8mm Forum: Kev - Kodak M100 Photo

This is topic Kev - Kodak M100 Photo in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001904

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 17, 2006, 08:56 PM:

Kev,
Here is a photo of the superb Kodak M100 Super 8 sound projector we were talking about on the 'projector problem' thread. The photo is courtesy of Phil Johnson (Phil's Vintage films in Texas).http://www.8mm16mmfilmscollectibles.com/

This is the projector that Kodak designed to showcase the new Super 8mm magnetic sound system on a professional quality projector. It is fitted with that superb, unbelievably sharp and flat field, fixed focus f1.0 Ektar lens. It had auto threading and a rotary knob which was used to totally remove the sound head from the film path for silent films. Lighting was 150 watt halogen with a high and low lamp setting switch. There was an analogue recording level meter and sockets for phono/tape/ microphone input. It has a big internal speaker housed in the wooden rear part of the projector. Plus, as you can see, it takes 2000ft spools. Picture quality, smoothness of running, and steadiness is better than anything I and Phil have ever seen on Super 8mm. The machine is built like a tank, being based on the superb 16mm Kodak Pageant design.
The down side is sound quality- not nearly as good as the 800 series Eumigs, and uses a hybrid valve/transistor amplifier. But it's a stunner, Kodak's best ever S8 projector, designed and built in Rochester NY in the days before US corporations off loaded everything to the far east, when quality counted for something, and before Kodak became synonymous with cheap plastic projectors and cameras. Goes to show just how much Kodak and America has really lost in the last few decades.

Those surely were the days!

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 17, 2006, 09:44 PM:

I am so in love.

Got to find me one of these...!!!

Posted by Kevin Faulkner (Member # 6) on May 18, 2006, 01:02 AM:

Paul, Thats a real stunner. I had no idea that Kodak had built a machine like that. I like Jan, would also love to get my hands on one of those. I'm sure with the intervention of some modern electronics the sound could be made to sound much better. I'm just amazed that Kodak put that 2000ft spool cpacity on it.....I wonder why?
Maybe it was originally designed as a Lab model for checking Super 8 tests etc.

Anyway it looks the part and built to last.

Kev.

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on May 18, 2006, 04:21 AM:

Hi,

looks great - I've just added it to the Super8Wiki:
http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Kodak_M100_Projector
(I wasn't sure whether I'll be allowed to add the photo - can anyone ask Phil Johnson for his permission?)

Jörg
P.S.: The wiki even finds one of those on eBay [Wink]

Posted by Andy Oliver (Member # 604) on May 18, 2006, 07:36 AM:

Hi, i am bringing a kodak projector to Ealing, unsure of model number, one thing for sure, it has the the F1.0 Ektar lens fitted. Would the said lens fit any more modern super 8 projector?

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 18, 2006, 08:18 AM:

Andy,
To fit the Eumig range of projectors you have to get the outside diameter of the Ektar lens machined down a bit. This is a delicate operation and should only be done by someone who really knows how to handle optical systems in a machine shop environment, otherwise you stand the chance of wrecking the lens. The lens optics need to be covered and taped over to protect them during the machining and the lens needs to be clamped in a collett with just sufficient force and no more. Fitting this lens into Elmo projectors is a problem. The back focal length on the Ektar is very small, it practically sits on top of the film! The BFL on the Elmo lenses is much longer and the problem is you cannot push the Ektar lens in far enough to get focus. So the Elmo projector lens housing needs to be modified in some way. I am still working on this issue on getting my Ektar lens into a GS.
To Summarize:
Fitting Ektar lens into Eumigs is easy, just need to machine the lens diameter down to fit.
Fitting into Elmo's is presently a problem not answered.
One thing for sure, if you can put the Ektar into a Eumig it literally transforms the picture quality!

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on May 18, 2006, 03:17 PM:

The last one on Ebay sold for $100 and the one before it sold for $49.00.
The machines looked really ugly so I passed. It STILL looks ugly to me! [Smile]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 18, 2006, 04:18 PM:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Alan! I agree it's not as beautiful to look at as a GS1200, but if you are looking for the definitive ugly projector look no further than the ill fated Classic Home Cinema's Fumeo! Now that's what I call a dog!

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on May 18, 2006, 11:03 PM:

Paul and Crew,

A good friend told me recently that he
purchased this projector brand new many
years ago, and that an equivalent Standard 8 version
was also available at the time.

Has anyone ever seen, or do they own
the Std. 8 version of this machine?

Michael

Posted by James N. Savage 3 (Member # 83) on May 19, 2006, 06:10 AM:

This Kodak projector has a nice 'classic' and 'nostalgia' look to it. Would'nt it be nice to have these re-produced today, and just an add up-to-date sound system, as Kevin said.

Nick.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 19, 2006, 08:24 AM:

Yes that's what I like about it- a straightforward very functional design with no bells and whistles. Its a very solid machine and I think Alan would be impressed with it if he ever got to see one. It is extremely smooth and quiet running. As you say James, with modern electronics it would really be something.
Michael, I think the M100 was only produced as a Super 8 machine, but as you can see in the Kodak advertisement above, the standard 8mm Sound 8 was the basis of the M100, so they are essentially identical designs except for the much larger spool capacity of the M100. By the way, is'nt that a great Kodak ad? Somehow, it also conveys the idyllic American family, which is fast disappearing.

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on May 19, 2006, 09:08 AM:

quote:
A good friend told me recently that he
purchased this projector brand new many
years ago, and that an equivalent Standard 8 version
was also available at the time.

Has anyone ever seen, or do they own
the Std. 8 version of this machine?

Paul is right, there was no Standard 8 version of this machine. The Kodak Sound 8 which is pictured above came out in three versions (the "a", "b" and "c") the last "c" had a new low voltage projection lamp. The only way you can tell the difference is to look at the serial number which is stamped on the metal elevator foot (note to ebay bidders).

The M100 did come as a telecine model with a sync motor and five blade shutter. I have one of those and a "parts" machine of the regular M100. (as well as several of the various Standard 8 machines--some working, some for parts)

The amps I have are all solid state (the Regular Sound 8 was a hybrid) but the problem with the sound is a mechanical one. The sound drum isn't connected to a flywheel but rather a "drag" system to smooth out the film motion. I haven't been able to get the sound to a point I would find acceptable yet.

BTW the regular 8 Sound8 machines A & B use a long out of stock DHJ very stange projection lamp with built in reflector and reflecting surface. So be forewarned you'll probably wind up fitting some new lamp to that projector if you buy one.

John

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on May 19, 2006, 12:13 PM:

Hi John,
Your comments on the M100 are very interesting. I remember, when I had mine, I took it apart for cleaning and noted the really intricate linkage mechanism used to swing the sound head in and out for threading and sound or silent operation. Do I remember correctly that the sound head was fixed at the end of a flexible metal strip? Kind of odd. If you have an M100 on hand how about posting some photos of the 'innards'?

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 20, 2006, 11:22 AM:

There was a Kodak M100 on eBay just now, actually (ended less than an hour ago)... I was bidding on it but decided to let it go when I was outbid (by none other than David Michael Leugers, at that)... the reasoning half of my brain suddenly kicked in as the only two things that really intrigue me about this machine are the 1.0 lens and the huge reel arms. [Smile]

But more to the point, from the (very sparse) description and the photos I think this was actually the telecine model, five-bladed shutter and all, and somehow I got the feeling the 1.0 lens wouldn't be on this one. Hope I don't end up being wrong and kicking myself. [Roll Eyes]

This is it, btw - David, when you get this thing we want to know all about it [Big Grin]

Posted by John Whittle (Member # 22) on May 20, 2006, 09:15 PM:

quote:
Do I remember correctly that the sound head was fixed at the end of a flexible metal strip?

You remember correctly, it was mounted that way to maintain good contact with the stripe in the play position. A similar mounting technique was used on the regular 8 Kodak Sound 8

The beast is resting in the garage and when I get to those projects this summer, I'll dig it out and take some pictures. I also have the service/parts manual around here somewhere as well.

John

Posted by Matt Fisher (Member # 1508) on May 16, 2011, 10:30 AM:

Just picked one of these up from Craigslist. The lens on mine is 28mm, though. Is it possible that the 1.0 Ektar was available in more than one focal length? Also, does anybody have a line on 2000 ft reels? Would be a shame to have this monster and not take advantage of the ability to play the big reels.

(I also learned a new definition of "everything works," which is how the seller described the projector to me. Apparently, it means "after you remove several chewed up pieces of film from the path so that film will actually thread, plug the sound head line back into the amp (!), and spend about two hours cleaning it up, it will work." I'm betting several of you are also familiar this "alternate" definition. [Big Grin]

)

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2