Randy Franco Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I got my hands on a Bolex H8 recently, and it uses the doublerun 8mm reels. In other words, it uses a 16mm roll, but uses a 8mm gate, so you can run it twice through the camera. I contacted Kodak, and they will still make double-perf 16mm film, but only in large quantities, but the other problem is that the film still needs to be perforated between the 16mm sprocket holes in order to allow for the 8mm mechanism. Kodak does not provide this service. So my question is, does anyone know of any people/services out there that perhaps buy raw Kodak stock and convert it to the necessary measurements/perfs in order to run in a 8mm camera? Or if perhaps someone makes/sells a machine that will punch extra perfs into 16mm stock? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tim Carroll Posted October 20, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted October 20, 2004 The H8 is a great little camera, used to have one and I loved it. I always bought my stock from John Schwind. You can find him at this web address. International Film HTH. -Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHET Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 try here http://www.pro8mm.com/us/film_frm.htm http://www.athens.net/~macjava/filmpage.html http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/JohnSchwind2.html http://members.aol.com/Super8mm/ServicesPage2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot McPhie Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 Check out this guy he's organising a bulk order from Kodak Scot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael Carter Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Kodak will also make the regular 8mm film for you also only in large quantities. No need to have any 16mm film reperrfed. Kodak does it best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 John Schwind is your best bet. He is the one that buys the stuff from Kodak and cuts it down to reasonable lengths. He and I got Kodak to start making K40A in DR8 now that K25 is nearly used up, but there's still time to get some more of it, and there's also oodles and oodles of 7240. He is the one with the members.aol.com site. The H8 is great because it takes 100 foot spools for five or six minutes of shooting on each side of the film. Plus, the 100 footers are better because you can get them processed as if they were 16mm, and the labs don't give you shitty rates for 16mm like they do for 8mm. Good luck and happy shooting! PM me if you need any extra spools or anything, or have questions about H8s. Regards. ~Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) I know I should probably keep my big mouth shut, but what would happen if you took a double 8mm camera, filed out the edge of the gate to make it see all the way across the film (in other words, "both sides"), recentered the lens mount and put standard 16mm lenses on it? 16mm techniscope? :o - G. Edited January 11, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 (edited) Examples, with a B&H and a Kodak Brownie: Dealing with optical finders is easier than with reflex systems, so that makes one thing easy right away. Also, most R8mm cameras don't have gate issues that need to be resolved like with Super 16mm, which makes the mod somewhat easier in a way. The hardest part is dealing with the lens centering issue, and creating the proper distance for C-mount operation. The other disadvantage is being married to R8 stocks, and having to either modify a R8 projector in a heavy way, or install a R8 projector movement into a 16mm projector somehow. But the one big plus about all of this is that this equipment is cheap as hell, so it's easier to experiment with it period. I'm not going to be developing anything like this myself, this was just for some fun theoretical thinking which someone might want to consider on a more serious level possibly. - G. Edited January 11, 2005 by GeorgeSelinsky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uoliwils Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 This is exactly what I asked to Jaako Kurhi of JKcamera last week. I'm not an expert, it's just fantasizing, but I though that a cropped reg16mm frame (1.85 and even more 2.24) is actually the same as an "expanded", same ratio super8 frame. The consequence of it will be better using of film, since cropping means film waste to me. The best thing would be using single perf film instead of double perf, since there are many available... But, apart from the camera modification (that I still don't know if it's possible), you will also need a projector that can handle this kind of film. Quite hard task, I think. I know I should probably keep my big mouth shut, but what would happen if you took a double 8mm camera, filed out the edge of the gate to make it see all the way across the film (in other words, "both sides"), recentered the lens mount and put standard 16mm lenses on it? 16mm techniscope? :o - G. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted January 11, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted January 11, 2005 Nice idea, but little infrastructure (printers, telecines, projectors) to support such a format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uoliwils Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 You're quite right, I think it can be possible only in a totally diy situation. Not that far from reality at the end. I was into diy telecine, wanted to build a device with a projector and a CMOS camera in front of it. With this device there will be no gate on the projector (like the moviestuff device), so at least one problem is solved. Then you could buy one of the new high resolution CMOS cameras (up to 6.6mp, just look at the new silicon imaging camera). They all accept external trigger (so it can be synchronized with the projector) and are progressive scan. They can also output raw uncompressed data directly into your hard drive. And you don't need to go 24fps of course, so you can limit bandwith. Windowing allows further data-flow decrease, since you can transfer the exact frame size to your hd. But camera and projector transport problem is still unsolved. (please forget my bad english, it's quite hard to talk about this stuff even in italian...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeSelinsky Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 What concerns telecine, if the ranks can go at "metaspeed" for 35mm 2 perf, they should be able to handle such a format as well - in theory of course. Projector wise I think the best idea is to take a 16mm projector and somehow install a R8 movement into it. That of course won't be easy. Maybe if you use a B&H 16mm projector and combine the guts of a very similar B&H 8mm projector it might work out. The other issue I thought of was shutter coverage. I think given the wider design of these cameras it might work out. For all I know, B&H could have used the same shutter on both 16 and 8mm models. - G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uoliwils Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 at first I thought bolex was the right camera to do so, because H16 and H8 look quite the same. But they aren't. Anyway I'd be happy to find one of each in really bad conditions (as cheap as possible) just to see if it's possible to make one hybrid camera from them. Only for fun. At least I will know a bit more of these cameras! What concerns telecine, if the ranks can go at "metaspeed" for 35mm 2 perf, they should be able to handle such a format as well - in theory of course. Projector wise I think the best idea is to take a 16mm projector and somehow install a R8 movement into it. That of course won't be easy. Maybe if you use a B&H 16mm projector and combine the guts of a very similar B&H 8mm projector it might work out. The other issue I thought of was shutter coverage. I think given the wider design of these cameras it might work out. For all I know, B&H could have used the same shutter on both 16 and 8mm models. - G. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jukka sillanpaa Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I know I should probably keep my big mouth shut, but what would happen if you took a double 8mm camera, filed out the edge of the gate to make it see all the way across the film (in other words, "both sides"), recentered the lens mount and put standard 16mm lenses on it? 16mm techniscope? :o - G. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The aspect ratio would be 2.72:1, (9.56 x 3.51 mm) so very wiiiide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Miller Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The aspect ratio would be 2.72:1, (9.56 x 3.51 mm) so very wiiiide! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Imagine the width if it used DS8. 3:1! I wonder if Roger could modify a workprinter to pull through film 16mm in width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Why oh why would you shoot 3:1??? I think that even "lowly" 4:3 looks pretty spectacular if you do it right. We should be happy that Kodak has been kind enough to keep making standard DR8. One can do all kinds of things using anamorphic lenses. Several of these said lenses were made for 8mm and S8 cameras, so I can see no reason to mutilate old cameras in the hopes that you can somehow widen the gate without getting all kinds of crazy vignetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Miller Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Well I'd shoot 3:1. I love wide screen. The wider the better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Well I'd shoot 3:1. I love wide screen. The wider the better! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm a 1.37:1 guy myself, up to 1.85:1 is tolerable but wider than that and I generally hate it with a passion. Most people can't frame for jack at those aspect ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now