Idea for 2-perf that doesn't involve modifying pulldown

Zachary Vex · December 13, 2006

...As stated below, the 90 degree anamorphic concept is probably the most interesting. I think someone else here suggested using that in conjunction with 1-perf to get 2.39 images while having a 44 minute mag off of 1000 feet. Now that is amazing.

1-perf frame height would be half that of 16mm. When the anamorphic vertical stretch was performed after scanning, the grain would be twice as tall as that of 16mm and elliptical... pretty wild!

Robert Hughes · December 13, 2006

Your gate masking plan should work fine. Kodak provided a half-frame gate on their Cine Special cameras in the 40's for accomplishing (on dual perf stock) the equivalent of your 2-perf idea.

You may however run into a problem if you ever want to conform the original negative. Which end is up?

Zachary Vex · December 13, 2006

Yes, Robert, the only solution to that is scanning, right? You wouldn't be able to cut the negative.

Edited December 13, 2006 by Zachary Vex

Bruce McNaughton · December 14, 2006

Thought I'd wait until everyone had his say on the subject...

Of course you can never do a gate check to check for scratches or hairs. The moment that you open the camera you ruin the (probably) middle of a perfectly good scene.

And you can not change lenses (well maybe very quickly on a focal plane shutter camera) and you should cap the lens between takes.

Any light sneaking around the shutter will ruin the previously exposed, or about to be exposed, run.

Oh go on, do a full conversion and have none of these worries.

Bruce

December 14, 2006

Okay, call me crazy, but I've got an Eyemo and I'd like to shoot Techniscope-style images, but none of the transfer facilities in my town (Minneapolis) have the ability to do 2-perf (except scanning, which I don't want to pay for.) So being the imaginative nutjob that I am, I've come up with a scheme which I think might work...

First, I have a machine shop fabricate a modified gate so that only the upper (or lower) half of the image is exposed on the film, protecting the other half from being exposed at all. The film is run through the camera from beginning to end. The camera is stopped before end of the roll and turret is moved out of the way, exposing one of the frames to the open air, where the film loader pokes a pin through the center of the exposed half-frame. This marks the film so that it isn't accidentally re-inserted in such a manner as to expose over the original shots!

Next, the camera is run out in the change bag and the loader flips the rolls over a-la regular 8mm, to expose the other half of the film. The film is drawn off the new supply reel until the pinhole is felt with the fingertips, which is carefully placed behind the protective part of the gate as the sprocket holes are locked onto the pull-down claws.

Finally, the other "half" of the film is exposed, and during the tele-cine process, the image is sized and letter-boxed to suit as the film is run through the transfer twice, once for the first half, once for the second!

Anyone see any flaws in my reasoning, or have any suggestions?

It's been done. Great minds think alike, take it as a compliment, but the indie scene has been doing this overseas for several years.

I doubt your patent would be approved but its your money.

F.R.

December 15, 2006

It's been done. Great minds think alike, take it as a compliment, but the indie scene has been doing this overseas for several years.

I doubt your patent would be approved but its your money.

F.R.

I recant! Actually it might be approved. Patents are U.S. only? Correct?

Give it a shot!

F.R.

p.s. i might quit showing sooooooo much mental horsepower on this forum. you'll liable to get wacked by the HD Antichrist and his minions.

Nathan Milford · December 15, 2006

Film Runner,

I though you quit the forum? Welcome back!

Did you recant and decide to share with us the name your parent's bestowed upon you?

- Nathan

Paul Bruening · December 15, 2006

Do you mean, Mr. and Mrs. Runner?

My dad and mom, Mr. and Mrs. Damnittherewasahairinthegate, always said names where important.

..."were" that is.

Zachary Vex · December 15, 2006

Okay, after all of this, I'm just dropping the "Cinevex" idea completely because of all of the problems that would surely be encountered. I've certainly learned a lot about cameras from this thread.

The patent thing was a joke. I've never wasted any money on patenting anything, just buying silly obsolete and useless gear. 8^)

As a result of my fascination with Techniscope I nabbed the Cameflex CM3 Techniscope (2-perf and 4-perf) camera that was on eBay for the past week (2 mags, lots of glass... seems like fun). Before doing so, I contacted Pixelfarm here in Minneapolis to negotiate a reasonable rate on their Arriscan, which allegedly does 2-perf scans. A full 400 foot roll will take 53 minutes of scan time plus setup, and with no correction I get their minimum rate. If I need anything done later I can bring it back and re-scan selects.

Zachary Vex · December 16, 2006

Alright, I just ran into the best bit of luck ever. I was looking around at portable 35mm projectors, trying to find something for my livingroom (maybe park it next to my Moviola... heh-heh) and I made a call to a friend of mine that does transfers and processes 16mm/35mm neg, and stumbled into something that may solve all of my problems and provide hours of entertainment as well. He's willing to sell me an 80's RCA FR-35B which is a projector designed as part of a telecine chain that takes in video sync pulses, can stop in one frame, can start instantly to full speed, and completely preserves the negative so it isn't scratched... He's willing to set me up with all the necessary stuff to do my own telecine work at 2-perf because that particular projector can easily be modified for 2-perf because the pulldown isn't a pulldown at all... the neg runs on a sprocketed wheel that is driven by a servo motor! It can even run backwards!

So not only can I create my own work transfers to select the images I want to scan from 2-perf (and 4-perf, for that matter) material, I can also stick a lens into the thing and project incredibly stable, high-quality images for my family and friends, either from 2-perf PRINTS or 4-perf prints! Eventually if I have 3-perf material it will work for that too. And the fact that it syncs to video means I can use my camera to store high-quality audio material and have digital-quality audio playing along with the film... gahh! And I picked up an anamorphic projection lens a few weeks ago for $50... it fits right into the projector! (insert delightful squeals of joy)

Total cost for this fantastic beast: $2500. Wow! I'm just jumping out of my skin with happiness. It's the best Christmas ever! 8^)

Hal Smith · December 16, 2006

Alright, I just ran into the best bit of luck ever. I was looking around at portable 35mm projectors, trying to find something for my livingroom (maybe park it next to my Moviola...

Can I talk you into trading it for my Simplex SP? I didn't think so. But my Simplex works 100% and - I've got a solid state sound system for it. Still no? Rats! :(

Seriously though, congratulations, it's a great find!

Zachary Vex · December 16, 2006

I wonder how many more of those things are floating around out there? So many telecine operations have had to upgrade that it could be there are hundreds of those machines sitting in telecine houses taking up space. Although the footprint is only about 1' by 2', and 6.5 feet tall. The guy selling it to me tells me he paid $25k for it 25 years ago. It holds 6K foot rolls, which last over an hour! Of course, in 2-perf land, that's two hours and 20 minutes... a full-length feature complete with newsreels! 8^)

Robert Hughes · December 18, 2006

Cinesound in Minneapolis has a couple in storage since the death of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke this summer. His widow sure would like to move them on to a good home:

www.cinesound.net

Dominic Case · December 18, 2006

Okay, after all of this, I'm just dropping the "Cinevex" idea completely

Good idea. B) "Cinevex" is the name of our Melbourne laboratory. Wouldn't do to have any confusion.

Cinesound in Minneapolis has a couple in storage since the death of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke this summer.

Spooky. Cinesound is the name of the major newsreel and feature production company in Australia from the 1930s to the 1970s.

OK, Cinesound is probably a common name in this industry. But (spookier still)Dennis O'Rourke isn't the ex-owner - the one I know is a celebrated documentary maker here in Australia.

By the way the 2-perf 2-way idea was proposed a while back - I think in Russia - for prints, not camera negative. The idea was that you printed spool 1 and 3 from each end of one roll of stock, 2 and 4 on another roll, etc. Then, in a 2-projector changeover system, after running reel 1 you could relace it (while reel 2 was running on the other projector) and run it from the other end to show reel 3. . . etc ....

No idea how they managed the sound. Probably had a track on each side, thereby cutting the aspect ratio down again.

All goes to show that there's nothing new under the sun.

Zachary Vex · December 19, 2006

Cinesound in Minneapolis has a couple in storage since the death of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke this summer. His widow sure would like to move them on to a good home:

www.cinesound.net

Sad, that. Thanks for the info. I went to the Cinesound "garage sale" and picked up a B&H Cinemascope lens and some other loose items. I didn't see the projectors there at that time, but it could be that I didn't know what I was looking at.