THE EDISON 22MM HOME KINETOSCOPE
These pix of an Edison Kinetoscope were on American eBay.
The seller said it was made for one year only in 1922 [I think it may have been a bit longer, but not much], and even fewer were sold than were made. He did not say how on earth it has survived for nearly 100 years in such amazing condition. In every other respect, his eBay listings were a perfect model of what an eBay listing should be; clear, comprehensive and with superb photos. The guy was even selling (separately) 4 films! If that were not enough, there were two other Kinetoscopes on eBay at the same time, tho' not in such good nick, one with 2 films and one with just a part film.
The Home PK operates like no other projector. The film it uses has three sets of images arranged side by side. The projector is cranked forward to project the first row of images. The lamp house and film gate are then shifted and the crank is turned in reverse to show the center set of images. The lamp house and film gate are then shifted again and the crank is turned forward to show the final row. Just off the top of my head, I can see problems. First, the film ends up needing re-winding before it can be used again, which would make it difficult if not impossible to spool more than one reel together. It also makes operation complex and hard to motorise, as automating the switch from row to row of pictures would be tough. On the other hand, 77ft of 22mm would give the same length as 1000' of 35mm, which at the time was the bulk of the film market. The machine could also be used to show glass slides (see the final row of pix on this page).
Mikael Barnard confirms my 22mm recollection, and provided a far better pic (below) than I have seen before. Stephen Herbert tells me each individual picture was about 4 x 6mm (actually 5.7mm and so smaller than a Standard 8 image), and claimed projection size was up to 64"; notably, the film stock was cellulose acetate - safety film. He also says the arc lamps weren't very successful.
This image made me go back to the film listings and grab more pix.
I have fiddled with the original pix of the film itself. According to the third seller, the arc lamp was the most common light source, followed by the rarer acetylene lamp and finally a Nernst lamp, very rare and fitted to his machine. Here it is.
I also found an ad on the internet.
Been trying to find a bit more 22mm info, but it's mostly a few lines in a historical summary rather than detail. Any contributions/source references gratefully received. I did find a site you might like to look at, mostly about the history of gauges:-
http://oldfilm.org/content/brief-history-amateur-film-gauges-and-related-equipment-1899-2001
However, the main source I can refer you to is an article by Ben Singer in Film History (American) entitled "Early Home Cinema and the Edison Home Projecting Kinetoscope". The exact reference is Film History Vol 2, pp 37 - 69, 1988. I do have a PDF, but the document emphasises its copyright on each and every page so I won't reproduce it here; no doubt you will be able to find it as I must have done. It analyses the pre-1912 home cinema scene and goes on to a detaled analysis of how Edison saw the machine and why in the end it failed so completely. Little or no technical detail about the machine eg chitterling pix, sadly, but there is a wealth of footnotes and references to sources, presenting a rabbit hole down which one could rapidly disappear. This article, and the possible other sources it helps to reveal a huge area of stuff - and I don't mean just 22mm - that I didn't know about. And this was 1988; no doubt more has been written since. There is much for a dedicated researcher to pursue and one of the purposes of this site is to help people find info.
This is another set of Kinetoscope pix from ebay (2014). For a machine of which few were made, 100 years ago and which enjoyed no success at all, the number of survivors, in excellent condition, seems remarkable. Interestingly, it includes the arc lamp, one of the lighting options offered, which was regarded by some as very poor, it seems.
Thanks to Alain Gomet for this final row of pix:-
