PDA

View Full Version : Diagnosing a problem with Kodak Master View front standard



ryanmills
25-Mar-2016, 12:41
Does anyone know of someone who might have a used Kodak Master View for parts? The front standard on mine has got something bent or twisted. My best guess is the front frame assembly but the lens board on it looks to square up. Be great to find a complete front standard without a lens board but the front frame assembly its self would be great to find.

Leonard Robertson
25-Mar-2016, 18:27
Ryan - I hope you find someone with parts, but it may be difficult. I found this parts diagram for the front of a Master View:

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/kodak/kodak_master_camera/kodak_master_camera.htm

It may help you determine exactly which pieces are tweaked. It looks to me like the "Upright Assembly" and/or the "Support Assembly" would be likely parts to bend if the front standard got hit. Those look like something that could be removed and straightened. Any chance of posting pictures of the front? Or is the misalignment too subtle to show up?

Len

ryanmills
27-Mar-2016, 12:44
Well I did narrow it down I think. Its very bizarre, the hash marks on the front frame assembly are not in the same place on both sides. One side is around 4-5mm higher, as for why I have no idea. the metal is notched and painted so it would have to have been at the factory. Only thing I can think of is this is not the orginal and kodak made the notches based on how they mounted on the camera. If thats the case swaping it would do very little good unless its complete and so far I have not found one. Question now is how do I even make sure im at a perfect zero. I'm shooting with lens that dont have great coverage.

ryanmills
27-Mar-2016, 13:22
example with the hash marks zeroed

148903

Greg Davis
27-Mar-2016, 15:34
It's entirely possible that the camera was tightened in the misaligned position prior to the notches being made. Ignore the factory notch and line everything up square, then make a mark with a red paint pen to create your own mark, then leave it be.

Leonard Robertson
27-Mar-2016, 15:40
Ryan,
I think you should post again to the Cameras forum asking this as an alignment question, not Parts Wanted. Everyone loves a mystery!

To me it looks a bit like the whole front standard is tweaked slightly to the right in the picture.
The top of the front standard doesn't look parallel to the top of the rear standard; it appears to be slanting down toward the right of the pic. Is that how it looks in real life?

If I had the camera in hand I'd be after it with straight edges, machinists squares and telescoping gauges. Difficult to do that online though.

Len

Thom Bennett
28-Mar-2016, 06:53
Could you take a better close up picture of the questionable area?

Oren Grad
28-Mar-2016, 08:08
Given how this discussion has played out I've moved it to DIY with a new title. Once the problem is sorted out, if it turns out that a specific part is needed, Ryan can post a WTB for that.

ryanmills
28-Mar-2016, 13:13
So here are a few larger images taken with a better camera. Its kind of a challenge to square up perfectly to the camera so take the angles with a grain of salt. I also included an image that has notes for locations 1L, 1R, 2L and 2R. At this point im 90% sure the error lies in the location of the hash marks. As you can see the lens board does not show as thou the Front Frame Assembly (bronze/gold colored metal square around the lens board) is twisted. With that said I have no way of knowing what one if any of the hash marks is right. I have been going on the assumtion that 2R is correct and you can see my pen mark I used for my last shoot. However on that shoot I had coverage issues and light fall off on the bottom of the neg (top of neg when its loaded). This has led me to question if the 2R is in fact correct. Looking at it I can see the hash marks are not directly over the screw in 2 but it may in fact be that both sides are wrong and 2L needs to be corrected as it is now plus whatever 2R is off by. However I dont have the tools to messure this. I am however currious what other KMV's have for a distence at marks 1L and 1R. Note the height of the top Front Frame Assembly vs the total height of the Upright Assembly. Since that is something I can easily messure. At this point I would still rather swap the front standard if I can find one but so far no luck.


http://ryanmills.net/zips/_MG_9137.jpg (pulled back for DOF)
http://ryanmills.net/zips/_MG_9143.jpg (closer for detail)
http://ryanmills.net/zips/_MG_9143-Edit.jpg (closer for detail and has notes)

ryanmills
28-Mar-2016, 13:27
So I got think there have to be photos I can find on google that would show the front standard, everyone one with a HQ image I found showed this same bizarre twisted front. So i'm at a loss as to why they are this way. Hopefully someone who owns one has seen this before.

Examples:
http://s637.photobucket.com/user/nejad_ljemani/media/P1030536_zpsdhwfgkfu.jpg.html
http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/fs-kodak-master-view-8x10-camera.131173/

Geary Lyons
28-Mar-2016, 14:35
Here is what I am seeing. I will grab my KM810 tonight and compare. It appears to me that the risers on the front standard are tweaked a bit to the right. Assuming that your pics are "aimed straight on" there is deflection of the geometry out of square.

"A" DOES NOT EQUAL "B"
148967

In this view "C" DOES NOT EQUAL "D" But it appears that "E" = "F" so the "tweaked" component would be the uprights. That would make sense, to me as the front base is heavy cast, but the uprights are sheet.

148968

That means the uprights are not forming a squared support and that would cant the lens board carrier and offset the hash marks. Measure the diagonals of the uprights from top to opposing bottom pivot point. If the uprights are out of square they won't be equal. Then we can consider actions to "persuade" them back into square.

Cheers,
Geary

Randy Moe
28-Mar-2016, 15:19
I see the problem, but also wonder if it is a functional problem.

I notice a few rail studio cameras have slight rotation of the front standard compared to rear standard. Some even have levels on both standards, but never agree, even if they are adjusted.

If your camera does not fold correctly or otherwise work as it should, ignore my next comment.


Here's my thought, does a slightly rotated lens in any way effect a level rear standard and film horizon?

ryanmills
28-Mar-2016, 16:40
Here is what I am seeing. I will grab my KM810 tonight and compare. It appears to me that the risers on the front standard are tweaked a bit to the right. Assuming that your pics are "aimed straight on" there is deflection of the geometry out of square.

"A" DOES NOT EQUAL "B"
148967

In this view "C" DOES NOT EQUAL "D" But it appears that "E" = "F" so the "tweaked" component would be the uprights. That would make sense, to me as the front base is heavy cast, but the uprights are sheet.

148968

That means the uprights are not forming a squared support and that would cant the lens board carrier and offset the hash marks. Measure the diagonals of the uprights from top to opposing bottom pivot point. If the uprights are out of square they won't be equal. Then we can consider actions to "persuade" them back into square.

Cheers,
Geary

The important part to note is not the relation between the front and rear standards but the upright assembly and the front assembly. the hash marks are not at the same location on both sides. Take a peek at the image below. Note the high difference where the top of the front assembly is. Then look at locations #3 and #4. 3 the hash mark is below the screw, #4 the hashmark is directly over the screw. If I skew #3 to compinsate for the difference #1 and #2 get the same height and there is no more twist. Why this is the case and why I can see the same issue on other KMV's I have no idea. Is this just seems bad QC at kodak or is there a functional reason for it? I have not seen it on any other field or rail camera before.

http://ryanmills.net/zips/_MG_9143-Edit-2.jpg

Sean Mac
28-Mar-2016, 18:07
The index mark at location 3 looks like a "Too early on Monday" or "Late Friday afternoon" mistake.:rolleyes:

Set it up Square and make new marks?

ryanmills
28-Mar-2016, 18:14
The index mark at location 3 looks like a "Too early on Monday" or "Late Friday afternoon" mistake.:rolleyes:

Set it up Square and make new marks?

I would have agreed if I had not seen it on other KMV's as well now. Plus how can I know what's really the correct square point. Such a odd error to see in more than one KMV.

koh303
28-Mar-2016, 18:33
you have a lens with 350mm image circle, yet having coverage issues - that can only mean the lens is not in the right price. The zero/hash marks on the camera might have been set for anything - a lensboard with hole cut higher or lower, but why is that even an issue - set the lens on the rise so that you have full coverage and ignore the marks, if they werent there in the first place you would not be considering this issue. Loosing 30mm of coverage because of a slight bend or flex in frame parts seems unlikely.


I would have agreed if I had not seen it on other KMV's as well now. Plus how can I know what's really the correct square point. Such a odd error to see in more than one KMV.
... Use a ruler and bubble level (or a clipped corner GG)

Geary Lyons
28-Mar-2016, 18:35
The important part to note is not the relation between the front and rear standards but the upright assembly and the front assembly. the hash marks are not at the same location on both sides.

It is best to have both standards square and level. Yours front does not appear to be. That will not have a major impact on the image taking capability. It would bother me and I would adjust it. YMMV!



Take a peek at the image below. Note the high difference where the top of the front assembly is. Then look at locations #3 and #4. 3 the hash mark is below the screw, #4 the hashmark is directly over the screw. If I skew #3 to compinsate for the difference #1 and #2 get the same height and there is no more twist. Why this is the case and why I can see the same issue on other KMV's I have no idea. Is this just seems bad QC at kodak or is there a functional reason for it? I have not seen it on any other field or rail camera before.

This is cosmetic only. If it bothers you, it is easily mitigated. Fix the square and level, above. Get some touch up paint. Cover the offending hash mark. Paint another red hash mark where you want it. Then go make images!!!

Cheers,
Geary

Mark Sawyer
28-Mar-2016, 19:27
I sold Ryan the KMV back in December, and we've been trying to figure this out in PM's, but I thought I'd chime in here too. (BTW, I've offered him a full refund with return shipping if he's unhappy with the camera.)

I 've been staring at my KMV, trying to figure this out, and tonight it occurred to me to review the pictures I sent to Ryan before the sale. Here are the three that show things best. In the first and second, you can see the hash marks line up pretty well But in the third, (the one from the rear of the camera), it looks slightly off-level, and perhaps the front standard is slightly higher on the left, but it looks pretty good in the other two images. :confused:

I'm not sure what's going on, but we'll hopefully sort it out one way or the other...

Mark Sawyer
28-Mar-2016, 19:29
Here's a crop from the first image so you can see the hash marks a little better. Not perfectly lined up, but very close. One thing I noticed with my own KMV is that you can tweak the front standard one way or the other about a quarter inch or so, then tighten it down and it will stay there...

ryanmills
28-Mar-2016, 20:01
1. It's not a cosmetic issue, the whole front standard is leaning to one side, using movements would not work as expected. Would that amount of offset matter a significant amount I don't know but would rather it was just straight.

2. I can see the same issue with other random KMV's so its not just this one. Still wondering why that is. I don't see how it could be of any benefit to twist and lean the standard like that. I'm not sure the area im trying to point out is obvious in the photo, those saying its optical or something. You can clearly see two different heights if your looking at the right spot on the front standard.

3. Would still love to know where another KMV lines up in the image below with the relation to locations #1 & #2. I have been compensating with one side but it just as easily could be the other side and I'm losing "X"mm in coverage. Thats my biggest issue right now. It will be easy enough to make new hash marks but I need to know what hash mark if either is correct. I just dont have the tools to messure accurately to that degree easily.


Image with locations: http://ryanmills.net/zips/_MG_9143-Edit-2.jpg

koh303
29-Mar-2016, 05:40
Because of the design of the front, and the tolerance gaps between parts, your #1 and #2 will never perfectly line up - ask any deardorff or Gibellini user. That does not cause the loss of coverage. In fact, nothing does. Are you getting 4 clipped corners or only 1-2 clipped? If you are getting 4 clipped corners with the 240, something else is wrong, if only 1-2, the lens is high/low enough on the rise plane.

ryanmills
29-Mar-2016, 15:29
I am struggling to find that it was just part of the design. I have not seen any field camera with hash marks that are designed not to be used. Plus I might debate any Deardorff or Gibellini have a +6mm variance in height anywhere. It's just such an odd thing to see on more than one KMV.

koh303
29-Mar-2016, 18:19
Plus I might debate any Deardorff or Gibellini have a +6mm variance in height anywhere.
Debate it all you want. Get a V8 or look at photos and let us know when you find one with a prefectly aligned front frame. How does a twist in the front frame change coverage of a lens?

Sean Mac
29-Mar-2016, 18:52
I am struggling to find that it was just part of the design. I have not seen any field camera with hash marks that are designed not to be used. Plus I might debate any Deardorff or Gibellini have a +6mm variance in height anywhere. It's just such an odd thing to see on more than one KMV.

I doubt it was part of the design. The execution is obviously questionable.

From the surface texture I would imagine the part into which the index mark is cut is a sand casting. A technique with a wide latitude.

If the index is not aligned with the pivot it has been filed in the wrong place. The designer and the pattern maker are unlikely to be responsible.

Handmade things are variable. Especially on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons.:rolleyes:

More than one example of this doesn't make it a design feature.