Using 16mm film to take photographs in WW2?

JWR · Jan 5, 2023

Anyone know of a camera that would have been cheap and around before 1945 that used 16mm film to take photographs? My Grandfather served in India and Burma with the RAF as an armourer from 1942 - 1946. He would have had access to 16mm film as it was used in the gun cameras. Can you run 16mm film through a different camera? We have confirmed (and I still have it) he had a Voigtländer Perkeo (3x4) - 4.5 Skopar in Embezet shutter with him, and there is also a Kodak Folding Brownie which he may have had at the time. Otherwise maybe he modified a broken gun camera? But they were not particularly small portable things!
I will add some of the photos below.

JWR · Jan 5, 2023

He brought back 37 negatives on this 16mm film, and never had any developed. I found an old suitcase full of his war stuff last year containing over 200 undeveloped negatives, his old cameras, and a bunch of war time paperwork. There have been lots of fun mysteries to work out, as he passed away in '97 and never discussed anything with anyone.

Kino · Jan 5, 2023

What a treasure trove!

There were quite a few 16mm sub mini cameras at the time.

Have a look at this list: http://www.submin.com/16mm/index.htm

You'll have to parse it for production dates, but it's a good start.

JWR · Jan 5, 2023

Actually, just checked my research notes on these and I know for sure they were taken at Imphal, so would have been some time between 23/7/44 - 12/04/45.
It could well just be that this wasn't his camera, and was one of this group's cameras instead.

xkaes · Jan 5, 2023

Kino said:
There were quite a few 16mm sub mini cameras at the time.

In fact, there were only a handful of 16mm still cameras made before WWII, and since your grandfather was in Burma, that narrows it down to the United Kingdom -- and there was only one that I know of, the Coronet Midget of the 1930's. (There was no civilian camera production during the War years.) But because your film shows the 16mm perforations, these were not exposed in a 16mm camera. A 16mm camera would only expose between the perforations. What camera it was is anyone's guess, but it was modified in some way, and still hand-holdable. There was a lot of creative modification during the War years -- and not just in the photographic realm. And yes, you can modify just about any larger format camera to use smaller film, if you use your grey matter.

www.subclub.org/shop/16mm.htm

Kino · Jan 5, 2023

The 1930's English-made "Merlin" has a 20mm x 20mm film gate, which would have exposed into the frames.

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/black-version-merlin-sub-miniature-728775435

Subclub is a fine resource, but not totally comprehensive...

xkaes · Jan 6, 2023

The SUBCLUB lists the Merlin, of course, but the OP asked about 16mm cameras.

(1936) The Merlin was an early, odd-looking, cast-iron submini. It was made by the United Optical Instrument Company in England, and was one of the first attempts to make a viable small camera. But actually, there were several other subminis of the same period that had similar, odd film styles and body shapes. The Merlin came in three colors -- black, blue or green -- and produced 20x20mm images. The film was loaded into tiny cassettes that resemble 35mm cassettes (which didn't even exist at the time). The camera was tiny -- only two inches wide -- and very basic. It had a pop-up viewfinder, a single speed shutter and an f16 lens. There was a small "ruby" window on the back to read the film exposure number on the back of the paper-backed film. The Merlin was also used as the "guts" of the Erac Pistol Camera.

These 16mm negatives were obviously exposed in a non-16mm PRE-WWII camera -- not only because there were so few PRE-WWII 16mm cameras, but because of the exposed perforations. Could it have been a Merlin? Sure, but I'd put my money on a more commonly available and commonly used camera of the time.

Boomlight · May 9, 2023

My uncle used a Keystone 16mm movie camera, and used the animation trigger to take still photos.

xkaes · May 9, 2023

If a 16mm movie camera were used, the sprocket holes would not show up -- like they do here.

grain elevator · May 9, 2023

Is the distance between the frames unusually wide? If so, that would point to a camera made for a larger format.

xkaes · May 9, 2023

grain elevator said:
Is the distance between the frames unusually wide? If so, that would point to a camera made for a larger format.

So would the image being wider than the space between the perforations. Any 16mm camera -- whether still or movie -- creates an image between the perforations. Some 16mm cameras are designed for single-perforated film, but the image does not overlap the perforations -- as we see here. So these images were taken using a camera with a format larger than 16mm. That is not unusual at all. For example, many medium format cameras have holders for 35mm film. Similarly, many 4x5" cameras have holders for 120 film.

ic-racer · May 9, 2023

Cornet Cameo image size is 13x18mm. That is only 1.5mm from the film edge on each side. Many other 16mm cameras were similarly designed for non-perf film.

It would be beneficial to see the OP's negatives.

Derek Lofgreen · May 9, 2023

My grandfather was in the same area during the war. He was an American pilot that flew the "hump". He also was an avid photographer. The story he tells is that they were not allowed to carry a camera or film for fear the enemy would get ahold of the images and see sensitive photos. Stuff in the background of photos at FOBs or where ever I guess. Anyway, my grandfather made a pinhole camera from a box and got his hands on surveillance film, or any sort of film he could find. We have some of the most amazing beautiful war photos from his shots. Perhaps this is what @JWR grandfather did?

Using 16mm film to take photographs in WW2?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency