Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 I can't think what could get more real estate out of film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chris Keth Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 Next week you'll unveil a giant rolodex apparatus holding 8x10 sheet film ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 Who said size doesn't matter?! Rubbish! Paul, could you also make it a personal playtime of yours to image the 65/25-perf camera rigs we would have to use/shoulder/bury-us-below before you come up with a further format? I am sure you are already working on Chris' idea which would lead to some Panaflex Armageddon or Arriflex 810! Obviously in 15 years' time, Aaton will launch the Aaton Titania with better ergonomics, clip-on magazine, open-looping and a walnut handgrip. But still... I just read through the "Film & TV Kameramann" Annual Reference Guide (95 edition) for the Mitchell S35 entry, and it merely says under 'shooting tips & advice': "Gut frühstücken!", "Have a strong breakfast"! To shoot your Maxoscope (a personal reference to Max Jacoby :lol: ?), they would have to recommend 4 Supersize Breakfasts at McD just to load the masses of film and align it to the camera gate. After all, with a humble standard 500ft reel of film, it would be clearly targeting the very short short-film for giant screens market, as a standard roll would last (with 116.6mm field-width @ 24 fps à 150m) roughly 54 seconds :) . A high-speed model at 100 fps could still shoot a respectable 13 seconds long. What else would we need - apart from a more practical 400m/1300ft magazine ? A propos breakfast: that's what I need now here in London after your post :P . -Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 You know, this wouldn't be that hard to build either.... 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 I am looking forward to a concept drawing here, Nate :lol: ! Now, what lenses could possibly cover this image area? (this is my bait for Max!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 I remember the old article on the 12-perf 35mm camera being developed -- one of the biggest design problems was steadiness of the movement. But the main problem was post workflow. And the fact that 12-perf was three-times more expensive to shoot than 4-perf. Fred Waller was at work on a replacement for Cinerama (three 6-perf 35mm frames) when he passed away, with a single movement that was 10 to 12-perf horizontal 35mm... but I believe he was trying to make the gate curved, not flat, to match the curved screen shape. Not sure about the optical issues of exposing onto a curved surface... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) I like it, Paul! Probably easier to build a digital version, though, because you would not have to move a film stock that huge. Edited July 4, 2008 by Tom Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 I used to think that someone should make a double-frame sideways movement 16mm camera, or a VistaVision Super-8 camera, but the problem always comes down to economics -- you use twice as much stock... and just jumping to an already-established next larger format instead is probably just as expensive but a lot easier to support in post, with lenses, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I remember the old article on the 12-perf 35mm camera being developed -- one of the biggest design problems was steadiness of the movement. But the main problem was post workflow. And the fact that 12-perf was three-times more expensive to shoot than 4-perf. Fred Waller was at work on a replacement for Cinerama (three 6-perf 35mm frames) when he passed away, with a single movement that was 10 to 12-perf horizontal 35mm... but I believe he was trying to make the gate curved, not flat, to match the curved screen shape. Not sure about the optical issues of exposing onto a curved surface... It's surprisingly easier to design a lens that focuses onto a concave curved surface than a flat or convex. Open up one of the Kodak throw-away cameras for an example. Now, I wouldn't seriously do it (even I'm not that nuts) but the idea is funny to consider. The issue with the lenses is that focusing becomes nearly impossible, as the focal plane is no longer uniform. Saddest thing is, I know a guy that kept wanting me to design him just such a system. He could not grasp why it was not a practical solution to his needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I like it, Paul! Probably easier to build a digital version, though, because you would not have to move a film stock that huge. This is like throwing gasoline over the bonfire. BTW, happy 4th to all of those in the States! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I like it, Paul! Probably easier to build a digital version, though, because you would not have to move a film stock that huge. Hardly. It would, infact, be more difficult to build a digital version. Remember, every time your diagonal width doubles, you get 4x the opportunity for critical defects to render the chip worthless. With a chip that size, we'd be looking at wafers per chip, not chips per wafer, and at a cost of several thousand per-wafer (not counting processing the wafer or testing) that is not a concept I want to even contemplate. but it does remind me of one digital cinema idea I had, of using a reduction element with a focal plane on one side and a smaller sensor on the other. Gives you the larger DoF w/o the need for a larger sensor, making the whole unit cheaper to produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I remember the old article on the 12-perf 35mm camera being developed -- one of the biggest design problems was steadiness of the movement. But the main problem was post workflow. And the fact that 12-perf was three-times more expensive to shoot than 4-perf. Fred Waller was at work on a replacement for Cinerama (three 6-perf 35mm frames) when he passed away, with a single movement that was 10 to 12-perf horizontal 35mm... but I believe he was trying to make the gate curved, not flat, to match the curved screen shape. Not sure about the optical issues of exposing onto a curved surface... David, I'm surprised at you here. You've never made a paint-can pinhole camera? As long as the curve is equidistant from the rear element of the lens (there's a little give and take tolerance here, not much though), you can actually match the curve of the lens with the curve of the film negative to allow for elimination of optical distortion of the film. I'm always surprised that they haven't created a special version of Omnimax cameras to better pair films shot on IMAX with an Omnimax screen, specifically the nature documentaries which only the Omnimax Theatres out there seem to show. The other problem with this size is that past 2 1/4 x 1 3/4" film sizes (65mm 6 perf. is comparable), you start to run into film flatness issues. I know the Omnimax theatre near hear actually has a vaccum gate to hold the film flat during projection. It'd be even more of an issue with even more than 15 perf. pulldown. You're running into the issue of expense also, as it isn't expensize to have a vacuum bulb in a 70mm still film back, as you're shooting 1 frame per second at the most. At 24 frames per second, you're going to need to have a very fast vacuum back that can evacuate and release its vacuum hold every 1 /48 of a second, otherwise there'll be a big mess to clean up. Or you can just let the film run through without a vacuum and waste a whole lot of film because the images won't be sharp across the whole frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted July 4, 2008 Author Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 Panaflex Armageddon... Arriflex 810... Aaton Titania... -Michael Awesome branding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Awesome branding! Lol. I like Armageddon. Howabout Titanic? :P So, are the dimensions on this exactly 2:3 Paul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Paul Bruening Posted July 4, 2008 Author Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 Lol. I like Armageddon. Howabout Titanic? :P So, are the dimensions on this exactly 2:3 Paul? You know I've got scope on the brain. It's a product of my age. I might like digital better if they'd make the sensors 2.39:1. It's a sickness I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted July 4, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 4, 2008 Awesome branding! Well, never got a job in Marketing despite best efforts, s ended up doing other stuff... thanks for the heads-up though. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted July 5, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted July 5, 2008 I used to think that someone should make a double-frame sideways movement 16mm camera, or a VistaVision Super-8 camera, but the problem always comes down to economics -- you use twice as much stock... and just jumping to an already-established next larger format instead is probably just as expensive but a lot easier to support in post, with lenses, etc. Well, apart from the well-known (and many a good camera-gate butchering) Super Duper 8 (a.k.a. Ultra 8, Max 8, Super 8 B, Super 8 Elongate, read more here), there have been attempts at supersized Super 8 format modifications which I am sure you know about. They were - however - all using Double Super 8 as basis. Ruedi Muster of Selzach, CH is super-prolific at it, with DS-16:9 (a.k.a. DS-410) being the largest mod so far where he stretches the Super 8 film gate across a 16mm-wide Double Super 8 film (read here and here about it). A Super 8 cartridge-based horizontal movement VistaVision-like format is an interesting idea. Maybe that would be the convincing pitch I need to get JPB on board to make something with Aaton's shelved Super 8 camera prototype plans... I call it my Aaton Superette Elongate pet project :lol: ;) . I will be away over the week-end, but I might run the numbers on the gain from S8 to S8 MullenVision (for fun of course, don't worry! I am not Paul ... yet :P ;) ) 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