Minolta 16 P film

[VinceInMT]

I got out my dad's Minolta 16 P which is in excellent shape with case, extra lenses, box and owner's manual. I see where I can buy a film cartridge for it (https://filmphotographystore.com/) and there are several film options: no-perf and double perf. What is the difference for this camera? Which one should I get? I want to shoot B&W negative film and will be developing it myself.

 

[ic-racer]

Any 16mm is ok for your 16P. The image is only made in the center of the film, so it does not matter, the sprocket holes won’t ever show. Also, sprockets are not needed to transport the film.

The Minolta QT has a larger image size by exposing onto the area of one row of sprocket holes, so that one shouldn’t use double perf.

 

[VinceInMT]

Thanks. That makes sense.

 

[VinceInMT]

Gee, I should have followed my own advise and RTFM. The photo in the manual shows it to be double-perf'd. Thanks again. I order a cartridge and roll of film.

 

[btaylor]

To the best of my knowledge double perf 16mm has not been available for many years. This caused a problem for 16mm movie cameras that had double perf sprockets.

 

[ic-racer]

The website linked in the first post does sell double perf 16mm film. In terms of Bolex 16mm, I'm not sure if they ever offered super-16 cameras, though I know some have been modified to single perf. Most of the lenses in the Bolex system only cover double perf format anyway.

 

[rjbuzzclick]

I use FPP's no-perf X2 film in my Minolta 16 and MG-S and like it.

Oddly...I checked the FPP website, and it is now listed as a double-perf film, but the box in the product picture on the website says it's 'unferferated'. I e-mailed FPP and they weren't sure if the current batch was double-perf or not.

 

[btaylor]

The website linked in the first post does sell double perf 16mm film. In terms of Bolex 16mm, I'm not sure if they ever offered super-16 cameras, though I know some have been modified to single perf. Most of the lenses in the Bolex system only cover double perf format anyway.

So they do! That’s great news for old 16mm cameras. Single perf film wasn’t developed for S16 use, S16 was (is?) the use of the sound track area for picture. I don’t know if Bolex made a S16 version either, but the conversion was certainly popular.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For Minolta 16 format cameras, you can also use double-8 film (16 mm wide, double perfed, different perf pitch/size from 16 mm double perf). As noted, for the 10x14 frame models (before QT and MGs), perfs don't matter, but even on the later 13x17 models, the perfs away from the cassette bridge will only intrude about half a millimeter into the frame (may not even do that with the slightly smaller perfs of double 8 film).

 

[VinceInMT]

FYI, I receive my Minolta 16 cartridge from the Film Photography Project today. It seems that the plastic is, indeed, non-opaque. Here it is with the light from my iPhone.

 

[Donald Qualls]

the plastic is, indeed, non-opaque.

Yipe! Someone should probably point that out to them. There are better filaments available...

 

[VinceInMT]

OK, I’ve got some images from my 16P to talk about. The film is Kodak-XX. The first roll was OK but there was light fog at the beginning. I was guessing that there were 3 possibilities:
- that was the way it came off the roll from the supplier
- a light leak in the camera
- a light leak in the developing tank

The tank is a very old GAF that I modified the reel on for 16mm. The tank had a small piece of the lip missing so I put some electrical tape there to help. I then cut off a 6-inch piece of the film and developed it. It came out fine, no light leak.

Next I loaded up a new roll of film and loaded it in the camera in the dark. I shot the roll outside and halfway through I covered up the back of the camera with black tape and then finished the roll. I developed the film (5 minutes at 72 degrees in stock D-76).

Except for my exposure issues (I was sort of guessing) the roll looked better. However, there is still a light leak issue that I see in the sprocket holes and between the frames. Now I am thinking that it might be the fact that light is leaking through the plastic cartridge, which I know is not opaque, when an exposure is made.

I think the next step is to try and seal the cartridge better. I think I remember someone saying that a felt trap is needed so I’ll go back and read that thread. In the meantime, here are some images.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The light around the sprockets looks as if it was fogged while rolled up, likely light getting past the felt in the cassette. If you're using one of FPP's 3D printed Minolta cassettes, you may also be demonstrating what's already known: that the plastic used isn't fully opaque at the thickness of the supply or takeup chamber parts. That means if the cassette was exposed to bright light either before or after use in the camera, you could have gotten some fog on (mainly) the outer layer as it was rolled.

 

[VinceInMT]

The light around the sprockets looks as if it was fogged while rolled up, likely light getting past the felt in the cassette. If you're using one of FPP's 3D printed Minolta cassettes, you may also be demonstrating what's already known: that the plastic used isn't fully opaque at the thickness of the supply or takeup chamber parts. That means if the cassette was exposed to bright light either before or after use in the camera, you could have gotten some fog on (mainly) the outer layer as it was rolled.

Yes, in post #10 I showed that the cassette is hardly opaque. I think I’ll get a felt from a 35mm cartridge and use it to seal where the film enters and exits the film plane. I’ll also look at lining the cassette with black tape on the inside.

Since I load the cassettes with film in the darkroom, I also load it in the camera at the same time. I unload it in the dark as well.

All that aside, I am pretty happy with the images so far. The ones I posted above are straight off my scanner with no post processing.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Those light leaks look like film flatness being effected by uneven torque from the take-up spool. The P series are unique in having an open film plane; is there a pressure plate?

How accurately you're able to align and squarely attach the film to the take-up spool (which can be done in room light) will influence 'defects' like imperfect film plane flatness and sprocket intrusion.

 

[VinceInMT]

Those light leaks look like film flatness being effected by uneven torque from the take-up spool. The P series are unique in having an open film plane; is there a pressure plate?

How accurately you're able to align and squarely attach the film to the take-up spool (which can be done in room light) will influence 'defects' like imperfect film plane flatness and sprocket intrusion.

Yes, it has a pressure plate. When I attach the film to the take up spool I am doing it in the dark but I sit the spool and the film on the countertop so they are aligned squarely before I attach the tape.

In the roll I shot yesterday, the leak appears like before, between the frames, and, in sections where I under-exposed, the light leak was under-exposed so I am guessing it has something to do with the way the film is sitting against the exposure frame that the pressure plate pushes it against.

 

[VinceInMT]

I just developed another roll and scanned some samples that show the light leak.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

That camera definitely takes pictures, despite the fog. How's it handle? 5222 Double-X is excellent stuff... flexible in both exposure & development.

Here's the effect of opening the back of an MG-s mid-roll. The leakage seems to happen around the lips of the cassette. Opaque tape or putty on the back seams would help, as would using it at night with a flash.

The close-up lenses are excellent on these cameras if you can estimate distance.

 

[VinceInMT]

That camera definitely takes pictures, despite the fog. How's it handle? 5222 Double-X is excellent stuff... flexible in both exposure & development.

Here's the effect of opening the back of an MG-s mid-roll. The leakage seems to happen around the lips of the cassette. Opaque tape or putty on the back seams would help, as would using it at night with a flash.

Wow, nice photos and that light leaks very familiar. I thought I’d eliminated the door on the camera as the source but will have to revisit it. Next time I load it up I’ll use black tape around the door while still in the darkroom.

I have the two close up lenses for it and will give them a try.

 

[Donald Qualls]

At least some Minolta 16 format cameras have come to me with a layer of black foam on the inside surface of the film door. If it's rotted or gone, it could probably be replaced with a piece of 1/8" Foamies material (available from art and craft stores like Dick Blick).

 

[VinceInMT]

At least some Minolta 16 format cameras have come to me with a layer of black foam on the inside surface of the film door. If it's rotted or gone, it could probably be replaced with a piece of 1/8" Foamies material (available from art and craft stores like Dick Blick).

Yes, there is a strip of foam on mine. If the black tape test on the door reveals the door as the problem, I’ll replace that foam. I saw that I can get a sheet of light seal foam off Amazon.

 

[VinceInMT]

Well, the camera door is not the problem of the light leak so it’s something to do with how the pressure plate aligns with the film coming out of the cartridge. That said, the leak is only between frames and, for now, I just keep that in mind when I compose a shot, knowing that I can probably crop them out. I’ll continue to fiddle around with it. In the meantime, here’s some test shots I made yesterday. I am shooting Kodak Double X at 200 and developing for 5 minutes in D76 stock at 72 degrees. These are some quick scans of the negatives using an Epson V500 scanner.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Always good to see another submini back in action; hopefully you can sort out the light leaks.

Given the speed of Double-X I assume all those daylight frames were photographed at f16. Double-X is almost too fast for daylight shooting in a camera like the P but DoF concerns go out the window. That's a good showcase of the huge DoF at that aperture with subjects in the zone of focus (with 4-pointed sun stars!), infinity, and close-up respectively. I can discern that the Volvo's speedometer goes to 100, but I can't quite make out the odometer The distances in the interior shot would be ideal for use with the #1 (120cm) close-up lens while the #2 (80cm) is useful for portraiture/selfies.

Compositions at infinity can be tricky, even if you place the camera's focus there, as you bump into the resolution limits of the format pretty quickly depending on the subject.

Minolta 16ii w/ #0, 1/500s @ f5.6
Double-X 7222 in DK-60a 1+3 8'
Flatbed & DSLR scans