Re: Leitz MF Projectors

[Willem-Jan Markerink <w.j.markerink@xxxxx>]

On 11 Mar 00 at 22:02, Marc James Small wrote:

> It is probably a Model IV projector of some sort, made between 1913 and
> 1956 in a variety of formats. 

Good guess!
I just hauled this piece of artillery over to my house, and this is 
what's written on housing & lens:

- Ernst Leitz GmbH Wetzlar

- IV BL (any idea what both stand for, cq what other codes were used 
for other models?)

- 91350 (hope to find out to which cinema this unit was delivered)

- Voltage selector: 130-220-120-240-110-230 
(sjeesh, never seen so much choice before!....I think this suggests a 
rather late year of construction, not?)

There are 2 more openings on the rear of the unit, a square one that 
looks like it was meant for some kind of on/off switch (sliding), and 
a round one that looks like it could have had an optional 
TRIAC-control(?....gotta need a second unit for 
dissolve-shows....:-)) 

- Lens: 
Leitz Wetzlar Germany
DIMAR 1:5.7 / 500mm

Included was a wooden 4x5" -> 8.5x8.5cm adapter.

After calling Leica in Solms, it seems the only expert left is Mr. 
Molkentin, and the units are called Epi-Diaskop (think I have seen 
that name before, but I thought those were for reflective 
projection?). 
I got his email (molkentin.ts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx), and will fire off a
bunch of questions.

Btw, I powered it up, and hooked a Watt-meter inbetween....1100W, 
100W for the cooling fan, 1000W for the bulb....:-))
(of course, compared to 250W on a 24x36mm frame, I would need 4000W, 
not 1000W, but the fan would become deafening....;-))....and this 
also means 1/4 of the heat inflicted on the slide, ie less fading)

The Noblux 4x5" is only 500W, but with a 4/280mm lens (a 1994 Linhof 
catalog suggests that they were working on a 6.7/360mm, and motorized 
transport for 120/220....mmm, the latter sounds interesting, moving 
images, especially with panorama frames....mighty inspiring 
stuff....;-))).

--                 
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink


      The desire to understand 
is sometimes far less intelligent than
     the inability to understand


<w.j.markerink@xxxxx>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]