thought was put into taking a picture. Did you ever wonder when you were going to get to the end of a 36 exposure cartridge? Then there was keeping track of the slides or prints and the room they took up. This is hardly a problem in the days of 2TB SSDs, because you can flip through a load of pictures in no time at all and they take no real space. If you want a print you can rattle off something fairly OKish on a laser printer, or haul down to Tesco etc and produce a really nice hard copy for two or three quid. But I often use my camera to take pictures of things I'm dismantling or other things like that. Looking through the images after is easy, and I usually conclude I didn't take enough. I wouldn't have done that with a film camera.

Well the problem with the ubiquity of the 2TB disk (and larger) is that you can indeed machine gun stuff with a camera and just keep it forever. Everyone says "keeping it is cheaper than sorting it". This is ok until you inherit 21TB of disks from a dead relative that need sorting through. Still at it after 18 months. I would just dispose of it but it's mixed up with lots of family stuff. I limit what I take personally to <36 exposures a day even on digital.

As for printing, I have a little Canon Selphy printer that does 6x4" prints on dye sub as good as a professional print shop. That's a reasonable option. Laser printer, hmm not sure about that

But yeah phone / digital cameras are good for documentation and utility.

[bd139]

I wish 35mm Kodachrome 64 was still available. Then I could continue to take stereo photos with my Stereo Realist camera.

They still make 35mm colour reversal film. It is quite frankly bloody expensive though.

Stereoscopic needs the fine grain of 64ASA. Larger grain cannot be ignored by the brain, because it is interpreted as a depth variation.

I want archival lifetime. My lifetime at least, but maybe the lifetime of these...



https://vintagestereoscopicglassslides.wordpress.com/

There's no good way to see a stereo picture on a computer display; direct to eyeballs is best. It is pleasing to watch visitors viewing them: they don't skim; they do stop and stare, their eyes wandering slowly around the scene.

You really need to zoom in on those photos, e.g. to see the delightful expression on he diners' faces. Even those are only 300dpi; the slides are higher resolution (possibly 1200dpi); 600dpi was the best resolution available when I scanned them, last millennium.

How do you view them? With either of these...




I've been clearing out my collection a little bit, and have put some up for auction at Flints. Subjects include Victorian pierced tissue slides of stately interiors, Edwardian family snapshots and "art studies", and even some 50's "art" and "glamour" studies for viewers given away with Weetabix

"Art" => flowers. "Glamour" => underwear

Very cool. Interesting stuff. The soviets did some horrible looking versions of that which are quite interesting I note.

As for ISO, it depends what film you use and how you develop it as well as the ISO. HP5 is too grainy whatever you do at 400 ISO. Delta 100 developed in DD-X has imperceptible grain as long as you don't push it too hard. That'd work fine. Comes in 135/120. And they do 100 ISO reversal as well. As for archival, yeah store it properly and it'll be fine. The main problem is colour films which seem to shift heavily to blue over time. Shoot black and white - problem solved.

Also if you want to keep something a long time, print it on archival photographic paper and run it through selenium toner. I've seen zero degradation on prints done over 40 years ago and I've seen near 100 year old prints that look as good as new.

Lee Miller / Man Ray (original print from ~1930):

IMG_2002.jpeg

[bd139]

Every single camera is crap, unless it is available and working when you want it. That's a significant advantage of modern digital compact cameras. Decent ones allow focussing down to 1cm, which is great for components and Tek 475 mechanisms
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/re ... msg1438311

Modern mirrorless + 20 quid no brand macro tube makes a reasonable low mag microscope as well:

DSC_2635.jpg

[EC8010]

Yes. It's a bit like vinyl records, or these days maybe CDs. At one time they had a fanatical following...

---I'm vaguely aware of the exceptional properties of lignum vitae and why it was used for ships propeller shafts and bowls.

Oh yes, vinyl still has a following. For me, it's just practical; I still have about 600 LPs and some aren't available on CD. And I'm certainly not binning my CDs.

Lignum vitae is denser than water, so it's the wood that doesn't float, hence the weight of lawn bowls. Machined, you can get a lovely smooth surface that has a low coefficient of friction with steel and doesn't need lubrication (better with, but not essential). It was used on propeller shafts for the axial bearing because sea water is perfectly good lubrication (white metal was used to take the thrust). It was also used in power stations in the cooling water. Harrison (he of ships' chronometers and longitude) used lignum vitae in his early clocks because it didn't need lubrication. Lubrication is a problem in clocks because it eventually waxes.

And bringing the topics of vinyl and lignum vitae together, I have made a turntable platter bearing using lignum vitae for the sleeves. Took a couple of attempts before I machined it so that there was no play in the bearing. I've always wanted to make a turntable from scratch, so that's part of it. Motor will be three-phase (low torque ripple) driven by three TDA2030 from a three-phase analogue oscillator of my own design. All analogue - no dastardly digits. It won't sound better than CD, but it will be satisfying to know that I made everything but the cartridge. Making cartridges is a bit specialist.

[tggzzz]

Every single camera is crap, unless it is available and working when you want it. That's a significant advantage of modern digital compact cameras. Decent ones allow focussing down to 1cm, which is great for components and Tek 475 mechanisms
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/repair/re ... msg1438311

Modern mirrorless + 20 quid no brand macro tube makes a reasonable low mag microscope as well:

i have/had a macro tube, but never used it.

[tggzzz]

Yes. It's a bit like vinyl records, or these days maybe CDs. At one time they had a fanatical following...

---I'm vaguely aware of the exceptional properties of lignum vitae and why it was used for ships propeller shafts and bowls.

Oh yes, vinyl still has a following. For me, it's just practical; I still have about 600 LPs and some aren't available on CD. And I'm certainly not binning my CDs.

I'm tempted to sell some of my LPs, seeing the prices they can fetch.

I also inherited a couple of thousand LPs; most have been auctioned in medium sized lots, but I have a few which allegedly sell for £20-500

And bringing the topics of vinyl and lignum vitae together, I have made a turntable platter bearing using lignum vitae for the sleeves. Took a couple of attempts before I machined it so that there was no play in the bearing. I've always wanted to make a turntable from scratch, so that's part of it. Motor will be three-phase (low torque ripple) driven by three TDA2030 from a three-phase analogue oscillator of my own design. All analogue - no dastardly digits. It won't sound better than CD, but it will be satisfying to know that I made everything but the cartridge. Making cartridges is a bit specialist.

Neat. Will you make the base out of concrete, so that environmental vibrations are attenuated?

[Zenith]

As for printing, I have a little Canon Selphy printer that does 6x4" prints on dye sub as good as a professional print shop. That's a reasonable option. Laser printer, hmm not sure about that

But yeah phone / digital cameras are good for documentation and utility.

How often do you want a really good print you can frame or give someone? A fairly horrible print from a laser printer can be good enough. It might be purely functional. Incidentally, the image quality on passports and other official documents is awful these days. I thought professional photo printers were wax sublimation and cost thousands. The cost doesn't matter if the printer produces 100 prints a day on average and you are charging for them.

It's crossing my mind that instead of using the Nikon L27 compact camera, which cost about £50 when it was new, and is definitely point and shoot, I might splash out and buy a top end compact with a 1" sensor. There aren't as many on the market as a few years back, but they are around s/h, and there are a few new ones aimed at vloggers. The image quality would be better and it would cope with difficult conditions more easily. I'd worry about it a lot more.

Cameras you don't take out because they are too big and heavy, aren't a great idea in my opinion, however good the picture quality. It used to be that film SLRS could cope with conditions that simple cameras just couldn't. Basic digital cameras are surprisingly capable.

[tggzzz]

How often do you want a really good print you can frame or give someone? A fairly horrible print from a laser printer can be good enough.

i currently have a need (daughter's first solo), but not enough of a need to have got a picture. But I will on Monday, since an excellent local printshop is near where I'll ahve my car MoT'd.

I have an HP PSC720 colour inkjet/scanner, but it is 22yo and the cartridges were obsoleted a couple of years ago. I bought 4 black cartridges cheap at a local auction in 2021; they should keep me going for a few years.

Not sure whether next printer will be a mono laser. Hope I never need to think about it too much.

[tggzzz]

Cameras you don't take out because they are too big and heavy, aren't a great idea in my opinion, however good the picture quality. It used to be that film SLRS could cope with conditions that simple cameras just couldn't. Basic digital cameras are surprisingly capable.

My Stereo realist isn't light, but isn't too big either. Once a bored airport security guard asked me to turn it on, woke up when I said "no, can't", then went back to somnolence.



Not me; doubt he had any such tribulations.

Digital cameras have the problem that they need two lenses 62.5mm apart. There used to be prism attachments for film camera; the vertical half frame pictures are unappealing. I see no reason why that couldn't be done for digital cameras.

i sold my Zeiss Ikon Contaflex for a pleasing sum a few years ago

image004.jpg

People used to cut-and-shut a pair of SLRs to get full frame 35mm stereo pairs. I believe they have done similar with digital cameras, including how to get the same exposure and fire both "shutters" simultaneously. Stereo pictures of fountains/waterfalls are extremely susceptible to that!

[Zenith]

Stereo photography was a specialist interest that never really took off, but there was enough of a market for companies to make equipment.

A friend was into it for a time. He had a stereo projector and a special screen. Even though this was quite sophisticated equipment, I always thought it had the Weetabix viewer effect about it. The image seemed to be not really 3D and in perspective, but a series of cardboard cut outs at varying distances.

I remember the Weetabix viewer with pictures of birds and such. I never came any "artistic" stereo pictures, intended for serious students of art and anatomy of course.

[EC8010]

Will you make the base out of concrete, so that environmental vibrations are attenuated?

Odd that you should mention concrete. The very first turntable plinth I made was for my Garrard 301 and I realised that mass was required. At age of 17, I was unaware that you could buy lead sheet (and I couldn't have afforded it anyway), so I made what was effectively a wooden box, hammered a few long nails into it and filled it with... ...concrete. My second plinth (a mere 32 years ago) was a much better design and made of layers of 18mm MDF. It only had the full cutout for the top layer, then the cutouts got progressively smaller as less was needed. The bottom layer was 1/4" phenolic and only had holes for the platter bearing, motor, and arm. A plate on the bottom anchors the bottom of the platter bearing to the plinth - the chassis of the 301 is quite bendy and allows significant flex. With the plate fitted, there is no flex and it cleaned up the bass, making it comparable to CD. There is a layer of 2mm lead flashing in the middle. It weighs a lot more than the concrete plinth ever did.

I haven't got as far as thinking about the plinth for the home-made turntable. The alternatives are brute force (mass) to attenuate external vibration or suspended subchassis (LC filter). But a suspended subchassis brings its own problems.

That Yashica is one weird camera. That loony Japanese fellow in the sequel to "Gremlins" should have had one...

[tggzzz]

Stereo photography was a specialist interest that never really took off, but there was enough of a market for companies to make equipment.

Many companies made equipment, and there are still a few around.

There was a large industry producing pictures "for education and entertainment" between 1880 and the end of WW1. I presume cinema was the HP35 to their Fuller calculators Some of those pictures are, IMHO tedious, especially those related to Boer War, WW1, Vatican and Louvre. Others are beautiful fascinating and absorbing.

There was another boom in the late 40s and 50s, due to the widespread availability of 35mm positive film. It has continued as a specialist interest until the current day.

There are some slides and equipment up for auction most days, and the prices are relatively stable over time. See https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/sear ... ereoscopic

A friend was into it for a time. He had a stereo projector and a special screen. Even though this was quite sophisticated equipment, I always thought it had the Weetabix viewer effect about it. The image seemed to be not really 3D and in perspective, but a series of cardboard cut outs at varying distances.

There are two effects that can cause that, but they are avoidable and hence frowned upon.

Projection is problematic in ways that hand/table viewers aren't. I considered getting a projector, but have stuck with viewers.

If the camera lenses are too far apart then you get hyperstereo. For snapshots 62.5mm is right (i.e. the average inter-pupilliary distance. For closeups, half that is reasonable; I modified my 1980s Nimslo so that the two centre lenses were focussed at 6", IIRC. For astronomical photos, anything up to and including 2AU is preferred

When projected, the Z-plane magnification depends on projector alignment and how far the viewer is from the screen. With some subjects, that can result in the cardboard cutout effect.

Projector alignment: if the homologous points are too far apart, they look relatively too close. Realign the projector

More subtly, the angle subtended by the homologous points depends on how far the viewer is from the screen; sit too close and the Z dimension is magnified. Consequently there is a "sweet spot" at which to to sit.

Worth bearing in mind when going to the cinema to see the latest episode of Dances With Wolves Avatar: sit on the centre line and somewhere in the middle rows.

When going to see the "shock SFX" movies of the mid 50s, take some tomatoes to throw at the screen. They won't hit the screen because they will stick on the spears/lions/etc coming through the screen at the audience. It will be easy to find expert witnesses to act in your defence

I remember the Weetabix viewer with pictures of birds and such. I never came any "artistic" stereo pictures, intended for serious students of art and anatomy of course.

You know a new technology is significant once organised crime has started to use it. Consider pagers, VCR tapes, the telephone, semaphore...

[tggzzz]

Will you make the base out of concrete, so that environmental vibrations are attenuated?

Odd that you should mention concrete.

Less odd than you might imagine.

The first and only turntable I've bought (back in 77/78) is a Kenwood/Trio KD2055 weighing over 11kg, based around an injection moulded "Anti Resonance Compression Base (ARCB) proprietary synthetic chassis" which is sometimes termed "granite"
https://liquidaudio.com.au/kenwood-kd-2 ... le-repair/
https://reverb.com/item/74672119-kenwoo ... e-shipping

The original box is up in the loft

I never even thought of making my own; I didn't have the mechanical skills and was interested in electronics and computers.

That Yashica is one weird camera. That loony Japanese fellow in the sequel to "Gremlins" should have had one...

There are quite a few like that. Here's another:

RBT 3D model X4 35mm slr stereo film camera. Made in Germany of Japanese parts. Serial #0725. 35mm slr stereo film camera. This camera is made in Germany by RBT from two Cosina 35mm cameras model C1, and two 35-70mm Cosina zoom lenses. RBT modifies and assembles the two Cosina cameras into one high quality RBT stereo slr camera. The lenses have connectors on them to allow for twin setting of the lens zooming, focusing, and aperture settings. Very convenient 35mm stereo camera to use.

[EC8010]

I never even thought of making my own; I didn't have the mechanical skills and was interested in electronics and computers.

I've always found making precision swarf very satisfying. And my more recent electronics has tended towards physics, necessitating decent metalwork. As a youf, I had a system that was almost entirely home-made. The ready-made bits were a Connoisseur BD1 turntable kit and the cartridge. Arm was home-made (with assistance from school workshop). Electronics was home-made and drove home-made electrostatic headphones.

There are quite a few like that. Here's another:
[https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/ ... 3924127677]RBT 3D model X4 35mm slr stereo film camera. Made in Germany of Japanese parts. Serial #0725. 35mm slr stereo film camera. This camera is made in Germany by RBT from two Cosina 35mm cameras model C1, and two 35-70mm Cosina zoom lenses. RBT modifies and assembles the two Cosina cameras into one high quality RBT stereo slr camera. The lenses have connectors on them to allow for twin setting of the lens zooming, focusing, and aperture settings. Very convenient 35mm stereo camera to use.

Yes, I noticed the links between the lenses. Wow!

[tggzzz]

My first hifi construction was a Heathkit AR2000 with my father, over Christmas when I was 13/14.

My second and last was Doug Self's first preamp, published in Wireless World c1977. I remember discussing the reasons I chose that preamp during my first interview at HP in Scotland. It was one of the more effective and interesting interviews, and I would have joined HP then, but there holidays were a miserly 17 days/yr.

With stereo cameras the most important adjustments are the focal length and shutter speed. You want the aperture to be as small as possible to maximise depth of field. Finding you cannot focus on part of a scene is most disturbing and aggravating.

[EC8010]

If memory serves, the 1977 design was discrete component. These days, Mr Self does everything with a 5534A. Mind you, you have to work hard to better a 5534A, especially for the price. 17 days annual leave would certainly put me off; there would need to be some stunning advantages elsewhere to compensate.

I noticed that the lenses on that Yashica were quite slow. I have a lovely 50mm f/1.4, but perhaps that's too long a lens for a stereo camera? And the required distance between the lenses doesn't help.

[Zenith]

My first hifi construction was a Heathkit AR2000 with my father, over Christmas when I was 13/14.

My second and last was Doug Self's first preamp, published in Wireless World c1977. I remember discussing the reasons I chose that preamp during my first interview at HP in Scotland. It was one of the more effective and interesting interviews, and I would have joined HP then, but there holidays were a miserly 17 days/yr.

Judging from stories I heard, and from people I came across who'd worked there, I consider that a torpedo grazed your bow.

My hi-fi amp is a Linsley-Hood design published in WW in the late 80s and offered as a kit by Hart.

[Zenith]

I noticed that the lenses on that Yashica were quite slow. I have a lovely 50mm f/1.4, but perhaps that's too long a lens for a stereo camera? And the required distance between the lenses doesn't help.

I have a 50mm f/1.4 on a Minolta. It's noticeably bigger altogether than an f/1.8 and positively dwarfs an f/2.8. f/1.4 was definitely a step up in price. f/1.2 were even bigger and more expensive. I think they were usually 55mm. There was a ludicrously expensive and over-the-top Canon f/1.2 aspheric. There's also weight to consider on what's bound to be a fairly heavy camera to begin with. Later on there was something of a move towards 35mm lenses as standard on SLRs. Without knowing much about it, I'd guess wide field is much more useful in stereo photography than narrow field.

A striking feature about the lenses on that Yashica was the linkages between them. They looked a bit Heath-Robinson, but I can't imagine a better and easier way to link them.